tv The Story With Martha Mac Callum FOX News May 29, 2019 4:00pm-5:00pm PDT
ed henry tonight starts right now and chose a pretty good night guest host. >> ed: pretty rainy in new york but big news. bret, good to see you as always. after two years dozens of lawyers and fbi agents, 500 warrants, 2800 subpoenas and millions of your tax dollars, robert mueller emerged today to speak. >> it is important that the office's written works speak for itself. >> ed: so the report speaks for itself. but then he kept on speaking, seemingly setting up a impeachment bandwagon for democrats to hop on while in the same breath saying this about the russia investigation. >> we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. >> ed: good evening, irving. i'm ed henry in for martha mccallum. this is the story. mueller said every defendant is presumed innocent
referring to the russians accused of hacking. when it comes to the president being presumed innocent well, not so much. special counsel officially announced his resignation today. his parting words seem to be directed at democrats, essentially giving them the green light to go after the president. >> the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. >> ed: see what happened there once hailed a hero by the resist movement saint robert, perhaps. certain to deliver the goods. now mueller didn't seem to deliver. so he is trying to pass that baton to congress. conservative matt lewis tweeted today i respect mueller but i feel like we hired him to settle things to provide clarity and closure after two years i can't say he accomplished either goal. this feels deeply unsatisfying. seen this before? one-time fbi chief saintly image out to get the goods didn't quite deliver on expectations then makes a
hatch of an investigation. mueller's fbi chief james comey he had a big press conference of his own. hillary clinton may have violated on his server. decided on his own no reasonable prosecutor would have charged clinton and top aides. remember saint james? >> there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of their sensitive, highly classified information. if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. >> we are expressing to justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. >> it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. >> this investigation was done honestly, competently and independently. >> i want to thank the attorneys, the fbi agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair, and
independent manner. >> ed: honest, fair, independent. both men assured all of us of that point even though it was not exactly fair to hillary clinton to say she is not being charged but basically she may have broken the law. think of it this way after comey's mishand ling of the clinton probe he went on to investigate president trump. oversaw surveillance of trump advisors, spying as some have called it that's now under investigation, too. comey continues wrongdoing there but already admitted to leaking memos about his conversation with the president in order to trigger the naming of a special counsel. now, that special counsel he teed up is all but urging democrats to impeach the president by saying the president was not charged but maybe he broke the law. while the president's personal attorney has something to say about that rudy giuliani is standing by to react to that comey and the investigation of the investigators. and first democratic presidential candidate eric swalwell. what information did we learn today? >> we learned that any other
american would have been charged with a crime but the president was shielded by a department of justice policy that said a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. >> ed: hang on, robert mueller never used the word shielded that's your interpretation. >> well, he said if he didn't commit a crime i would say that he went on to say that the department of justice policy prohibits him from bringing charges. >> ed: which he said in his report which came out in mid april. my question is what's new? we knew that from robert mueller in april. >> well, actually, the attorney general said that that wasn't the case. the attorney general said that that did not factor in to special counsel mueller's decision to not charge the president with a crime. i think it's pretty clear now from the special counsel that that is probably the only reason he wasn't charged with a crime. >> ed: i will let the attorney general defend himself i'm sure the will have him back. it's on tape, he didn't say that the doj policy was not
a factor. the attorney general was saying in his private conversations with mueller, mueller never said but for that policy i would have indicted the president. so, are you misconstruing what mueller said? >> so my take away today is anyone other than the president would have been charged. the russians attacked us and that should concern as mueller said every american. i think that's, including the president who it has not concerned and who has not really acknowledged what the russians did. and then, as you pointed out, he copped it to congress. we now have a duty, i think, to take this to the next step. get the full mueller report have. don mcgahn and others testify. have special counsel raise his right hand and lay out for the american people. >> ed: what is the next step then? is the next step impeachment or something short of that? >> i think we are on the road to impeachment. there is no one who is going to question my vigor in holding the president accountability but i am the only presidential candidate
who actually would have to try the case on the judiciary committee. i want to make sure we get it right. to get the full mueller report. have the special counsel come in. have the witnesses testify. prepare for impeachment but recognize that this is an extreme remedy. we only get one shot at it and we don't want to do donald trump justice. we want to uphold the rule of law. >> ed: you say you want to get it right. let's look at one of your tweets today and say if you got it right. you were not exonerated saying to the president. the only reason you were not charged is because you are the president. if you are so innocent why hide the unredacted report and prevent testimony, #running scared? so i want to ask you first of all, when you say hide the unredacted report, that report, as you know, the unredacted report, is at the justice department. it's not being hidden, sir you and any member of congress can go there and most of you have not seen it? >> no, no, no, no. i cannot go there. no, it's there, yes. but i am not allowed to go and see it. that is the concern right now is that i and others can't go see it. i would love to see it, ed.
