tv The Story With Martha Mac Callum FOX News March 25, 2019 4:00pm-5:00pm PDT
thanks for inviting us into your home tonight and every night. that's it for this "special report." fair, balanced, and still unafraid. "the story" hosted by my friend martha maccallum right now. >> martha: good evening, everybody. so where do we go from here? that's one of the most important questions that needs to be answered. who started all of this and why? the russian interference happened with no assist from the trump campaign, so while it was still happening, our intelligence agencies were still busy going after the now president they failed to stop it. those are facts that are unnerving. here is a president earlier today talking about the impact of it all. >> we can never let this happen to another president again. i say it very strongly. very few people i know could have handled it. we can never, ever let this happen. to another president again.
>> martha: we do need to know how the whole collusion narrative began. who was responsible, who was aware of the investigation in its earliest stages from the white house through the obama administration who got the ball rolling on the hunt for trump campaign conspiracy that they believed was happening. and what was in terms of the way this substantiates this investigation, which included surveillance on private american citizens, kartik page. here's lindsey graham today. watch. >> i stole to them this day at a loss to explain why nobody went to present president trump that there are people connected in your orbit working with the russians. a counter invented religions investigation is designed to protect the party
from a foreign parlor. >> martha: we also have the fact that the democrats are pivoting around the collusion -- they are committed to investigating. >> the special counsel can only look for crimes. we have to look for abuses of power. >> we have a president during the campaign had a financial interest confirming a real estate deal with trump tower. >> these kinds of investigations are still in the context of a disaster that is this presidency. >> there's so much that needs to be, you know, taking a look at at this point. it's not the end of everything. >> and congress doesn't have the power to indict anyone or to charge everyone, but they have impeachment powers so it sounds like that's where they are still considering heading. you got 2800 subpoenas, 500
certain warrants, $25 million s, almost two years working intensely on this with a team of 19 of the top crack lawyers they could find. we know now what they found, essentially. haven't seen the whole report yet. will maxine waters and adam shift find what they are looking for if they are going to -- whoe they going to interview comeau who will they find that the mueller report was not able to find. we've got a packed house on this very big story. but first, and congressman doug collins the ranking member of the house judiciary committee, one of the four lawmakers the attorney general, bill barr, sent his mueller memo two. thank you for being here. i'm curious how you look at this whole investigation now at this point. the president called it a witch hunt, but it has come back to be in his favor, at least in terms of what we know so far. >> it is, but let's look at this whole team. this has been a sad part of our history and what we can actually take for some moment here to say
it's a good day for america because the rule of law did prevail for this president was shown not to be colluding. he was shown not to be obstructing. the democrats they said they had proof of, they didn't have proof of. it's time for an apology instead of calling for more investigations. they have to be in front of the camera and say, i apologize. we said there was collusion, but there was no proof. a problematic problem at the doj which senator graham talked about which needs to go back to the understanding how we got there? corrupt cabal enabling this investigation going at the person instead of the problem and that something we have to look at. >> martha: the letter sent to you by the attorney general bill barr, cory booker has just had moments ago running for president said he had some real doubts about the way that letter was constructed, that he would like to dig into. what did you think? you receive the letter before anybody. what did you think? >> i think the letter was
straightforward. and tell him that collusion was off the table, collusion did not happen. when even to the effect of saying that the trump campaign was approached but rebuffed those approaches. i'm not sure what cory booker is looking for. he needs to understand, the old he's running for president and has nothing to run on. they lost their first love. the first love of mueller. they thought everything was going to happen. nothing happened because it wasn't there. the president was right and they are trying to find something they can -- be what you're saying that democrats should apologize for saying there was collusion, saying the president would be out of office, assuming all of this, do you think the president we know has something to say to robert mueller and do you think robert mueller pushed forward this investigation in a way that had integrity in all the things that have been associated with them in the past? >> we see nothing to doubt that. i what the president was upset about and the president upset about how this was started. when we start looking into the
