Skip to main content

tv   Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX News  March 24, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT

11:00 am
right now, he will issue a summary that's expected today, and that's why we're here. i'm bill hemmer. another hour of our special coverage -- sandra: how you doing, bill? nice to be here on a sunday with you. good afternoon, everyone, i'm sandra smith. lawmakers eager to get their hands on the summary of the special counsel's report as both democrats and republicans call for the whole thing to be released to the public, some democrats threatening subpoenas to get the full report. guy benson is standing by, but first to molly henneberg live at the justice department. anything changing there, molly? [laughter] >> reporter: hi, sandra. let me show you some scenes from the day, the morning, to give you a sense of what this waiting game looks like as we wait for the summary of mueller's report. we know it's going to come today, maybe in the next couple of hours, and we know that attorney general william barr is here in the building behind me, the department of justice. we have some video of him
11:01 am
arriving this morning. he and his assistant attorney general, rod rosenstein, are working today and worked yesterday trying to figure out what the gist of this report is, how to summarize it and what to release to congress and the public. special counsel robert mueller's work on the probe is done. you could see him this morning as he went to church. we asked him earlier today how he felt about the report being completed, and he had no response. democrats say they want the whole report made public as well as the underlying information and evidence. republicans say the law prohibits that. >> very much doubt that bill barr is going to turn over classified material or material subject to executive privilege or, most importantly, grand jury testimonies that bob mueller has received. >> the job of congress is much broader than the job of a special counsel. the special counsel was looking and only look for crimes. we have to protect the rule of law. we have to look for abuses of power, we have to look for obstructions of justice, we have to the look for corruption. >> reporter: attorney general
11:02 am
barr has said previously that he wants to provide transparency that's consistent with the law, and he says he believes it's, quote, very important that the public and congress be informed of the results of the special counsel's work. sandra? sandra: molly henneberg outside the doj, thank you. bill: want to bring in guy bicepson, fox news -- benson, fox news contributor. nice to see you on a sunday. >> right here, dream come true. bill: i dig it. thank you for that. what is your sense about where we are and the content of this report that is forthcoming at some point? >> reporter: that's the word, content. i think some of the triumph fallism has been premature, some of the spin from the other side seems a little desperate. we're not going to know anything until we know something. i know that's astute analysis, but we know that a pile of papers has gone from one office to another office here in washington, d.c., and what bob mueller has actually put together in that report, the
11:03 am
nitty-gritty of it, the top-line findings, that is what is going to really matter ultimately. we're just sort of in this waiting game. bill: let me fake -- take you through a few things. for 48 hours, i believe, we've been going on the assumption here based on some of these senior level officials here that there is no more indictment contained in this report and that there was no interference on behalf of the executive branch and the department of justice on bob mueller. what does that tell you? >> those are both very important pieces of information that, again, has been reported pretty widely at this stage. and they matter, right? how many times did we have a conversation on the air, how many columns were written in newspapers across the country about whether president trump was going to fire robert mueller. that was a source of endless speculation. well, it can end, because it never happened. there was also this question of was trump or the justice department unfairly putting their thumb on the scale, not
11:04 am
letting this investigation play out the way it needed to in bob mueller's eyes. we know based on that letter from attorney general barr that never happened. every single request mueller made in pursuit of this report was granted by the department of justice. that is significant. and, bill, as you referenceed, if, in fact, there are no more indictments on the table, that doesn't mean it's a clean bill of health politically necessarily for the president, but some of these grand predictions that we saw for months and, in fact, years about indictments either potentially of the president or people right around him in his family, that would suggest that is not happening, and it's difficult to say that is at least not good news unto itself for the president, for the white house. now, he's not out of the woods necessarily. there could be plenty of damaging stuff in the report itself that, you know, could be potentially impeachable, could be very ugly or reflect badly on him -- bill: like what, guy? >> well, so we heard over and over from the president's lawyers -- and they're right to
11:05 am
point this out -- that collusion is not a crime. a conspiracy would be a crime. so there's a chance that bob mueller has a lot of information pointing to what cloak yulely we would -- colloquially we would describe as collusion, but they didn't feel it was necessarily chargeable. we'll have to make that determination for ourselves based on what the report says. that is something that might be lurking in there. bill: yeah. >> but the fact there are no more indictments coming, reportedly, is big. bill: you need more than one person here. >> that's right. bill: let's assume there is nothing regarding collusion. how does this white house, going into an election season then, pivot to that? 22 months, $25 million at a minimum for this investigation. he's been calling it a witch hunt and a hoax from the very beginning. i would imagine if that plays out the way we're talking about it now, that he would have a very strong point to make on the campaign trail all across the country for 2020. >> oh, i mean, no doubt, right? if he is largely vindicated by