we should be able to see it. >> ed: the ranking members. key people who represent you in both parties can go there and see it? >> so, imagine that the issue that that sets up. if only adam schiff and devin nunes and jerry nadler and doug collins can go see it. four people on the house of representatives. what would happen if adam schiff said i am very concerned by what i saw but i can't tell you anything about. you should trust me we should move on impeachment. people would say that's crazy. how could you trust any member of congress without others. that's why it's a real problem. if the president was so innocent so cleared he would say i have nothing to hide. look at the report. >> ed: he says he has nothing to hide. >> he says that yeah. >> ed: where you say the president is preventing testimony. i assume you are referring to don mcgahn, his former white house counsel. he testified for what was it 29 hours before robert mueller? what number do you need before it's good enough? he didn't shield him. in fact the president said go cooperate. >> have you read his
testimony, to robert mueller? >> ed: sure. >> it's in the report. >> ed: excerpts. >> that's not how it works. we have a separate branch of government. >> ed: congress. >> are you saying grand jury information which the attorney general says would be be against the law? >> i'm saying just like watergate congress should see grand jury information. that happened after watergate. this seems to be a larger issue than watergate. this is a foreign adversary who attacked our democracy. i think you want to make sure checks and balances are preserved. >> ed: on that point he allowed don mcgahn i still want the substance for it to testify 2 hours. how can you credibly say the president doesn't want don mcgahn he has already testified 29 hours. >> he hasn't testified in the congress. that's not how it works. congress is separate. why wouldn't the president want him to come forward if he is so cleared? again, this isn't how innocent people act. innocent people say i didn't do anything wrong. can you spend all the time you want investigating me. >> ed: if you are going to do it that way wouldn't guilty people say don mcgahn
don't go cooperate with robert mueller? we're going to invoke executive privilege? instead he said turn over all the emails. he turned over 1 million pages of emails and go talk to him for 29 hours. >> he told don mcgahn to fire bob mueller that's in the report. that's something a guilty person would do, too. >> ed: robert mueller went on to say it's also unfair to accuse someone of a crime if he or she can't go to a court and get some sort of verdict. in this case the president can't go to trial. isn't he and you and other democrats continuing that? the president can't go to trial and clear might be false charges against an innocent man. >> i think we can fix that because mueller is saying because he can't charge him with a crime. he is prohibited from doing that applies to no other american, only the president. he can't talk and smear the president because he can't defend himself. mueller is actually being honorable here. if the president is so innocent, he would order today, the department of justice to lift that polbe indif
mueller has a case, he would bring it. but the president is n not innocent, so he is not going to do it. i promise as president day one i would order the attorney general to lift that protection so no future president is immunized that way. >> ed: congressman, appreciate you coming. >> in of course, thanks, ed. >> ed: also here tonight president trump's personal attorney rudy giuliani. you were laughing throughout his answers. >> that can't be a serious etic thing.or if the that's obviously going through an identity crisis. >> ed: tweeted he feels guilty he is a white male. >> even more confused about the case. the idea that attorney general of the united states can turn over information to them and not be in violation of the law is just a fiction that they are all presenting to the american people. they are lying to the american people. the attorney general has turned over 98% of the
obstruction, if not 99%. even mueller said today that their report has been largely or very largely seen. he knows -- i have read the report. you have read the report. the redactions are like this. maybe a third of them are footnotes. >> ed: they say there is underlying evidence that might give us a bigger window. >> first talking about reading the whole report. he has written it. if he has read the report he has read the whole report. redacted versions are 1% of the report, maybe half a percent because half of that percent are footnotes. second, mueller today just said what the report said. to make this into oh my god now we have not a single new fact. not a smoking gun. not even a single new nuances. it's the same old story. end result for a prosecutor, which obviously he was not very good at, is, number one, no collusion. well, immediately what that says to you is we just had two and a half years of two investigations entirely unfair, a waves taxpayer
