tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News April 21, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
i thought the singing was really awe. >>some. what they said up there, hope, health and heaven. next time we come, we'll probably come here, yeah. chris: i'm chris wallace. president trump celebrates as the mueller report is released to the public, but does it exonerate the president? ♪ ♪ chris: -- >> no collusion, no obstruction. >> it's a clear victory. >> this has been a political proctology exam, and he's emerging with the clean bill of health. chris: we'll break down what it means for the future of the trump administration with rudy giuliani. then, democrats attack attorney general william barr for his handling of the mueller report. >> he has been disingenuous and misleading. chris: and they make the case for obstruction of justice. >> the report outlines multiple
attempts by the president to mislead the country. chris: we'll discuss what comes next post-mueller report with democratic congressman adam schiff, chair of the house intelligence committee. julian and schiff live, only on "fox news sunday." ♪ chris: plus -- >> you build america, we built america! chris: joe biden is set to announce his candidacy for president this week. we'll ask our sunday panel how his formal entry will change the 2020 democratic race. and a power player classic on this easter sunday. we revisit the pence family's pet bunny. >> marlon, this is chris wallace. [laughter] chris: all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again and happy easter and passover from fox news in washington. we begin with breaking news. in virally lank ca -- vi lank ca, explosions have killed more
than 200 people. three at churches where worshipers gathered for easter services, others at luxury hotels. no one has claimed responsibility. back here at home, president trump is at his florida retreat for the holidays, but he's not taking a break from both celebrating what he calls exoneration by the mueller report, while at the same time attacking former aides who he says misled the special counsel. meanwhile, democrats are split on whether to push for impeachment or move on to other issues. in a moment, we'll speak with the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani, and later house intelligence committee chair adam schiff. but first, let's bring in kevin corke at the white house with the latest developments. kevin? >> reporter: the president already busy on twitter once again this day and, frankly, a real pendulum of emotion following the release of that redacted mueller report, swinging from vindication and exultation to downright frustration over its genesis and some of its underlying evidence.
>> this should never happen to another president again. >> reporter: president trump's insistence that he did not collude with the russians to sway the 2016 election is a message he not only reiterated once again in person following the release of the redacted mueller report, his frustration boiled over on twitter where he called it the end result of the greatest witch hunt in u.s. political history. no collusion, no obstruction. but mr. trump also used the social media platform to fume at some of the report's characterizations, particularly as it relates to obstruction of justice. fabbri candidated and totally untrue -- fabricated and totally untrue, he tweeted, adding some of the statements were total b.s. and only given to make the other person look good and me to look bad. the report's 488 pages, and was routinely criticized by the president for his persistent,
detailed note taking. still, the report's findings did little to quell the political uprising on capitol hill where congressional democrats have threatened to use it as a launching point for more investigation into the trump presidency. >> it is clear the special counsel's office conducted an incredibly thorough investigation in order to preserve the evidence for future investigators. >> reporter: including a possible impeachment proceeding. by the way, chairman nadler has already issued a subpoena for the unredacted special counsel report including its underlying evidence and grand jury material by may 1st. the doj is calling that premature and unnecessary. chris: kevin corke, thanks for that. joining me now, the president's lead lawyer, rudy giuliani. mayor, happy easter, sir. >> happy easter, happy passover and good to be with you. chris: you were planning, we were told, to release a counterreport to the mueller report, about 45 pages.
