Skip to main content

tv   Americas News HQ  FOX News  March 24, 2019 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT

1:00 pm
thousands and thousands of pages of documents -- dame kane thank you so much. >> good to visit with both of you. ed: all right. welcome to this knox news alert. just sent the key findings from special counsel robert mueller's nearly 2-year investigation into russian meddling impossible ties to the trump campaign to congress and there's a verdict. i'm ed henry. >> and i'm dana perino, attorney general barr sending to judiciary committees, highlights from the report including that special counsel robert mueller did not exonerate president trump of obstruction of justice or find that he committed a crime. democrats are demanding attorney general send over the whole thing. we will have complete coverage throughout this hour and this evening, let's start with molly, outside of justice department, you have been out there all day, worth the wait.
1:01 pm
>> exactly, hi, dana, 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 50 witnesses interviewed. first look at mueller report, joining me now fox justice department jay gibson who was in when it first came off the presses, he will break it down with us. russia collusion, what stood out for you? >> they say the president or in one with campaign colluded and more to the point that despite multiple offers, also earlier on, just to get back to the news again, the special counsel did not recommend further indictments, so a lot of people who were wait to go see if jared kushner might be indicted or any of the president's family, according to this looks like that's a no. and then the second part -- >> collusion, no collusion by
1:02 pm
this investigation. >> multiple times, the investigation did not establish members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election, interference activity several times in the section. >> let's move onto obstruction of justice, what stood out to you about that? >> this is interesting because the special counsel states while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him, however, later the attorney general and deputy attorney general said that after reviewing the findings, that they concluded the evidence developed during the investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice. >> so robert mueller looked at report and believed that there was no obstruction of justice. >> there's not enough for it to be that type of offense. >> as you read again and again, what does this mean for the president in your view? >> well, i think that this has to be looked at it right now from what we have seen as victory to the president. now, democrats and a lot of
1:03 pm
people on the hill will want to see the entire report and attorney general barr does say he's mindful of the public interest in this manner but he has to look at grand jury information to see what he can release. but for now this is all we get to see and for now you'd have to say it's a victory for president trump. >> all right, justice department producer, dana, back to you, we are still reading through it, safe to say good news for the white house out of this report today. >> you have a give or understatement, i was at the white house right now, i'm also just thinking of how many people got caught up, how many had lawyers, people who are now in jail as a result of the threads that were pulled, let's go to white house correspondent kevin corke from the north lawn. >> as i'm sure you know this is where you really are working the phones, you're calling every possible white house official that you could perhaps get
1:04 pm
commentary, even one-word text might offer in window of thinking here at 1600 pennsylvania avenue, after listening to barr summary and huge thanks to gibson, doing great job, it is obvious that this is circumstance that looks like at least at first blush that not only the president was right when there wasn't collusion, also looks apparent that there was no opportunity or intent to obstruct justice, that means so much when you think about what so many have been saying for the past 600 plus days as we've all been watching the special counsel do his work. what will the president have to say about it? so far nothing. we were frankly pretty surprised that the president didn't take to twitter early this morning even in the hours following the idea that we knew we would be hearing from the attorney general, he said nothing about it. in fact, a couple of tweets today were fairly benign, have a great day, make america great again, that's the sort of thing the president might put out on
1:05 pm
random wednesday but so far nothing from the commander in chief in response to today's summary from william barr, guys. >> kevin, i want to ask you, lindsey graham, of course, republican close to the president but has powerful position as chair, chair committee, he golfed with him today, in fact, in palm beach with trey gowdy and also mick mulvaney who obviously is the acting chief of staff. here is the bottom line, graham says bad days for those hoping the mueller investigation would take president trump down. great job by mr. mueller and his team graham said to thoroughly examine all things russia. now is time to move on, govern the country and get ready to combat russia and other foreign actors ahead of 2020. so a couple of thoughts there, maybe the president doesn't need to tweet yet because he has allies like graham who will go out there and make the point for him but also talk about how this white house does try to turn the page because you have democrats
1:06 pm
in the house who had a conference call yesterday regardless of what mueller says they're investigating the president, his family, his business, his foundation, you name it, kevin. >> yeah, spot on in your analysis, if you're thinking, all right, we are on to the next thing, we can move on. that's not the way things work in washington. you bitter believe democrats will continue to dig for more information, detail about the mueller report, not just summary from the attorney general, it's not over. it's only better for the white house perspective if you can have surrogates get out there, in this case your friends like lindsey graham do the talking for you, not doing victory lab, ed, suffice to say they are feeling pretty good right now. >> kevin corke, we will get back to you later this hour if we get more reaction. >> we will bring in panel, bret baier, anchor of special report, fox news at night, anchor shannon and dnc chairman donna
1:07 pm
brazile. shannon, i understand that you just got off the phone with senator lindsey graham. anything to report. >> the president had turkey wrap, everybody seemed relaxed and happy and this thing comes out, as he's standing there there's a lot of excitement, he calls it a home run for the president. he felt this report could not have gone any better than it did, no collusion, no obstruction, big day of celebrating for the president and he felt like they had a great day anyway and the president relaxed, enjoying golf this morning, once that report came, sounded like a great sense of relieve for the president and those surrounding him, again, lindsey graham' words, home run, hard for democrats at this point to make any hay out of this, listen, we know as we've all discussed other things they may look toward, impeachment, things going on in southern district with federal prosecutors, at this point collusion narrative that's been going on for 2