money, and certainly justify as man defending himself. >> ed: let me get to and this a then we will get obstruction. on collusion and conspiracy. mueller said today he could not establish a conspiracy between the trump pain and the russians yard. beyond a reasonable doubt. doesn't that leave open it's not a conspiracy that there was contact and collusion. >> he actually said something stronger than that insignificant evidence. >> ed: insufficient. >> insufficient evidence means he can't meet the burden for an indictment. the burden for indictment is probable cause. it's not reasonable doubt. he can't get to the level of even making charge. do you know what that means every place else in america under american law unless you want to change it? it means you are not guilty. all prosecutors ever do is determine is there enough evidence to charge something? i never heard of exonerating someone. i never heard that word for a prosecutor. >> ed: now it's been flipped around. >> that's 2,000 years of fairness. we go back to the romans, the english, the americans.
this guy who wants to be president of the united states wants to flip all of that and what he wants to do is presume the president guilty. he has been saying the president is guilty for two or three years. what a phony. what do they want him there for? they want him there for a show. they want him there for being on, you know, daytime television, trying to become stars. he is hoping that he will be -- i'm the only democrat that's going to get a chance, maybe can i win the primary? what does that mean? i don't know how to say it he wouldn't win in no primary. he just doesn't have enough -- >> ed: he says democrats are on the road typically people. you have been in politics a long time. does it boomerang on the democrats? >> tell me what new fact was revealed today. >> ed: he asked him and he didn't name any. >> must still be swooning from identity crisis. there was no new fact. there was no tape. there was no piece of evidence. there was no witness. every witness that walked out on them.
the whole collusion investigation is probably become an investigation against them. because that collusion thing was manufactured. i know that. i spent the last six months investigating that. i think it's going to boomerang on them. >> ed: let's get to object destruction. because what democrats are say something that bob mueller, and he went on camera. i'm speculating. he went on camera and suggest you had at least, as you know that but for the department of justice policy, he might have indicted the president. >> he said two things. including in the report, separately. and they are trying to use that he said, number one, i cannot reach a conclusion that the president committed obstruction of justice but i can't exonerate him. conclusion obstruction of justice end of case. case over. you don't get to say the seconds one but i can't exonerate him. you are not suppose exonerate. that shouldn't be in your head. they like to distort the american constitution. this guy is not smart enough
to understand the difference and doesn't care. second, so we said on our analysis of the evidence gave us his opinion which is all he can give us. second thing he said was that the justice department policy. there was a justice department policy about collusion. >> was this a waste of two years? >> if you take that analysis that he can't indict, and he can't give an opinion, then the reality is we just wasted two years. he did give an opinion. and his opinion is no collusion, no obstruction, pal. you can twist it all the way you want. and they are going to keep doing it and it's going to backfire on you. now we should be paying more attention to how much corruption was involved in the original charge. >> ed: thanks, rudy giuliani. just turned 75. happy birthday. [laughter] >> ed: still ahead breaking news out of louisiana. new abortion measure has been passed. we will get to that one week after a meeting between the president and speaker pelosi crumbled. did robert mueller pour even
more gasoline on the fire? top white house official is next. >> i wish his family or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country. ♪ just listen. (vo) there's so much we want to show her. we needed a car that would last long enough to see it all. (avo) subaru outback. ninety eight percent are still on the road after 10 years. come on mom, let's go!