fact how this started with the doj coming through the email investigation the original russian investigation to then the eight days in may in which will mueller was appointed, the only people who -- the russians got what they wanted, but they didn't get it what they wanted from. the democrats, dragging the american people through something, making them doubt something that happened in november of 2016 and that was that hillary clinton got beat. president trump is the president. they don't like it. they want to keep this going at all possible -- that's the real sadness of this. the democrats can't let a cup. >> martha: there's a lot of frustration on the republican side that democrats are going to investigate and investigate and investigate. we listen to lindsey graham saying he wants to investigate the origins of this investigation. do you think that is a risky political proposition? do you think the american public is going to be tired about hearing about this on both
sides, potentially? >> since when did the truth become a risky proposition? i'm not sure. what we found in the last congress and the things -- the three transcripts i released, and there will be more, go to point out there was a problem at the doj. there was something -- we got a mueller report now, the headlines of that and we'll see the report later that shows there were no collusion. the biggest lie that's been told in a long time for it we showed there was no obstruction. what we've shown has proven that you had bias, you had special treatments, you had to go layer of justices at the justice department, one for hillary clinton, and one for candidate trump and president trump. what they don't understand is continuing after the same old thing that has been proven wrong. >> martha: thank you very much. good to see you here tonight. here to respond, democratic congressman steve cohen also on the house judiciary committee. thank you very much. glad to have you here tonight. >> we have some doubts for you
peter emison vouched for you. he said you are fair and balanced. >> martha: you heard both sides of the investigation, what republicans want to look into, are you interested in the origins of all of this? are you concerned about what happened in the highest level of our intelligence agencies in pursuing an investigation against president trump in the early stages and not giving him a heads up that they had real concerns that there might be somebody who was infiltrating their campaign? >> i'm interested in getting the full mueller report out to the public which the house voted without a dissenting vote last week. president trump said he wanted it too appear the american public pays for that report and they ought to see the report and we ought to see the elections a, open, they are not interfered with by russians as they were in 2016. there is no question the russians were involved in our elections. they try to influence the elections. they try to do it for the benefit of the winter, the
electoral college. we need to make sure that our -- >> martha: my question was to you, in terms of that conclusion, which is clear, that the russians did try to influence our elections, did you think it would've been a wise idea to give the candidate a heads up about that and does it make you curious about the origins of this investigation that he wasn't given one? >> you know, i don't know if they give either the candidates a heads up, i'm not sure what they did. i know barack obama and then i asked mitch mcconnell to join him in doing an investigation early and mitch mcconnell refused to do it because the president trying to be as he often was bipartisan -- be one president trump had no idea the intelligence agencies were watching his campaign, they were having fisa warrants to listen to people on prize private conversations. >> i didn't say he did. he wanted mitchell come all
when mitch mcconnell couldn't do it, the president and go forward. >> martha: so i would imagine that you would want to know more about the origins of this investigation, what president obama knew, what loretta lynch knew, when james comey knew, what john brennan you about the russian involvement or and tempted involvement. would you like to see an investigation of the? >> we want to know what the russians did. i think george papadopoulos was the beginning of it and that's how it started. >> it appears he never spoke to any russians at all for that's where his situation is. >> i don't know about that and i don't know if they informed either candidates. did they inform hillary clinton? i don't think they did. >> martha: well, it's clear -- they went to doing what they were doing to president trump's campaign to hillary clinton's campaign. >> they didn't have any probable cause or any intelligence to
make them think they should be looking at it. >> martha: when the probable cause came from a dossier on an article written on yahoo! news. >> the dossier was started by a republican opponent of president trump, isn't that what they originally engaged in? >> martha: not the part of the dossier so crucial to the understanding of this. all of that was paid for by the dnc. that's been clear for some time. tongass men, thank you. i appreciate you being here. and will continue on both sides. i'm joined by congressman matt gaetz -- we'll be back with these two gentlemen right after this. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
want more from your entejust say teach me more. into your xfinice remote to discover all sorts of tips and tricks in x1. can i find my wifi password? just ask. [ ding ] show me my wifi password. hey now! [ ding ] you can even troubleshoot, learn new voice commands and much more. clean my daughter's room. [ ding ] oh, it won't do that. welp, someone should. just say "teach me more" into your voice remote and see how you can have an even better x1 experience. simple. easy. awesome. >> the fisa warrant application on four different occasions, what role did not see a play?