1:08 pm
years, debunked by special counsel and big day of relief for the president. >> bret baier, i want to go over to you for overall thoughts before we get good ones from donna brazile as well. bret. >> yeah, sure, the bottom line here is the first conclusion of this report that no american, no one tied to the trump campaign, no american colluded or conspired with the russians to affect the 2016 election. that is said 3 times in this short letter summer -- summarizing and starts with the president not exonerated by special counsel mueller, right, it says that they did not reach a conclusion on the obstruction of justice, but the attorney general and the deputy attorney general did and said there's no
1:09 pm
reason to go forward with any crime against the president and they determined that because there was no underlying crime of the conspiracy, they would not move forward. >> all right, donna brazile, first chance to comment on this news that just broke in, your thoughts from your personal perspective and then i will get some from you about what you think democrats ought to do next? >> well, thanks so much for having me on, let me just say, i am totally gratified that this special counsel was able to conclude his report. i want to say, i guess, i only speak for myself that i'm gratified that he did the work to interview those americans, to get behind the stories, the gossip, inuendos and tell us and for me i'm personally relieved that no americans personally got involved in the russian hacking of our elections and the
1:10 pm
russians attempted to destroy our democracy and weaken our democracy, i have to personally say that, as you know, i became chair of the democratic party because of the hacking and now that that part is known and i am not saying those of us who said for many, many years that the russians were involved and had impact on our ability to conduct the election maybe we can, you know, put that also a victory for democracy, but democracy today is still on trial and while the president can assume victory that's personally in his purview, as our president he needs to understand that this rises above just himself and his party but it calls upon us as americans to look at ourselves and say, okay, the russians were at it, they did not get us but the president of the united states now needs to understand
1:11 pm
that our democracy must be protected, if he's able to do that, then the victory his victory, it is our victory because we have to protect our country. >> i think overall yes and maybe in a few days that's how people might feel. what the democrats have said even this morning chairman nadler saying regardless of what's in the mueller report, we will continue, we will pursue all of this, we think that there is collusion, we will go forward with impeachment. do you think that is wise and necessary or would you say that the democrats ought to figure out a way to accept this report and move on? >> i think the constitution of the united states gives the democrats or republicans the power of oversight and this is about oversight. this is not just about gossip or partisan line that we have to pull, it's constitutional responsibility, again, i do believe that the democrats, their hearts in the right place, how do we protect our country
1:12 pm
and democracy and how do we move forward and this will require democrats to be careful in their evaluation of the report which we have not seen and so understand that we must protect our country from future hacking. >> donna, real quick from me and i i want to get back to bret and shannon. do you now accept the president as the legitimate president of the united states having won the 2016 election fair and square? i believe that the president and his attacks on not just his opponent, but the way in which he's conducted himself in office as our president, not the republican president, the united states, he has to prove that he is worthy of a job that george washington held over 230 years ago. i am now -- i will say this to the president, mr. president, this is the woman you attacked, called me a liar for talking about the russian investigation during the campaign when we were
1:13 pm
being attacked, i'm willing to accept the fact that you had nothing to do with it if only you will spend the next 589 days in office doing everything in your office and in your power as the president of the united states to protect us from future hacking once again. i'm willing to play, so don't ask me now to celebrate when i'm still feeling a hurt and the pain of what happened in 2016 and i'm only speaking for donna. i want to hear from hillary, i want to hear from everyone else involved. bernie, everything who got burnt and beaten by the crap that we saw. >> donna on the point that you acknowledged that no american, trump official was involved, would you acknowledge he won the election? >> i will -- look, i played the game, i don't go back and relitigate, i will not relitigate 2016, if i want to to relitigate.
1:14 pm
i ain't relitigating anything but my age, let's relitigate how we protect -- when we thought about our country first and if we really believe in that, this is the moment that we all can rise to the occasion and ed let me say this as american, i accept the fact that the president had no finger in it, did he move a hand to ever stop and did he put something in the game to make sure it never happened again, that's how i will judge him. that's just donna. i can't speak for anybody else. >> bret, having heard that do you think the president now, bret, tries to move forward and bring the country together? >> listen, ed, i hear what donna is saying but you have to understand that a lot of members of donna's party really hammered this even just days ago saying that there's a mountain of evidence of collusion, there's clear evidence of collusion from adam schiff, i think there's
1:15 pm
clearly intent to collude, tom pérez, mountain of evidence of collusion, brennan, former cia director says they'll be indictment, possibly the president's children in coming days, that's just days ago on the air and this -- he was in office as the cia director at the beginning of all of this, so there's a -- there's a side of it that has to be ironed out post this determination. there are a lot of people that have, you know, a lot of crow to eat after they said what they said in the last couple of days. >> two years ago adam schiff said he had evidence, evidence, not allegations. >> andy carr, if you will eat crow, eat it fast. >> last point. >> i disagree -- >> go ahead, donna. >> bret, this is not about crow, steaks, chicken or crawfish, this is really about our country.