mmm, mmm, mmmmm. ball. ball. ball. awww, who's a good boy? it's me. me, me, me. yuck, that's gross. you got to get that under control. [ dogs howling ] seriously? embrace the mischief. say "get pets tickets" into your x1 voice remote to see it in theaters. >> i will tell you what, i have been watching her, i have been watching her for a long period of time. she is not the same person. she has lost it. >> ed: one week after a bitter war of words between president trump and nancy pelosi nothing is off the table including impeachment. >> everybody wants justi justic. everybody want the president held accountable in the most serious way. i'm talking on the democratic side that no one is above the law, especially
the president of the united states. >> ed: well, there is the speaker here now is deputy white house press secretary hogan gidley. >> thank you for having me on. >> ed: she left impeachment on the table she said. in her written statement she ran from impeachment and said we are going to keep investigating while eric swalwell on this program are on the road typically people. all kinds of other 2020 contenders say start the proceedings now. what's really going on in the democratic caucus? >> this is a three-ring circus and nancy pelosi is the ring master. what we saw today was the special counsel robert mueller walked to that microphone and say i completed the investigation. i closed down my office. and i closed this case. we are over and done with it. 2800 subpoenas. 500 witnesses. 500 warrants. 40 fbi agents. 19 attorneys. and a partridge in a pear tree and we are right where we started. no collusion. nouriel conspiracy. and the department of justice confirmed there is no obstruction.
nancy pelosi and the democrats want to continue down this road and it doesn't hurt donald trump because he is free and clear. it hurts the american people. they are the ones who need infrastructure. they are the ones who need a secure southern border. focused on. >> but then when nancy pelosi made that comment about investigating the president and the cover-up and all the likes, the president walked out of a meeting on infrastructure. now that you have democrats throwing more gasoline on the fire and saying not just a cover-up but alleging at least they might not be able to back it up. that they wanted to try to remove them from office. how does he work with nancy pelosi and the democrats? how do you do those things like immigration? >> listen, first of all, this is the russian collusion witch-hunt 2.0 first they accused him without evidence he obstructed. now nancy pelosi is saying is he literally involved in a cover-up without proof and
without evidence. not to mention the fact that the very thing she is talking about being covered up is open for everyone to see. it is a public document. so i have no idea what she is talking about. when given the choice she had two i words in that meeting she could focus on infrastructure and impeachment. it is very clear they are going down the road of impeachment. most americans don't want that. the president just wants to get about the business of making this country better and protecting the american people along the southern border, along so many other lines. democrats just don't want any part of it. we want to move forward. they don't. and that's a problem. >> ed: hogan you called it a three ring service on the democratic side. on your shift a shift in this investigation. look at what the president tweeted just last friday wasn't ancient is his i have i don't know why the radical democrats want bob mueller to testify when he just issued a 40-million-dollar report that states cloud and clear and for all to hear, no collusion no, obstruction. how do you object structure a no crime. dems are looking for trouble
and a do over. he said there mueller said no obstruction. then today your colleague, your boss, sarah sanders said different. the report was clear. there was no collusion, no conspiracy and the department of justice confirmed there was no obstruction. the point being that you may be shifting the goal post. the president just friday was saying bob mueller said no obstruction. now that it's a little more gray. you are now saying the attorney general said no obstruction. >> no, no. not at all. there is not an ounce of daylight between them. look, rudy turex touched on this before. prosecutors prosecute. they only prosecute if they have the evidence to do so. bob mueller, he could have recommended that there be indictments. he didn't. that means he didn't have a case against this president. so, we are clear. there is no collusion. there is no obstruction. it's a complete and total exoneration. that's words then when the report was released that's where we are today. >> ed: hogan gidley we had this conversation before and i suspect in the month ahead we will be having it again.
>> thank you very much. >> ed: the latest bombshell bernie sanders single payer healthcare plan that could have employers footing the bill and passing the tab on to you. karl rove and leslie marshall join me live next. >> under medicare for all, newark they are not going to be there to do it. i suppose if you want to make yourself look a little bit more beautiful and work on that nose or ears, they can do that. my insurance rates are probably gonna double. but dad, you've got allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. are you in good hands?