why haven't you done so, and are you still planning to? >> number one, we haven't done so because we planned to do it if we needed to. so far we don't think we need to. that may become necessary. there is -- whether they go ahead with the hearings or not, whether other issues are raised by different people. there's probably a point at which we'll use it. right now we think the public debate is playing out about as well as it can. it raises a lot of issues that maybe we didn't have to respond to. chris: you have said if the you were going to release the counter-report, it was going to focus on obstruction. here's what the president had to say about that after the mueller report was released. >> right. >> they're having a good day, i'm having a good day too. it was called -- [laughter] no collusion, no obstruction. [applause] chris: but, mayor, that's not true. the mueller report makes it clear especially on the issue of collusion that -- obstruction, rather, that he's leaving it to congress. and i want to pick up on the report. volume two, page 8 --
>> i agree with that. chris: okay. well, good. [laughter] the conclusion that congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law. so mueller invites congress to look into this, and the president -- in terms of congress -- hasn't been exonerated at all on the issue of obstruction. >> you never get common rated. first of all, one of the main things that infects that report and makes it a warped report, page 2, the standard. you do not apply a standard of exoneration to anyone whether it's a president in an impeachment or -- you can't exonerate. exoneration means proving a negative. the law has recognized -- chris: but he's attempting, but, sir -- >> can i just answer the question? chris: he's suggesting that there is case and evidence that congress should examine. >> okay, but let's start with this. the standard he used -- his
conclusion is i cannot conclude that the president committed obstruction. but i cannot exonerate him. chris: i understand your idea that he doesn't have to prove him innocent -- >> the second poofort it is a totally biased, warped view of a prosecutor's role. if prosecutors in america were asked to exonerate you, in about 90% of the casings, they couldn't -- cases, they wouldn't be able to do it. i rarely could exonerate -- chris: but sir, respectfully, he's saying it should go to congress. >> you're entitled to our opinion. number one, if they're going to review his removal power, real question under article ii whether he can do that. the congress has a role in appointment, advise and consent. it deliberately doesn't give them a role in removal because they say, go back to the constitutional convention, that would be too much of an intrusion. because if you interfere in accepting somebody, taking
somebody, you can always go find someone else. but if you interfere in removal, you're going to force a president to keep someone he doesn't trust, doesn't like. chris: but that isn't really -- excuse me, i mean, with all due respect, that's not the issue here. the issue is did the president obstruct justice or not? let me -- >> the answer is -- [inaudible conversations] chris: you're chomping at the bit. let me ask the question. the report says the president called white house counsel don mcgahn twice on the same weekend, and he told him -- and this is a quote -- call rod, rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the special counsel, call rod, tell rod that mueller has conflicts and can't be the special counsel. mcgann recalled the president telling him mueller has to go. the only reason that that doesn't happen is because mcg ahn threatens to resign and refuses to carry out what he
considers to be a saturday night massacre. >> now you want my answer? chris: yes. >> and you'll let me give it? chris: sure. >> number one, had he done it, it would not have been -- chris: what was the reason to fire mueller? >> mueller hired a staff this which he had people that i would find very, very questionable as people that should be investigating donald trump. he hired the chief counsel to the clinton foundation. absurd. he hired someone who had been a very, very strong partisan of hillary clinton, been at her going away party, whatever that was, and had a history of ethical misconduct -- unethical conduct -- chris: but the mueller report -- >> can i finish, chris? aye got to give a complex, there were a lot of reasons why -- chris: i understand -- >> i know you don't want a long answer, but in fairness, it deserves one. chris: in fairness, you're
saying the investigation was biased. >> you could perceive it that way which would give you a good faith reason to fire him. and also he demonstrated in the case of comey that he could fire someone and not interfere in the investigation because immediately it was taken up by someone else. he told lester holt that he realized -- chris: sir, i'm not asking about comey -- >> but i'm pointing out with his prior conduct he removed comey, and he said i realize it'll lengthen the investigation. and now if he had fired mueller, he would have expected somebody else came and took it over. the guy had conflict of interests. he hired a highly partisan, biased -- chris: it also had come out, i understand that you're trying to make the case, but we do have limited time. >> there's an alternative explanation. chris: there's another alternative explanation which mueller makes, and mueller's explanation is two days earlier -- sir -- the report has come out in the paper that now mueller is investigating him for obstruction of justice and for the first time in this investigation, for the first time the president directly is a
target of the investigation. >> chris, what you're doing is you're taking the mueller report which is a prosecutor's version of what happened, you're giving it full credit, and and you're not giving me a chance to explain the other side which is very, very strong and was left out by the prosecutor. i think's unfair in a case of this magnitude, not to tell the other side. chris: i'm asking you about the other side. >> but you're not giving me a chance to answer it. chris: we don't need to talk about james comey. >> it's two or three pages of lies and distortion, it takes a little while. for example -- chris: you think that's what the report is, lies and distortion? >> in certain respects. everything written and attributed to cohen is not true -- chris: i'm not talking about cohen. >> you're asking me the report -- wrist chris, no i'm not, i'm asking you about this -- >> i think this is a product of not telling the full story. that's not mcbegun j -- mcgann's fault. the president used the word
fire, and he told the president i'm going resign directly. he then recants that and says no fire, no statement that i was going to resign, then he comes up with that version, and then a third version which is even softer which says something like he should be fired or he has conflicts, he can't be special prosecutor -- chris: and that mueller has to go. >> well, he interpreted it that way. >> it's a very complex set of facts. on the other side, the president says i didn't say to fire him. i didn't want him to go. i wanted the conflicts to be taken into consideration. that's the president's version. you've got to pick one version or the other. chris: okay. may i -- >> but, in fact, since you can't prove it, there's no obstruction. and finally, if he had fired him, there wouldn't have been an obstruction so long as he was replaced by somebody, which he would have been, and there were good reasons, arguable reasons. chris: here's the question -- >> here's the overview. the overview is this. no, no, this is really important. the president of the united states was an innocent man being
charged with something he didn't do. you have to grant that now as a legal and factual matter -- chris: no, no, i don't. >> these things -- well, wait a second. these things were being done -- chris: this is called an interview. you've got to give me an opportunity to -- >> i'm here to defend the president. chris: i understand that, and i'm here to ask you questions about it, sir -- [inaudible conversations] chris: the obstruction of justice can't have happened because there was no underlying crime. that's what you say. you said that he was being framed and he was fighting back. let's look at what you said, sir. put it up. >> it's kind of ridiculous to go after a man for obstruction -- [laughter] when he was falsely accused, he was defending himself. his intent in each one of these situations, all ten of them, is easily explained as an intent to not get framed. chris: but that's what you just said. >> i said it a couple days ago. chris: okay, i understand.
