tv The Greg Gutfeld Show FOX News March 24, 2019 2:00pm-3:00pm PDT
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 coverage across d.c. with mike emmanuel
on capitol hill, molly henneberg at the justice department, and let's begin with molly first. good afternoon. >> reporter: hi, shannon. no obstruction, no collusion, no more indictments. those are the headlines from the summary today. the summary of findings of the special counsel's report. let me give you a sense of the scope of what we learned about the special counsel's investigation. nineteen lawyers, forty fbi agents, 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 500 witnesses interviewed. and here's the conclusion on collusion with russia. 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 u.s. presidential elections. attorney general william barr said the report finds the russian government and a russian internet agency tried to influence the 2016 election, but the trump campaign did not
conspire with either. on to obstruction of justice, attorney general barr said mueller's report did not find the president committed a crime, nor did it exonerate him. but barr wrote, quote: deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and i have concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committedded an obstruction the of justice offense. our determination was made without regard to and is not based on the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecutions of a sitting president. one other note about what's to come for trump associates. this is what we got today, this summary. it says, quote: the report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the special counsel obtain any field indictments that have yet to be made public. will we see the full report? the attorney general says lawyers here at the department of justice behind me are working to figure out what they can and cannot release consistent with
the law. shannon? shannon: molly henneberg at the justice d., thank you very much. -- department. meanwhile, on capitol hill, members of congress reacting to the attorney general's letter. fox chief congressional correspondent mike emmanuel has the latest. good afternoon, mike. >> reporter: house republican leader kevin mccarthy saying our country welcomes this long overdue conclusion. after two years of congressional investigations and now the closure of a special counsel investigation with unfettered authority to investigate any links or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of president donald trump, it is abundantly clear without a shadow of a doubt there was no collusion. earlier a key republican on the senate intelligence committee offered this assessment: >> i know that the democrats are saying we want everything, but the law doesn't provide for that. in fact, it says the opposite. and i 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. >> reporter: house judiciary chairman jerrold nadler having a very different take saying, quote: but special counsel mueller clearly is not exonerating the president. we must hear from a.g. barr about his decision making and see all the underlying evidence for the american people to know all the facts. in light of the very concerning discrepancies and file decision making at the justice department following the special counsel report where mueller did not exonerate the president, we will be calling attorney general barr in to testify before house judiciary in the near future. and the chairman of house intelligence earlier today was already criticizing the special counsel. >> it was a mistake to rely on written responses by the president. that's generally more what the lawyer has to say than what the individual has to say. i can certainly understand why the lawyers like giuliani were fighting this, because the president is someone who seems
pathologically incapable of telling the truth for long periods of time. >> reporter: now some leading republicans are saying it is time for democrats to apologize to president trump. shannon? shannon: i will not hold my breath on that, mike. [laughter] live from capitol hill, mike emmanuel. we now bring in new york republican congressman peter king to share his reaction to the attorney general's letter. congressman, great to have you with us. >> thank you, shannon. shannon: i want to play something from congressman nadler who chairs the house judiciary committee which is where impeachment would start out. here's what he's saying about whether or not we get all the information, all the underlying information from the special counsel, from humaner, or not -- from mueller, or not. >> once you say a president cannot be indictable no matter the evidence as a matter of law, to then follow the principle that you can't then comment on the evidence or publicize it is to convert that into a cover-up. shannon: what do you make of
that, congressman? it seems like we've had the special counsel saying i'm not going to make a decision to exonerate or convict or try to indict on issues of obstruction. but the attorney general saying we say no to obstruction either. will democrats, is that going to be good enough for them? >> i don't think anything's going to be good enough for the democrats. but on the issue of collusion, for instance, mueller's report said that there was no evidence at all. it wasn't that he's saying he's not going to indict the president because he's president, there was no evidence of collusion involving the president, his campaign or any american. i don't know how much clearer that could be. and jerry nadler and others should realize that. as far as obstruction, it's hard to obstruct an investigation into a crime which was never committed. and i -- they're talking about firing comey, if they're talking about his conversations with general flynn, none of that at a all constitutes obstruction, and that's why -- and rod rosenstein, who was one of the heroes of the progressives when he appointed bob mueller to
carry out this investigation, he concurred on that. we've heard for two years now and for six months before that from comey, but certainly for the last two years once the mueller report is in, we'll find out. we'll have the evidence of collusion. bob mueller was the absolute genius, the absolutely honest man. now they don't trust bob mueller. mueller has totally exonerated president trump on collusion. not on legal technicalities, but there's no evidence, nothing. and having been on the intelligence committee, i listened to adam schiff, i was on the committee. almost every witness i listened to carefully through all of the testimony, there was never any evidence of collusion. then later on the day you'd see something leaked out to other media operations talking about all this evidence of collusion that was piling up that was there. baloney, there was never, ever any evidence of collusion. all of that was fully and adequately explained, and thank god that bob mueller has finally ended this national nightmare.
shannon: as you said, so many democrats stepped forward to say in sometimes vague, amorphous terms, that they had seen things that had cleared up for them some type of evidence of collusion. they said it publicly. but will they be held accountable for that at all, or are they going to be able to point to something maybe in these underlying documents that say that's a thread for me, that's enough, that's where i got this conclusion. >> i don't know, maybe they should talk to a psychiatrist. i'm telling you, there was no evidence of collusion no matter how you interpreted it, and i sat through all of tendless questions being asked of all the witnesses, and there was no evidence. do i expect them to apologize? no. they're going to saw there's going to be a case in the southern district, a case god knows where. they just want to investigate this president and hound him out of the presidency. listen, i think the american people -- politically that might be good for us republicans, because i think the american people are tired of this going on.
