issues for the benefit and safety of the american people. by grandstanding and political sizing the investigation into russia's actions, james comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to negotiate with russia. james comey is ready to break his silence, seming an invitation to testify in open session before the senate intelligence committee at some point after memorial day. let's go now to riyadh, saudi arabia, where nbc's kristen welker is traveling with the president today. in a few minutes, president trump will officially be welcomed by the saudi royals. what will that look like? >> reporter: well, this is going to take place at the royal court palace. it will include the first lady and then a little bit later on the president will have a bilateral meeting with king salman. this is a day that's going to be filled with pomp and circumstance and the president will be meeting with saudi and arab leaders. his goal is to have a bit of a
reset, to send the message he's not anti-muslim, despite the kroefrsal comments he made on the campaign trail, despite his travel ban which bans people from predominantly muslim countries. he has a big ask as well. he wants this region to get more enganged in the fight against sis. he's being met with optimism, enthusiasm. they see him as someone who a counterpoint to former president obama. someone who will be tougher on iran. certainly, there's skepticism as well given some of his controversial comments. the president also hoping to turn the page on all of those controversies you just mentioned. >> the president is reportedly looking to reset relations with the muslim world in his saudi speech. how do you think he might do that? >> reporter: well, i think it's going to be a sweeping speech. i think you're going to hear him reach out to the muslim world, talk about the significance that this is his first step. that is by design. he wants to send a strong
he's going to have some international summits with foreign leaders. this is a foreign trip that has a high agenda. it's his first foreign trip so there's certainly a lot of pressure. he told reporters on air force one he didn't get a lot of sleep so we understand he's having a little down time before he restarts the day. >> it was a busy week. there were two key points that were dropped just before president trump left for saudi arabia. how is the white house reacting to these reports? is it going to affect the trip? >> reporter: it could affect the trip, no doubt about that. i think the president himself, his communication staff will continue to have to answer some very tough questions about those controversies that you laid out at the top of the show. late es controversies come on the heels of a number of controversies this past week, which stemmed from the president's controversial decision to fire fbi director james comey. i can tell you they're pushing
"morning joe" and "first look." what is the president trying to accomplish on this first stop of saudi arabia? >> can you look at it from a few different perspectives. there's the u.s./saudi relationship, what that entails, there's the broader gulf council, and then also the united states and islamic world. if you take a look at them from different layers, the first one is strengthening that bilateral relationship with saudi arabia. we expect the saudis to announce a potential arms deal, billions of dollars. strong economic prospects on the horizon between these two countries. more importantly, strengthening that relationship. with the broader gcc countries and countries of the gulf, look for them to discuss the issue of iran. that is something that is going to come up repeatedly. gulf countries are concerned about the rise of iran in yemen, activities in syria. they think iran is a destabilizing factor. they're trying to convince president trump to be more
engaged and have a robust prominence in the region. and finally, the most important meeting will be the summit with 37 heads of state from different muslim countries from around the world in which president trump will try to outline a strategy what he calls radical extremism. with the hopes of trying to get all those countries to play a bigger role in either creating, for example, a nato of sorts to fight in syria or to even combat terrorism in different forms, whether it's finance and funding or the spread of the ideology. he's got a very aggressive agenda. if he comes out there and checks the boxes on all of those and gets what he wants, it will be a successful trip. some are saying that will be a bit of a challenge. >> three key points to pay attention to here. the saudis are also expected to give president trump a royal welcome today. what can you tell us about that? >> if there's one thing saudis do well, it's pomp and circumstance. you've definitely seen that already with their arrival on the red carpet at the tarmac.
king salman went out to the airport himself to greet him at air force one. something he did not afford president obama when he arrived last year. this is a different tone. it's being cat gore ri ining cam as a reset. you see the military fly joefrs on the outside of the ritz carlton hotel, where the president is staying, a palatial hotel. they projected an image of donald trump and king salman on the outskirts of that hotel. they resident holding back on the pomp and circumstance to show they are welcoming him. the fact the saudi king was able to bring to the kingdom 37 heads of state, six heads of government, it shows you how much the saudis bent over backwards to make this a successful trip for president trump. they want him to feel like he's going to get a win. that's what they set out to do
by putting together this very busy schedule over the course of the next 24 hours or so. >> president trump will be making a speech tomorrow. what are you hearing about that and how much of a shift from his past rhetoric about islam is he actually expected to make? >> interesting. we'll see the kind of language he uses in that speech. keep in mind president trump as candidate trump really did not hold back his disdain for the religion, for islam, for muslims. in fact, he said all kinds of disparaging things people chash characterized outright -- he said -- he called for a complete ban of muslims coming into the united states. obviously, that was candidate trump. even as president, some people took offense with what they described as the muslim ban, that travel ban he tried to put in place. the speech this time around is
challenges the united states tries to define what if considers to be terrorism and radical extremism and what arab and muslim countries will be able to offer in terms of fighting that ideology. there's going to be a lot of sticking points. look for this to be at least a reset of some sorts on that particular issue. >> certainly a lot on the table. stay with me. i want to bring in steve clemons, msnbc contributor and editor-at-large with "atlantic" magazine and colonel jackson, msnbc analyst. this welcome is vastly different from the welcome president obama got when he visited in april of 2016 when he was treated by the governor of riyadh. why do the saudis like trump better? did the air strike in syria possibly put president trump over the top? >> i think you nailed it. i think right now the saudis are trying to push reset with this white house. i think ayman described it beautifully that the saudis have been frustrated with the tilt
president obama's white house gave to iran or how they saw the tilt in orchestrating, negotiating the iran deal. whether you support it or not, nonetheless, it gave iran a pathway the saudis have resented and they thought the focus of the white house were too focused on the persian side of the equation and not the sunni/muslim side of equation which saudis are the recognized leader. i think they're trying to push reset. they've had several good meetings. the foreign minister has had a number of meetings with jared kushner, others in the white house. they're trying to put that forward. they're also trying to say, you know, anything they can show that is different than president obama, that the trump white house is willing to jump into as well. have you two parties trying to redefine the relationship right now. >> cole kel nell jacobs, one thing ayman mentioned is this big formal announcement. it's a $100 billion arms deal with saudi arabia. how will that affect the balance
balance of power in a positive way. not only ships but helicopters, cruise missiles and other munitions. not all will be delivered right away. over the long haul it will be a positive influence on our capability to control the region. >> steve, you mentioned this earlier, that the arms deal seems to have been hammered out by jared kushner who "the times" reports personally negotiated prices with lockheed martin. does that seem unusual? is he shaping the middle east here? >> he has a role. we don't know all the details. there's a lot of details i'm waiting to see. i'm waiting to see the offset arrangements are. that's a technical term, when foreign nations are using their tax dollars to buy our foreign systems, we obligate technology transfer, which on occasion has affected the american jobs that will be touted as part of this arms deal. there's a net loss in some capacities on this offset arrangement that go back into these countries.