but the point you were making, again, the special counsel -- i'm not arguing that the special counsel's right and you're wrong, i'm simply presenting the arguments to try to get you to respond to it. >> well, i am. [laughter] chris: he says what you just said is not true. >> big surprise. chris: obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where gray area or to avoid personal embarrassment. mueller says the injury to the justice system is just as great, it doesn't matter whether there was an underlying crime, it's still obstruction. >> when did mueller become god? mueller says the injury to the justice system is still as great. there was no injury, by the way, we're talking about an incowait crime. we're talking about something that didn't happen. there was no obstruction. nothing was denied him. nobody crushed cell phones hike
hillary did. nobody deleted 33,000 e-mails like hillary's people did. and nobody bleached the server like hillary did. there was no obstruction. they don't point to a single on obstruction this their investigation. they went from day one to day end, and they got everything they wanted. chris: well, that's not true. >> well, they're not entitled to testimony. no prosecutor is. that's not a -- chris: that isn't what you said. you said they got everything they wanted -- >> they're not entitled to to tf innocence, we're going to throw it out because it's not -- chris: i'm saying you said they got everything they wanted -- >> you know why he didn't testify? because they were going to trap him into perjury. you think i'm a fool? i'd have been disbarred if i'd have let him testify. they were so many places that they wanted to trap him that they were not in good faith. here's what they did to flynn. they cogo to his office, tell me he doesn't need a lawyer --
chris: i've got a minute left. >> this is worth more than a minute. you have to look -- chris: i understand, i understand. >> as a prosecutor, they crypted flynn's crime -- chris: there was also the nature -- >> they had the answer that they asked him -- chris: we're not talking about flynn, we're talking about the president. >> we are talking about flynn. you're asking me why did the president not go in and stand in front of him and let them try to trap him into presidential. because he had -- into perjury. if they were fair people, i'd have been there in a minute. what they did to flynn said to me -- chris: final question. here was the nature -- >> you're treating these people as if they're fair. they're not. it begins with he's got to prove his innocence, then we're throwing out, then we're throwing out the fifth amendment. how many more amendments would we like to throw out in mueller's favor? chris: i just want to ask you a question. you say the president gave them everything they wanted. i understand you're saying they didn't have a right to testimony. let's look at the prime
minister's testimony -- [inaudible conversations] at least 37 times he said in written answers he did not recall. >> oh, my goodness. chris: well, wait a minute. you say, oh, my goodness, when hillary clinton did that during her investigation about the report, here's what the president said. take a look. >> i said a similar -- >> when she was interviewed by the fbi, she claimed she couldn't remember important events 39 times. so she really didn't remember, that's a problem. and if she did remember, that's a problem. chris: you've got 30 seconds. why is that a problem for hillary clinton and but it isn't for donald trump? >> because hillary clinton was guilty of the underlying crimes. she did crush the cell phones, she -- chris: well, who made you god, as you said about mueller? >> a i'm not god about mueller -- chris: no, no, no, you said who made mueller god, now you're declaring whether she was guilty or not. >> i'm not saying she's guilty, i'm saying there's a difference. the difference is there is
overwhelming evidence that she actually obstructed justice. she denied the investigators the information. nothing was denied to them. and by the way, in the report they say they didn't are to question him because they had the answers to all the questions. right in the report. chris: they also said the answers were inadequate -- >> well, i'm sorry. chris: and they also said that to go through a subpoena was going to the take a prolonged period of time -- >> if my client has an unclear recollection, i'm not going to go stretch out for the prosecutor so the prosecutor can nail him like they went after that great general and ruined his life and bankrupted him. they should be ashamed of themselves. chris: mayor giuliani, thank you for sharing your holiday weekend with us. >> happy passover. chris: you're a heck of a lawyer. [laughter] >> oh, well, you're a heck of an interviewer. [laughter] chris: up next, we'll talk with adam schiff, the democratic chair of the house intelligence committee, who promises to continue investigating the president, but will that lead to impeachment? ♪ mug. ♪ hopes you drive safely.