bob mueller, mueller would come out with a damning report, that would have been very difficult for the president. but the fact that he totally exonerated him on this charge that's been out there for two and a half days, the fact that that's proven to be nonsense and garbage and totally baseless, this is a total victory for the president of the united states. and i tell you, i don't always agree with president trump. i agree with him a lot more than i disagree, but on this he's been rock solid from the start. the first time i ever even mentioned this to him, he's been solid. there's no collusion, he stood by it, i don't know how anybody and put up with all this, being investigated, having your family and friends investigated, endless, endless. again, i give him credit for this, tremendous credit. shannon: and while the special counsel may be wrapped, there are many other investigations on the hill, federal prosecutors and others that he'll have to deal with, but today vindication on this issue of collusion. congressman king, great to see you, thank you. >> thank you, shannon. it's a great day. shannon: we bring in now fox politics editor chris stirewalt,
editor of the halftime report -- >> and on and on and on. shannon: now about the president. what to this point that congressman king says there, this might be for republicans. you see the president when he goes out and rallies, and the "usa today"/suffolk university poll people were asked do you think the president's right that this is a witch hunt? yes, 50%. no, 47%. undecided, 3%. how much is he going to be able to hammer this for the next 18 months to say i was proven right? >> well -- shannon: on the issue of collusion. there's no daylight. >> yes, but. and the yes, but here is as congressman king alluded to, it's good for the president to have these enemies. it's good to be able to cast himself as the victim. robert mueller, we were told, was a lunatic, hell bent on bringing down the president at any cost with his 12 or 16 angry democrats who were rigging this whole thing. well, it wasn't a witch hunt. and for the president, the
problem is he needs a new villain. now -- shannon: oh, he's going to have them. you and i both know, they're going to keep investigating him. >> so to king's point, i think there's truth in that. being able to maintain victim status, tell your base we're at war, they're trying to -- this is an existential threat to the presidency, so in that way mueller helped him because there was this background music. a lot of it was negative, of course, but a lot of it was positive for the president as he was trying to keep republicans from breaking rankings. shannon: but how bad would this have been today for him if there was left any shadow can, any doubt? the language could not be more clear on this issue of collusion, and you know he's going to use that as a talking point. >> sure, i mean -- look, here's what i expect to happen over the next few days. the report has to come out. to whatever degree the report is going to come out and barr has a choice, slow walk it or get it out as expeditiously as he can with the redactions that he and rosenstein and others at the department of justice are making so that it fits within the law
and doesn't disclose things that are sensitive topics, but they've got to get it out quickly. everybody's got to be able to look it over and say, okay. now, there will be things that aren't good for the president in there. there will be bad things in there, and democrats will seize on that as they go through this voluminous document. so that happens, number one. and number two, the next thing is, yes, you'll see an investigation here, and house democrats are going to do that. but the most important thing that happened today was we went over niagara. we are now in a different phase of the trump presidency. we are now in a deferent phase of this moment in -- a different phase of this moment in american history. 2020 all the way live of we are now in the real 2020 election, because we couldn't get started. we still have a little wrapping up to do, but we couldn't get started until this was done, and now it's done. shannon: i want to play something from congressman jim jordan about democrats, how much they love mueller and how they may be feeling today. >> go back to may of 2017.
all the republicans, all the democrats said they need a special counsel. they got bob mueller, they got the guy they wanted. he now has his report, it seems like they now think this is not going the bombshelling they thought it was going to be, so they're launching all kinds of new fishing expeditions. shannon: okay. so what about that? i mean, they're -- as you said, the president has said mueller's a bad guy or he's put together this team that's unfair to me. democrats said, no, he's great. we can't wait to hear the report. but now they don't seem very happy about the conclusions of the report. >> well, you know, and people in hell want ice water. it's tough out there. the truth is robert mueller is an exemplary public servant. he has put together an astonishing career unequaled in american law enforcement that i know of. and if you go back to his service in vietnam and his silver star and his self-sacrifice and his concept, he has worked as a servant-leader in his life. jim jordan doesn't like him. the other republican populists
don't like him because they're angry that donald trump was troubled and terried by this. robert mueller lived up to what he was supposed to do. he did it thoroughly, he did it fairly, i'm sure, and he got through this process, and he executed at age 70 whatever, executed one last really noble service of to his country which is giving us some answers to some very important questions. shannon: yeah. and as we -- as you mentioned and as barr has talked about all along, he wants to get this out as quickly as possible as much as he can. so we'll stand by now. >> it's going to be fun. shannon: that's our next standby. good to see you, chris. thanks. attorney general barr's letter to congress gives us a little more insight, so now let's bring in harvard law professor emeritus alanerdershowitz to brk it down. professor, great to have you with us. >> well, thank you. i'm probably going to be the only person on your show who's going to be critical of mueller. i thought it was a copout for him to say there was not enough
evidence to indict -- shannon: on obstruction. >> and we're going to put a report out -- on obstruction. it sounds like a law school exam. that's not the job of the prosecutor. the job of the prosecutor is to decide, yes or no. make a decision. and then if you say yes, you indict. if you say no, you shut up. you don't go on and say, no, we're not going to indict, but let me tell you all the evidence that might have led us to indict. that's exactly what prosecutors shouldn't do. that's exactly what comey did. how is this different than comey? comey says i'm not going to indict hillary clinton, but let me tell you it was a closed case. -- a close case. she had all in this stuff, and she was extremely careless, and she did terrible things, but we're not going to indict her. that's not what prosecutors do. so i challenge defenders of comey -- i'm sorry, defenders of mueller to distinguish what mueller did in relation to obstruction of justice to what