11:06 am
this report, we're going to hear about it a lot and we should. because we've been hearing for two years about every single potential scooplet that has something to do with russia. it was blaring headlines everywhere, red, flashing lights every in the media. if ultimately this went nowhere and it wasn't at its core at the center of this thing anything close to russia collusion or obstruction of justice, that would be a massive exoneration for the president of the united states. i think it would be a black eye for everyone who was all in on the russia theories. i think it would look bad for the media. we're not there yet. we have to see what's actually in the report. but it does seem like the mood at the white house is pretty buoyant over the last 24 hours, and it's relatively understandable why based on what we know. absent what we don't know which, as i say, still remains the most important piece of this. bill: we are on standby mode if, i know you are as well. watching and waiting. thank you, guy, see you in new york real soon.
11:07 am
>> sounds good, bill. sandra: we heard from the chairman of the house judiciary committee last hour on "fox news sunday" vowing to continue to investigate the president regardless of what is revealed in this report. the ranking republican on that committee, congressman doug collins, also spoke with chris wallace, and here's that. chris: a senate democrat says the wrap-up of the mueller investigation is not the beginning of the end, but just the end of the beginning. joining us now from atlanta, the top republican on the house judiciary committee, doug collins. congressman, welcome to "fox news sunday." >> good morning, chris. good to be with you. chris: to what degree -- i understand it's very early -- to what degree do you think what we have heard so far about the special counsel's report clears the prime minister, especially the fact that -- the president, especially the fact there's been a decision made not only to not indict the president, but also not to indict, for instance on collusion, any of the top people around him? >> i believe it goes to what
11:08 am
we've been talking about for a long time and what the president's been saying from the beginning, that there was no collusion. what we have so far in the indications out of the department of justice of no more indictments, i'm waiting to see the conclusions that bill barr is going to give us -- hopefully, as early as today -- then we can actually show to the american people what the investigation went and how far it went and also the fact that, hopefully, we can begin to move on from this two-year cloud of investigation in which a lot was going into trying to prove the president, and now we can move forward. chris: you just heard my interview with your chairman, jerrold nadler, he makes it clear he intends to keep investigating not only other issues, but also to keep investigating collusion, obstruction of justice, all of the issues the special counsel was looking at. >> well, that's all they have. obviously, as we've seen in the first two months of this congress, they really don't have a policy agenda, they have an agenda against the president. they have an agenda to try and win 2020. so we're seeing they think they
11:09 am
can go into the judiciary committee and have a limited budget, limited subpoena power, limited staff and go up against an investigation that lasted 22 months, had unlimited power, plenty of investigators, and they think they can find something more, then i think they're sadly mistaken, and i think the american people will see through that. chris: what about the argument that you heard from chairman nadler, look, the special counsel has his role, we have -- the democrats, the congress has its role which is different and broader. >> i think it might be just a different -- what he's saying is he keeps going back to the rule of law for different purposes. if mr. nadler is saying our committee is supposed to be a paint brush that simply tries to taint the presidency and paint the presidency with doubt and innuendo, i would disagree with that. that's an abuse of power. and i think we also have to respect what the department of justice and mr. mueller's been doing. if we do that, then the american people can see we are respecting the rule of law. chris: now, as we were just talking about, democrats are
11:10 am
demanding not only the release of the full report, but also all underlying materials. you have said the same thing, but you have added this phrase, that you want to see it all released, quote, to the maximum extent permitted by the law. what do you think are the limits permitted by the law? >> no, chris, i think that's a great question. i think the american people deserve to understand. it's amazing to hear my chairman say that he wants everything out there. does he include classified information which has never been released to the american public? would he include 3e, grand jury -- 6e, grand jury information, things normally never released outside of a special order from the court. would he want to do the things that, you know, would actually get into ongoing investigations? i think the problem is, is that democrats and my chairman have a problem. they thought this report was going to show something they could impeach the president on. that is not seemingly going to happen. now they have to figure out some way around that, and for him to
11:11 am