1:16 pm
i mean, this is the moment, if we keep talking about crow, who is going to eat it, i can tell you -- >> i'm talking about -- >> doesn't the president feel that he has been hindered in his ability to do his job by an entire effort to undermine his legitimacy and now you have a definitive word from somebody who spent a lot of resources, almost $30 million over 2 years that comes to a conclusion and doesn't that mean that you have to move on and start working on legislation and not investigation? >> well, first of all, we have to evaluate, we were told just a few minutes ago what was in the report, we have not seen any of the summaries. i mean, i want to believe when i heard from that young man, mr. gibson that the russians had no help from americans. i want to believe that because i understand mr. mueller interviewed 500 people, had 2900 subpoenas, i want to believe that that occurred and i trust the fact because i have never
1:17 pm
spent one day on air criticizing the justice department, the president has, all i'm asking is give the american people opportunity to absorb the information. we should all celebrate the fact. >> i hear you. >> no american -- >> we all agree. >> yeah. >> let's go beyond that and we can get there. >> all right, donna brazile, bret baier, we had bra shannon brie thank you so much. right now let's bring former republican congresswoman trey gowdy, former chair of oversight committee, fox news contributor, you were with the president this morning, i would ask your initial thoughts as i guess he didn't have any idea what was going to happen but he said all along there was no collusion. >> he did and some of us that supported all along said that the bulk report will be about what russia tried to do in the country and secondarily who if anyone did they try to do it
1:18 pm
with. one sentence in the little letter that caught my attention was that no one with the trump campaign or associated there with coordinated or conspired with russia despite multiple opportunities to do so. so that line struck out to me. >> and why? why did that strike -- >> well, it's one thing to not affirm to do something, it is another thing, it is -- it is even less evidence of intent to be offered something and reject it, so if you listen to the democrat narrative it was that the trump campaign colluded with russia and they had evidence to do so, the reality after an exhaustive investigation with search warrants and interviews, registers is not only did it not happen, it didn't happen even though people affiliated with russia on multiple opportunities tried to make it happen.
1:19 pm
>> trey, can i call you trey, congressman. >> that's the nicest thing i've been called all day. >> let me read you tweets from congressman jerry nadler, chair of committee, first of all, special counsel mueller worked to determine the extent to which president trump obstructed justice, attorney general barr took 2 days to tell the american people that while the president is not exonerated they'll be no action by the justice department. he goes onto say, there must be full transparency in what special counsel mueller uncovered to not exonerate the president from wrongdoing, doj owes the public decision not to go further in work, mueller is not exonerating the president, must hear from ag barr about decision-making and see all the underlined evidence for the american people to know all the facts because he says he's moving forward, you use today chair the oversight committee, i want to get your thoughts on chairman nadler.
1:20 pm
>> it was never about collusion and never about what russia tried to do to the country in 2016, i'm not speaking for all democrats but i am speaking for jerry nadler it's about how to cast a cloud of what is left of president trump's first term in office. so, of course, they're going to pivot. they've all sold collusion and sold obstruction and now they want to pivot to something else. if you look at the comey deposition, johnny ratcliffe and i asked a series of questions, legally if you can end an investigation and pardon someone, can you obstruct it, it is a challenging legal issue and that's the way i read the transmittal letter. dana, we don't live in a country where you have to exonerate yourself, we live in a country where there's presumption of innocence and it's the government's job to remove by credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. if we are going to flip on anyone whether it's the president or somebody as
1:21 pm
low-ranking as me, if you're going to flip the bird of exoneration onto that person, then our country is transform -- >> congressman gowdy, this is ed henry, i want to ask you about accountability we should try and get in the days ahead for say former fbi officials james comey, andrew mccabe and in the case of mccabe he recently said that we still don't know whether the president of the united states is an agent of russia. that is what mccabe said on his book tour? >> yeah, the operative phrase was book tour, i'm confident that bill barr and chris wray will turn the ship around at doj and the fbi. we have to have a department of justice that we have confidence in. it was a really bad couple of years for the department, but we have good leadership and if there are people who are still there, now mccabe is gone and comey is gone, strzok is gone, page is gone, if there are
1:22 pm
people still there that do not meet our legitimately high expectations for public service in an entity that can ruin your reputation and take your freedom, this is not -- this is not the department of agriculture, as important as that is, this is an entity that can ruin your reputation and take your freedom and i do think chris wray and bill barr and john hubert whose job to look into this, i was with lindsey this weekend too, lindsey is chairman of judiciary committee, he was a mueller supporter but he wants to know whether there was fisa abuse and after two years we had counterintelligence investigation that impacted lots of people's lives, images going through my mind because what the democrats did to her is unconscionable. two years worth of ruined lives and i don't think it's too much to ask for accountability by the department. >> you are right, former congressman trey gowdy, now a
1:23 pm