comey did in relation to her e-mail and why she wasn't indicted on that. i don't see a big difference. shannon: yeah, it's interesting because we knew as soon as he saw where the special counsel said i'm not exonerating, i'm also not indicting the president or suggesting he committed a crime on this issue of obstruction of justice. he left it to the attorney general who then with the legal team and rod rosen sign and others -- rosenstein came to the conclusion they did not have a factual finding of obstruction the of justice. it wasn't completely premised on the point that they didn't find an underlying crime or collusion with russia, but that did bear on the decision. he also said it wasn't about the constitutional question of whether or not you can indict a sitting president, but he said we looked at it, and we thought that it was not worth pursuing. now, congressman jerry nadler has tweeted quite a bit about this, and, of course, we knew that would be the point democrats would jump to. he says special counsel mueller worked for 22 months to
determine the extent to which president trump obstructed justice. attorney general barr took two days. i would argue the letter goes farther than that because it says we didn't find he committed acts that were obstruction of justice. what do you make of this back and forth that we're going to have over that point? >> well, that's exactly what happened with hillary clinton. when comey said not enough evidence to indict, but she was careless, every republican seized on that. what nadler said is exactly why the mueller report shouldn't have said what it said. it should have made its decision. maybe it should send a confidential letter to the attorney general saying it was a close case, we had people arguing one way, people arguing the other way. but you don't make that public. that's not what prosecutors do. let's remember also prosecutorial courts are inmeantly one-sided -- inherently one-sided. there's no opportunity to hear both sides of the story, so we shouldn't take all that
seriously. any conclusion that is negative about anybody that doesn't result in an indictment. if there's an indictment, at least you have a chance to challenge it and fight back in court. but if they say, oh, you were a bad boy, you almost obstructed justice, where do you defend yourself against that charge? that's why traditionally prosecutors are not allowed to say anything about people they decided not to indict. but mueller just couldn't resist. he's been working all these months, spent all this money, so he has to tell the american public, look, i had some people who wanted to indict, some who didn't, here's this argument, that argument, i'm leaving it to the attorney general. democrats are take one thing out of it, republicans will take another thing -- that's precisely what prosecutors should not do. shame on mueller for not having the guts to come to a decision one way or the other. that's what prosecutors are paid to do. shannon: okay. so, obviously, he as special counsel was operating under a different statutory framework
than kenneth starr who was then working as independent come. he, today, was asked about this issue, talk about the parallels between then-fbi director comey and hillary clinton and her e-mails. here's what ken starr said about doubling back on that issue. >> there really needs to be a full airing of all this. i'm not saying criminal charges need to be brought, i'm not saying lock her up. i'm saying let's get to the bottom of all this because i don't think we did. shannon: you know, professor, he talked about the fact that there were a lot of people involved on that end with hillary clinton and then with the investigation into president trump who thought she was going to be the president, and many of them probably never thought their texts would be exposed, they would have to answer questions. any chance you think there's a revisiting of the charges or the allegations against her? >> absolutely not, no. and we should stop weaponizing the criminal justice system. if you don't like hillary clinton, you voted against her. she lost the election. i think the idea of reopening a case now would just politicize our criminal justice system even
more. i think the mueller report does a good job of depoliticizing at least on the collusion, conspiracy, russian interference. but i think it did an abysmal job on the issue of obstruction of justice. we, the american public, are entitled to a yes or no decision, not some law school essay on what arguments there are on both sides of this issue. that was a serious mistake. shannon: yeah. i do have, as you say, flashbacks to law school exams where you do try to cover every potential avenue, cover your bases and cover multiple sides just to make sure you get some credit in some way. it's much different when you're special counsel. the letter also does make this reference to other ongoing legal matters. there are other things the president, people close to him are going to have to think about. separately, i also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters including those that the special counsel has referred to other offices. that's in barr's letter.
the president and his legal team still have a lot on their plate, professor. >> oh, sure. but i think the reason he said that was to explain why he might not produce everything in the report, because they might be relevant to ongoing investigations. he had to say that. and we all know there are investigations by the southern district. there are no sealed indictments, there's no recommendation in the report for any further indictments, and so this is not what many people feared, just shifting it over to the southern district and saying we're not going to indict this guy, but maybe you should. that was done with the attorney general as far as the obstruction of justice, but he didn't do it with the southern district. so, look, this is a good day for the president, it's a very, very bad day for cnn. i have to tell you, there they d be happening their head in shame when you think about how many people went out on a limb and predicted there would be indictments for obstruction, there would be indictments for collusion, there would be indictments for this and for that. they made it seem like it was an
open and shut case, and they misinformed the american public, and they have to have some public accountability when you say things that turn out not to be true. look, i've been vindicated. i've been saying this from day one and been criticized and condemned for simply doing a legal analysis that i think any reasonable, objective, nonpartisan lawyer would have done, would have come to the same conclusion i came to and, essentially, the conclusion that was come to today by the attorney general. shannon: professor alan dershowitz, always great to have your insights. we appreciate it, sir. >> thank you. shannon: let's bring in "special report" anchor breathth baer -- bret baier, and it was interesting to note that some of the first top lines, the first headlines that we saw coming out focused on this point of the president not exonerated but not in trouble on this issue of obstruction of justice. completely missing the headline that there is absolutely no finding of any collusion by any american with the russians. >> let's start there, shannon. good afternoon.