make a broad statement of what they want released, that's not fair to the american public. they're trying to taint what is coming out by not saying what should not come out to the public because of what i've just listed. of. chris: but, you know, there are other areas besides grand jury testimony or classified material. democrats say that the president is in a unique legal position. they say on the one hand that they -- justice department regulations are they don't release information on people they're not going to charge, but also the department regulations say they can't charge the president. so, you know, there is, as i say this, kind of self-contra ticketly basis there -- contradictory basis there. even if there's damaging information to the president does not rise to the level of an indictment that it should be turned over to congress to take a look at? >> it's not the department of justice's job to give chairman
11:12 am
nadler or any committee on the house or the senate for that matter, you know, what they want to do to go off on a purely partisan investigation to lead toward impeachable. let's understand, cleary, these are findings that have not been made yet. there's been no finding that was the reason you couldn't indict a sitting president is the reason there's no more indictments coming forward. probably what the facts showed was no collusion. let's go to the logical choice that nothing happened. and it was sort of amazing to hear the chairman say things that we do know. again, basically when you talk about collusion was happening, meetings were happening, that all of this was going on, again to simply sully what they have called the best investigation around and not to touch the mueller investigation. when it comes back not what they want, now they've decided they can for draw implications so others can doubt it. that's just wrong. chris: president trump tweeted and called the mueller
11:13 am
investigation a witch hunt. something called the trump twitter archives says he's tweeted that phrase, witch hunt, 183 times. but let's look at what the mueller investigation has found. his team indicted, convicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and 3 companies. his former national security adviser pleaded guilty. so did his former fixer. his former campaign chairman was convicted and a longtime adviser, roger stone, faces charges of lying to congress. congressman collins, i agree that there has been no action and apparently will be no action taken against the president by the justice department, but would you agree that this was no hoax? >> i think what the president was saying was is he was elected there have been calls for impeachment, and i think he was lashing out saying, look, this is not -- we won an election, and he won the election, in many opinions, fair and square.
11:14 am
visiting every state in the union and not skipping states. what we see here though is an investigation which people who lied were held accountable, people who were investigated are now being held under the rule of law. at what point does that that tht make the investigation any less valid but also found in their main core of the collusion or obstruction, they're seemingly coming to the point that the president and those around him had nothing to do with it. the other charges, except those indictments of the russians which we'll probably never see in court in the united states, that is the core finding at least of what we've seen so far. remember, those reports are still coming out, and we'll see. at this point, i think the president was obviously frustrated and rightfully so, as this report seems to show. chris: but michael flynn was convicted of lying about his dealings with the russians. michael cohen was convicted of lying about his dealings with the russians. roger stone has been indicted for allegedly lying about his
11:15 am
contacts with wikileaks which got information from the russians. don't you find that -- again, not saying that this proves anything about the president, but don't you find it curious that three people so close to the president allegedly or have been convicted of lying for their dealings with the russians? >> i think it just shows you had three people who chose to lie to investigators when nobody told them to lie to investigators as far as anything has been pointed out. when you have people lie to the investigators, when you have people lie to the fbi, department of justice, then there's going to be consequences to pay for that. to go into the reasons why they chose to lie is something simply that you would need to ask all three of them. we still need the larger picture, which the democrats just want to paint the president with, with these ohs, the is simple fact at the end of the day there was no collusion on the president or the part of the campaign. that is the part we need to take and move from here. why people lie, chris, that's a discussion for them and why they
11:16 am
chose to do that. chris: and i've got about 30 seconds left. what do you think the reaction of the american people is going to be9 if the house democrats, as intended, continue investigations for the next year or so? >> i think it's going to play badly for them, but if that's the way they choose to make their case to the american people that they deserve to be in power in the house, then that's something they're going to have to concentrate on. we're going to concentrate on the fact that deregulation works, and i think if they want to go down this path, we're going to meet them with strong resistance because there is a certain time that this is just a rabbit chase, and we will be meeting that as it comes up. assuredly, the american people will see through political stunts. chris: i like rabbit chases as well as fishing expeditions. [laughter] congressman collins, thank you. please come back, sir. >> chris, look forward to it. take care. sandra: between congressman collins and congressman jerry nadler earlier, you really get a sense of the battle that is
11:17 am
brewing on capitol hill ahead of the release of this report. bill: exactly right about all that. we do expect it today. when it comes, we do not know, but we also believe bill barr right now huddling with rod rosenstein, department of justice, going over this report today. expected to deliver what's called a summary to lawmakers today. could be 5, 10, 20 pages. we'll dig into it with a former deputy assistant attorney. also alan dershowitz is on deck as well. he'll give us his take on where he thinks we are at the moment coming up still. you still stressed about buying our first house, sweetie?