fox news contributor. >> they were destroyed. >> destroyed over allegations of collusion he said he had nothing to do with and now -- >> all family savings. >> now, by the way at the bottom of the screen, you see air force one waiting at palm beach international airport, the president will be heading back to the white house, we will certainly see, you have been there before, dana, whether or not the president will take opportunity to talk to reporters before boarding the plane or on air force one? >> not that i have any advice to give but i would wait till he's back in the white house. yeah, i think that it is a moment that you really want to get it just right and he can do that this evening or tomorrow morning. >> talk about it on the plane, figure out what he's going to say. backdrop of the sow lawn. >> if he does it, we will bring it to you live. >> absolutely. we have a written statement from the white house press secretary sarah sanders, the special counsel did not find any
1:24 pm
collusion and did not find any obstruction, attorney general barr and rosenstein further determined there was no obstruction, the findings of the department of justice are total and complete exoneration of the president of the united states. so it's important for us to come back to shannon bream, colleague, not just anchor but a lawyer, someone who follows this and understands what are the next steps here, shannon, because you see the statements like dana just read from jerry nadler who would oversee impeachment says this is not good enough, special counsel did not make a determination after a year and a half or so and so they want the evidence. >> yeah, you have to know when we saw in the letter that's what jumped out to me because you knew democrats would need something to pin hopes on, whether it's impeachment or
1:25 pm
pinning the president on something else. the attorney general says the special counsel did not exonerate, didn't find a crime there, he left it to us to decide, attorney general barr talks about he and other legal members of doj, rod rosenstein, deputy attorney general, they worked through this and looked at what was evidence on both sides. a couple of really interesting things to note here is that one they say they didn't base on the fact that the president was clear of any crime of collusion, the idea that he obstructed or not but did bear on the decision to say, no he did not obstruct justice. they also want to make clear in this letter that this didn't go to the point, we got the old doj members that say you can't indict a sitting president, they wanted to be clear on issue of obstruction of justice, that's not where the conversation went. they are not holding back on indictment because there's that conversation, they are saying we did not find any obstruction here but, of course, one place that the democrats are smart to mirror on because the special counsel left to ag so now they are going to be able to go after ag, we need to come to the hill
1:26 pm
and see underlying documents an threatening subpoenas, they have been doing that for days. >> it also strikes me that we have not mentioned one of the people deciding the name you just mentioned but we didn't put in context, rod rosenstein, someone who has been accused of wear a wire to record the president many months ago and invoking the 25th amendment, he has denied that, not under oath but he's denied to it new york times and the media and my point is rod rosenstein has long been seen as someone who is ally of the president, what does it mean that he was not in the room with the attorney general william barr. >> the accusations are coming from people from fbi or justice department. mccain wrote a big book and got
1:27 pm
best-seller, people were trashing rod rosenstein, he was allow today speak for himself and the attorney general asked him to stay onto finish out the report which he's done shannon. >> we heard that he was going to leave, we heard he was looking towards that, conversation that he did want to stay and finish this out, see this through because his name has been involved in so much of this. if you think about the memo that he's credited offering which led to dismissal in part of the former fbi director james comey, the allegations that he wore a wire or that he was with 25th amendment potentially to remove the president from office, as member of doj he has been quiet on this while others have been freed about their book tours and talked about these things as well, a number of folks on the hill want to draw him to have more conversations with him potentially under oath as well. the fact that he stayed and get the report handled by the attorney general and get it out, i think he has one foot out of the door, least probably done
1:28 pm
with his time in the justice department and he's been key figure through the whole thing and fascinating to hear from him and he decides to start talking. >> if he does. >> you take over at 5:00 o'clock, we will keep tuning in. >> see you then. >> defense attorney and former assistant u.s. prosecutor, michael moore, michael, let me start with you, get your initial thoughts on william barr's letter that we have been waiting a couple of days for. >> you know, i haven't read the cliff notes version of the mueller report and i have been watching the tag lines and listened to your program and it sounds to me like a lot of things in southern district of new york. >> tell me more about that. >> well, just listening to what you reported, what we have been hearing apparently mueller focused on russia as mandate, but we know that there are other things that are out there, we know, in fact, we have the michael cohen case, payments to porn stars and play mates, we know we haven't heard from flynn
1:29 pm
in a while, investigations, plural, those things are swirling around, it's great to hear that the president is saying we are not colluding with the russians and apparently that's what's in the report. i did some interest in hearing that the mueller did not exonerate the president. i don't know what that means without really looking at the report. we can all spin it different ways, i guess. >> i'm sure that members of congress are really going to zer know on chairman nadler of house judiciary committee will want to do that. alex, can i puck up on that because we haven't talked about this yet even in "the new york times" the other day, the story that said, after the mueller report there's still a lot of legal trouble for the president up here in the southern district of new york, for example, is that -- i have to ask you, is that fair, i guess it is what it is. >> what i think is important
1:30 pm
about the letter that the attorney general sent is that it is exclusively limited to the counterintelligence investigation involving russia and the election. we know a lot of what's going on out of the investigation had nothing to do with that, for example, michael cohen indict and guilty plea where the president was named as coconspirator, a lot of things that can impact trump foundation, taxes that are going to continue to happen in new york. i think from a legal perspective and most interesting thing in the entire memo it's page 3 paragraph q, the line about the determination that deputy attorney general and the attorney general made that this did not rise to obstruction of justice. the sentence they use is not the law. they created sort of new definition of obstruction that's going to be unfamiliar to federal prosecutors, you don't need and any prosecutor knows you don't need and made that sort of blank conclusion that there was no obstruction here. that's where congress is going to focus with respect to this
