tv Shepard Smith Reporting FOX News January 15, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
he asked about anybody in government, anyone in the western hemisphere. did you talk to anybody in the eastern hemisphere with respect to the mueller probe? >> no, i didn't. >> ask him about the milky way. >> we got that closed out. would you go back again and please describe for me the -- first off, i think you made it clear despite the fact that some people thought you had coaching and some of the citations and the memo that you were wrote. this is the memo you wrote on your own. can you explain again the motivation behind the memo, what precisely you were trying to communicate just for the record? >> yes; senator. so the public commentary and media commentary was sort of dominated by discussion of obstruction of justice and everybody was throwing out obstruction theories and so
forth. the statute that relates to obstructing a proceeding that is not yet in being, some future proceeding is 1512. my view was of the particular provision 1512 c was that it requires -- what it covers is obstruction by means of impairing evidence. that you know some evidence is going to be needed in the future proceeding and you impair it either by making it not available or by corrupting it in some way. altering it, destroying it. that's what i thought the scope was that statute dealt with. to my knowledge, the only case ever brought under it involve the disruption of evidence. based on public reports, which may be completely wrong, i
thought that the -- that the special counsel may be trying to interpret the statute to say that any act, not destruction of evidence or anything, but any act that influences a proceeding is a crime if it's done with a bad intent. my concern there is that unlike something like bribery statute or document destruction where you prohibit it, that's a bad act. you don't need to be performing that bad act if you're a government official. any act that influences a proceeding is a crime if you have a bad state of mind, that's what the people at justice department do every day of the week, influence proceeding. that's what they're there for. what i was worried about is the impact on the department and other agencies. if you say to someone, if you in
supervising a case or handle ago case make a decision for a bad intent, it could be a crime. i thought that that would pair lies the government. so just to give an example. eric holder made some pardon recommendations during the clinton administration, which were controversial. incidentally, i supported eric holder for his position. >> dana: could someone come along later and say you could do that to help hillary clinton in new york, that's a criminal. when he's exercising his prerogatives, you know, in that situation. you can just see how that could paralyze government. that's my concern. >> you referred to your concerns with the prosecution of senator menendez to weave in that same thought process.
>> yes. because in that case, my concern was that they were basically taking activities that were not wrongful acts in themselves. the political contributions were lawful political contributions. the things with -- the travel on -- that was a friend for 25 years. they were taking a trip together. you take those things and couple it with official action and then the prosecutor comes along and says, well, we're going to look into your mind and see what your subjective intent was for performing these two sets of lawful acts and we're going to say, you know, that you're corrupt. so i think that gives too much power to the prosecutor and i think if that kind of -- by the way, you know, they've had cases like this for -- they've been pursuing things like this and had to be slapped down a few times by the supreme court on these kinds of aggressive things
involving quid pro quos on the hill. >> thank you. i thought it was helpful because i think you're trying to explain a lot of that and you were cut off. i thought i would use some of my time to ask you that. also, i think somebody tried to characterize you of having been opposed to any sort of russia probe or russian investigations. have you gone on report to figure out where russia may have been involved in election tamper something. >> no. in the op-ed piece where i said i thought the president was right in firing comey, i said that the investigation was going forward under the supervision of rod rosenstein. >> did you also say more than one time that you felt like the special counsel investigation should reach a conclusion, that special counsel mueller shouldn't be -- that he should be allows to draw this to a conclusion and he will submit his report and you'll do everything you can to present as much of that information as you
can to the extent that confidential information is not being compromised? >> yeah, to the extend the regulations permit it. >> did you also say that even a scenario that -- you can't imagine a scenario for cause but one you would have to take under serious consideration before you'd have to remove special counsel? >> that's right. there hasn't been a special counsel removed since archibald cox and that didn't work out well. >> yeah. right. and so again, did you also say that under -- in no circumstances have you had a discussion with the president with respect to i think -- you said you had a discussion, you had a relationship with mr. mueller, but no discussion about this special counsel investigation. your opinions on it with respect to any discussions you've had with the president. >> right. that was the first meeting i had with the president. in november i met with him about the attorney general job.