11:18 am
yeah, i thought doing some hibachi grilling would help take my mind off it all. maybe you could relieve some stress by calling geico for help with our homeowners insurance. geico helps with homeowners insurance? they sure do. and they could save us a bundle of money too. i'm calling geico right now. cell phone? it's ringing. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and condo insurance. get to know geico and see how much you could at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom.
11:19 am
book now at choicehotels.com. ♪ do you ♪ love me? ♪ ♪ i can really move ♪ ♪ do you love me? ♪ i'm in the groove ♪ now do you love me? ♪ do you love me ♪ now that i can dance? ♪ watch me now! ♪ work, work, ah work it out baby ♪ applebee's 3 course meal starting at $11.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.
11:20 am
this isn't just this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two hour window so you're up and running in no time.
11:21 am
show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving simple. easy. awesome. stay connected with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. sandra: attorney general bill barr going over the mueller report as we speak. he could deliver a summary to congress in next couple of hours. exactly how much of that report ultimately makes it to the public eye is up to the attorney general. robert kris kohl is a former -- driscoll is a former deputy assistant attorney general. thank you for being here today. who knows how much of it we'll actually see. we know that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general are huddled inside the department of justice right now. what can you tell us about the process right now before they
11:22 am
actually release the find things of the report? >> well, i think what everyone needs to remember is that now that the special counsel is complete with his job, this becomes like any other doj investigation. and i think that attorney general barr and deputy attorney general rosenstein are going to be very careful to follow normal doj procedures in terms of withholding, redacting what is normally withheld and redacted. and particularly because you look back at jim comey, what got him in trouble was he deviated from department policy because he thought, well, this case is so hot, people will need to know that we really looked at hillary closely and she did all these bad things even though we're not indicting her, and that ended up creating problems for him with both sides politically. and i think in retrospect, the department hooks at that and says, you know, the better answer is regardless of political pressure, do what you would normally do. and in a case like this, they'll protect all the 6e information, sources and methods, and they'll
11:23 am
try to spare innocent people from getting smeared with uncorroborated allegations from the report. sandra: but as we know, there are calls, bipartisan calls, for the report to be released in its entirety. is that possible? >> not under department procedure, it shouldn't be. i mean, if the department declines to indict someone, the general -- you know, you either indict and go to trial or you shut up. that's generally the rule. you don't let the public now do -- i mean, if people take a step back, the entire reason you have an independent counsel is because you want someone trusted to be looking at all this sensitive information, and people at the end of the day respect his conclusions without necessarily needing to go through every piece of paper that he went through. that's, in general, the point. now, i understand there's a lot of political pressure here, but i think the department should stand up to that pressure and do what they would normally do in terms of release what they can release without violating department policies and norms.