1:31 pm
report going forward. >> fascinating, michael moore, do you want to comment on that? >> i think that's exactly right. the fact that we don't have a determination by the special counsel but we know we have all the other matters pending, i think that's -- that's telling. and i'm not totally surprised to hear the attorney general make that kind of conclusion on his own, you know, he also submitted this memo, unsolicited memo about whether or not there could be investigation, obstruction, we could go back and parse the words there, i'm not really surprised at this point to hear that he got there, but i do think and we talked for a long time about this case being about money and following the money, other things happening in southern district of new york that could be more harmful. bob mueller did what he was asked to do, stuck to mandate and farmed out to other districts of u.s. attorney for federal prosecutors to look at things that were collateral maybe to his initial investigation. >> all right, thank you, ed, did
1:32 pm
you have a question? >> real quick, alex, last point, what do you see had in terms of the battle for the evidence, the actual evidence and not the summary? >> historical precedent is real interesting, in the nixon investigation they put together a list of just evidence about obstruction, they went to grand jury and that eventually made its way to congress. what mueller has done here, how barr describes it looks a lot like that, point by point, here are things that tend to make it like the president could have done obstruction, here are things that make it look like he didn't. that will make its way to congress, if there's impeachment hearings or oversight, focus on back and forth questions as to what the president is doing and last thing on that, by focusing just on the russia piece attorney general has been able to carve out obstruction with respect michael cohen and new york. the president did a lot of things that look at obstruction
1:33 pm
and congress will take a broad view on that. >> dana, i don't want to one-up you but maybe reporters will talk to reporters. >> i tell you, nobody is listening to me anymore. the president expected to make comments before flying back to washington, of course. >> someone who knows what it's like to beat through difficult investigations, make it out through, deal with politics, karl rove, former white house deputy chief of staff, karl, thanks for joining us by phone, what are your initial thoughts and what sarah sanders is calling a total exoneration for the president. >> well, not total but clearly on trump campaign collusion with russian interference, total victory. trump campaign collusion in computer hacking of clinton campaign and dnc, clear exoneration there. in fact, i thought it was interesting the attorney general says despite the efforts of
1:34 pm
number russian actors to cooperate information, the obstruction of justice is more complex. i'm not a lawyer,i didn't -- [laughter] >> i was interested in listening to previous individuals talk about it. i might have a slightly different opinion on it. i thought it's compelling in barr's letter that he said, generally speaking to on stain and sustain the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person acting with corrupted engaged in obstructive conduct pending proceeding, barr goes onto say, there was no -- no obstruction conduct that was tied to pending or proceeding or done with criminal intent which is why he and rod rosenstein reached, here stuff that would say would raise concerns here, offsetting
1:35 pm
evidence, that's why they reached determination that no action need be taken and i think that's right. you have to have underlying action that is causing people to act with criminal intent in order to obstruct progress in investigating the matter. >> karl, it's dana, kind of interesting a little bit just going back in history, of course, i was at the white house with you. i served as spokesperson specifically for you in the valerie plane matter and i wonder if you can walk us through that there was nothing more to it, it was over and that relief, were you relieved or were you also, you know, were you angry about having to go through all of it? >> well, look, there were actually two moments, there was the moment when my lawyer called me and said they have, this all boiled down to a question of if i couldn't remember a particular
1:36 pm
phone call, why did i later ask my staff to go find if i'd ever have a contact with matt cooper of time magazine, because my lawyer had heard a rumor from a time magazine reporter that i had had such conversation and i asked my staff to see anything in record to show that i had such conversation. first he called to me they figured it all out, taken our statements and now called me and told me they're not going take any action, there was relief but there was also i had to then sit on that for the better part of a year because they said, in essence, you can't say anything about it because we are continuing to investigate the matter further with regard to other individuals and so you're not allowed to say anything about it. as literally sitting on an airplane when i got the final word and it was -- i was on my way to new hampshire and it was june and my lawyer called me and said they are making the announcement that decline to
1:37 pm
indict and no action taken against you and it was total relief but i had to sit there for the better part of a year and a half reporters show up in my front lawn and accusations made and stupidest thing and at one point i was supposed to be indicted, spent a day at the white house with my colleagues, told the president that i was going to be indicted and, you know, it's nothing like that had happened at all, they called my attorney and said, we understand you spent all day with the special -- with special prosecutor and he said, i took my pet to veterinarian and they called to see if it was accurate. >> i remember the frustration and the anger and also because it is a secret process you're not allowed to talk about it and, karl, so good to have you on the phone with us, thank you so much for calling in with expertise and historical background. i'm sure we will be talking to you very soon, thank you.