>> breaking news, state legislature passed a bill banning abortion. funs a fetal heart beat is detected usually around six weeks. pro-life democratic governor john bel edwards is expected to sign off saying in a statement moments ago quote as i prepare to sign this bill, i call on the overwhelming bipartisan
majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better louisiana. that cares for the least among us. an issue that will be in 2020. >> in 2014 the democratic governor abandoned it because he had to raise income taxes, had to raise payroll taxes. and the people of vermont didn't want their taxes to go up. >> that's not quite true. >> martha: and they abandoned -- >> -- politics which i know a little bit. >> ed: that was our very own martha mccallum democratic hopeful bernie sanders on how he plans to pay for medicare for all plan and whether it would include tax increases for employers. something the vermont senator finally seems to be fessing up to. watch. >> well, of course you cost youy americans a lot less than you would spend on average. what will probably end up looking like is a payroll tax on employers, an increase in income tax in a
progressive way for ordinary people with a significant deductible for low income people who pay nothing for it. upper income people will pay more. >> ed: no new taxes. senior advisor to george w. bush and leslie marshall a democratic strategist both, of course, fox news contributors. good to see you. >> good to be here. >> ed: karl, don't worry about it at all it will be on the employer's back they never pass that onto the consumers. >> never pass it on to consumers and take it out of the pockets of employees two myths. an expensive program if it were ever to pass. the committee for responsible federal budget estimates the cost is between 28 and 32 billion. very smart guy, i have known chuck say it cost 32 trillion and but save $2 trillion in medical costs by cutting reimbursements to healthcare providers by 40%. but $32 trillion over a decade is a lot of money. and it's going to require significant increases.
if you look at one of the bills -- the bill that has the support of a large number of house democrats sponsored by a member from washington state, it points towards very significant increases across the board in payroll tax and in income taxes and in corporate taxes. >> ed: leslie, let's give you crack on it. polled medicare for all. poll great for everyone polls well. when you start getting into the details it's a lot of money. >> at the end of the day i don't think people really want medicare for all. i wrote a piece for foxnews.com about how a government program, i think, or what most people want. if you look at medicare and the tway is right now. the government making medical decisions, my husband is a physician. you don't want medicare for all. and then you have to look at the money. i think i agree with karl on some of this and many voters do left and right. a lot of people like the idea of not paying but somebody is going to pay and its employers who are going to be paying that does trickle down to the employees. of course, it's popular left
or right. tax the rich. have the government give me free healthcare and senator sanders has been very gray with details on the plan but not how to pay for it. this isn't going to pay for it. and this is not going to. >> ed: the trump camp has been itching at the idea running socialism vs. free market. >> look, this is at the beginning of the conversation sounds great. first of all, it's not medicare. in fact, it wipes out medicare. all the savings that people have put n medicare payments over the years towards it and medicare tax towards their -- towards their time when they get to 65. it gets wind out. they get dumped into a new single payer healthcare plan. we have lines, we have rationing. we cut payments to healthcare providers. hospitals, doctors, nurses, healthcare professionals by 40% in order to bring it in to line with medicare. who thinks that a lot of these struggling rural hospitals. how many doctors are going to say you know what? i'm out of here. how many nurses are going to say i'm going to enter the field because i deserve to be paid 40% less. >> ed: this is an issue, everything is carl is
talking about the democrats did well in the midterms. yet they are not talking about it because they are on the road to impeachment. bad idea for democrats? >> yes. very bad idea for democrats. which is one of the reasons that house speaker is like let's take our time. let's take a breath. let's have a thorough investigation because speaker of the house, asked constitutional whether i oversight of the executive branch. they have to do it. they have to do their job. democrats, even though 72% favor impeachment, when you pick up 40 plus seats in the house democrats sit i like to call that a tsunami, but when the democrats did that in the midterm, people, you know, yes, people were hoping for an impeachment, but those swings voters, the people that aren't happy with the president right now and some republicans that say what's happened to my party? >> ed: they want to get something done. >> they want healthcare addressed and immigration addressed. some people want crime addressed. some people want climate change addressed there is a list. >> ed: let's talk to karl on that because pelosi is trying to walk this line. >> she can't walk this line.