11:24 am
sandra: but as we know, jerry nadler -- the ranking member on the judiciary committee -- not only is he demanding that the entire report be made public, but he's also demanding the underlying evidence. >> right. sandra: can that happen? >> it generally shouldn't. i mean, this may be upside lying evidence that's not -- underlying evidence that's not protected, but a lot of this evidence would have been secured by grand jury testimony which is protected under criminal procedure 6e. a lot of this evidence, you know, will have to do with classified information or classified sources, and a lot of the evidence will have to do with people who aren't going to be indicted or charged and may reflect badly on them. and in general, the department should not be releasing those kinds of evidence. the thought from the democrats in the house -- and i understand their desire to look at everything, but the fought that they're going to hook at the same evidence mueller just looked at, come to a different conclusion and that's going to have any credibility as compared to mueller -- who, though
11:25 am
criticized, i think is generally regarded well by both sides of the aisle -- doesn't make any sense to me. there's a lot of pressure on the department, but i think if the department learned anything from the jim comey fiasco it's follow the rules, follow their standard procedure, and even if you get a lot of heat for it, do what you would normally do in a typical prosecution. sandra: robert, as you said earlier, this is a good time to take a step back as we await the initial findings, the results of this investigation, and look at the scope of the investigation, why it was launched and why it happened to begin with. two years, indirect, direct expenses totaling $25 million, lots of resources thrown at this investigation. did you ever see it go beyond the scope of the probe? >> well, it's hard to though exactly what the scope of the probe was because the special counsel had the ability to to to the deputy attorney general and ask to expand if he needed to in
11:26 am
certain areas, and my understanding was the original scope of the probe was russian interference with the election and, essentially, collusion with members of the trump campaign and issues related to the investigation. so i think that the false statements and things like that are clearly within scope. anything having to do with the election and russia was clearly in scope. so i don't think that the independent counsel or special counsel, sorry, was running amok. you know, i understand the president's frustration and other people's, but i think he was doing the best job he could. and, again, i think that he was trying, as the t.'s going to try to do now, to follow the rules as closely as possible regardless of where the politics would take him. sandra: robert, finally, we know -- as i pointed out, we just had a live look outside the doj, we know they're inside the doj, the a.g. and the deputy a.g., and we know that william barr said publicly that he's going to seek the add advice and the guidance of robert mueller himself on what to make public
11:27 am
and release here. >> right. sandra: so, again, what is that process like? if you can just kind of give us some sort of color as to what's happening inside the doj right now. >> well, i suspect one of the reasons you'd talk to the special counsel is to find out what evidence is supporting certain conclusions you make and whether or not there's any problem with releasing that evidence. if some witnesses are reluctant to come forward and have certain agreements of confidentiality, some you may have only heard from in the grand jury in which that testimony couldn't be released, some you may have overlapping evidence some of which may be protected and some may not be. doj's probably sitting down with people from the special counsel's office to say, okay, you concluded x, what are the documents and testimonying supporting x, and which of that can we release or not? sandra: well, the wait is on. robert driscoll, we appreciate that insight. thank you, sir. >> thank you. bill: we're in a holding pattern at the moment. president trump staying pretty quiet over the weekend since the mueller report was delivered to the justice department late on
11:28 am
friday afternoon. we are live in florida, we'll let you know what the president's team is doing thus far today. plus, democrats pledging to continue investigations regardless of the findings. alan dershowitz in a moment to dill into the legal ramifications -- dig into the legal ramifications of this and a lot more. don't move. we don't follow the naysayers. ♪ ♪
11:29 am
11:30 am
hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem...
11:31 am
like me. ♪ little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. ready to treat differently with a pill? heartburn and gas? ♪ fight both fast tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪
11:32 am
♪ tum tum tum tums tums chewy bites with gas relief conventional wisdom says you can't make a 400 horsepower sedan, that's also environmentally conscious. we don't follow conventional wisdom. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ sandra: president trump waiting for the highly anticipated report at his mar-a-lago's candidate in south florida. the president not taking victory laps just yet. >> there was no collusion, there was no obstruction. everybody knows it. it's all a big hoax. i call it the witch hunt. it's all a big hoax. so we'll see what happens. i know that the attorney general, highly respected, ultimately will make a decision. sandra: garrett tenney is live in waste palm beach -- west palm beach close to where the
11:33 am
president spending the weekend, garrett. the president sent out a couple tweets this morning. >> yeah, sandra. i just want to point out that sound white -- bite was actually the last time we heard from president trump on the mueller investigation, and since then it's really been crickets at least publicly. however, we are told that the president has been in a great mood if all weekend. he played golf yesterday with kid rock, and today he is back over at trump international golf club as well. and this morning he tweeted for the first time since news broke about the mueller report posting two short tweets after a 39-hour hiatus saying good morning, have a great day and then make america great again. as of this morning the white house tells us it has not received or been briefed on the mueller report, and the white house lawyers who are down here with the president say they do not expect to get an early preview of the summary. the white house counsel will almost certainly meet with the
11:34 am
attorney general before he releases the more in-depth report that includes evidence from the investigation to determine if there are any items that could be subject to executive privilege. democratic lawmakers are fired up about that possibility and argue it's like having the fox guard the henhouse. here's house judicial chairman jerry nadler on "fox news sunday." >> i certainly hope that does not happen, and i certainly do have a problem with that. this is an investigation of the white house, of the president and the people around him for alleged misconduct in various different ways and for subverting the constitution in various different ways and, certainly, they should not get an advance look at the report. the report should go public in its entirety and see where the chips fall. >> reporter: a number of republicans, including president trump, have also called for the report to be released in its entirety though that likely does not include certain aspects of sensitive information that came up in the course of this investigation.