imagine if the things you bought every day earned you miles to get to the places you really want to go. with the united mileageplus explorer card, you'll get a free checked bag, 2 united club passes... priority boarding... and 50,000 bonus miles. everything you need for an unforgettable vacation. the united mileageplus explorer card. imagine where it will take you. before fibromyalgia, i was a doer. i was active. then the chronic, widespread pain drained my energy. my doctor said moving more helps ease fibromyalgia pain. she also prescribed lyrica. fibromyalgia is thought to be the result of overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. woman: for some, lyrica can significantly relieve fibromyalgia pain and improve function, so i feel better. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression,
or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can be more active. ask your doctor about lyrica.
moments from now we are expecting the official saudi welcoming ceremony for president trump to begin. this is a live picture around the saudi palace where that ceremony will be taking place. that was president trump arriving, the royal welcome. it's an attempted to turn the page between saudis and u.s. after relations faltered under the obama administration. joining me is executive director of the arabia foundation, author of a new op-ed in "the new york times" headlined what saudi arabia needs to hear from trump. great to have you here this morning. >> thank you. >> in your op-ed you say, the saudis will be listening intently this weekend for even more reassurance from mr. trump that the iran page has truly been turned and it's back on track. is that the main goal for saudi arabia, gaining assurances from trump on iran?
>> i think so. it's also the saudi government appreciates the symbolism of the visit. the fact president trump is coming there as his first visit abroad. the message it all sends to the american heartland that saudi arabia is a very close ally of america. with all the confusion that came out in the rhetoric of the campaign, and also the confusion generally over the past 10, 15 years since 9/11, i think the american public has been confused about saudi arabia's role. and having president trump, you know, had said a lot of negative things on the campaign. once he becomes president, deciding to come to saudi arabia as his first stop and reiterating the close relationship and for the american public to see the warmth that the president has received in saudi arabia, drives home the fact this is really a 75-year-old strategic relationship that has only grown stronger over the last 10, 15 years. military, security and intelligence. and i think that is being very
well received in saudi arabia. >> what messages are saudi leaders looking to hear from the president? >> i think a confirmation really of what the administration has expressed so far. so the administration has come around to the saudi view that iran is the major driver of insecurity in the region and, actually, is as dangerous as isis. and the administration has, in the person of their secretary of defense and national security advisers, have said that on numerous occasions. so, i think that appreciation of joint risk that we see coming from iran is very important. and we expect the president will be reiterating that. and the fact that the first line of defense really against terrorism starts with countries like saudi arabia that are on the front line of fighting terrorism.
saudi arabia is on the front line of fighting isis and is on the front line of fighting terrorism. the fact the president is coming there is a confirmation of that. >> and how will today's events be different from those that took place during former president obama's trips to saudi arabia? >> look, president obama, the problem with president obama is people in saudi arabia felt president obama underestimated the risk that the iranian regime showed really, or the underlying risk of iranian in the middle east. they feel iranians have a dog and pony show. they have a foreign minister and president that speak nicely with moderation but the people who really run iran, the supreme leader and revolutionary guard are working on subversion, from syria to yemen. there's discomfort that sort of
narrative and pr the iranians were projecting in a way was balked by the obama white house. >> i'm going to bring in my colleague, ayman mohyeldin for a minute. >> if i can ask you specifically about what the saudis would like to see the united states play particularly in the yemen theater, would they like to see the united states get involved military in yemen? what would be on the top of the list from the saudi king's perspective on what the united states can do to curb what you're describing as iran's subversive actions in the region? >> don't think there's any expectation the united states will have any boots on the ground. its the question of increased intelligence sharing and more maybe vigorous role by the u.s. navy to interdict iranian arms being smuggled from iran to yemen. i think those are the two. obviously, the supply of arms the obama administration had put those particularly certain
ammunitions -- precision ammunition on hold. and the trump administration has released those. so, i think that is what we're looking for really. nothing more elaborate than that. >> we're going to come back with a ceremony as it's about to begin. right now, what trump supporters in north carolina have to say about the last two weeks, especially about the russia probe. here's some of what you'll hear later this hour. >> i think it's a witch hunt and i think there may have been communication with russia. that is totally different from collaborating with russia. and i mean, we need to communicate with the other countries. (dog) mmm. this new
beneful grain free is so healthy... oh! farm-raised chicken! that's good chicken. hm!? here come the accents. blueberries and pumpkin. wow. and spinach! that was my favorite bite so far. (avo) new beneful grain free. out with the grain, in with the farm-raised chicken. healthful. flavorful. beneful. nosy neighbor with a glad bag, full of trash. what happens next? nothing. only glad has febreze to neutralize odors for 5 days. guaranteed. even the most perceptive noses won't notice the trash. be happy. it's glad. just like the people every business is different. but every one of those businesses will need legal help as they age and grow. whether it be with customer contracts, agreements to lease a space or protecting your work. legalzoom's network of attorneys can help you, every step of the way.