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? (speaking in foreign language) i'm sorry i don't understand... ♪ help! i need somebody ♪ help! not just anybody ♪ help! you know i need someone
p3 it's meat, cheese and nuts. i keep my protein interesting. oh yea, me too. i have cheese and uh these herbs. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. xfinity watchathon week has sadly come to an end. what, what, what! no! but don't let that stop you from watching the best shows and movies from showtime, hbo, epix...
jesus, what happened? ...and more. it's just the tip of the iceberg. upgrade now to get more into what you're into. thanks! just say "watchathon" into your x1 voice remote to upgrade and keep getting more of what you love. ♪ ♪ chris: democrats have issued a subpoena for the full, unredacted mueller report, and they're calling on attorney general barr and special counsel mueller to testify before congress. but they remain divided over how far they should take their investigation of the president. joining us now from california, democratic congressman adam schiff, chair of the house intelligence committee. chairman schiff, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you. good to be with you. chris: after the release of the mueller report, you and some other top house democrats including house speaker nancy pelosi said that impeachment of
the president would be a mistake. here you are. >> of us do think the president's unfit for office, but unless that's a bipartisan conclusion, an impeachment would be doomed to fall your. i continue to think it's not in the national interest. chris: but now, since you said that, some top democrats including elizabeth warren, senator warren who's a candidate for president, say the house should do its constitutional duty and begin impeachment proceedings. to you still think they're wrong -- do you still think they're wrong? >> well, look, i think it's a very difficult decision, and we're going to have a caucus about this over the next couple of weeks to try to figure out what the best course is not for the party, but what's the best course for the country. i think it's certainly the case that an impeachment would be unsuccessful for the republican party continues to place party above country, continues essentially to back the president no matter how unethical or dishonest his conduct may be.
and, sadly, that's where we are right now. so we will have to decide do we, nonetheless, go through an impeachment because to do otherwise would suggest that future presidents can engage in this kind of corruption without consequence, or to we decide that -- to have do we decide we're better off doing the oversight through the text of oversight hearings rather than a formal impeachment. that's going to be a very consequential decision and one i'm going to reserve judgment on until we have a chance to fully deliberate about it. chris: chairman, you've been leading the charge for more than a year that president trump and his campaign colluded with the russians to interfere in the 2016 election. here are just a few examples. >> this is about as clear or evidence you could find of intent by the campaign to collude with the russians, to get useful information from the russians. i think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. i did say that there is ample
evidence and, indeed, there is of collusion of people in the trump campaign with the russians. chris: but, sir, let's look at what the mueller report found, and i want to put it up on the screen. volume i, pages 1, 2 and 5. we understooding coordination to require an agreement, tacit or express, between the trump campaign and the russian government on election interference. the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. mr. chairman, the special counsel did not find the kind of coordination that you said was there. >> chris, as you know -- and i wish you had played the rest of some of those clips -- i went on to say that whether that collusion, that evidence of collusion rises to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of conspiracy was a different question and, indeed, that distinction is made in the opening pages of the mueller report. so when the president and his allies repeat this mantra of no
collusion, they clearly haven't read or ignoring the plain language of the report where bob mueller says two things, we're not going to look into the question of whether there's collusion. that's a common lay term that can be criminal or noncriminal can conduct. we're going to look at the crime of conspiracy. and on that issue, bob mueller says something else that i've been saying frequently which is the fact that you may not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a criminal conspiracy doesn't mean that there's an absence of evidence of crime. and when i talk -- chris, you're absolutely right, i talked about this all the time on the course of the last year -- when i talked about evidence of collusion in plain sight, i used those words in plain sight. and i pointed to the meetings in trump tower that don jr. and kushner and manafort took. and what more clear intent to collude could you have than the russians offering dirt on hillary clinton as part of what was described as an effort to help mr. trump in the campaign, and don jr. saying if it's what