harris poll 65% of americans don't want impeachment. majority of democrats do. significant majority of republicans and independents oppose impeachment. and, look, this is why -- they are going to have a disaster on their hands if they pursue impeachment. they will also have a disaster on their hands if they go for medicare for all. i have been looking at the polling. you tell people that what is going to happen that they lose all their private coverage. that their taxes are going to group and healthcare professionals paid less. it flips. they won in 2018 by saying they will take away your pre-existing conditions and republicans are going tore irresponsible with big changes in healthcare. democrats now are the people talking about taking away things and irresponsible big changes. everybody seems to be -- they think the healthcare system is broken but they like what they have got. >> ed: karl, leslie, thanks for coming. >> in thanks for having us. >> ed: still ahead on "the story." democrats talking impeachment? get over it. breaking news on the chinese national who breached
security at mar-a-lago. ♪ ♪ ♪ be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks.
humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.
it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now during our memorial day sale. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to hit the ground running. only at a sleep number store. don't miss the final days to save $1000 on the new queen sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, now only $1,799. ends sunday. sleep number. proven, quality sleep. featuring three new dishes that are planked-to-perfection. feast on new cedar-plank lobster & shrimp. or new colossal shrimp & salmon with a citrusy drizzle. tender, smoky, and together on one plank... ...but not for long- so hurry in! calyou're gonna love this.rs. new coppertone sport clear. not thick, not hot, not messy, just clear, cool, protected.
coppertone sport clear. proven to protect. >> new security concerns president's home away from the white house. after a college freshman admitted to sneaking into the president mar-a-lago resort while he was there the teen is now apologizing but some are calling his punishment a slap on the wrist. trace gallagher has the scoop tonight. trace, good to see you. >> good to see you, ed. the incident happened after thanksgiving which is four months before a chinese woman carrying all kinds of electronic equipment was arrested for lying to get into mar-a-lago this time around freshman mark was visiting grandparents in palm beach. the grandparents belongs to a tennis club that shares a beach with mar-a-lago. he says he walked down the beach. spotted the president's resort and went into a tunnel that leads to the resort. he then joined some members who were waiting in line to go through a metal detector. the 18-year-old says the
secret service scanned him and waived him in. he spent the next 20 minutes wandering the grounds, taking pictures on his cell phone. before he was finally confronted. this week a very apologetic man told the judge he just wanted to see how far he could get and had no evil intentions. again, it brings into question the secret service's ability to protect the president when he is staying at mar-a-lago. government officials have already acknowledged the secret service does not decide who comes in to the resort. although agents do conduct surveillance and physical screening. in march, 33-year-old zhang was arrested at mar-a-lago for claiming that she was attending a nonexistent event. she was comparing computer malware along with an electronic device that detects hidden cameras. she also had electronics in her hotel room and she is still being held in jail. today she was given probation after a judge ruled his stunt was a youthful indiscretion. and breaking right now,
federal prosecutors have sent subpoenas to mar-a-lago seeking information about cindy yang. she is a south florida massage parlor owner who promoted events at mar-a-lago as a way to meet the president. the question is now whether she broke campaign finance laws by funneling money from china to the president's re-election campaign. the president is and his campaign are not target of this investigation. ed? >> ed: trace, thanks. liberal colleges meanwhile are offering a breeding ground of hostility when it comes to conservative voices on campus. have you seen some of these near riots, basically. my next guest says is he actually encouraged by the appetite for free speech among america's youth. after a recent speaking engagement at dartmouth college in new hampshire. here now live is robert charles, former assistant secretary of state under president george w. bush. he also scerved in the reagan and bush 41 white houses. good to see you. >> tell me what happened because you went to dartmouth thinking you were going to face hostility.