so you can focus on what you do and we'll handle the legal stuff that comes up along the way. legalzoom. legal help is here. oscar mawe went back toig the drawing board... and the cutting board. we removed the added nitrates and nitrites, by-products, and artificial preservatives in all of our meat. every. single. one. why? for the love of hot dogs. nice man cave! nacho? [ train whistle blows ] what?! -stop it! -mm-hmm. we've been saving a lot of money ever since we switched to progressive. this bar is legit. and now we get an even bigger discount
from bundling home and auto. i can get used to this. it might take a minute. -swing and a miss! -slam dunk! touchdown! together: sports! as president trump represents the united states on the world stage, the two things he must accomplish on this trip. but what a powerful life lesson. and don't worry i have everything handled. i already spoke to our allstate agent, and i know that we have accident forgiveness.
which is so smart on your guy's part. like fact that they'll just... forgive you... four weeks without the car. okay. yep. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it. p3 planters nuts, jerky and whaseeds.at? i like a variety in my protein. totally, that's why i have this uh trail mix. wow minty. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet? introducing new depend silhouette active fit,
with a thin design for complete comfort. they say "move it or lose it" and at my age, i'm moving more than ever. because getting older is inevitable. but feeling older? that's something i control. get a free sample at depend.com. dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced, our senses awake, our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say: if you love something... set it free. see you around, giulia ♪
president arrived in saudi arabia with a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac. the saudi king greeted the president. within minutes there will be a bigger welcoming ceremony at the saudi palace. it's about 1:30 in the afternoon in riyadh. president trump is halfway through the first day of his first overseas trip, but the saudis are not done celebrating his afrrival yet. what can you tell us about mr. trump's day so far? >> reporter: of course, you saw the welcoming reception we had at the airport earlier this morning. you saw later this afternoon we'll have another such welcoming reception. he has other meetings on his schedule today. he's meeting with crown prince as well as deputy crown prince and then another banquet meeting with his wife melania. one of the bigger attractions is the speech tomorrow to the muslim world. it's notable considering trump's past comments. the way he campaigned for president, largely islam phobic
terms. a lot of his supporters during the campaign telling me that kind of rhetoric is what mobilized them to vote for trump in the first place. of course, you'll also remember one of the first major actions his administration took once coming into washington in office is that travel executive order which targeting freedom nantly muslim countries and the way they could enter the united states. of course, the white house is hoping to reset a little bit of those muslim relations with his speech tomorrow. one adviser calling this an historic opportunity and saying that it's a chance to bring people together in spite of petty differences. that's something we're looking at as we go forward on this saudi arabia leg. >> and we saw the red carpet come out when the president arrived. now we're going to go on to another ceremony. is this what president trump expected on his visit is or is this a little more than what he anticipated? >> reporter: i think this pomp and circumstance is always something trump will be happy about. even as a candidate he used talk
about his gold elevator he came down to announce his candidacy. today i watched him go up another gold elevator to meet the king. i think this kind of luxuriousness he sees in saudi arabia is something he really likes, it resonates with him. you see it in his properties, the way he's been seefd today. i think this is something that will jibe well with the president. >> thank you for your time. for more on the president's first overseas trip, let's bring in rick tyler, republican strategist and msnbc political analyst. rick, before we get to more on the trip, what did you make of all those domestic headlines from last night we reported on a short time ago? which one of them concerns you most? >> well, it was quite remarkable as the president's plane was taking off for riyadh, you had two breaking stories. i think the story, of course, that the president called comey a nut job was embarrassing, to
say the least, but certainly the story that was reported about one senior administration official, some were speculating jared kushner, is the target of an investigation of -- in this whole russian investigation. >> rick, the president's going to be out of the country now for nine days. how is this going to reverberate back at the white house? these are huge headlines. >> they are large headlines. part of this nine-day trip to four different countries, which was really billed as a religious freedom trip. he's going to many of the religious centers of the world, rome, riyadh, and it was designed to replace all of these headlines. we'll see if it can do that or generate more headlines or the domestic headlines at home subsume the trip. >> which headline do you think will actually damage the
president the most? >> well, he'd certainly like to get this russian investigation behind him. in some ways the special counsel being appointed will settle things down a little bit. you notice nancy pelosi even yesterday was asking the democrats who may be overplaying their hand to tone it down a little bit and curb their enthusiasm. a special counsel is really problematic for the president. they have unilateral authority. they can't -- it's very difficult to derail or to fire the investigator. mueller is a man of integrity. i'm sure donald trump would love to hear all the things that have been said about mueller over the past few days about him. but will not be. and so, you know, it's more of a longer story that's going to hang on for a long time. if nothing comes of it, of course, there will be embarrassment on the democratic side. but it's fraught with the
addition the investigation itself is fraught with danger for this administration. >> there are reports of leaks coming from the west wing. it's not just reports of leaks from the intelligence community. do you think these leaks inside the white house surprise you? some things we're finding out couldn't have come from anywhere else. >> no, these leaks are coming from very senior people in the white house. it's really unclear who it is. the fact that the president, you know, had called former director a nut job to the russians, of all people, that could only have come from a senior-level source. and so, he's got a real problem with leaks. and the problem with leaks, leaks come for, you know, many different reasons. sometimes staffers love to see the stories they generate. other times it's sabotage that may be happening in this case. sometimes it's just to get the president's attention. >> overnight it was reported that the russia investigation has reached a current senior level white house official.
how significant is that and what are the immediate ramifications? >> well, i think it's very significant. any time you have a senior official under investigation, you had flynn originally, manafort is now under investigation. now there's a third person. some are speculating that it's his son-in-law, jared kushner. it could end up in nothing. but usually when people are targeted in an investigation, they have some clear and convincing evidence that there was some wrongdoing. so, we'll just have to see how it plays out. i take it this is an fbi investigation and not a special counsel investigation because i don't think even mueller could have gotten his investigation off the ground so quickly. but maybe i'm wrong about that. >> rick, sometimes trips for presidents overseas actually helps boost them when they come back. do you think this is actually going to help president trump or do you think it might actually do damage?