i think you can definitively say, no matter your ideology, no matter your loyalties, that this is a good day for america. the fact that special counsel mueller found that no american conspired or cooperated with russia to interfere in the 2016 election is a win for america. no matter where you stand on the ideological spectrum. now, there are obviously questions about the obstruction part, and i think alan dershowitz makes some really cogent points here about how much is in this report and how much should have been in this report from robert mueller. attorney general barr is the one who makes the final determination on that point. he's written about that before. without the underlying crime, he said, the obstruction for the president is not there. that will be digested and mulled over on capitol hill. there are questions about why did mueller not go forward if he thought there was obstruction, why didn't he subpoena the president and fight it? maybe because he didn't think he
would win in the supreme court. who knows? but the bottom line is the top-line news should be no conspiring, no cooperation by any american tied to trump or not. shannon: yeah. and certainly, the president celebrating that. stopping to talk to the cameras as he heads babb to washington -- back to washington to talk about complete exoneration on that point. of course the democrats, and we've all heard from a number of 2020 candidates saying they want to see the full report, the public needs to see the full report, it needs to be out as quickly as possible, and we're heard chairman jerry nadler talk about the fact maybe we're not ready to talk about impeepment, but we need -- impeachment, but we need to build a case. a lot of folks presume that's why they want all this underlying information, because deciding not to charge sun sw is not -- someone is not the same as saying -- they want every sentence of this report out in the public domain.
>> they do. i will say that there is a big, after this report or the a.g.'s letter about the report and the top-line conclusions, there is a trust deficit now with a lot of democrats who are out on every channel saying that there was a mountain of evidence about collusion and definitively there was collusion with the russians and some of them saying even that president trump was a puppet for russia. i mean, there's all kinds of -- it'll take us a while to go through all the tape of all the sound bites over the past two years. but you're right, there are more things to learn from the details of this and every democratic candidate is out saying and tweeting that the president's hand-picked choice for attorney general should not be the one to determine and bring us the news about the special counsel's report. i think you're going to see, shannon, attorney general barr put as much as he can short of the grand jury testimony that doesn't want to get anybody else in the public eye that has not been charged or classified
information. i think he's going to put as much as he can, and you're likely going to see the attorney general have to testify in front of jerry nadler or somebody else. shannon: yeah. we're seeing calls especially for the special counsel, maybe portions of his team, the documents, all those things to end up on the hill along with the attorney general and this threat of subpoenas as well. it's clear, the democrats seem to be ready to use everything in their toolbox to get this onto the hill, out into the public and continue the conversation. but does this actually help the president to say they're still of after me, i was fully exonerated, this was a witch hunt, and yet they won't let it go? it seems like something that would be a the perfect tee-up to out on the campaign trail and talk about. >> 100%. politically, you can look at this moment as a turning point. the election has already started for democrats who are out and about in iowa, new hampshire and
oh other states. after saying 230-plus times there was no collusion, the special counsel is the one who says there was no collusion. and now, you know, if you don't think that's going to be in a campaign rally or ad for the president, i bet it will be within a couple of days. i think this is a powerful thing. he's clearly facing other investigations, he's clearly facing other legal threat, but he has a powerful win today politically and, frankly, legally. shannon: yeah. we have one of his attorneys, rudy giuliani, who's been at the forefront for months if not the last couple of years, want to play a little bit of what he said to talk about this issue of obstruction. >> we have a very powerful rebuttal that i think completely blows out of the water the obstruction claim. but i'm not sure we have to do that. shannon: so listen, bret, you know that was the part in the letter that the democrats were going to seize upon, you heard
professor dershowitz say he thought that was a copout, leaving it to the attorney general to then make the decision not alone, but in concert with other legal officials within the department of justice that they didn't find a factual basis for obstruction of justice. it seems like though collusion is vet settled, that's the conversation we're going to continue to have on the hill. >> that will be. that and the 81 other investigations that they have on all kinds of things. i think the southern district of new york will now be a focus for a lot of the media and a lot of democrats on capitol hill, what comes out of there. you know, the headlines that said that mueller was never really the main event, and it was the southern district of new york are pretty laughable, let's just be honest. it's been two years of bombardment about collusion and conspiracy. and this, this is a big day. the obstruction thing, i think, is going to -- you're going to see a lot of investigation into it, shannon. but i think the legal battle back and forth would be settled at the supreme court eventually. and barr makes the case that the
president, without an underlying crime unlike watergate, would win in that battle. shannon: yeah. and we have now a little bit more of a statement from a number of members of the president's legal team. rudy giuliani, jay sekulow, jane and martin raskin, both of them talking through this and saying attorney general barr and deputy attorney general rosenstein concluded no obstruction of justice, and they go on to say this is a complete and total vindication of the president. do youwe'll hear more from the president when he touches down on d.c.? the team's got to be feeling good on that ride back. >> yeah, i think the president made his statement. i doubt you're -- you may see some tweets. i mean, he's been, you know, a little under the tweet ratio for the past 24 hours. so i bet you see a couple of tweets, but i think the statement probably to the cameras there is what the president really wanted to say, and he'll let that stand, i bet. but tomorrow's another day.