there's no discussion of the substance of the investigation. the president didn't ask me my views about any aspect of the investigation. he didn't ask me about what i would do about anything in the investigation. >> with respect to the line of questioning about the states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes or recreational purposes. i think what you were trying to say, it's not your job to do our job. is that right? if we ultimately want to provide certainty for these businesses, you've done a good job in saying that you disagree with the policy of the states, but we are where we are and you wouldn't want to undermine that given the investments have been made, states have moved forward. at the end of the day, we should stop talking about it here and making it your job and those members, i don't happen to be one of them, that think we should take these federal laws off the books and file a bill and try to get it done. is that a fair assessment of
your opinion? >> generally fair, yes. >> a few minor things so that we can get to the next round. there was a report by the inspector general in 2014 that had to do with accountability in the department of justice. i don't expect you to be familiar with this report. there were some very interesting observations there about a lack of follow-through on disciplinary action for a number of -- the subtitle of the report was the doj could strengthen procedures for disciplining attorneys. something i would commend and dust off and see if there's been any actions since this report. i didn't get a satisfactory answer when it was contemporary with a nominee from the obama administration for the position you're seeking, which is one of the reasons why i opposed the nomination. >> i think very highly of inspector general horowitz. i haven't seen that report. that issue is one i plan to take
up with him. >> so i finish on time versus going two minutes over. i want to get your recommendation on intellectual property. we want the give the justice department more tools to go after bad actors like china, russia and brazil that are stealing our intellectual property and more on the americans with disabilities act particularly about website access. the web didn't exist and now we have attorneys filing a number of frivolous lawsuits. i would lconfirmed. finally, i want to make sure that you're recognized in the first step act, the faith based organizations that have helped to proven recidivism or in play for the first step back and hopefully we can make sure the department of justice moves forward with that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i believe that's the end of the first round. mr. barr, you're able to go for a little longer? >> sure. >> we'll start -- do five
minutes. i've been liberal with the time. let's try to honor it the best we can. senator grassley. >> where he left off on working with faith-based institutions, you were positive about that? >> absolutely. >> that takes care of my first question. antitrust laws is important to make sure markets are fair and participants don't engage in abusive activity harming consumers. i've been particularly active in making sure the justice department and the federal trade commission carefully scrutinized murders as well as looking out for anti-competitive behaviors and predatory practices in certain sectors of the economy and particularly in my state of iowa, the agricultural industry. i'm also pursuing things in healthcare. in particular, because i will be chairman of the senate finance committee, i'm interested in
making sure that companies in drug and healthcare industries are playing by the rules. everyone is concerned about the high cost of healthcare and especially the sky rocketing price of prescription drugs. do you agree the justice department has a very important role in this area? >> yes, senator. >> would you commit to making antitrust enforcement a priority? >> yes, it has to be a priority. >> thank you. now to a favorite issue of mine. whistle-blower protection. whistle-blowers as i told you in my office are critical to exposing waste, fraud and abuse. there's eyes and ears on the ground. their courage when they have it and most of them do have great courage or they wouldn't come forward to expose government malfeasance.
that's how important they are. i hope you have a favorable view toward the opportunity to listen to whistle-blowers, protect them from retaliation and promote a culture that values important contribution from those patriotic people. >> absolutely, senator. >> and now to the foreign agents registration act. i hope you understand there's been very few prosecutions under the foreign agents registration act since 1938. so that lacks enforcement is getting obviously even since the mueller investigation, getting a lot more attention now. but we had a hearing on it before the committee. i think it proves that we should see more transparency and more enforcement against bad actors, not less. do you agree that the foreign
agents registration act is a critical national security and public accountability tool and if confirmed, will you commit to make sure that that act is a top prior think? >> yes, senator. >> okay. so then getting back to legislation that i think will improve that 1938 act. i introduced the disclosing foreign influence act to improve transparency and accountability and enforcement. you probably haven't read that act. i'd like to have you work with us so it's something that we can pass and make sure that this law is more useful than it has been over the last 80 years. i support freedom of information act, transparency yields accountability. you hear me say that all the
time. that's true no matter who is in the white house. when i was chairman of the committee, i helped steer for you the improvement act into law, which creates a presumption of openness and it's a very important standard. the justice department oversees the federal government's compliance with foya. so i hope you would agree that foya is an important tool for holding government accountable and if confirmed, would you make sure it's a top priority to make foya and the faithful and timely implementation of the 2016 amendments a top priority? >> yes, we'll work hard on that. >> you know what really happens in the bowels of the bureaucracy. it takes them forever. maybe something will embarrass them so they don't want it out in the public. so you get all sorts of excuses. we have to do away with those excuses. one way to make it work better is by reducing the number of
requests. this will be my last question. one way to make foya work better is by reducing the number of requests that have to be made in the first place. that's why i'm a strong advocate for improved proactive disclosure. if confirmed, will you commit to help advocate for more proactive disclosure of directors? that's not just by the justice department but because your department's top dog in this particular area, in the federal government overall? >> yes, senator. >> thank you. >> senator feinstein. >> mr. barr, i see you have staying power. i see it runs in the family. particularly your grandson. i'd like to send a care package down to him. he deserves a medal. >> thank you, senator. >> you're welcome.