>> historically foreign trips do help presidents because you have -- you have an american president on the world stage, but it all depends on how they perform. donald trump is a brand manager. and the american brand, if you will, has really been damaged since he's been in the white house overseas. the american, as a brand name, if i can use that term, is seen with skepticism here in europe and throughout the world. but donald trump, you know, he does have the capacity. he could turn that around. if he acts presidential on this trip, and we can see some real progress with the saudis in tweeting isis, that would be one thing. with religious freedom in terms of meeting the pope, who he also was in an argument with, unbelievably, during the campaign. so, we'll see what he does. he just got started. he'll be in israel in a couple days. i'll be there as well so i'll keep track of how it's going.
>> an interesting nine days ahead. rick tyler, thank you for your time. >> yeah, absolutely. what trump supporters have to say about the past two weeks. msnbc spoke with several supporters in the state of north carolina. >> so, another thing i've heard from people, the second half of that, are people who do what we do, need to give him time. >> i personally think mainstream media is so critical of the man that he's not getting a fair deal. at the top of the hour, about a nut job. the new report about what president trump told the russians about firing former fbi director james comey. so if you need anything, text me. do you play? ♪ ♪ use the chase mobile app to send money in just a tap, to friends at more banks then ever before.
you got next? chase. helping you master what's now and what's next. adult 7+ promotes alertness and mental sharpness in dogs 7 and older. (ray) the difference has been incredible. she is much more aware. she wants to learn things. (vo) purina pro plan bright mind. nutrition that performs. bounty is more absorbent,mom" per roll so the roll can last 50% longer than the leading ordinary brand. so you get more "life" per roll. bounty, the quicker picker upper
i count on my dell small for tech advice. with one phone call, i get products that suit my needs and i get back to business. ♪ ♪ before you invest in a car, remember, it's not just the car you're investing in. subaru. kelley blue book's most trusted brand and, now, lowest 5-year cost to own. think about what you value most. subaru. you get to do the dishes.ed...
bring 'em on. dawn ultra has 3 times more grease-cleaning power. a drop of dawn and grease is gone.
break overnight. the president afshed in saudi arabia. we are now waiting in minutes a larger official welcoming ceremony at the saudi palace. so, what do voters have to say about the developments in the white house over the past two weeks? we sent msnbc's garrett to lincolnton, north carolina. >> what was it that attracted you to trump did the in the first place? >> i hated hillary. basically, my vote for trump was because i would not vote for hillary. >> what do you think of his performance so far? >> i think -- i think it's pretty -- it's decent, okay? i think he's trying to run the country like maybe he does his businesses. and as such, maybe, you know, he's not doing enough politic e
politicizing in d.c. and so forth and he's getting people dead set against him. but overall inc. he's doing an okay job. i think he's getting a bum rap. >> reporter: you don't think the media is giving him a fair take? >> i really don't. i really don't. >> reporter: how close have you been following this last week where it seems every day there's another big story, big leak about something russia or fbi-related? >> i mean, i've been following it. and i think, you know, there might be something to it. i think the russia thing there probably isn't anything to. >> reporter: last night the doj said they're going to appoint a special counsel to take over the russia investigation. >> right. >> reporter: what do you make of that? >> i think this is just part of the witch hunt. >> i think it's a witch hunt. i think there may have been communication with russia. that is totally different from collaborating with russia. i mean, we need to communicate with the other countries, but i do not think he is collaborating
with them against the country. i like president trump says he's going to drain the swamp. inc. there's a lot of corruption in washington and i would love to see that clear out. i think the people who are raising all this stink about him are the ones who are scared. they may be the slimy snakes that needs to be drained out. >> people in washington hate trump so much that they're willing to do anything to get him out. >> it may appear from certain per spepgss he's getting a raw deal but i think they're trying to hold him accountable. now i see him in action he seems more impulse sif than strategic and that concerns me. part of getting businesses back into our country also means we have to maintain foreign relations in a certain way because we're not just an island to ourselves. >> i think very with to give him the benefit of the doubt. he is the president. we have to hope he's going to do the best job for all of the american people, not just republicans.
>> reporter: how much attention are you paying to this week we've had in washington, d.c.? >> okay. i feel it is totally unfair. both sides need to come together and solve the problems of the country. >> the justice department appointed a special counsel to take over the russia investigation. what do you make of that? >> i think the liberals are so upset because they lost the election. liberals tend to it's their way or no way. i agree with the right to free speech, the right to protest, but when you disagree with something and you start wurning and looting and rioting, that's crossing a line. >> reporter: the president called the special counsel a witch hunt this morning. >> yes. how long have they been talking about the russian connection? there's some democrats on tv that there's no evidence and yet on the other hand if you look at hillary's e-mails, the meeting with bill clinton on the car
mack, but that's not being pursued sfloot other thing i've heard from people are the second half of that. we need to give him time. >> i personally think mainstream media is so critical of the man that he's not getting a fair deal. >> reporter: thank you very much. i won't take any of that mainstream media stuff too personally. president trump arriving in saudi arabia overnight. in minutes, we'll take you live to a welcoming ceremony at the saudi palace and talk about the expectations for his visit. and a speech he's going to give on islam. 12:30 eastern, catch premiere edition at "velshi & ruhle." what's that?