1:38 pm
>> great, thank you. >> let's bring in jim, form -- prosecutor of justice department, we did snrot the barr letter at the time, we have the barr, letter, no collusion. so your thoughts on this now that we have the barr letter? >> well, interesting nuance to a 4-page letter. the first thing is you could have seen a situation where the prosecutor said the standard we will use is whether we have reasonable likelihood of obtaining conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. that's magic language that prosecutors frequently used on decisions whether to indict. they went beyond that in terms of the collusion, they didn't just say we can't prove anything which would have been a typical tack, instead, there's no evidence. that's pretty significant distinction, i think there's
1:39 pm
nuance, the first thing is obstruction case can be about something that hasn't been charged yet, it can be the threat of criminal prosecution that's being forwarded so you had -- very loose standard for the government, doesn't have to be tied to ongoing case, that might be really interested in terms of what it means to the comey firing and at the time it was tied to comey, here is the other point, what they are really talking about in the summary is the ability to prove criminal intent and that goes back to a couple of things, one, not having a pending case makes it a lot harder, right, the second thing is something that you caught grief about dana because i was on the other end of it when we talked about the fact that if east obstructing he's doing in front of people who can access twitter. it makes it less likely that a
1:40 pm
prosecutor can call that a criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. >> conspiracy, right. >> factors that are definitely in this letter and tends to show that for the second part they're taking an approach of, hey, there were things that happened that might have been aggressive, distasteful, but they were not the types of things that lend themselves to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a criminal intent. ed has a question for you. >> one quick question for you which is something that we haven't raised yesterday which is we talked about michael caputo, lower to mid-level campaign advisessers -- advisers like paul manafort facing prison time. does the door open for potential pardons of paul manafort and others? >> the door never closed on that. it's kind of relic of the colonial times, the king can pardon people that's guilty
1:41 pm
people, that's behind the pardon. it's a political decision but i'm not sure that it's in his interest to do that now. it's kind of like threatening the good news that he already has but using discretion for somebody like manafort who again did commit crimes according to jury and guilty plea, they may not have reflected directly on the president but doesn't mean that he didn't commit crimes and deserves some sort of punishment. >> just in from house judiciary chairman jerry nadler who has now tweeted that in light of concerning discrepancies following the special counsel report where mueller did not exonerate the president, we will be calling attorney general barr in to testify before the house judiciary in the near future, your thoughts on that? >> well, a little bit of this is be careful what you ask for, i don't think that barr or rosenstein or mueller are about to complicit wrongdoing,
1:42 pm
honorable men, but that's one of the take aways from this whole thing that's interesting and for department of justice high-level matters like this, the character of the people who are given the assignment is incredibly important and history will be pretty kind to my friend rod rosenstein, to people like bob mueller, maybe not all the way down the probe where lisa page and strzok but the process stand up well over history. >> we see that the president might be moving -- >> motorcade, if you look at screen bottom right there, the motorcade was pulling up a moment ago, arriving at palm beach international airport where air force is waiting. there have been reports suggesting that the president will address reporters at the airport before boarding air force one for the ride back to washington. obviously stay with us because -- >> absolutely. >> any moment. >> we still have jim.
1:43 pm
>> absolutely. >> remember when we had the strzok and page leaked text messages, okay, and they talked about an insurance policy and i guess we are still waiting for the inspector general, the department of justice to explain all of these things, but what do you think -- looking back on that and the hits that the reputation of the fbi and the justice department have taken up until now, i know you've been frustrated on that, you were a prosecutor for quite a long time and the reputation of the department matters. >> well, you're right and i would say a couple of things, well, first of all, i said this in the beginning and standby it, there's unforced errors in terms of election of investigative team, you really don't have to walk down the halls of main justice very far to find very talented career prosecutors some which were on the team, i won't name names, career pros that haven't made political contributions, haven't expressed serious political opinion and
1:44 pm
that would have been nice to have a more professional looking group that was selected from the beginning but i think now what's kind of compelling after this is it really tells me that the people that were at the highest levels making the decision were determined not to let bias beat them, decisions based on experience and judgment, whether it's rosenstein, mueller or a combination or more recently barr, these are heavy weights, these are folks that weren't going to get distracted by perhaps misdeeds of people on the team. >> we thank you for being in the last couple of hours with us. thank you so much. >> let's bring in chief congressional correspondent mike emmanuel, live reaction on capitol hill, mike, as you can imagine, we are watching closely the picture of air force one as well, the president's motorcade, we may jump in a moment, in the meantime talk about jerry nadler and other important democrats that are reacting there live.