>> you don't have to share it with the rest of the family. >> in 1994, you said that gun control is a dead end. it won't reduce the level of violent crime in our society. the year you made this comment, i introduced a federal assault weapons ban and the president signed it into law. a 2016 study shows compared with the ten year period before the ban was enacted, the number of gun massacres between 94 and 04 fell by 37%. the number of people dieing from gun massacres fell by 43%. in addition between 2004 and 2014, there has been a 183% increase in massacres. 239% increase in massacre
deaths. do you still believe that prudent controls on weapons won't reduce violent crime? if so, what is your basis for this conclusion? >> i think that the problem of our time is to get an effective system in place that can keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people. that should be priority number 1. it's going to take some hard work. we need to get on top of the problem, we need to come up with agreed-to standards that are prohibiters of people that are mentally ill. we have to put the resources in to get the system built up the way we did many years ago on the felon records and so forth. we have to get the system working. as i said, it's sort of piecemeal right now. needs to get some energy behind
it and get it done and i think we need to push along the erpos so that we have these red flag laws to supplement the use of the background check to find out if someone has some medical disturbance. this is the single most important thing that we can do in the gun control area to stop these massacres from happening in the first place. >> well, thank you. i'd like to work with you in that regard. in august of 2002, the justice department issued opinions on enhanced techniques like water boarding. the justice department's office of professional responsibility found that they reflected a lack of -- this is a quote -- a lack
of thoroughness, objectivity and candor." in 2015, i worked with senator mccain to pass legislation making clear that enhanced interrogation techniques are unlawful and limiting authorized interrogation techniques to lose listed in the army field manual that is the law today. if confirmed, will you ensure that the justice department upholds the law? >> yes, senator. i think that that was an important change because i think it gave clarity to the law. i will support that. >> thank you. delighted to hear that. now a lot of us have asked about the mueller report and whether you would commit to providing it to congress. when asked, i thought you said yes. but when i tried to clarify it, i meant the full report,
including obstruction of justice. you again said yes. then when senator blumenthal asked you about the mueller report, you seemed to make a distinction and said you would provide your own report based on mueller's report. but not the report, this is the way we understood it, but not the report he submits at the end of the investigation. this is concerning as there's nothing in the regulations that prevent you from providing mueller's report to congress. while the regs refer to a confidential report, they don't state the confidentiality means a report cannot be provided to congress. so here's the question. will you provide mueller's report to congress? not your rewrite or a summary. >> well, the regs do say that
mueller is supposed to do a summary report of his prosecu prosecutiprosecut prosecutive report related to any criminal federal investigation. now, i'm not sure -- and then the a.g. has some flexibility and discretion? terms of the a.g.'s report. what i'm saying is, my objective end goal is to get as much as i can of the information to congress and the public. you know, these are departmental regulations and i'm going to be talking to rod rosenstein and bob mueller. i'm sure they've had discussions about this. there's probably thinking in the department on how to handle
this. all i can say at this stage because i have no clue to what's being planned, i'm going to try to get the information out there consistent with these regulations and to the extend i have discretion, i will exercise that discretion to do that. >> i can only speak for this side and maybe not all of this side, but we really appreciate that. the degree to which you can get us a prompt report in the fullest possible form would be really appreciated. i think there has to be a realization, too, among the administration that this is an issue of real concern to people and to the congress and we should be able to see the informed information that comes out. so -- >> i understand. >> i'm very hopeful. thank you. let me ask this question on enhanced -- did my time run out? >> yeah. go ahead. >> on enhanced interrogation.