the president arrived about four hours ago in saudi arabia. he was greeted on the tarmac by king salman. and right now, you see his car, his motorcade at the royal court. it is at the saudi royal palace where he will have a welcoming ceremony hosted by king salman. and this is the second welcoming ceremony, but this is a bigger, official welcoming ceremony here at the saudi royal palace. and joining me again, steve clem yoens with "atlantic magazine," alisha habi, colonel jack jacobs, and msnbc's aman moyahidin. what are we looking at here? >> you are looking at the beast, which is the presidential motorcade, that cadillac there, very distinct, being escorted by
members of the cavalry, the royal cavalry, an onary guard part of the royal court of the kingdom of saudi arabia. so as the -- and you're seeing there, kenging salman as well a the crown pribs making their way out to the red carpet to welcome president trump as he gets out of the limousine. but essentially, you're seeing a ceremonial welcome by -- and i would say a very traditional welcome by the leadership of saudi arabia to president trump. they're not holding anything back with that escort, as well. there is a very underlying message being sent to president trump that this literally and symbolically is the red carpet being rolled out for president trump to welcome him to saudi arabia. and it tells you -- it says a lot about president trump and how the saudis are viewing this relationship and this stage of
the american saudi relationship. but it also says a lot of how they view the end of president obama and that administration. so the fact that they are rolling this out, i would say this is very rare for the saudis. this would be almost the equivalent of a state visit here in the united states when the white house throws out and rolls out the red carpet to heads of state. this is probably the closest thing saudis have to it. nothing is being held back in terms of the pomp and circumstance of it. so we'll see how this continues. but as you mentioned, this is one of many palaces that the saudi government has and certainly there was the official ceremony at the airport welcoming president trump. but this is the one that's going to be a little bit more significant because you'll see senior members of the royal family, you'll see senior members of the diplomatic core, i believe, there. we've caught a quick glimpse of jared and ivanka trump, as well. you'll see the upper etch losh of the senior saudi government, ministers and all of them will be involved in welcoming
president trump. >> and ali, if you could weigh in here, how is this going to play out? how do you think that saudi arabia is viewing president trump and what do you think he's expected to accomplish during his trip to saudi arabia? >> well, i think the fact that he has come and the way that he has come has his first visit is an accomplishment in itself. and that's been very much appreciated because he's sending a message. and saudi arabia is reciprocating that message with a very warm welcome that they're extending him. you know, a welcome, as aman said, extending to your closest friends and allies. so i think, you know, the pivot that president trump has accomplished in his rhetoric and the fact that he has come to saudi arabia shows that he understands that, you know, islam and his muslim allies are the first line of defense, really, against the fight -- in the fight against terrorism and the symbolism of this and the fact that the american public is going to be seeing this on
television and the saudi public, also, is positive all around. >> and, steve, i'm going to ask you, saudi arabia is really rolling out the welcome mat for president trump. how do you think the rest of the world is viewing him right now? >> well, i think the rest of the world is looking at the saudis trying to resecure itself as a important -- in an important leadership role in the middle east. i think many around the world saw a rising iran and a floundering saudi arabia that was unable to shape its environment and to really control what was unfolding in the middle east. it felt its relationship with the united states waning. and so in this sculpting of the theater of a very renewed and strong and vibrant u.s.-saudi relationship which now will be permanently defining for donald trump, this is the first nation that he has visited outside the united states, they're trying to serve each other at the top of
their game. and i think you're going to see a lot of countries kind of doubt this, but impressed, nonetheless. >> we're going to take a few seconds just to listen in to the ceremony. ♪ ♪ >> a man, if you could way in on this, just a few months ago, president trump was trying to issue a travel ban to seven predominantly muslim can countries. now saudi arabia was not one of those countries, but how does this play out now? because a warm welcome today from leaders is there, but does the general public share the same sentiment? >> well, i think the underlying message is that the saudi relationship wants to put the comments and perhaps some of the policies of candidate trump or policies that he advocated really on the back burner. they want to try to find the commonalities, the shared interests between the two countries at this stage. you know, keep in mind that
president trump s -- and, again, as a private citizen as well as a candidate, had some very harsh words about the saudi leadership, about the saudi government, really did not hold back his punches when he suggested that they were involved in all kinds of nefarious activities around the world. in addition to that, he nanded and said that he wanted to get saudi oil for free at the one point back in 2014 tweeting that out. so obviously those are not lost on the saudi government. they're aware of that, but they're also aware of the reality that that's what he said to get elected, those are the things that they perhaps felt resinate with an american electric tore wrat. but now that he's there, that's why these images are so important because saudi arabia sees itself as a protector or one of the leading countries involved in the promotion of islam around the world, they see themselves as the voice of perhaps one of the strongest voices of speaking out on behalf of the sunni muslim world. that may not necessarily be something other countries agree with, but that's certainly the
role that saudi arabia traditionally has as the host of two of the most holiest sites in islam. so it has some role and that's something that the saudi arabia government takes very profoundly as its responsibility in dealing with the united states. . you talked about the travel ban that was issued. obviously, that was a very controversial decision here in the united states, challenged and successfully challenged in the courts. but it did not play well overseas. a lot of countries felt that this was a ban and while it wasn't a ban on all muslim countries, it was ban only on muslims. it certainly affected muslims coming out of very volatile countries across the region and that's how it was played out and people took offense to it. but the saudi arabian government today is trying to rehit a reset button on a more strategically important relationship with the united states. the argument that gulf officials have been making is to try to win over the support of the trump administration by showing the trump administration how important saudi arabia and the gulf arab countries are to the
dastardly enemy, and anyone who questions that, is probably a tool of vladimir putin and therefore, a traitor to our country. one current member of the house intelligence committee put it this way. >> why were the russians in the white house? and i mean that seriously. they had just attacked our democracy. they are being there is exactly what we have all feared all along, is that donald trump would say something to them that is not really in line with u.s. policy. they are not our friends. we should share nothing more than pleasantries, certainly not national security secrets. >> tucker: congresswoman stephanie murphy, a democrat from florida, went a step further than this. she demanded the u.s. government stop speaking to russia at all in any way. "there is no such thing as appropriate contact with a hostile foreign government." no word on whether she applied that same standard to barack obama recent deal with communist cuba. nobody is arguing here, even a
trump administration, that rush is a close ally of ours about the putin government is rooting for america success. they're probably not. but when a country goes from being an afterthought, as russia was just recently, to the target of war drums, as it is now, it all changes in a single election cycle, as it has, it's fair to ask, what exactly is going on? almost certainly more than meets the eye, probably a lot more. if you live in washington, you know for a fact that there is a lot happening behind the scenes. the press out to be asking questions about this. but they haven't. instead, they've attacked anyone who does. not on this show. with those questions hanging in the air, we are joined by one of the very few people in the country who might credibly answer them. he is stephen cohen prayed for decades, he taught and researched russian politics at e joins us tonight. professor cohen, thanks a lot for coming on. to start with the first of these two stories, the president is accused of passing critical intelligence to the russians in a meeting at the white house.