1:45 pm
>> dana, good afternoon to you, reaction pouring in this hour, you've got the democrats continuing to fight, saying they want to see all the evidence. republicans are saying that this is vindication for president trump, lindsey graham, the republican judiciary chairman in the senate saying, quote, good day for rule of law, great day for president trump and his team, no collusion and no obstruction, the cloud hanging over president trump has been removed by this report. the top republican on house judiciary saying, chairman nadler has a chance to rethink his investigations which retraces ground covered by special counsel and already matter of public record. i hope he recognizes that why might be political for democrats may not be good for our country. earlier chairman nadler and ranking member collins talked before report was released. >> there's a fundamental difference, the justice department believes -- normally that's a very good rule, if you don't have enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, you
1:46 pm
shouldn't name. >> i think the problem is that the democrats -- they thought the report was going to show something that they could impeach the president on, that's not seemingly going to happen. >> republicans are saying it is time to move on. thank you, we want to get to breaking news. the president just tweeted, no collusion, no obstruction, complete and total exoneration, keep america great. a preview of what he's about to tell reporters, in the meantime we have the president's attorney live, rudy giuliani, mr. giuliani, mr. mayor, what say you? >> well, i say this is a complete an absolute victory. way beyond anybody could have expected a year ago with all of this crazy fake news that's going on, first of all, absolutely no collusion by anyone in the trump campaign, so you have to wonder why did this investigation start in the first place and why did we waste $40 million. second, no obstruction.
1:47 pm
i know the democrats -- >> mr. giuliani, pardon me, we are hearing the president. >> sure, sure. >> after a long investigation, after so many people have been so badly hurt, after not looking at the other side where a lot of bad things happen, a lot of bad things happened for our country, it was just announced there was no collusion with russia, to most ridiculous thing i've ever heard, there was no collusion with russia, there was no obstruction and none whatsoever and it was a complete and total exoneration. it's a shame that our country had to go through this, to be
1:48 pm
honest it's a shame that your president has had to go through this for before i even got elected it began. and it began illegally and hopefully somebody is going to look at the other side, this was and illegal takedown that failed and hopefully somebody is going to be looking at the other side so a complete exoneration, no collusion, no obstruction, thank you very much. thank you. >> wow, you see the president of the united states there calling it and illegal takedown that failed, extremely strong words. >> a good point, right, the question are you relieved or angry, obviously it's a mix of both, maybe initially relieved but immediately then angry and rudy giuliani, you're still with us -- >> i'm still with you. the president is absolutely correct to be very, very upset,
1:49 pm
you know, reminds me of secretary donovan's statement when he was acquitted, where do i go and get my reputation back, very tough man but definitive that he was being investigated for a crime that never happened. there was never any collusion, i can tell you that because i was on the campaign. one of the reasons i've been passionate is i know there was no collusion,i knew it was a phoney charge from the very beginning when we put the united states through this with all of the exaggerated statements from the democrat politicians that they have evidence that he colluded, where is such evidence? where is it? in his head? >> mr. mayor -- >> i can see why he would be upset and the president has told me numerous times no other president should ever have to go through this. i think there has to be a full and complete investigation to
1:50 pm
figure out where did the charge emanate, who started it and who paid for it? >> who do you think would run the investigation? >> justice department can run that investigation. any one of a number of u.s. attorneys could do it, there's some very great ones. i don't think we have to go through another added expense of the government of special counsel. there's no conflict with regard to it. >> mr. mayor jarome was on fox news this morning -- watched it. >> he directly said then you saw it to me that robert mueller and his investigators wanted him to lie about the president and russian collusion. do you have evidence suggesting there are other people like jarome dorsey who are prepared to say that? >> i don't know but i know that situation very, very -- in great depth because we received documents about that, actually
1:51 pm
jay received documents about that when it was going on and we brought it to the attention of the department of justice because it was my view as former prosecutor that they had gone pay past the line. they had written out to him what they wanted him to say and they told him he was going to go to jail if he didn't say otherwise he would get probation. >> itwow. >> you look at the way manafort was treated. he was put in solitary confinement. he was brought in to see andrew weissmann and that they didn't believe meeting with russian woman. manafort said i don't know about it, i'm sorry, i don't know about it. they kept bringing him back. at some point a man can break and say i don't want to be in solitary confinement, ethical prosecutor knows when to stop and i have to tell you, i did this for a living for a long
1:52 pm
time and i'm very proud of what i did and they did what weissmann did, he would have been fired in seconds. >> legal problems maybe not ending, emanated from this investigation. >> well, hopefully common sense will now emerge. the southern district of new york is investigating sexual harassment case or breach of campaign case, it's not a contribution, if it was 30 members of congress at least for whom the united states government paid to settle sexual harassment cases. i want to know if they filed that, if campaign finance charge, of course, they didn't.