during a 20005 panel discussion, you said the following, i think, about interrogating suspected terrorists. and i quote "under the laws of war, absent a treaty, there's nothing wrong with coercive interrogation a plying pain and discomfort and other things to make people talk so long as it doesn't cross the line and involved the barbarity involved with torture." this is a panel discussion, civil liberties and security, july 18, 2005. do you believe that torture is ever lawful? >> no. >> is water boarding torture? >> you know, i'd have to look at the legal definition. you're talking about -- right now it's prohibited. so you know, the law has dealt with that. i can't even remember what the
old law was that defined torture. i'd have to look at that and figure out what is involved in it. >> keep going. i didn't mean to interrupt you. >> it's okay. >> at what point does interrogation cross the line to the gratuitous barbarity involved in torture? that's your quote. >> i wasn't using that as a legal -- the gratuitous barbecuety. i was saying torture is gratuitous barbarity. >> that's helpful thing. you define water boarding. one would think these questions would never be necessary. i thought that all my life. then i found i was wrong and they are. i was chairman of intelligence when we did the big torture report.
what i found and what i saw was really indicative of reform. so i think for the attorney general, knowing the position is really very important. so maybe you could concisely state your position on torture. >> i don't think we should ever use torture. i think that the clarification that -- was it your legislation of the -- putting in the -- >> mccain -- >> the field manual was important to clarifying where the line is. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cornyn. >> i want to talk about guns and china in the five minutes we have together. back in 1992, there were some discussion about your position on congress' role when it comes to banning certain types of semiautomatic weapons. sometimes people call them
assault weapons -- >> shepard: shepard smith in new york. our reporting begins with a man that could become the new boss of the russia investigation. president trump's attorney general nominee, william barr promising under oath that he will allow the special counsel robert mueller to complete his job. we'll get to that. first, i want to go to catherine herridge in washington for a recap of what has happened this afternoon and the important matters at hand. hello, catherine. >> shep, one of the most interesting things we've learned through the course of the confirmation hearings is we've g gotten more detail on the final record of robert mueller to be in the public domain. there's been speculation as to what the rules and riglations are. what we've heard from the nominee for attorney general william barr is a very specific set of steps. he said he expects to receive a summary from robert mueller. it will contained a list of
cases being prosecuted and the declinations. that's cases where they gathered evidence but they don't feel there's enough to prosecute. he's indicated it's up to him to decide how to take that information and relay it to congress. also to make it public. he's testified that his intent at this point is to make that information public to the full extent of the law and based on these regulations, shep. >> shepard: catherine herridge live in washington. catherine, thank you. we're scrambling with breaking news of an order in the world that we haven't seen. this is a look at great britain's parliament where we now have the results of a vote that could ripple across the pond and around the world. british lawmakers voted against the prime minister, theresa may's brexit deal and what british officials say was the largest defeat in the house of commons in modern history.
>> the ayes to the right, 202. the ins to the left, 432. so the nos have it. the nos have it. >> shepard: the vote was worse than anyone anticipated. so what comes next is up in the air. the prime minister's proposal laid out the terms of britain's split with the european union. the separation is expected to happen march 29 years. more than 2 1/2 years after voters decided to cut ties. the question is how exactly. it's confusing. even in the united states where there's arcane laws that we don't understand. here's a stab at it. the immediate next step would be for the prime minister to come
back with a plan b. the calendar is specific. that must happen by monday. lawmakers would vote on the plan b and could vote over and over again presumably. if there is a plan b, we don't know what that plan b is and we certainly don't know how it might be received since we don't know what it is and neither does anyone else. so the march 29 rolls around and lawmakers still have not approved their plan's for britain's exit from the european union, we have a no deal brexit or a hard brexit. kind of like a divorce with no agreement about what to do about anything like the kids and the property and the cash and the belongings. just nothing. in this case, there would be no rules for imports or exports like how do you get prescriptions and produce across the border. what are the rules? what about trade of all kinds? what about britains living or
working elsewhere in europe? it would trigger economic chaos. the financial analysts at pores say a million britains would lose their jobs. a bloodbath that could have global implications. in the united states, that could effect the stock markets to trade to travel and what we pay for a lot of products. now, another option for britain would be the hold another nationwide vote or referendum to see the britain's want to rethink the brexit thing. the results of the original referendum were close. 52 to 48% that result came as a major surprise to the analysts. they could turn it over to parliament to figure it out for them 70s. theresa may asked parliament asked what do you want then? maybe a brexit delay and british leaders could agree? there's no consensus. today theresa may got a
shellacking. the right voted no. the left voted no. the worst failure of government in britain by the numbers in the history of great britain. the papers calling humiliating. after it happened, jeremy corbyn of the opposition called for a no confidence vote that comes tomorrow. though she recently survived one, everything may have just changed. theresa may is barely hanging on to power, the united kingdom is on the edge of chaos politically and socially and the whole world waits. greg palkot live in london. greg, what happens tomorrow? >> amazing. there's shock in the capitol of the u.k. nobody expected this. as you laid out, theresa may getting a firm rebuke from the house of commons on both sides of the aisle. her own tory mps and the labor representatives. you ask what happens next?