was at the primary source of the information given to the court? wasn't supplemental? was at outcome determinative? i want to find out what were the rules of the counter intelligence investigation? >> martha: how the rest of the transpired. what were the seeds of it? let's get these fisa warrants? he's questioning how the fbi achieve the information to obtain those warrants which are very important to get a secret court order to survey all private citizens of the united states who worked for the trump campaign in 2016. here judge napolitano, good to see you tonight, judge. >> thank you, martha. >> martha: your thoughts? >> senator hit the nail on the head, the origin of this knowing the standard for getting a
search warrant on anybody in the america in fisa court, is lower than getting it -- i don't know if the american people do this until the scandal exploded. the second thing is whatever they told us between one report will never be revealed because of its secrecy, even if somebody was ultimately indicted, defense counsel wouldn't get the application. they knew, this court which grants 99.9% -- i've never heard of this in my career except for this court, of all search warrant applications will grant their warrant would never reveal what they told the court, would grant the warrant on the flimsiest of evidence, and their behavior will never be made public. they never imagined that all of this would come under scrutiny. this is not only their corruption, it's a system that has corrupted them by allowing these fisa applications to be made under the pretense of a national security investigation
and magically transferred into a criminal investigation so slowly that nobody can tell you when or where the transfer occurred, and it's all kept secret. >> martha: basically, if the fbi requests a fisa warrants, they are going to get it. >> basically. senator graham, in my view, would be required to look at the abusive fisa and structural changes in it. i'd be >> martha: here now with more on this, congressman angry bigs andy bigs and matt gaetz. you have put together a letter and you are looking to prosecute james comey for instigating the mueller probe. you've been listening to what the judge had to say. congressman gates, let me ask you. what's your information you're looking for? >> the russian investigation was a national tragedy and congressman biggs and i want to
see something on this. the reason is tour our country apart it was told by a lie and was fueled by a secret court progress where we still don't have full clarity what justify the surveillance that kept us going for 22 months in the absence of evidence. congressman biggs and i want to make sure this happens never happens to another president again. >> martha: he says he never wants to see this happen to another president of united states again. so do you think the president will authorize the release of all the documents looked at by the fisa courts judges they approve the? >> at one point where we requested this, he indicated he wanted to release this information but was held back. i think now is the time to do it. i think his instincts are to do it and i hope that his staff around him let it come out. think about this. you've got carter page, who is a
civilian. there is a fisa warrant issued against him simply based on some information that comes -- that is cooked up for political purposes. that can't happened in america. that can't happen in this country. we need to get to the bottom of it, find out where the corruption was, how we got fisa warrants issued. bruce ohr met with glenn simpson -- this stuff has to come out. congressman gates and i and our other colleagues are pushing this. i think the president wants to do this. i hope we he will. >> martha: we heard andrew mccabe say before congress that the dossier was essential but it wasn't all they had. we also know that one of the other sources that they used was a piece written by michael isikoff and published by yahoo! news but the majority and for the information came from the dossier. that's what it all boils down to basically only having the
dossier. is there any information that you have that there was anything else in that fisa application that would be substantive in terms of opening investigations to these private citizens? >> only the conversations with george papadopoulos that occurred in a london bar, but even andrew mccabe indicated that in the absence of the dossier, the papadopoulos meeting would not have been enough to continue the investigation, so this investigation was fueled fundamentally by a library where the republicans are democrat's art in charge in the future, it should never be used as the basis of counter intelligence and criminal investigations. we think the only way to get to a solution is to turn all the cards face up on the table and truly understand how the senior levels of the apartment of justice where politicized. >> martha: it's interesting to go back to all of this. you think about who was in charge of all this. you had the fbi under the
direction of letter lynch the attorney general then. you have sally yates also sort of the mix here, and president obama at the top as president of the united states of all of those organizations. congressman biggs, who would be saying that we need to start an investigation and then citizen candidate donald trump? >> ostensibly james comey was a linchpin in all of this and loretta lynn's basically walked away from it. sally yates, who had an interest in that, everybody you just named, president obama had to have been briefed on this, i've got to believe that. we've got to get to the bottom of that. you've got some other people involved, ultimately where bruce ohr between the fbi, peter strzok and lisa page sitting there who have an intense bias and hatred towards the president. they are involved in this. these documents on the table