you say, i would love it. i don't know how you find more abundant evidence of an intent to collude than that -- chris: but, sir? >> yes. chris: let me just say, the mueller report looked at a lot of those specific incidences you talk about. for instance, the trump tower meeting, the fact that paul manafort shared polling data with someone from the ukraine who had ties to the russians, and he's -- here's what they found: the investigation examined whether these contacts, and they agreed there were contacts, involved or resulted in coordination of a conspiracy with the trump campaign and russia including with respect to russia providing assistance to the campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination. here was the reaction after the report came out from white house counselor kellyanne conway. >> i was the first person to
publicly call for adam schiff's resignation from, as intelligence committee chairman several weeks ago on your network. i'm going to double down on that. not only should he resign, he should produce the evidence that he said he has. chris: there's no question there were contacts, but i think when you and other democrats -- i'm not saying it was just you -- talked about collusion, there was the feeling of a working arrangement, an agreement and that somehow the trump campaign was involved in the hacking of the dnc and podesta e-mails and that there was a back and forth, a working relationship as opposed to individual meetings. do you have evidence of that kind of working relationship that the mueller report didn't seem to find? >> well, chris, first of all, i never said that the trump campaign was involved in the hacking itself. finish what i did say is that, for example, in that trump tower meeting there was a clear intent to collude with the russians, there was a willingness to receive russian help.
the president himself called on the russians to assist his campaign by hacking hillary clinton's e-mails. and if you look at pages 180-190 that discuss that trump tower meeting, it wasn't that they found a lack of evidence of all the things that i talked about -- in fact, the meeting did take place, in fact, they did offer dirt on hillary clinton, in fact, the president's son did say he would love to have it, in fact, the president's son lied about it, the president was involved in dictating that lie. all the facts i set out are proven. but what bob mueller said the reason he didn't charge don jr. and jared kushner and paul manafort, is he found he could not establish with admissible evidence that don jr. was knowing -- knew that he was breaking the law, that he was essentially ignorant of the law. now, with respect to paul manafort, we only have one sentence as to why some of that experience didn't know that seeking the help and receiving the help of a foreign government was a crime.
and that's something we're going to want to ask bob mueller about when he testifies. bob mueller also said that he couldn't establish the value of the dirt they got. so this, i would say this to kellyanne conway: the only reason that bob mueller says he didn't charge a crime about that trump tower meeting was because he believed that don jr. was too ignorant of the law to be charged and because the russians didn't deliver the dirt they promised. not that the campaign didn't try to get dirt, but the russians didn't live up to their end of the bargain, so that -- chris: we've got limited -- >> that's what mueller found. chris: republicans are now calling for a full investigation of how the fbi investigation against the president and the trump campaign began. and the mueller report found that the steele dossier, which had all kinds of information about relationships between president trump and the kremlin, that much of that information was either false or impossible
to verify. as chair of the house intelligence committee, isn't that a legitimate source of inquiry? not saying you shouldn't investigate the president, but don't you think the question of exactly how this investigation began, was it a russian disinformation campaign to try to get since they were trying to set americans against each other not only to tarnish hillary clinton, but also to tarnish donald trump, isn't that a legitimate source of an investigation? >> chris, you know, the reality is that the republicans on our committee spent two years investigating exactly that because, frankly, they weren't that interested in what russia had done, the systemic attack on our democracy. they spent the focus of their two years investigating the investigators and investigating exactly that question -- chris: but, sir, i've only got 30 seconds left. we do have new information, the mueller report discredits a lot of that, says there was no indication that carter page did anything wrong with. shouldn't you be looking at that just to find the truth9?