a lot of people have a lot of questions about that. specifically we know that tomorrow theresa may will be in the dock. her administration will be facing a vote of no confidence led by the labor party leader, jeremy corbyn. asking serious questions about how she handled this whole thing. remember, it was 2 1/2 years, june, 2016 when this referendum was taken. the british people voted narrowly but voted in favor of leaving the european union. they've had 2 1/2 years of negotiations. they came up with this deal. may has said this is the best we have to offer and she got thumped, including 118 members of her own party. so again, she will be facing a vote of no confidence tomorrow. you can count on everybody speaking before the cameras that the labor party will be in favor
of that. the conservative party probably will not. they don't like the plan, but they also don't like jeremy corbyn. so the questions continue, shep. >> shepard: greg palkot in london. the european union has called for the british prime minister to make her intensions clear. nobody knows that. the impact on us in the u.s. is next. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance
>> shepard: continuing coverage now of the chaos in london. these are live pictures over the capitol city now. after today the prime minister went to the people's representatives and said look, we have this deal. we have to exit the european union. here's the deal on how to do it. hours and hours and hours of debate. eventually rebels from the tory party gathered with the labor opposition and said no. they defeated her deal so badly they have never seen a defeat like this in the history of the country. it's been around awhile. now there's a no confidence vote
tomorrow. she could lose control. then she has to come up with a plan b or vote on it again. if they don't get something set up by march 29, then they have this no deal at brexit, which i sort of described as a divorce without rules. what to do about the money, the property, the kids. that would create chaos. that's where they are. let's bring in michael o'hanlon from the brookings institute, a nonprofit public policy organization. i don't think they know what they're doing. >> hi, shepard, i'm struggling with it myself. there's a lot of brexit paths that might have been symbolically regrettable for people that believe in a tighter europe but would have been economically fine. norway and switzerland and a lot of other countries in europe are neutral. they're not necessarily in the e.u. or certain others in the e.u. but not in nato.