and this will be a big victory lap for this president who's been under siege really on this issue for two years. shannon: what do you make of that? because, you know, we all pay attention to his tweets. i'm always checking to see what he's talking about. he had a lot to say last weekend, but the minute until this report came out friday, really untilled today, we got a good morning, he showed a lot of discipline as we waited to get some details on this thing today. [laughter] >> yeah, the over/under on the tweeting was quite something. i took the under, and fortunately, that was right. there was some analysis of good morning and what he was meaning by that. maybe it was just good morning. i think the president sees his twitter feed as a printing press directly to the american people, above the heads of a lot of the media, and frank after all of the media coverage of the collusion part of this investigation, you know, the 231 times he said it, it finally got
through, and he now has backup. shannon: what did he mean by good morning, bret? [laughter] >> by good morning. shannon: i know you're going to do 8:00 tonight eastern, and i'll be back at 10, and maybe we will have figured out that tweet by then. in the meantime -- >> see ya. shannon: we now bring in mark levin, great to have you this afternoon, sir. what do you make, i don't know if you got a chance to hear professor dershowitz. he thought it was a complete copout by the special counsel to make this allusion to the fact that there was evidence on both sides of the argument about whether or not the president was guilty of obstruction, but that he was going to leave it to the a.g. to make a determination. do you think that was a copout? >> well, i posted on this. not only was it a copout, i think he was a coward, and i'll tell you why. he didn't have a case. now think about this, what did he do to pursue obstruction? did he subpoena the president of the united states to appear before a grand jury? no, he didn't.
did he take his case into federal court on obstruction? no, he didn't. did he fight it all the way to the supreme court? no, he didn't. he didn't pull the trigger on this not because it was a copout, but because he didn't have probable cause. he didn't have a case, number one. number two, collusion. the same chairmen of these committees who are now banging the drums and beating their chests, these are the same individuals who brought us to this point with the same prosecutor, and i do not respect this prosecutor at all. it took him two years to tell us there was no collusion? two years? hundreds of interviews? grand jury testimony? on and on and on? he should have come to the microphone and told the american people months ago that there was no collusion. to drag a president of the united states through this, people need to be held to account for this, including many of these people in the house of representatives who show up on the airport sonar and radar systems and anywhere else they
can appear to trash the president of the united states. he was called a traitor, he was called a spy, he's been called worse, and now they want to investigate other areas. so the facts are these: no collusion, certified, period. no obstruction. if there was obstruction, then bring your damn case. subpoena the president. take it all the way to the supreme court. he did nothing. what he did was utterly unethical, mueller, on this issue, and i'll tell you why, shannon. leon jaworski is the special prosecutor for watergate. he specifically said he will not put in his report any information, any thoughts, any opinions about any american citizen who wasn't charged and didn't have an opportunity to defend themselves in court and a prosecutor required to meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt to prove their crime. so when mueller drops this stuff in a report, it should be
dismissed, the attorney general and deputy attorney general step up, and under the rules that have been in place for 20 years, it's the attorney general who has the final judgment, not a prosecutor. so it is a big day for the president. the democrats are glum, and they need to be held to account. everybody who was involved in dragging this nation through this, spending $40 million destroying lives, staff around -- and i would ask one other question on this obstruction, shannon. how did he obstruct justice? the investigation went on. he didn't block a dollar from being spent. he fired comey. comey was replaced with a bureaucrat. fbi went on its merry way. department of justice went on its merry way. they spent money left and right traveling all over the world chasing phony leads, no collusion. there was no obstruction, period. shannon: well, do you think, i mean, you talk about how they traveled the world, and we know that there were, i mean, thousands of subpoenas, there
were hundreds of people who were interviewed. there were pen registers where you can get, you know, phone records, all kinds of things. but at the end of the day, was it worthwhile for the president to say now and looked at the american people, they dug everywhere, they spent two years and all of this money, and i'm vindicated, so it was worth it? >> when you bring up phony charges against an individual and they're vindicated, the vindication is good. the issue isn't whether it's worth it. it's how did this information come to be. why did the senior level of the fbi, senior level of our intelligence agencies, senior level at the department of justice, the mass media push these stories, push these lies, push this narrative day in and day out? and now zero, zippo, nothing. nothing. and there was never anything. and the president of the united states, for all the grief he takes, has been telling the truth from day one. i thought he was going to be indicted. i thought his son was going to
be indicted. i thought the whole family was going to wind up at sing sing when you listen to some of these analysts. i'm telling you, we have a big problem in this country. freedom of the press, it is a huge problem. not the fact of freedom of the press, but that we have individuals who do not respect the constitution, who do not respect freedom of the press. and this is going to continue. and the american people should rise up and say we have had enough of this, you're spending our money on opposition research. we know this is about 2020, and now we have members of congress who are trying to interfere with the justice system. we're now going to subpoena the attorney general and the deputy attorney general and mr. mueller. shannon, they have article i powers in congress. they do not have criminal investigative powers. it is not up to the executive branch to serve as an impeachment arm of the house of representatives and conduct investigations for them. and i would tell mr. schumer something, you have no right to
grand jury information. you have no right to fbi notes. you have no right to certain classified information. like it or not, just because you're a senator don't hand us this issue of transparency. this is about justice and the rule of law. not transparency. shannon: yeah. there are a lot of legal and statutory limits on the availability of that information for release, as you say, so we're not going to get to see everything. legally we can't, and we shouldn't, but we'll see what attorney general barr does give us. mark, thank you so much for calling in the, great to hare from you. >> take care. shannon: reactions coming in from some of the 2020 presidential hopefuls. we there have the very latest. hello, or david. >> reporter: as you can imagine, yes, they are coming in as this story is developing, so are the comments made by the 2020 candidates who want president trump's job. this four-page letter released is all the talk in washington right now, but many of these candidates say this letter's simply not enough.