instead you now think it might be a glimmer of hope. >> i really do. what i encountered there were two surprises. one is that as a conservative i rolled out the reagan agenda. i rolled out some of my own views, pro-life and whatnot. i found there was an appetite for real conversation. instead of a default to emotion which is sort of standard way that people are reacting these days. so that was very encouraging. the second piece was conversations that occurred after, you know, the on-stage moments were actually very productive and suggested that there is really maybe chilled undercurrent in a lot of these places. one of the things i remind people and it's easy to forget people like ronald reagan ohio worked for as well as colin powell and others they don't take conversations, powell doesn't and reagan didn't, take conversations personally. the rejection of an argument doesn't mean it's the rejection of the person. and that's important. and the other part of it is they always began and ended with respect in conversations. and when you do that, what i
found is there is a willingness in a lot of these campuses, certainly on dartmouth's campus. >> last thing on this you say their self-conservatives are afraid to go on these campuses. you say there were good conversations. some liberals i like to hear different voices or mostly conservatives saying hey, i don't get out a lot because i'm worried but i want to get my voice heard? what did you hear from students? >> you know, i think it was a mix. what i found was that i have come to the probably wrong view, day-to-day reading headlines that people are impatient and won't listen. and what i found on the dartmouth campus was quite reassuring because it suggests to me that that critical element that preserves democracy, the respect for free speech for people to disagree with you actually can be found. i would like to hope that it will spread. it reminds me a lot that madison back in the constitutional convention when they were framing the first amendment, one of the things he noted was that no member ever criticize you
had another member for changing their mind. and if we can keep that in the fronts of our mind, maybe we have a chance to preserve this democracy. >> ed: about to send my son off to college in a short amount of time. you would hope these campuses are homes to free speech as they should be. robert, we appreciate you coming. >> in yes, sir. >> ed: all right. geraldo rivera says robert mueller put a fork in it. it's done. and democrats should, too. he is live next. ♪ ♪ liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ whoooo. did you know the exact same hotel room...
...can have many different prices? that's why tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the lowest price on the hotel you want. your perfect hotel room for the perfect price! (male announcer) for the love of mud, gravel, and trail dust. for the love of hunting, fishing, and working the land. introducing tracker off-road vehicles-- designed and built on american soil to kick up american soil. like the tracker 570 atv for the nationally advertised price of only $5799 plus freight. tracker off road. built for love of country.
♪ >> after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. we did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. the special counsel's office is part of the department of justice and by regulation, it was bound by that department's policy. charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. >> so, is this the end or just the beginning? clearly it depends on who you ask but a growing course of democrats and one lone republican, they are pushing impeachment as the next step. justin amash tweeting quote, ball is in our court, congress. here now geraldo rivera fox news correspondent at large. good to see you, sir.
part of it when you hear robert mueller say i couldn't indict him anyway, was this a waste of two years if he knew at the beginning i can't do anything about it. >> he should have told the president months and months ago that they weren't going to, you know, that they did not find any collusion. that's the key. see, i like robert mueller, i mean i certainly have always respected him. he has dignity and gravitas. and i respected the fact that his office didn't leak during this long for temperatured course. what he just described as a lawyer it is so offensive to me what he has done is lower the burden of proof when you suspect a person has committed a crime and you take them to the grand jury what the grand jury finds is probable cause that a crime was committed. that's not what mueller just said. what mueller just said that there was a possible crime committed. so instead of probable cause
i have possible cause. maybe the president did something. for him to go on about that and to insert it in his prepared remarks as he did, i think was a cheap shot. i think it was very, very unfortunate. and i think that democrats that take encouragement from this that now let's proceed with impeachment, they overlook the central problem with that thesis. bill clinton lied under oath. perjury, he lost his law license. nixon lied covering up a burglary that was committed. what did trump do other than lose his temper about an unjust investigation he wasn't obstructing justice. he was obstructing injustice. there was no collusion. >> ed: has this been flipped on its head not innocent until proven guilty -- >> that's exactly right. when you see the tone, how is trump supposed to defend against that allegation that he possibly tried to
obstruct? you know what happens? i have known him for decades. what happened was he was fuming about this unfair investigation dadamnit i want ye that sob now looking back oh that was possibly obstruction of justice when he went to the white house counsel and said to fire the special counsel. oh, i mean, it is. >> ed: did he not fire him. >> he didn't fire him. he didn't. there was no there there. he never fired him. he fumed. the guy listened the way i vent at times with a contractor or somebody. oh, i'm going to -- and then nothing happens the next da day. >> ed: hillary clinton is not satisfied. she gave commencement in madison square garden this is what she said. >> what she have seen from the administration is a complete refusal to condemn a foreign power who attacked our democracy or to take even the most basic steps to
protect our voting systems for the future. >> ed: a lot of people forget that's where this all started about russia coming after us. >> that point is not a bad point. i would prefer enormously for the president of the united states to say to president putin, you know, i like you, we can get along. we have a world to mend,. >> ed: syria and other places. >> but you did something to my country that i can not -- my intelligence people tell me that you this, did you this, you tried and here's the proof, and here it is, vlad let me show you. but he didn't do that and the reason he didn't do it, i mean, i'm guessing, i haven't psycho analyzed the president of the united states. i think because he has been -- he gets so angry at the democrats for accusing him that his first instinctive move is to say oh, there was no interference with our elections. vladimir putin told me man to man, eye to eye so.