a lot of memberships in europe and around the world a lot of countries are not part of any organization that resembled the e.u. but they do well economically. so a gentle controlled brexit could have happened and been just fine under a million circumstances. you could have debated about the loss of growth. that is where it would have been. as you say, this cliff, this no deal brexit prospect creates huge economic uncertainty. i'm not an economist to understand what could happen. i economists can't predict what happens when you get into unchartered territory in a new crisis. we saw that with the credit crunch in the united states in 07 and 08. britain's asset trade could freeze up. that could take months or a year
to untravel and get back on track. a no-deal brexit is a big process. >> shepard: in absence of an agreement on the part of parliament, could has has been suggested by many theresa may say i've done what i can do, here it is, parliament, you figure it out? >> i suppose. i think that probably requires her to resign. i'm not an expert on british politics. this sun chartered territory in british politics. i think if you're going to pass the buck, you're going to do it without claiming to therefore leave. so it implies resignation to my area. you can imagine a second referendum. that second referendum could be framed differently. do you want to stay or go? but the departure option would only apply if indeed there were a deal struck with europe on how to do it. you could not do a cliff. you rule out the possibility of
a no-deal brexit. if that's where things wind up by default, britain stays in the e.u. rather than leaving that ref random would make sense. would give them a chance to stay in or not but not allow for the possibility of this completely chaotic divorce without rules, without any kind of settlement on where the assets go. >> shepard: what would a divorce without rules, which is ahead of us now barring an intervention, a divorce without rules for the united kingdom and the european union? what would that mean to our economy and our people and travel and trade? >> you know, you can imagine that the u.s. and the u.k., the aspects could continue as before. we're not in the e.u. we had separate understandings. we could a keep applying the rules as if they were in the e.u. or revert when they weren't
in the e.u. and have various tariffs with us. you can imagine ways that it would be done and be smooth or tolerable. if it just happens in late march, i think at a minimum you'll see weeks of chaos where there's some uncertainty over how a britain separated europe interacts with the united states when previously it was interacting as the e.u. there could be consequences for us. won't be catastrophic but potentially harmful to certain businesses or people trying to do swaps or trades or purchases on the british stock market or other places where there's just chaos for a period of days, weeks or months as things sort themselves out. >> shepard: michael o'hanlon, thank you. we have a newspaper over there. there he is again. hello. we have a newspaper over there called "the sun" in london. it's a tabloid. it gets to the point.
the headline right now in "the sun" is no f-ing may." crushed prime ministers dares members of parliament to vote after record brexit defeat. she faces pressure to quit after her resounding defeat. it's chaos over there. all right. let's go to our hearing. we're going to have continuing coverage of this hearing as they work through the process leading towards a confirmation of bill barr as -- in the new big job. this process continues and our coverage will after this. it's time for the january savings event on the sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it's our weekend special.
save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. plus, free premium delivery. ends monday. i'about their valuable va home veterloan benefit. the newday va cash out loan can get you $54,000 or more to pay off credit card debt, put cash in the bank, and lower your payments by over $600 a month. with automatic authority from the va, newday can help veteran homeowners when other lenders won't. home values are rising. now's the time to use the va home loan benefit you earned with your service.
>> shepard: president trump's attorney general nominee william barr testifying on capitol hill. barr held the same position under george h.w. bush. let's take a look at where the nominee stood on issues past. trace gallagher has details of that. hello, trace. >> hi, shep. william barr was a strong defender of presidential powers. in the early 90s, he advised george h.w. bush that he had broad authority to use the military without the support of congress for actions like the invasion of panama which of course led to the arrest of
panamanian dictator manual noriega. barr said he didn't believe the constitutional right to privacy extends to abortion. that was widely seen as a rebuke of roe versus wade but roe was the law of the land. barr was an advocate for criminal justice reform. he had a focus on gangs, drugs and guns. critics believe his policy led to mass incarceration. for immigration, he's in favor of border barriers. in the 90s, he stepped up efforts to deport illegal immigrants with criminal records and his career really has run the gamut. he was been with the cia, assistant attorney general and attorney general. in the late 80s, he led the department of justice with the
savings and loans crisis and lead the investigation of the bombing of pan am flight over lockerbie scotland. barr's experience in government and business reflects the current administration's priorities. shep? >> shepard: thanks, trace. let's go to john now, a former federal prosecutor watching this all day. first of all, what is your take and his message to those on the hill? >> you see somebody that is steady, has a great deal of experience and knowledgeable about all facets. he exudes confidence. >> he is built for the process. >> first of all, no contentiousness either way. bipartisan support. he was nominated by acclimation
the last time around and did a wonderful job. what we're seeing is somebody that will run the department with a steady hand and has the age and gravitas to do it independently and won't be bullied by anyone. >> shepard: he did write the 19-page memo but he said he wasn't seeking the job. he sent it to everybody but the guy that would have wanted it. >> i read the memo. it's a nerdy memo if you look at it from a law perspective. it deals with a very narrow issue of the obstruction of justice statute and whether or not it should apply to personnel decisions by a president. hiring and firing. what he does say, which is very important, if a president tells a witness to lie, if a president destroys documents, that's obstruction of justice. no doubt about it at all. whether firing someone is obstruction, he says that's a little more difficult. one thing that is crucial. he's going to support mueller all the way until we get a report. there's not going to be any interference in the mueller -- >> shepard: we get a report. who is we? >> first of all, the department
of justice, bill barr and then he makes the decision how much to release. the bottom line is, he's going to release as much as possible. that's the commitment he's made to congress. >> shepard: the commitment is to release as transparent under the law and the question is where does executive privilege apply and where does it not apply. he is saying today we'll see. >> absolutely. i think what he was also saying is there may be some secrecy issues, fisa warrants and confidential information that can't be released. what we're not going to see is the large pages blacked out. that won't happen under bill barr. >> shepard: he's in. >> he's in. >> shepard: john, thank you. >> thank you. >> shepard: news continues after this. >> tech: at safelite autoglass
and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why at safelite, we'll show you exactly when we'll be there. with a replacement you can trust. all done sir. >> grandpa: looks great! >> tech: thanks for choosing safelite. >> grandpa: thank you! >> child: bye! >> tech: bye! saving you time... so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ that strip mall sushi, well,t i'm a bit unpredictable. let's redecorate. whatsyamatter tanya, i thought you loved being spontaneous? i do. and if you've got the wrong home insurance coverage, i might break the bank too. so get allstate, and be better protected from mayhem, like me.