>> i think two motives have driven this, i think i'm a false narrative against trump, that he is somehow a kremlin agent. two forces. one is the clinton wing of the democratic party, which doesn't want to admit she lost the election, wants to say, i, clinton won, but put in and stole it from me. then, maybe she wants to run again. i think that is the possibility. at the same time, there has long been in washington, a powerful, let's call it, the fourth branch of government. the intelligence services, who have opposed any cooperation with russia. remember, and 2016, president obama worked out a deal with russian president putin for military cooperation in syria. he said he was going to share intelligence with russia, just the way trump on the russians were supposed to do the other day. our department of defense, they wouldn't share intelligence. a few days later, they killed syrian soldiers, violating the agreement, and that was the end
financially, politically, or, ts catering to them? >> tucker: in other words, people are upset about russia, there must be something there because they are upset and therefore, we should be upset. mathematicians have finally found the perfect circle and it lies in nancy pelosi's logic. joe manchin joins us tonight. senator, thanks for coming on. you brought into this. what did you make -- first off, what are professor cohen just said. he believes that president trump's foreign policy objectives, syria for example, were thwarted by members of his administration, staff working in the agencies, who disagreed with him? >> i can go back, i was listening to the hole into for you had with him. he goes back basically, we shouldn't be talking to russians, other powers of the world. russia is the only country that can do any harm to the united states of america. it is foolish not to think that we should try to build a relationship with them. >> tucker: they are the only country that can do harm? >> they have basically the
missile capability to do harm to the united states. i have asked that question many times on armed services. which country is capable of doing harm to us? russia. not turning out, not north korea, as much as they are trying and want to. russia has the ability within nuclear weapons to do harm. so, you have to have the report. you have to have some type of communication. >> tucker: sure, but don't we also have common interests? >> most certainly. pushing the button on both sides. >> tucker: my question is -- look, i think there is probably a balanced view of russia, you recognize they are a threat militarily but they also can be an ally in the fight against terror, a massive energy producer, we could benefit from a relationship with them. when did we become so evil that talking to them is itself inactive -- >> tucker, i don't think tucker has ever been our ally. i don't think they have our best interest. basically, we know the hacking that has gone on, we know the intensity of the hacking this last election.
but there is no proof that anything changed. president trump won by 43% in west virginia. i can assure you, they couldn't have altered that outcome. >> tucker: you don't think the russians were involved in a boating in west virginia at all? >> i don't think wheat they were involved in the outcome. we have seen no proof that their intention to be involved to change the outcome of the election. with that being said, we know they have attempted more, dunmore, put more effort. the trolls and everything else that is going on, the hacking that is going on, all of these things, and basically, something that we should accept or allow whatsoever. >> tucker: as you know, since you live and work here, this is shoving down our government. i think the trump administration is partly to blame. i think his conduct is unflattering. basically, it has ground everything to a halt because of this russia question. i just wonder if voters are in favor of that. like your voters? today think this is more important on coal jobs? >> i don't like it is going to
get to a halt. if you want to see a halt, it was ground to a halt under the obama administration basically because of mitch having the power to grounded to a halt. two wrongs don't make a right. i'm the first to tell you that. i didn't like what happened the last eight years, the last four years that i was there. now, what is happening today. >> tucker: i for democrats of it they won't vote on fbi director. until we get an independent investigation of russia. >> first of all, i think it is important that we have a special prosecutor. some people don't believe that. i respect that. the bottom line is, we stop in government, give me a good sip, centrist, as far as an fbi director, doesn't have any political ties, we should vote for him. >> tucker: regardless. >> that's mine. i am doing my own thing, which i always am. >> tucker: i'm not saying that the russia question should be ignored. i don't know what is at the bottom of it. i don't think anybody else. i resent people pretending they do when they don't. let's look into it.
is it more important than the stated goals of the administration or the opioid crisis in your state? russia seems like the most important by far to the democrats right now. >> the report that came out this morning, today's a bad day. we have been hearing things hour upon hour. i am on the intelligence committee and i have said this. there are 19 people privilege to testify information at that level, supposedly, that is that. we are told early on if you discuss this, you can discuss it with her colleagues and no one else, staff, nobody. so, we don't talk about things, you're not supposed talk about things. if we do, will get thrown out the committee. if it's serious enough of what we were veal, then, could be federal charges. i take that very seriously. the president operates under a different set of rules than we do. >> tucker: executive branch employees, everything we are talking about now is the result of leaks presumably by people who work for donald trump, career employees i would bet,
who are leaking this stuff and basically making it impossible to govern. >> my recommendation would be this. i would like to visit all of our intel sites and to meet with all of our intel people, they are the rest of the world by the need to have some type of correlational relationship, a dialogue. the president need to patch this up. we have the best and we have people, basically our allies around the world, tucker, that have gone to battle with us, they have fought with us, they have died -- >> tucker: are you suggesting that trump is getting leaked on, basically -- you should create a personal relationship with people who work in the intelligence community. >> they are professionals. >> tucker: civilian control of government, they should do what he asks or leave, is another way it works? >> these are career professionals. >> tucker: shouldn't they be accountable?