11:35 am
here's senator marco rubio this morning. >> i would suspect that at the end of the day they are going to release the report. they're going to redact intelligence information or classified information, and they're not going to put things in this about people that is damaging to people that they chose not to prosecute. >> reporter: so you can see the battle lines are already starting to be drawn here in this fight over exactly what will and will not be released from the mueller report. and that fight is in part why democrats say that they plan to go full steam ahead with their own investigations in the house so that they can try to uncover as much of this evidence on their own if possible. sandra? sandra: gater, thank you. of. bill: we are in a holding pattern. why the hold up? is there a hold up? alan dershowitz with me now live. sir, how you doing? good to see you on a sunday afternoon. what to we need to understand about barr and rosenstein meeting at the the president of justice right now?
11:36 am
>> well, first of all, there's a big confusion between whether the whole report should be released and the timing. i completely and fundamentally disagree with those who say that the president and his legal team shouldn't be able to see the president before it becomes public. they should. they should be able to see it and respond to it. they shouldn't be able to change it, but they should be able to issue a response so we have an adversarial system at work. this way we only -- if that's not done, all we see is the prosecutor's side, and that's not the right way, that's not the american way, that's not the due process way. you want to hear both sides, and you want to see both reports issued at the same time. that's not going to happen because there's too much pressure from the media and from congress to release the report immediately. i think the hardest part of the report is going to be whether or not they make the comey mistake, whether or not they say negative things about people that they haven't indicted. that's what got comey in trouble. almost everybody was upset at comey for making critical comments about hillary clinton after he decided not to indict
11:37 am
her or after the decision was made not to indict her. will the same thing happen with the mueller report? will it contain critical information about the president even though the president hasn't been indicted or members of the president's family or other people? that would violate the long, long traditions of prosecutors and what they do. it wouldn't be the first time that happened. it happened with bill clinton. it would be wrong then, it is wrong now. bill: my guess is the mueller report, several hundred pages long and writing a summary based on that, con departmenting it takes time -- condensing it takes time. but i also believe the rules suggest you have to share it with the executive branch as well, do they not? are they not obligated to do that before they make it public? >> yes. well, the rule is very simple. this is not the same rule that applied previously when you had special prosecutors. the rule is simply that the special counsel must make a report to the attorney general, period. the attorney general can, at that point, decide simply to say this is interesting.