will allow us to follow some of the additional lines of investigation to find out who was causing these problems and who caused this investigation. >> remember, page and the strozk wanted to be keep that up on all of this. >> martha: you're going to call james comey back, congressman gaetz? >> i think we need to look at the documents and evidence before the court. that will show us where this progress was broken. >> martha: good to see you tonight. coming up next? >> let's be clear. what we are seeing and what we have been seeing is collusion in real-time. >> martha: the media overhyped the claims of russian collusion. that is pretty clear when you look back at not just that clip but thousands of clips. they wind up with a bit of a black eye because of it. howard kurtz who watches the media and has for decades with his big picture on what happene
happened. and with a $0 copay, that's something to groove about. ♪let's groove tonight. toujeo® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you're allergic to insulin. get medical help right away if you have a serious allergic reaction such as body rash, or trouble breathing. don't reuse needles, or share insulin pens. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be life-threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose of insulin without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor about all your medicines and medical conditions. check insulin label each time you inject. taking tzds with insulins like toujeo® may cause heart failure that can lead to death. toujeo®, ask your doctor. ♪let's groove tonight. that can lead to death. how about letting your hair down a little?
how about a car for people who don't play golf? hey mercedes! mix it up a little. how about something for a guy who doesn't want a corner office? hey mercedes, i don't even own a tie. do you think i need a mahogany dashboard? hey mercedes, can you make it a little cooler in here? [ a-class ] i am setting the temperature [ a-class ] to 68 degrees. we hear you. we made a car that does, too. the all-new a-class. all-new thinking starting at $32,500.
but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?
>> this is evidence of willingness to commit collusion. that's what this is. on its face. >> let's be clear. what we are seeing and what we've been seeing is collusion in real time. >> the word collusion is what springs to mind. >> i think we have all the proof we need of a scandal that's audibly worse than watergate. the one that's a very small sample of what we've heard over the past couple of years and nof trump-russian collusion has been excluded. it amounts to one hell of a black eye for the press. good evening to have you with u us.
the question is how big is the blackeye and is it overcome mobile? will we see any changes in terms of fairness? >> i'm going to update to two black eyes because they've been so heavily invested in the mueller investigation that it could end the trump presidency. i'm not saying a criminal probe with 37 indictments shouldn't have been covered or some of the investigative stories went inaccurate, even if in didn't rise to the level of indictable offenses. some of the wild commentary, convicted, a traitor, he's putin a posse's pond has damaged >> martha: no cheerleader for the president, that's very clear. you just have to sort of wonder if it changes the tone at all in
terms of how the president is looked at. and where that responsibility lies. do you think that people will trust reporters anymore? >> i think half the country already heavily distressed reporters and even others who are not necessarily fans of this president who have to see how badly the story was overdone, overhyped, overwrought. do i think this calls for some serious of investigation some of us who went up to the media tied, and i been saying it running for two years that this story was a little bit out of control and the coverage, you get dismissed as being a cheerleader for trump. it was never about that. it was about being a cheerleader for a fair journalism. i am not allowing a lot of self examination. it's a defensive profession. even if you are a liberal, even if you're a journalist who loves the business as i do, you've got to acknowledge that we've got to do better. >> martha: when i think that's
true. said it was one of the worst stains in the media of his entire career, that's not his verb eight but the sentiment. he said today, at least "the new york times" and "washington post," much of which have a lot to answer for, did not downplay these benign findings this morning and it shows the banner headlines that say that "mueller finds no trump-russia conspiracy or collusion." perhaps there is some road to redemption and we all -- nobody stands apart. we all have to be held to the same standards and we take the stand is very seriously. it's interesting that michael avenatti came back in in a stoy today as well. your thoughts on the fact he was just released on $300,000 bail just moments ago. your thoughts on his whole story? >> martha: >> here is a guy in the space of two months because he rubs and it stormy daniels and was a useful foil against president trump, he was on
cnn 100 times but he took this clown seriously and indulged his delusion that he was going to run for president which seems absolutely ludicrous. even stormy daniels saying he was extremely dishonest with me, so i think he was a creature of the anti-trump forever and he became almost aim -- the media built them into a folk hero hero. these are serious charges. >> you wouldn't see him on the competitors several times. >> for a couple of hours! feeling great to see you tonight >> martha: coming up next, while some 2020 democrats are clinging to the mueller probe even to this point. >> do you think it's time for the democratic challengers -- pick up put what? >> the meal investigation