>> ed: he did sanction russ along with the intelligence community ultimately. i think that sometimes he causes some of his own grief. you know, he made it enormously more complicated than it should have. he should have condemned that more strongly. not that i'm giving advice to the president of the united states. i just think that this is a case where clearly he is the injured party. and the democrat activists who are reveling in this now, they have to understand that when the things cool down, an in the cool of introspection and retrospeculation, the democrat who is moving to get him out of office for what? what did he do? >> ed: you mentioned bill clinton and newt gingrich and other republicans went headlong into impeachment. and they now say they regret it. he pulled rank on them. what happens for nancy pelosi and the democrats? >> clinton was in a way the same track that the -- for the republicans as the democrats are now facing.
the republicans then had clinton by the short hairs but nobody cared. why? because what was he lying about? he was lying about having an affair. they all had affairs in those days and that was the original sin. he was lying to cover up an affair and they all recognized that they lied about their own affairs. >> ed: for trump? >> for trump there is no crime. what did trump do? he got angry over an unjust is presidency. damaged his reputation. you know, really, in many ways, weakened the presidency. gave him something that he thought about every single day. regardless of whether he is with kim or with putin. >> ed: you say put a fork in it. >> i think this thing is all over but the shouting and screaming and it will inneuro to the benefit of republicans come next election. >> ed: geraldo, thank you. more of "the story" next.
qualify to sell on our site. if it's been in a reported accident, we won't sell it. and at our state-of-the-art facilities our ase certified mechanics roll up their sleeves and get to it. inspecting, dialing-in, and fine tuning every single car inside and out, bringing all of it up to our high standards. by the time we're done, our cars are beyond "certified." they're carvana certified. so whether you have it delivered or pick it up, we do it all so you can rest easy. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. you can barely feel. noso let's promote ourke summer travel deal on choicehotels.com like this: surf's up. earn a fifty-dollar gift card when you stay just twice this summer. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new loaded fajitas. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. it's kind of unfair that safe drivers have to pay as much for insurance... as not safe drivers! ah! that was a stunt driver. that's why esurance has this drivesense® app. the safer you drive, the more you save. don't worry, i'm not using my phone and talking to a camera while driving... i'm being towed. by the way, i'm actually a safe driver. i'm just pretending to be a not safe driver. cool. bye dennis quaid! when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.
>> ed: that's the story on this wednesday. see you tomorrow at 7:00 when martha will be back. meantime tucker is up next. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight," at 11:00 a.m. eastern time this morning special counsel robert mueller made a rare public appearance reading from a prepared statement from behind a podium at the department of justice. mueller explained that he will not testify before congress, why? because he has got nothing more to say. it's all in that 300 page report which can you read online if you feel like it. so why bother giving the speech in the first place? well, robert mueller had a message he wanted to deliver. not a message for you or me or the rest of the audience at home but a message aimed at a very small group of elected officials in washington.