>> they are accountable to the country. everybody who take that oath is accountable to the country. the country comes first. there is no person, the president, me or anybody else, the country comes first. >> tucker: of course. i'm dressing under my system, their bosses the guy who they elect. they have to obey him because he was elected by voters. they weren't. so, when they ignore him -- >> they are doing their job day in and day out. thank got for that. they are basically monitoring and talking with our other allies, gathering information that keeps america safe. >> tucker: the elected guy gets to set the policies. they don't. do they? >> he can set them. he can set the policies but they have to enforce it, they have to follow through. the end policy, i would think i'm of the policy would be the same. collect all the information, possible. prevented from doing us harm. who are our allies around the world? because people are trusted afraid we put people in harm's way?
what came out today put -- could put in all a lot of people in harm's way. we are concerned about that. >> tucker: senator, thanks. abu comey memo, could this just be the latest case of a lot of people in washington going too far too fast? brit hume here to tell us what we know and what we don't and what we can speculate about. plus, hillary clinton has launched a new political action committee. what happened to the clinton foundation, by the way? we will talk to the author of "clinton pac" just ahead. ♪ i accept i take easier trails than i used to. i even accept i have a higher risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. but no matter what path i take, i go for my best. so if there's something better than warfarin,
i'll go for that too. eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin, plus had less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis had both. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... ...and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i'm still going for my best. and for eliquis. ask your doctor about eliquis.
>> tucker: every day seems to bring a new story about brush our dreams call me or the president's ice cream preferences, and the press grabs every single one like it's the worst scandal since watergate. but if every single story as watergate but if any story as watergate? if so, what story is watergate. brit hume covered watergate and he joins us tonight. brit, i cannot resist replaying the piece of tape that we played in the previous segment, from earlier today on another network. there is a guy on there called carl higbie, a former seal, how to mount here before. he is trying to make the point to the panel that anonymous sources are not always right. we should be skeptical about that. here is how the anchor responded on that show. watch this. >> two former officials knowledgeable of the situation confirmed for cn on the main points of the story. two former officials, i'll tell you what, come on, name those people, then, we'll have something to talk about. >> one, we protect sources, two, sinatra cnn,
"the washington post," "new york times," "wall street journal," cnn, abc -- >> who are the sources? >> carl. >> who are the sources? >> they are hiding behind this anonymity. >> please! you are going to attack sources! >> you are saying mcmaster is lying? >> i'm not saying mcmaster is lying! >> that is his opinion. >> you cannot attack the stellar reporters on cnn! >> tucker: we don't know if she bit him in a commercial break which he was moving into that direction. [laughs] what struck me, whatever you think of carl higbie's views, he is raising the possibility that maybe there are questions raining. that is not acceptable. >> it is always legitimate to question anonymous sources. sometimes, we in journalism have to use them because there is no other way to get the information, and we depend on our own judgment and integrity as to how credible they are. we try if we are professional about it, to be careful that our own biases are not making us
likely to believe things that suit our preferences. but if you are an anchor and somebody is critical of the use of anonymous sources, it you don't start shouting and shaking your finger in the person's face. >> tucker: part of it is, she felt he was attacking their correspondents, but not just their correspondence, the idea that anybody would dare question the received wisdom at the moment, is that trump is a tool of putin, there is some horrifying buried treasure underneath all of us. questioning that is like a sin. i just wonder where the press all the way saturn became the group enforcing certainty, rather than asking questions. >> we are in the most poisonous media atmosphere i think that any president in my lifetime has ever experienced. this is way beyond what we saw, even with nixon, for much of the time, even though he was cordially hated on the left end and much of the media. certainly, george w. bush was detested by the media to a great
extent. but nothing like this. nothing like -- barack obama was hated on the right but not to this extent. this is beyond anything i have seen before. now, the problem for trump is, of course, he is unfamiliar with how to operate in this atmosphere. the people around him don't seem how to do it. the reagan people know they were in a hostile media atmosphere because he was so conservative. but they were seasoned that they knew how to compensate for it. it's not fair, it's not fair that trump should have to do that. but you do have to do it. as part of the skill of the presidency and part -- one of the tools you have to have. you have to know how to plan for that, you have to know how things will be received, which is why, if you are in the white house, and there is an investigation of someone close to you, as into the case of general flynn, it's a bad idea to say to the fbi director, even though you feel sympathy for the person under investigation, and even all you are really asking the fbi director is, can you --
can we see our way clear? the way it was quoted, see our way clear to end that? that is not in order to stop the investigation. and we now have sworn testimony since then from the deputy fbi director that there have been no effort to impede the investigation. so, it appears that comey heard this, responded noncommittally, and the investigation went forward. this was unwise of the president to do this, if, in fact, he did. but it's not the biggest thing that ever happened. it is not worthy of the all-day firestorm we have -- the all evening firestorm we have been living and now all evening on this. that we have been living through. it is just, we don't know enough about it, we don't have the actual memo, we don't have the full context, we don't know how comey took it except to say that we knew that he said basically he understood that flynn was a pretty good guy, left it at that. he didn't seem to be under a lot of pressure to end the
investigation. of course, there is a problem when you fire an fbi agent, you better prepare the way. it's a good idea to have a successor, appointee ready to go, someone everybody can trust. for two reasons. one, it's the right thing to do, take the focus off the departing person. and if the person is credible, the focus has become the confirmation of that person. this is clumsy. ham-handed. it's you have to be proved to me that it was corrupt. >> tucker: why humiliate people on the way out? almost always? >> is just bad judgment. >> tucker: brit hume, thank you for joining us. new york city counselor wants to create a new law targeting a trump golf course in an effort to make the president release his tax returns for the lawmaker rule be here to explain how the law will work, the next ♪
advanced intelligence... or breathtaking style... there's a c-class just for you. decisions, decisions, decisions. lease the c300 sedan for $399 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. time's up, insufficient we're on prenatal care.es. and administrative paperwork... your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you, too. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done.