>> shepard: continuing coverage of the barr hearings which are happening live on capitol hill. the question now really isn't will bill barr be confirmed as the attorney general, the bigger question is who are we getting? let's turn to gene cummings from the "wall street journal." where do we lack clarity still based on the questioning today in your mind, gene? >> he knew his audience so well and so well-prepared. he's a creature of washington. very calm and interactive with the senators in a good way. i think he did himself a lot of good today. the exchange with booker over drugs and incarceration rates led to an invitation to for the two men to meet later and discuss that further. that was a great get for him. he said everything he needed to hear on mueller. not a witch hunt, won't hide the record, nobody will edit the
report and try to get it to them and he's not going to interfere. that hit every note that the democrats in particular needed to hear and some republicans. so they talked about business law and they also talked about ethics issues. the only time i thought he got a little irritated is with kamala harris when she was pressing the ethics questions to him about whether under some circumstances he may recuse. he seemed to lose patience with those after he answered the same way about three different times. >> shepard: did you see or did you notice an area of inquiry which they have missed? >> well, they did torture. they did guns. they did opioids. they did mueller, of course. so i think they covered it
pretty wide gamut of issues off the top of my head. i can't think of one that they missed. it's a big world and a big job. >> shepard: partisans can come up with specifics. >> now election law. you know, they didn't get too deep into, you know, the questions of voter irregularities. >> shepard: voter suppression, backup ballots. is it your sense after hearing this that we have a pretty good chance of whatever truth mueller finds out that by the way, we the taxpayers have paid for, whatever truth he comes to that we're going to find out what it is? because a lot of right-thinking people want to know what the truth is. >> yes. that was the assurances that he was giving the committee. he would be hard-pressed not to deliver on those promises. he made it very clear, he wouldn't be pushed around by the white house.
>> shepard: or anyone. >> or anyone. one of the more re-assuring things that he might have said for all of his audience is, you know, given where he is, his stature, where he is in his career, where he is in life, that nobody can push him around. >> shepard: jeanne cummings, thanks. powerful images of a country divided now united in grief. thousands of people gathered for a candle lit minute of silence. a man stabbed to death, the long-serving mayor on sunday on stage at a clarity event. one resident says the mayor stopped or loved to stop and chat with people and wanted to be kind to everybody. he was an advocate of lgbtq rights and immigrants and refugees. because of that, he was a target of far right groups in poland, which is very divided politically. we have video of the incident. we'll free it before the mayor
is stabbed. there's the mayor is highlighted. there's the attacker. he shouted that he was acting against the mayor's party. he says he had a history of violent crime and behind bars. some critics of the government say they fueled animosity towards progressives like the mayor. a moment of unity in a country divided. >> mr. mueller would be involved in a witch hunt against anybody. >> i don't believe he would be involved in a witch hunt. >> how have i criticized the russian probe? >> what is your breaking point? when would you pick up and leave? >> i wouldn't be bullied into do anything i think is wrong by anybody, whether it be editorial boards or congress or the president. >> neil: welcome. i'm neil cavuto. this is