11:38 am
i approve of what you've done, and that's the end of it. you decided not to indict people. we're not going to have a long narrative ant what your investigation -- about what your investigation uncovered. that's probably what should happen, it's not going to happen. what's going happen, i think, is the report will be released to congress and the public at the same time, probably early this week, with redactions for possible executive privilege, and the question remains whether there will be redactions about criticisms aimed at people who have not been indicted. that's what's happened before in special prosecutor or special counsel reports. bill: right. >> but it's wrong, because they don't have a chance to respond if, and they're not being indicted, so there'll be no trial, and it's just one-sided. it's prosecutorial ed without the defense being given a chance to -- now, the trump team probably prepare its own report. bill: i know you don't like the whole law, i know you didn't like the independent counsel by ken starr and what happened in
11:39 am
the 1990s. starr was with maria bartiromo a bit earlier today, and here's how he phrased what we think is happening at the moment. just watch here. >> in that letter on friday that bill barr sent the first communication to congress, he made a very important statement that goes to who we are as a free people. he said there have been no instances, none, when the attorney general of the united states -- rod rosenstein, matt whitaker, now bill barr -- overruled the independent counsel. he has enjoyed, as a practical matter within the justice department, independence. that means we have a rule of law system here in the united states -- bill: and i think the two headlines late on friday that everybody's been chewing over all weekend, no collusion and no further indictments. if that holds up, that could be significant. how did you hear that news, professor? >> well, i thought that was very significant but determinative. i think it does show that the
11:40 am
mueller commission, ultimately, has not been a success. it didn't uncover any of the crimes that were part of its original mandate by any american citizens. it had three categories of crime -- process crimes, crimes that involve money that occurred before the election and indictments of russians who will never be brought to trial. so that's significant. but we still can see investigations and prosecutions brought by the southern district of new york and other prosecutors' offices. in fact, what we may see in the report is a road map for how further investigations both by u.s. attorneys' offices and by congress can be pursued. as a civil libertarian, i'm deeply concern canned about congressional investigations. i grew up during the mccarthy period when congress abused its discretion to investigate. they're supposed to investigate in order to help them pass legislation, not to expose people, not to simply attack people, not to make it harder for an administration to function. and i think the time will come
11:41 am
when lawsuits will be brought to try to limit the ability of congress to conduct investigations that are improperly motivated. bill: we are on standby, i know you are as well, sir. alan dershowitz, thank you for your time today. >> thank you. sandra: calls for transparency as democrats prepare to battle for the full release of the mueller report. jason chaffetz is on deck, he joins us next. >> the department of justice should release the entire report as well as the underlying documentation. we need to see everything so that the american people can draw conclusions on their own. h. not this john smith. or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith. who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs. at humana, we take a personal approach to your health,
11:42 am
to provide care that's just as unique as you are. no matter what your name is. ♪ better things than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections.
11:43 am
don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.
11:44 am
don't let another morning go by witi never countto trthe wrinkles.s. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on, is staying happy and healthy. so, i add protein, vitamins and minerals to my diet with boost®. boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals your body needs. all with guaranteed great taste. the upside- i'm just getting started. boost® high protein be up for life.
11:45 am
>> the american people have a right to the truth. the watch word is transparency. the president himself has called, without qualification, for the report to be made public.
11:46 am
there is no reason on god's green earth why attorney general barr should do any less. sandra: senate minority leader chuck schumer on friday calling for the full release of the mueller report, but are democrats flip-flopping on transparency? former congressman jason chaffetz joins us now. you explain this in your piece published on foxnews.com, jason. thanks for being here on a sunday, by the way. hypocritical dems suddenly embrace transparency they rejected in the obama era. >> on fast and furious, we had a dead person that was killed. knowingly and willingly gave the drug cartels nearly 2,000 weapons. the irs information, benghazi investigation. i never had a democrat ever say, well, we've got to get to the truth, we need to make sure we see all the underlying documents. i fought for those for eight and a half years. never, ever, ever did i hear them whisper a word. now it's about donald trump, and they're all about transa paster city. republicans have maintained
11:47 am
consistency on this. they voted unanimously to release these documents, and they need to do what jim jordan is saying. if they're going to release the underlying documents -- which i don't think they can, by the way -- then they also need to release all the information about fisa abuse and how this whole fiasco starts in the first place, because democrats don't want to go there. sandra: obviously, any of the information derived from grand jury information or classified information would be restricted in this. >> grand jury information, classified information, sources and methods, executive privilege that the president does have. and remember, it was the inspector general, mike horowitz, who just chastised publicly director comey, said he was insubordinate, for releasing information about people that were not indicted. i have said all along that i think hillary clinton, she was screwed in this process. i think that she should have been prosecuted. i think there are people that should have been in handcuffs.