>> martha: the collusion narrative may be dad, but beto o'rourke seems to have evidence that some of us don't. watch. >> to other presidents, from my opinion, beyond a shadow of a doubt thoughts two or have ham handedly collude with the russian government, a foreign power, to undermine and influence our elections. the sanctity of the ballot box, the ability for each and every single one of us to make informed decisions about those who speak to representatives and holds decisions of public trust. >> martha: he wants to find out if somebody was working with the russians who is involved in the administration. so is that wise, do you think of a politically at this point? >> look, do you think democrats are going to win on this issue? they have to find a million other things to attack this
president on and go on their own forward. i think it's important that they see this entire report and for the president, he wanted to come out sooner rather than later in case there are those things that are embarrassing for him, better to come out now 18 months before the election than to say 18 ten days before the election. mitch mcconnell blocked the votes today on it, so let's see what actually happens. you know, i think it's in everybody's interest to see the entire report. it's in the democrats' interest to run on president for things other than russian collusion. clearly we trusted mueller and we should trust the report. >> martha: do you think that bill barr would've released the letter he released, which is brief, and i think everybody wants to see the full report to the extent it can be put out with regard to classified information or grand jury testimony. do you think he would release the letter if he released if it didn't accurately represent what was in the mueller report, do
you think he would've done that? >> no i don't think he would. look, i think his letter was not -- look, it was a two year-long study and it was a two day review. i think we need to see more of it. i do not think it was completely inaccurate but there are things that might be missing from it. that's what i'm saying. >> here's the thing that's pathetic for these democratic presidential candidates were actually wishing this mean then report found evidence of collusion. i wish they would pivot and move on to the reality is really sad, they were salivating when you for this evidence and now that it hasn't come, they are in denial. how horrible would it have been for our country if mueller had found the president of the united states had conspired with a foreign power to undermine our democracy? every american, whether republican or democrat, should be celebrating this outcome. even if you do not like donald trump, you should be happy that the president of the
united states didn't conspire with russia and there seems to be people -- the democrats can't make that pivot and show that celebration. show those headlines from "the washington post" that -- they put on the headline, no collusion. where are the democrats saying that? nobody saying that. they cannot let go of this false collusion narrative and it's time to move on. >> martha: it raises a good point, chris. do you think a democrat in a very large field of the potential and existing democratic candidates, do you think that one of them would set themselves apart if they come out and said, look, this is a good day for america. let's all agree on that. we don't want the white house to ever be economize by a foreign government, and i am going to, said democratic candidate, move on, i want to stop talking about this. it's pitted us against each other. that's what the russians did really well. it pitted us against each other but we've been tearing each other down for two years. do you think a democratic
candidate could survive and succeed if they said that and asked the rest of them to put this behind us, and mack the investigations, and move on >> look, i don't think you've got to and the investigations to other things. but clearly on the russian side, the report said there was no conspiracy by the president or his campaign. we've been saying for two years that we were waiting for the report. we got the report. the caveat is i want to see the entire report because even barr's letter say it does not fully exonerate the president on a few things. we all need to read it, take it in, except that, do what we can with what we are accepting it. the way you are going to win is not by just collusion. even if the report said there was collusion but not prosecuted collusion, democratic candidates are going to have to run on more than that because really you are running for a 5% of americans who can be convinced, most americans are dug in so it doesn't matter. look, it's a low bar to say this
is something we should be happy about, but it's something we should be happy about. i did not want to see the president of the united states fully customized by the russians and most americans don't either. most don't make there will be a point in time were candidates have to accept it. >> martha: great to see you, chris hahn and marc thiessen. did robert mueller dropped the ball by failing to take a stand on whether or not to prosecute on obstruction. we'll look at this response by law professor alan dershowitz on "the story" coming up next. or other child. or their new friend. or your giant nephews and their giant dad. or a horse. or a horse's brother, for that matter. the room for eight, 9,000 lb towing ford expedition.