they want the entire mueller report out, and they want it now. in fact, they don't want it for yourselves, they want all of you watching at home the see it immediately. some of the comments, we'll start with bernie sanders who just spoke about the barr conclusions moments after the news broke. >> what i know is that it is a summary of the report. well, i don't want a summary of the report. i want the whole damn report -- [cheers and applause] because nobody, especially this president, is above the law. [cheers and applause] >> reporter: bernie sanders in san francisco today. kirsten the gillibrand said good-bye to her exploratory today and officially launched her campaign. here's what she had to say about the barr conclusion letter. >> the mueller report must be made public. [cheers and applause] awe of it.
it is -- all of it. it is not often that i agree with richard nixon -- [laughter] but he was right to say that the american people have a right to know whether their president is a crook. >> reporter: gillibrand standing in front, ironically, of trump international hotel. elizabeth warren tweeted this afternoon, quote: congress voted 420-0 to release the full mueller report, not a summary from his hand-picked attorney general. a.g. barr, make the full report public immediately. and cory booker also took to twitter. quote: the american public deserves the full report and findings from the mueller investigation immediately, not just the in-house summary from a trump administration official. shannon, these are just some of the reactions coming in today, i expect we'll see more as the night goes on, more will probably be in front of cameras. any more information, of course, or we will bring it to you. shannon: all right, david,
sounds good. thank you so much. we want to give you another tweet that's coming in from sarah sanders. she has been sharing
some information since this has rolled out. she says this: a great day for america and for president trump, the president and his millions of supporters have been completely vindicated. we now bring in california republican congressman devin nuñes to talk about that. he's been in the middle of much of these investigations over the past couple of years. congressman, what do you make and how do you respond to democrats who say this is just one piece of the puzzle? >> it's no different, shannon, than what they've been saying for the last many, many years. so we've had two and a half years of this, and i have to remine everybody it is likely this investigation started in late 2015, but for sure by early 2016 by clinton operatives and likely people at the highest levels of the physicianer bi and the president of justice. let that sink in a second.
this invest was started in late 2015, early 2016 by clinton operatives and fbi officials. so we have had three and a half years of this. our counterintelligence capabilities in this country were turned against the political party. the american people should be ticked at this. and thank god we finally have an attorney general -- and i congratulate attorney general barr today -- we finally have the grown-ups back in charge to get the department of justice back on etc. feet and clean out these dirty cops. shannon: we've heard a lot today about people saying there needs to be accountability for the people involved in launching this investigation, who fed the investigation whether it was through the dirty days dossier, through back channel relationships. is there going to be any accountability or investigation into whether there was actually anything that was illegal or anything that was done wrong? democrats control the how now
and -- the house now and much to have investigative power. do you really expect any answers from those folks? >> a lot of the work was done by the republican intelligence committee from last year and the judiciary and oversight committees. the house has been waiting for the report to be finished, so we will thin that in the form of a criminal referral, but people have to remember that the house of representatives -- republican don't control it anymore, but we don't have the abilities to go out and arrest people. but we do have the ability to make criminal referrals. now that attorney general barr's there, you know that the inspector general has an ongoing investigation. so, look, i think i'd look at it this way: either there's going to be justice served on the people who perpetuated this hoax for three and a half, four years, or if there's not, you are going to have generations of
republicans and conservatives in this country who will not trust the the president of justice or the fbi. i mean -- the department of justice. that's basically the choice. as you know, i've been very far out there in front on this. i i was very critical of russia and the obamas dealing with vladimir putin for many, many years. and to see them turn this around after they had botched everything for putin and turn that around and blame it on the republican party and then turn it around and blame it on house republican, you know, accusing uses of crimes, and then we find out that these dirty people had corrupted their system and did things that, quite frankly, only happen in banana remixes. shannon: it's clear that there is serious partisan division over this and so many other things. but as we know, there were
russian attempts to interfere with our elections, and lawmakers agree that's ongoing whether it's 2020, 2022, i mean, it's going to continue. is this a place where there can be bipartisan agreement on concrete steps to fight back gans that? >> met me remine you that putin's been doing this for many years. e why do you think back in 2016 i i warned the american public that if we didn't do something about putin, he was going to cause chaos in this country. the obama administration, i'm not trying to go back on this, but they refused to spend money that we gave them. look, i now see the president trump administration's doing all they can to take this russian threated threat seriously. vlad police officer putin is an old soviet kgb guy.