>> well, what we are going to be looking at is we're going to be looking at all the counterintelligence findings that were the genesis of this investigation. we have requested that on a bipartisan basis, one of the few things that devin nuñes and i agreed upon. let me be very clear about this, the mueller report makes it absolutely crystal clear that the initiation of this investigation was not only warranted, but absolutely necessary because it revealed a widespread, systemic effort by the russians to help the trump campaign. and that, i think, is the overriding conclusion of this report. and we need, i think, to put our emphasis on making sure that kind of intervention never happens again. chris: chairman schiff, thank you. thanks for joining us today. always good to talk with you, sir. >> thank you. chris: coming up, we'll bring in our sunday group to break down the mueller report. is it the end of the russia investigation or just the start of a new chapter? ♪ ♪
>> the special counsel confirmed tt the russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans colluded in those efforts. chris: attorney general william barr announcing special counsel robert mueller found no collusion with russia in his final report. and it's time now for our sunday group. jason riley of "the wall street journal," bob woodward from "the washington post," former democratic congresswoman jane harman, director of the woodrow wilson center, and fox news correspondent gillian turner. jason, what's your reaction to the mueller report? how convincingly does it clear the president of collusion and how much does it not clear the president on obstruction? >> well, i think this report ought to be good news for this country, good news for etch, democrats and republicans alike. the mueller report found that no one in the trump campaign from the president on down conspired
with a foreign entity to win the election, despite the efforts of russia to interfere. this ought to be good news for everyone. we ought to be celebrating this, yet we have some democrats and some members of the media who are deeply disappointed in this outcome because they had pushed a certain narrative that turned out to be untrue. chris: congresswoman harmon, if you were still until congress, would you vote to initiate impeachment proceedings? >> well, he's what i would do. -- here's what i would do. let's remember fred mallic who chaired the wilson center board and was a passionate republican. what fred always said was he only liked politicians who put the country first. could we have a little conversation about that. what does the country need now that this report has come out. it's a nuanced report, and it's complicated, and on the obstruction charge mueller said congress or, i guess, the people in the next election need to decide. i don't know what i would do if i were in congress now. i would, first, wait for
mueller's testimony in congress to hear why he wrote what he wrote and what it means. he didn't say, you know, i saw your long event with rudy giuliani. exoneration is not the standard, but surely the report does not exonerate anybody. and it is time for the country to come together around what the next step is. chris: bob, when you read volume two of the mueller report, which is the part that centers on obstruction, and mueller lays occupant ten specific potential cases of obstruction, how disturbing do you find them? >> well, they're disturbing. i think there's a pattern of lying and corruption here that can't be dodged. but jason's right, the big conclusion on no -- i mean, collusion is a bad world. no coordination between the trump campaign and the russians. that is a big deal, and it's got
to be faced. and there is, there are elements in the report that are very disturbing. basically -- and i'm sure president trump would not acknowledge this -- it confirms what was reported in "the new york times," my newspaper, and "the wall street journal" in a very significant way. the question of bubbling here is, is this watergate, is this nixon. and the big, messing element in all of -- missing element in all of this is money. nixon used campaign money for the watergate operation, espionage and sabotage. he used campaign money to pay for the silence of the people involved in watergate. clear obstruction. in this case up no money -- you have no money paid by trump or his associates. you know who paid for the russian meddling in our
election? vladimir putin. chris: i want to ask you one quick question, and i don't mean in any way to compare this to watergate. there were, obviously, a lot more serious crimes that nixon and the committee to reelect were involved in than anybody in the trump campaign did. but i was looking back at the june 23rd smoking gun tape in which the president says to h.r. haldeman, then his chief of staff, instruct the cia to tell the fbi to lay off the watergate investigation because it's a national security matter. and that wasn't the real reason, it was because it was the, obviously, going to incriminate people in the campaign. is that so different from donald trump telling -- i'm not talking about the underlying crime -- telling don mcgahn or corey lewandowski, end the special counsel investigation in. >> okay. if you go back to that june 23rd tape in the nixon case, that's six days after the watergate burglary. and what haldeman, who was nixon's chief of staff, says to
the president we're worried about the fbi because they're tracing the money. the money is the key to watergate. i'll repeat. in this case there's no money transferred. does that mean there isn't much to investigate? indeed, there is, and i hope -- i know people in my business are going to be aggressively looking for new information. clearly, the democrats in the house -- chris: i want to bring in gillian, but i would say somebody there was, as i remember, who said to you follow the money. >> well, that was in the movie version. [laughter] chris: all right. let me go to you, gillian. what about attorney general barr? one of the things that strikes me reading the mueller report is that he, in effect, says, look, there are a lot of reasons -- one of which is the olc, the legal ruling of the justice department, you can't indict a sitting president. i'm going to ship this over to congress. what do you think of the fact
that william barr said, no, no, i'm going to make a judgment and clear the president? >> well, it's within his prerogative as the attorney general to make a conclusion. mueller doesn't get to decide whether the attorney general gets to make the conclusion, and he did. i will say that the bigger problem attorney general bill barr has is that he's the messenger here, and everybody knows what happens to the messenger. i think in this instance he was the first person that got their voice heard by the american people after the report and the investigation were finalized. he was the first person to see the report, the first person to comment on it publicly after reading it. in this instance, the democrats obviously have disagreed with everything about how he's handled this from what he said to how he said it, to the order in which he said it. i think democrats here are shooting the messenger. chris: we have to take a break, but when we come back, joe biden is set to officially announce he's running for president this week. what does that mean for the rest of the 2020 field?
plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the russia investigation and the allegations of fbi misconduct? just go to facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday, and we may use your question on the air. ♪ ♪ was ahead of its time. still, we never stopped making it stronger. faster. smarter. because to be the best, is to never ever stop making it better. there's never been a better time to become part of the mercedes-benz family. visit the mercedes-benz spring event before april 30th for exceptional lease and financing offers on the 2019 c 300.
>> this should never happen to the another president again. this hoax. this should never happen to another president again. chris: president trump kicking off what may be the next chapter of the russia probe, looking into why the fbi launched the investigation. we're back now with the panel. well, mr. woodward, more than two years ago back in january of 2017 when the steele dossier first surfaced, i remember your saying right here on this show that it is a, quote, garbage
document. do you feel that the mueller report basically discredited it, and to what degree do you think it played a role in the russia investigation? >> well, that's what's going to be investigated by lots of people including the attorney general and including senator lindsey graham. chris: and the inspector general is also doing it. >> yes. and it should be. what i found out recently which was really quite surprising, the dossier which really has got a lot of garbage in it, and mueller found that to be the case, early in building the intelligence community assessment on russian interference in an early draft they actually put the dossier on page 2 in kind of a breakout box. i think it was the cia pushing this. real intelligence experts looked
at this and said, no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage, and they took it out. but in this process the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments as mueller also found out is highly questionable. needs to be investigated. chris: we have to -- let me, i just want to pick up. we want do and you for questions for the panel, and on this issue of the mueller report and the weapon is siss of it, we got this on twitter from leo terry. how quickly do you think bill barr will start going after those who weaponized the department of justice and fbi against trump and his campaign? gillian, how do you answer leo, and to what degree do you think the whole russia investigation was, if not started by, fueled by a disinformation campaign either from the russians or from the clinton campaign? >> i think we're getting out ahead of our skis if we assume that barr's going to go after
anybody. what he said during his remarks is that he's going to look at the sum total of what all the various ongoing investigations have found and then make a determination of whether this needs to be investigated. but i will say the steele dossier's origins and all of that, it sort of pales in comparison to the real hard information that mueller confirmed which is there might not be an indictment of president trump in this report, but there is certainly a scathing indictment of social media companies. we learned he confirmed 126 million people on facebook, 2 million people on twitter exposed unknowingly to russian propaganda that may or may not have influenced the way they wanted to vote. i didn't hear chairman schiff talk about that on your show, he's the chairman of the intelligence committee. that's where the focus should be going forward. chris: all right. in the time we have left, we're going to talk some 2020 democratic presidential politics, because it appears that crowe biden -- who, according to the polls the is the front-runner -- is finally
expected to enter the race this week, perhaps wednesday, in charlottesville, virginia, which, of course, was the site of that terrible white supremacist rally back in 2017. here biden this past week at a rally for striking grocery workers. >> wall street, bankers and ceos did not build america. you built america. we built america. ordinary, middle class people built america. [cheers and applause] chris: how steep a climb does biden face, one, because of his age and, two, because he seems to be a relative moderate in a field that's moving further to t the length? >> two points. russia is actively interfering -- chris: okay, we know that. >> we need to take step toss stop that, not focus blame on each other. on biden, eight years ago today on easter my cell phone rang, jane, it's oh joe, are you okay? why was he calling me?