1:53 pm
and as you look campaign finance commission, you will see that the commission has said that payments that are even in part personal cannot be campaign contributions because if i had 3 lawsuits against me, i could go run for office, raise money, pay off those lawsuits with campaign money and then not run which would be absurd. >> wow. >> good point. >> i would say to my friends on the southern district, i used to run that place and i grew up there do not try a weissmann legal theory, it is not acceptable, we generally do not prosecute campaign finance anything and this is a nothing. >> mr. mayor, you talked extensively there about the legal issues that may still be out there or not. what about the political ones? what are your thoughts about the president's reelection prospects now with what he considers a total victory and what is your message this afternoon to
1:54 pm
democrats who despite this may still go ahead and try to impeach the president? >> i would just say to them, please think about the country no matter how much you like or dislike the president, agree or disagree with policies, he has been unfairly treated with regard to collusion, certainly they have to see that and all what they are trying to do now is completely political and i hope some of them, i put out a tweet saying i hope that schiff and a couple of others apologize, i don't imagine that's going to happen, but, look, defense to impeachment is 50% of the american people think the investigation was a witch hunt. i have to imagine if nadler and the others will think it's worst than witch hunt. at least these people were department of justice prosecutors, now we will have a
1:55 pm
bunch of politicians find what they couldn't find. i hardly think that's the case. >> maybe comment from you about robert mueller overall i know that obviously he worked very closely together after 9/11 as well. >> yeah, i know bob, i had great respect for bob. i will temper my comments today. i certainly think one of the reasons this is a complete vindication is this report from the special counsel emerges from a group of enormously partisan hillary clinton supporters. i can't imagine how bob hired such a bias staff. these are people who were not just neutrals or just democrats or just republicans, these were people who were very, very active, political activists for hillary clinton. one of them was a lawyer for the clinton foundation, that's absurd. this report is even more of an
1:56 pm
exoneration because it comes from completely the other side, they tried very hard, they intimidated people and went beyond every rule i can think of and yet they couldn't find any evidence with which to claim there was collusion or obstruction, if that's not on company ration, -- exoneration, i've never seen one. >> collusion going on for a long, long time. there have been stories, people in the media taking shots at you personally and saying that your strategy as an attorney general for the president was backfiring, do you feel personal vindication this evening. >> well, the whole team does, absolutely. nothing i did was just me it was it was jay, marty, we are a team, we have been doing it for a year, have been attacked over everything. i think we are good lawyers and we did a good job and we had an innocent client which makes it
1:57 pm
easier. >> sure does. >> the president was completely vindicated. >> and as he said right before he got on air force one as we watch it taxi down the runway at palm beach headed back to washington, d.c. and the white house, total vindication of no collusion and complete and total exoneration as press secretary sarah sanders said as well. >> mr. mayor -- >> an investigation by people who hate him. >> so there are also some democrats who clearly in congress and you know the names who i don't want to use the word hate but they have been since day one and now in their hands in terms of pressuring the attorney general william barr as to how much information he's going to release, what is your advice about how all this should play out in terms of how much information from the actual mueller report should be shared with the congress and the public in terms of the evidence?
1:58 pm
>> well, i think that the attorney general has the right standard which is as much as he possibly can consistent with the law, for example, grand jury material, he's got to go to a judge, if the judge agrees to let it be released it can be released. if the judge doesn't he would commit a crime if he released it. the president, his lawyers, private lawyers, i'd like it all to be out because we can rebut. this was far better report that i expected special the one thing about not exonerating him on obstruction and prosecutors don't exonerate. >> real quick, mr. mayor. >> they can't prove a negative. >> real quick, we have about 30 seconds, you have said for a long time you were putting together a report to re burkes
1:59 pm
-- rebut mueller report. do you still feed to put out a report? >> as of today, no, this is a very brief summary. we have to reserve judgment on that, we have a very powerful rebuttal that i think completely blows out of the water the obstruction claim. i'm not sure that i have to do. the attorney general in two photographs and rod rosenstein. the attorney general not just his opinion as well as attorney general, they think rod rosenstein all of a sudden flips out, it's ridiculous. >> rudy giuliani, personal attorney for the president of the united states, dana. dana: i newsed to glare at you -- ed: now we're working together. dana: to find out in this hour
2:00 pm
there was no collusion -- ed: working together through history right now. our colleague, shannon bream, is live in washington. bret baier will be back at 8 p.m. eastern. shannon bream in washington with more fox news special coverage. dana: thanks. ♪ ♪ >> it was just announced, there was no collusion with russia. the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. there was no collusion with russia. there was no obstruction, none whatsoever. and it was a complete and total exoneration. shannon: president trump just minutes ago reacting to the news from attorney general bill barr that, quote, the special counsel's investigation did not find that the trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. i'm shannon bream in washington. we've got fox team


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on