that we just hit the motherlode of soft-serve ice cream? i got cones, anybody wants one! oh, yeah! get ya some! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ed! ed! we struck sprinkles! [cheers] believe it. geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
i kept putting it off... what was i thinking? ok, mr. jones... we're all done. i told you it was easy. with life line screening, getting screened for unknown health conditions is so quick, painless and affordable, you'll wonder why you hadn't done it before. so if you're over age 50, call now and schedule an appointment near you. for just $149- a savings of over 50%- you'll receive a package of five screenings that go beyond your doctor's annual check-up. ultrasound technology looks inside your arteries for plaque that builds up as you age and increases your risk of stroke and heart disease. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke.
so call today and start with a free health assessment to understand your best plan of action. so why didn't we do this earlier? life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. >> martha: the attorney general bill barr wrote in his summary of the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. but some are not satisfied with that, including my next guest, law professor of 50 years. he writes in a new op-ed that mueller did not finish the job. alan dershowitz is a harvard law professor writing an introduction to the upcoming publication of the mueller report, which is his next report. glad to have you here tonight. explain why you think it was not okay that after two years, robert mueller declined to be definitive on the issue of obstruction.
>> his job was to determine whether or not the charge, the president was guilty of obstruction. he heard arguments on both sides. he's it supposed to be the decider. he is not a law professor writing -- he is not a hedge fund operator's, hedging his bets. he should , especially the problem was he turned it over to two people. he turned it over to attorney general barr who is an honorable, decent, terrific guy and gave them 24 hours to make a decision that mueller could have made over a two year period and turned it over to rod rosenstein who was completely conflicted. if president trump obstructed justice by firing comey, then rod rosenstein was a coconspirator. >> martha: one of the things he would've needed to establish was intense, and a lot of people talking about the fact that he did an interview the president,
that he submitted response to questions. it's a good point. how bill barr and rod rosenstein would've been able to determine intent when robert mueller felt like he could not. >> i disagree. i do not think intent is relevant. when the president to act according to his constitutional mandate, you can't go behind his active presidents are motivated by a lot of things. they want to write a good book with a big retainer after the presidency, they want to remembered by history, they want to win reelection. you do not probe a president's motive and intentions if he acts within his constitutional authority. when george h.w. bush -- we know why he parted him. he parted him because he was afraid weinberger would come around and point his finger at him and by pardoning him, he ended the investigation. but special prosecutor lawrence walsh didn't suggest prosecuting because the president had a right to pardon. if the president pardons, he fires, that's the end of the inquiry. the bodies entitled to look at the intent of the president or
the motive of the president. you look at his actions, if his actions lawful, that's the end of the action. you only look at intent after you conclude if the acts are unlawful. >> martha: of robert mueller saw that there wasn't obstruction of justice in the act of firing, then at that point, in the investigation would determine what the intent was and if there was, but as you rightly point out, the president had every right to make the movie made, correct? >> sure. compared to nixon. nixon destroyed resident dominic evidence, told his people to lie, paid hush money to potentil -- you look at the intention. if the president's acts are lawful. i made this argument from day one and attorney general barr picked up my argument when he wrote his letter before he was
appointed attorney general. i have been right from day one and almost all the other pendants and professors have just been dead wrong. it's time for them to fess up, it's time for cnn to issue an apology. see ann and banned me from their air because i was being too fair. i was trying to assess what the essential issue was, and i wasn't being partisan. they didn't want that. i didn't want that. fox is prepared to present all side of the issues. i'm a liberal democrat who voted for hillary clinton but you have me on the air. see and then wouldn't have me on the air because they want the one-sided presentation. everybody who watched cnn was shocked by the conclusions of the attorney general. nobody who watched me wasn't shocked because i've been predicting this from day one. >> martha: you can attest to that. alan dershowitz, thank you very much. great to have you with us tonight. so should house until committee chairman adam schiff stepped