my husband had died a few weeks ago, and he wanted to check up on me. that's who joe biden is. a thoroughly decent, thoughtful, caring man. is he too old? well, hope not. should he be elected? let's see how the campaign plays out. in political terms, there are years between now and 2020. should he enter the race? absolutely. is this a place for moderates? you bet. there are 30 new moderates who are democrats in the dem -- in the house of representatives. should the ticket reflect the diversity of america? i think so. but i think my view is that joe biden should run, he has a lot to offer, and he's one of the nicest people on the planet. [laughter] chris: jason -- [laughter] how do you handicap this race? and what do you think are the chances that joe biden, when's the front-runner getting in, will remain the front-runner? >> right. and that initial point is worth making there. back in the 2016 cycle we were
probably talking about at this point jeb bush and marco rubio being the strongest candidates, and we saw how that turned out. i think that the democrats have to decide whether they want a politically correct ticket or a ticket that can compete in the states that they need in 2020. joe biden, obviously, is someone who could compete in the upper midwest and states like that, and they're going to have to decide if they can put aside the fact that he is a white male and that they want more diversity on their ticket. so that's the dilemma they have. they have a progressive wing that wants more women, wants more minorities. and i will say on the minority front, i think joe biden would bring a lot of goodlille from black -- goodwill from black americans because of his affiliation with barack obama for eight years. chris: on the other hand, barack obama -- and it's understandable is noticeably silent. he has done nothing to push his candidacy. >> true. and he probably has said to himself i'm going to stay neutral during this primary
process. chris: i have a feeling we'll discuss the democratic race often. thank you, panel. thank you all for coming in on easter. see you next sunday. up next, our power player of the week. the botus, yes, botus, who made a quite a splash when he arrived in the washington and continues to have quite a following. ♪ ♪ to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪ i live to fight. [hissing] and i fight to live. [hissing] i went to 45 doctors
before one finally referred me to a ph specialist. rtension or ph. a disease often misdiagnosed as asthma. ♪ learn more about ph, before it's too late. [shattering] yeah, i thought doing some hibachi grilling would help take my mind off it all. maybe you could relieve some stress by calling geico for help with our homeowners insurance. geico helps with homeowners insurance? they sure do. and they could save us a bundle of money too. i'm calling geico right now. cell phone? it's ringing. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and condo insurance. every day, visionaries are creating the future. ♪
so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. ♪ the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ because the future only happens with people who really know how to deliver it. because the future only happens with people on a john deere x300 series mower. because seasons change but true character doesn't. wow, you've outdone yourself this time.
hey, what're neighbors for? it's beautiful. run with us. search "john deere x300" for more. chris: finally this waster weekend, hee the show when vice president pence and his family arrived in washington. in two years later, he's still helping the second family teach children about civics and history. here's our power player of the ll sit and hold a pose and wait until you get a lot of shots. i mean, it's really adorable. he's kind of a people madonna. chris: karen pence is talking about the pet bunny, the main character in a children's book she and her charlotte have
written. but before we get to the book, there's marlon's story. charlotte was working on a college film projecting and needed a bunny. >> i asked the owner how much for the bunny, and they said to make him an offer. and so it became this godfather joke with my friends. chris: he'ses capes from his cage. >> he's kind of a metaphor, he's very deep. chris: in 2017 when the family moved to washington, photographers spotted marlon being carried off air force two. >> for some reason, it became this phenomenon, you know, that, oh, my gosh, the pences have a bunny. and so charlotte thought it'd be a lot of fun to start marlon's own instagram account. chris: marlon made his first official appearance at an event honoring military families and cleary upstaged the vice president. >> you know who this is, don't you? whisper it, whisper it.
marlon, yes. marlon, this is chris wallace -- [laughter] mr. chris wallace. this is the botus. chris: that stands for bun nebraska of the united states. my family has had a bunch of bunnies, and none of them were as well behaved -- >> he's good. he likes the spotlight. chris: and so was born the idea for a book about marlon following grandpa, the vice president, around washington for a full day of meetings. mrs. pence, who's an accomplished artist, did the illustrations while charlotte wrote the story in verse. >> i live with my family here at the vice president's residence. chris: the pences are donating proceeds to chairly; charlotte to fight human trafficking, miss pence for art therapy. comedian john oliver came out with his own book, trolling the
vice president, with proceeds going to lgbt and aids groups. >> our story is about marlon bundo falling in love with another boy rabbit because he's gay -- >> on marlon's instagram, marlon actually said the only thing better than one bunny book that benefits charity, is two books. chris: while mother and daughter are clearly enjoying their lab ration. >> every time i see a picture of a kid reading the book, it makes my day. >> the binding says pence/pence. so it was really sweet. chris: this month the pence family released a new book called marlon bundo's day in the nation's capital. and that's it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next "fox news sunday." ♪ ♪
that's the bottom line. after nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election. but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans colluded in those efforts. paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. that was attorney general william barr ahead of the release of the redacted special counsel's report on russian interference into the 2016 presidential election. mr. barr outlined the fdi