he's been messing with our elections since he was in office. it's going to continue to happen, and that's why we have to have a strong department of justice, a strong fbi and so that our counterintelligence excite capabilities are used to fight russia, not target political campaigns. shannon: i think that's something the american people definitely want to hear, is that these are definitely ea -- apolitical or groups. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, shannon. shannon: let's talk with our panel to learn how this is all shaping the political world right now. joined by buck sexton, host of the buck sexton show and jehmu greene, former hillary clinton adviser and fox news contributor. great to have you both with us today. >> hey, shannon. >> hi, shannon. shannon: i want to talk about a couple of polls, whether or not the russia investigation is viewed as legitimate, 49% say
legitimate. so, jehmu, if they have confidence in mueller, he said there's no collusion, will that end this question of collusion for those on the left or the president's create eggs who believed it was there -- critics who believed it was there? >> there's no doubt, shannon, that this is a victory for president trump, and it is a victory for america. and if my colleagues on the left can't recognize it, that's being a problem. that being said, there's also another vector here, and that is vladimir putin himself. everything he set out to do within weeks of donald trump announcing his candidacy, he was successful in doing. in attacking our democracy, in attacking the trust, eroding the trust in our law enforcement
agencies, our intelligence agencies. just like there's no doubt president trump was exonerated on collusion through the words of attorney general barr, they are celebrating in moscow. and that is not good for america. so we win on one hand, but we lose on the other when we have exemplary public servants like chris stirewalt explained beautifully, robert mueller one of those. and he has been dragged through the mud. our agencies have been dragged through the mud in the attempt by this president to undermine this investigation -- shannon: okay, let me -- >> yeah. >> we need these agencies to be strong. shannon: i think we all agree you want to have confidence in these agencies, but some of this -- does some of in that people acted imp properly in launching this investigation, many of them thinking hillary clinton would win and they maybe wouldn't have to answer for some of these things.
>> absolutely. president trump is taking a much-deserved victory lap today, and honestly everybody who voted for him and knew this was a mass delusion. the ed was never there -- evidence was never there. people were always getting well ahead of the facts on this. the partisanship couldn't have been more obvious. and if you looking for the losers today, absolutely, much of the mainstream media should hang its heads in shame, that's absolutely true. but also the intelligence agencies, one of which i used to be a member of myself, they came out at the top level, not the rank and file, playing host to a cabal of former obama administration officials who were using their tour try and thwart a presidency. so that really raises a lot of very troubling questions. the conduct to have fbi, the conduct of the doj and at the cia, the very top the level, was horrendous. and we've seen this now. we need more answers. there are a lot of questions about how we got to this place,
shannon. i want radical transparency about the origin memos, what was shown to the fisa court to the extent that we can see it because there was obviously foul play. while it's a day of exultation in some way, i think there's understandable outrage that a lot of americans should feel that we were put i through two years of this absolute insanity. shannon: yeah. and it'll be interesting to see how much was contained within the mueller investigation as there are demands for all of it to be released, how much we get to see. as the attorney general promises, that is forthcoming. buck and jehmu, thank you for weighing in on the political considerations here. joining me now on the phone, jay sekulow, counsel for the president. your initial reaction to the letter from the attorney general today. >> well, we're absolutely thrilled. we have said from the beginning of this inquiry there was no collusion and no obstruction and that the d. of justice -- the department of justice agrees with us. i think it was important to note a couple of things that, number one, there was absolutely no
evidence of anyone associated with the campaign to conspire with the russians. that was, by the way, the entire basis upon which this investigation started. so there was zero ed of that after thousands of -- evidence of that after thousands of subpoenas and documents and dozens and dozens of interviews. that was to the conclusion -- that was the conclusion. the obstruction of justice, on page 3 it says in cataloging the president's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identified no actions that in to our judgment constitute obstructive conduct at a nexuses to a pending or on contemplated proceeding. and urn the department of justice guidelines, no charges could be brought. i think that's, i think it's just a complete, 100 percent vindication of the president. shannon: did you think it was appropriate -- the attorney general quotes the special counsel's letter in saying that it said, quote: while this report -- meaning the mueller
report -- does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. there's been a big debate, first of all, whether it was appropriate to put that in, and secondly, whether the attorney general should have put it out there. but certainly, he had to make -- >> well, i think the attorney general did it because he had to make an explanation. it is not the job of a prosecutor under normal circumstances to exonerate, right? their job is to either have a charge or not. what it sounds like the special counsel did -- i have not seen the report -- was list facts all of which were known publicly, did not make a legal determination as to what that would constitute or not constitute and, rather, took it to the department of justice under the office of legal counsel, the deputy attorney general and the attorney general which, by the way, is exactly the way it's supposed to happen. that's because bob mueller as special counsel was an employee of the department of justice and
subject to those policies and procedures. also important here, shannon, is the fact that this was not a situation where they didn't take action against the president merely because he was the president. of so this is a 100% vindication of the prime minister i understand exactly what that -- the president. i understand exactly what that means. they did not make a decision on that, and that's the determination. shannon: yeah. of the president has said he wants this to be public, he wants the public to see it. the house voted 420-0. grand jury material, classified material aside, how much of this do you think should be released, and what worries do you have with respect to all of this being available to house democrats who are clearly looking for other things to pursue? >> well, let me address the latter first. so the house democrats are looking for other things to pursue. the special counsel issued 2800