11:48 am
but for the department of justice to go out and disparage somebody and not charge them, that's unprecedented. if you're going to be consistent on that, that's what the democrats said, then the same is true now. sandra: so we're left wondering what exactly happens here. we know that democrats are calling for this to be released in its entirety. you heard jerry nadler laying that case out. >> but to hear chuck schumer, the watch word is transparency. are you kidding me? i just can hear the church lady on "saturday night live," you know, dana carvey saying, well, isn't that special? are you kidding me? they have never, ever taken that position in the past. sandra: so we're still awaiting the release of this report. we know that they're hunkered down in the doj right now. what actually happens here? when this does come out, does it change anybody's mind? >> i think that, you know, certain parties the way you see it through your rose-colored glasses, you're already locked in. i think for the average american who's maybe not watching this day in and day out, they have
11:49 am
listened to the democrats promise that they have seen collusion up close and personal, they have heard adam schiff on every television show you can possibly imagine saying he's seen it under the guise that he has this classified view that nobody else has, and all of that was bunk. he doesn't even have a witness. sandra: i want to finish with jim jordan. here he is. >> they don't think this mueller report's going to be the bombshell they all anticipated it was going to be, so now they're launching all kinds of other investigations. if it's not the bombshell they wanted, they bring in cohen, that hearing is a flop. then they go with chairman nadler and 81 different letters out there, this is how the democrats are going to operate. sandra: final thoughts. >> i think for the general public it's exhausting. i'm sure there are some things in this report that should be paid attention to, china, russia, we better pay attention to that. but this daily bombardment of trying to disparage the president, come on. is.
11:50 am
sandra: jason chaffetz, great to have you. thank you. bill: democratic candidates are campaigning today ahead of the a.g. summary report, so what the 2020 hopefuls are saying today on a sunday, coming up next.
11:51 am
11:52 am
11:53 am
11:54 am
♪ ♪ bill: all of washington, all of america waiting to hear from the attorney general, william barr. democrat candidates taking aim at the president, many contenders on the stump today including here in new york city. jackie heinrich is watching from manhattan. jackie? >> reporter: hey there. there was a modest crowd here, several hundred, fewer than a thousand gathered on the street in front of the trump international hotel which made it surprising that the senator didn't bring up the mueller report for a full 24 minutes into her speech. instead, she focused on err issues -- other issues and called the president immoral. >> he puts his name on bold on every building. he does this because he wants you to believe he is strong. he is not. our president is a coward. >> reporter: gillibrand joins a field of 13 other democratic
11:55 am
candidates. presidential hopefuls have called on attorney general william barr to release the full mueller report and not allow the white house any sneak peek. when she did bring up the report, she furbed for it to be released in -- pushed for it to be released in full. she focused on affordable education, gun control and a $15-an-hour minimum wage. bill: what are the other candidates saying on the trail? what have you heard from them so far today? >> reporter: well, the mueller report is front of mind for the other candidates on the trail today. 10 of the 14 are campaigning this weekend. chelsea gabbard, elizabeth warren and john hickenlooper. kamala harris is in georgia and bernie sanders visited california. they've all echoed the same message about the mueller report, release it in full. enter the attorney general barr
11:56 am
should be called to testify under oath before the united states congress --? >> absolutely, absolutely. [cheers and applause] >> i cannot even imagine what will happen if he doesn't release this report. >> that's why i want to make sure that the mueller report comes out and that we all have a chance to read it. >> reporter: senator cam -- kamala harris upped the ante, pushing for attorney general barr to testify under oath about the report's findings. bill: jackie,ing thank you very much. i wonder if it'll be out by the time we're back here tomorrow from9-noon? sandra: we will see you bright and early. thank you for joining us, ed henry and dana perino are up next. ? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control
11:57 am
when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.
11:58 am
11:59 am
12:00 pm
♪ ♪ dana: america is waiting on washington for the key findings from special counsel robert mueller's nearly two-year investigation into russian interference with our 20126 election and possible collusion with president trump's campaign. we expect those findings sometime today. welcome to the fox news special coverage of the mueller report, i'm dana perino. ed: and i'm ed henry, great to be with you. dana: it's a reunion of sorts. ed: we used to be in the briefing room together. thame deign i've got your number. ed: look out. sources tell fox attorney general william barr could deliver his summary of key findings to congress as soon as this afternoon. the house voted

46 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on