down after he repeatedly claimed that he had evidence that the president had colluded with russia? congressman john ratcliffe sits on the committee. he is next. >> announcer: i think there's plenty of evidence of collusionr conspiracy inbe plain site. car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. over to you, logo. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
>> there is more than circumstantial evidence. now there's evidence that is not circumstantial and it is very much worthy of investigation. >> wow. that raised eyebrows. it would, right? the how intelligence committee chairman, adam schiff said there was absolute noncircumstantial evidence that the president and his campaign had colluded with the government in russia. so now you have this report that says that that is how it happened. he's facing calls to step down because of how strong his claims were and the fact that they're not true. here's the counselor to the president, kellyanne conway.
>> he's been on every tv show the last two years promising americans that this president would be impeach or indicted. >> here now republican congressman, john ratcliffe, a member of the house intelligence committee. good to have you with us, congressman. do you believe that he needs to step down? >> well, let's look at the facts. let's look at the conduct of chairman schiff. he accused president trump of crimes. he did that repeatedly over two years. he said he had evidence of those crimes. and as you pointed out, martha, bob mueller came back and said that wasn't true. bob mueller said there wasn't -- it wasn't that there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge collusion, there was no collusion. >> what was adam schiff talking about? he was asked this today in the hallway. let's play what he said for the
calls for his resignation. >> the people say you should step down. >> i'm more than used to attacks by my gop colleagues and i would expect nothing less. thank you. >> so he didn't say what his evidence was but wasn't surprised you were coming after him. >> it's not just republicans, it's americans. this is an issue of integrity, not telling the truth over two years. yelling fire in a crowded theater to the american people about a false collusion narrative that simply was not true where there was no evidence even though he said he had it. i think one of the things that is most troubles, martha, as you can see from that, adam doesn't feel bad about what he did. now he wants to double down on it. he wants to continue the investigation for donald trump for crimes, even though the
special counsel with the benefit of prosecutor, unlimited time, money and resources has said there's no evidence. so why they want to -- why they want to double down on a narrative that is only helping vladimir putin is one of the great ironies of the mueller report summary that we just received. >> that raises an important question. what measures can the house judiciary committee take to demand that he substantiate what he charged and then if you believe that this is continuing to exacerbate the success that the russian government did have, which was to pit everyone in this country against each other for two years, extremely successful, how can he be held accountable for that if what you say is true? >> republicans have held, as people know, our own members accountable. we removed them from committees, asked them to step aside. the democrats dug this hole.
we're not going to take the shovel out of their hands. do they think that the chairman of this the committee that handles all of our intelligence committee assets, the most sensitive national security measures saying untruthful things about the president, about evidence against the president for two years is something that he should be held accountable for? >> you're saying they have to do it? there's nothing that you're part of the equation on the republican side, on your committee can do? >> we're doing it. we're having this discussion before the public about whether or not the american people think that adam schiff should continue to be the chairman of the intelligence committee. >> well, the house minority leader, kevin mccarthy says he must resigned. there's no collusion, move on says dan crenshaw. congressman ratcliffe, good to see you. >> thank you. >> a busy evening. later on, i'll show you more of
my trip to iwo jimo. back tomorrow. >> tucker: good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." in a moment, the president's son will talk about being a central target in the mueller probe. donald trump jr. is here. we'll have a remarkable update on the creepy porn lawyer. and the special counsel's investigation did not find that the trump campaign anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with russia in the 2016 u.s. presidential election. that is robert mueller's conclusion after nearly two years of investigating the