subpoenas, executed 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, which is phone numbers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. so does that not answer the question about what the house is doing? that's purely politics, number one. number two with regard to the report, we're the private come for the president. our view is under the regulations the attorney general will decide what he can disclose and what he can't. of course, national security material, grand jury material would not be authorized unless you have some kind of court order. absent that, i can't imagine they would release 6e material and, obviously, national security materialment soft the attorney general will make a determination in the coming days of what he believes is appropriate to release, and that's what'll be released, is what i suspect. shannon: and over the last few days before we had this letter
today, plenty of discussion about subpoenas, about subpoenaing underlying materials, mr. mueller, mr. barr themselves to come up to the hill. can you foresee a scenario in which that would happen and potentially the justice department, at the direction of the president as head of the executive branch, would tell them not to comply with the subpoenas and then this would wind its way to the supreme court? >> that's a decision that the executive branch would make. that's an article ii decision. that's not the job of the private lawyers. but it was the same individual members of congress that were calling bob barr the gold standard. please let him finish his investigation. and then some of these members of congress on your network and others said that the president was colluding, that others were colluding, that they knew he was colluding, it was treasonous. remember those words? what did the special counsel say? no ed. none. no evidence. none. i think that speaks volumes. shannon: any potential legal trouble for those who were so adamant in making these public
statements about the fact that they'd seen evidence, they'd seen it with their own eyes, they had no question, it was there? and not leaving any daylight or gray area there? >> i, i'm not going to say what their legal exposure would or would not be. i think moving forward what everybody needs to do in the united states congress, in my view, legislate. focus on legislation helping the american people. this thing has been investigated for two years with an unbelievable depth. i rattled off what was issued here. i think that speaks for itself. shannon: all right. jay sekulow, counsel to the president, thanks for weighing in as we have this breaking news this afternoon. great to talk to you, jay. >> you too.san let's bring in robert by yankee and james trusty. great to have both of you with us. >> hi, shannon. shannon: i'm going to read a little something from politico. the headline is mueller's done, now what? they reference this, dozens of
sealed indictments remain filed in d.c. courts, but there's an important caveat to that. all those could be unrelated to the russia investigation. for now, though, the possibility remains that a wide range of people that have been ensnared in the probe still have no final legal resolution on their fate. how does that part of the equation play out, jim? >> i think that's a small asterisk at this point because most likely these are people that might be swept up in conduct on other, in other countries, they may be other russians where there's some hope of actually getting jurisdictional hooks into them unlike the people indictedded in st. petersburg. they're not going to be looked at as good sources of information to flip against the president or anybody in his inner circle. so i don't think they're going to be particularly material to the conclusions we have today, but they may be of interest in terms of showing, again, russian efforts at interfering with the election. shane san i'm going to play from
democrat adam schiff about, you know, trying to get to the key of some of this information and what they may do, democrats on the hill, if they don't get what they want. he's what he says. >> make the request. if the request is denied, subpoena. if the subpoenas are denied, we will haul people before the congress. and, yes, we will prosecute in court as necessary to get this information. shannon: so what do you make of that possibly? the president's counsel, jay sekulow, you heard him, bob. he didn't want to tackle that, but what if this does end up in a legal fight, subpoenas, do you foresee this would have to be settled by the high court? >> yeah, absolutely. you have a number of protections that exist which are usually to protect the innocent or those who have been investigated. a good friend of mine, former prosecutor, was just talking about the idea that they released some information inadd inadvertently one time about a grand jury proceeding and wound up being sued because of that was they didn't get a judicial intervention. so you have that piece.
you also have the executive privilege eshoo that the i would imagine -- issue that i would imagine would definitely be argued. and while congress has oversight, the dearth of cases that there are on this particular issue is going to lead to, in my opinion, years of litigation over those things. and let's also not forget, shannon, that this was essentially a counterintelligence investigation and obstruction investigation. so a lot of sources and methods are going to be inside of these materials that there would be a legitimate national security interest not to release. so i understand everybody wants complete transparency because there are some oddities that are in this letter in my mind. like, for example, when they say there was no coordination with the russians when we have the june9, 206, trump -- 2016 tower meeting with jared kushner and with junior, and when you say there's no obstruction when of you have the lester holt interview indicating comey was
fired because of the russia investigation. listen, i trust mueller, but he lobbed that obstruction thing over the the attorney general who was a political appointment. and i think a lot of people are going to want to find out what was the underlying data that led you to those conclusions. last point, shannon, make no mistake about it, this document as it exists today is a total vindication on the russian collusion case with regard to the trump administration and obstruction. but there are questions i have in my mind about the way it was written. shannon: jim, final quick thought. >> it's kind of a false test to say we need to see the full, unredacted report. it's not going to happen. if nothing else, there's going to be some significant chunk of grand jury materials. i don't see a judge signing off on an order that says but we really, really, really want to see it. i think since it's not in the course of litigation, some of this is going to stay redacted. shannon: we'll have to leave it there, but again, the letter
from the attorney general saying zero collusion found by special counsel, also exonerating the president of any obstruction of justice. that's it for us here in washington. "fox report" with jon scott is up next. i'm shannon bream, i'll see you back here at 10 p.m. the mueller probe finds no sufficientmueller evidence of the trunk campaign conspiring or collusion during the 2016 election. now the nation gets its first glimpse that has loomed heavily over the administration. i am jon scott and this is the fox report. attorney general bar a few hours ago delivered a four-page letter to congress outlining visible conclusions of the mueller report amid calls for full findings. despite finding no sufficient collusion evidence,