have you ever stayed with choice hotels? like at a comfort inn? yep. free waffles, can't go wrong. i like it. promote that guy. get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed. when you book direct at choicehotels.com. book now.
that government can't pass laws to affect individuals, they have to affect behavior. you can't just to single out one person with a law. yet, that seems like exactly what you are doing. >> tucker, thinks of all, -- first of all, thanks for havinge show. show. i admired you for years, i missed you on "crossfire." >> tucker: [laughs] >> this bill is not just about president trump. this bill would pertain to anyone in the future who goes for a city concession contract, who emblazoned their name on the property, and is making money off of the city of new york, i sorta feel like this is not to minimize this important topic. i am like a lowly little city council member on the west side of manhattan at i feel like there is much bigger news today, would you have been talking about during your show. >> tucker: i used to live in new york. and that is why the story caught my attention. you preside over a city that
just decriminalized public urination. okay? and the effects are really obvious, at least where i was living in midtown. there's a lot going on a mat hat on, not all of it good. and you are taking your time to basically grandstand on the national stage because you don't like trump. it's okay if you don't like trump. i'm not mad about that. but how about filling some potholes and arresting some public urinate or is? >> [laughs] tucker, this is the first time i have heard a connection between public urination and president trump. >> tucker: it's your city. >> this is really about getting some transparency and accountability. do you think the president should release his tax returns? >> tucker: i don't know. i am not a city counselor for the city of new york. >> you don't know? you are a smart guy prayed >> tucker: welcome i am not trying to pass a law designed to force him to release his tax returns. you are. and i am merely saying, he ought to admit it's about trump, it's not about any of your other concession holders in
new york city. and b, is it right for government, is it not an abuse of government to craft a law for an individual? was a pretty basic tenant of the british law we inherited. >> first of all, if we did pass the council, which i hope it well, i'm sure our litigious presidents will litigate it. he hasn't really had much respect for the courts in the past, or jurists, or judges. who knows what he will say or will be done. the thing i find more offensive here than they will be city councilmember writing this legislation, is the fact that he is not being held accountable, he is not being transparent, the revelations today about the conversation with comey, michael flynn's connection to russia, all of these things should want us to know what the president's connection is to russia. >> tucker: hold on. wait a second. we have an entire congress to deal with this. we have a home media that hates trump that can work on this. you are supposed to be -- i am
like one guy in a sea of people who wake up every morning seeking to get -- i am merely saying -- i making a point. you have a very specific job, to help her in a city of help her in a city of 8 million people, some of them unruly. have you been to penn station recently? it's like a homeless shelter it. it's disgusting. you give the speeches, i just read one, you said, "trump is bad," and ignore the guy living under the atm machine, relieving himself next -- i'm serious. >> tucker. to be when i go there every week. penn station is yours and you are worried about trump tax returns? are you joking? a dead serious question. have you been to the men's room at penn station? >> i'm asking you a serious question. >> i am like former republican senator larry craig, i avoid men's rooms. for me, i am focused on all of the issues in my district. >> tucker: what? [laughs] >> i'm here to talk about trump
tax returns. >> tucker: people use the men's room in the train stations, and now you're complaining about tax returns? >> one last thing, we need an independent prosecutor. >> tucker: first, we need clean men's rooms at penn station you are the guy in charge of that. why don't you get on those bathrooms? >> tucker, we needed an independent counsel to look at what is going on. >> tucker: all right. we are out of time. thanks. i am sorry. the bathrooms are horrible they are, by the way. congress banned insider trading years ago but a top expert on d.c. corruption said lawmakers are still making millions within inside information. sounds like a crime. it's actually happening. up next, we will talk to the author peter schweitzer. tim allen had a new sitcom called "last man standing," pretty good ratings. abc canceled it anyway. did he do it for political reasons?
we have a panel on that i had. ♪ say no to this because of my bladder? thanks to tena... not anymore! only new tena intimates has pro-skin technology designed to quickly wick away moisture. to help maintain your skin's natural balance. it goes beyond triple protection from leaks, odor and moisture. so you can feel fresh and free to get as close as you want. only tena, lets you be you. ♪
hi, i'm frank. i take movantik for oic, opioid-induced constipation. had a bad back injury, my doctor prescribed opioids which helped with the chronic pain, but backed me up big-time. tried prunes, laxatives, still constipated... had to talk to my doctor. she said, "how long you been holding this in?" (laughs) that was my movantik moment. my doctor told me that movantik is specifically designed for oic and can help you go more often. don't take movantik if you have a bowel blockage or a history of them. movantik may cause serious side effects, including symptoms of opioid withdrawal, severe stomach pain and/or diarrhea, and tears in the stomach or intestine. tell your doctor about any side effects and about medicines you take. movantik may interact with them causing side effects. why hold it in? have your movantik moment. talk to your doctor about opioid-induced constipation. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
>> tucker: hillary clinton lost the presidency in part because of widespread popular disgust at the amount of money her family made from politics, hundreds of millions of dollars. the belief that she used her influence to cash in, which of course she did, repeatedly. now, hillary is creating a brand-new political action committee. peter schweizer watches this kind of stuff for a living. he's the president of the government accountability institute. he also wrote the books. 21 and a bunch of other books worth reading. he said the clinton business dealing are far from over, they are corrupt, by the way. while congress remains compromised, as well, thanks to a report of insider trading. peter schweizer joins us now to untangle this ugly web. so, peter, what is this new hillary clinton pack and how will she get rich from it? >> it's basically a basically a 5o1c4, which is a tax exempt organization, and it can take unlimited donations, those
can be secretive donations, and i think really come of this organization is going to serve two purposes. number one, the clintons have these people, guys like sid blumenthal, that need a place to hang their hat. an opportunity to do that, keep their network in place. number two, what is going to do is make them relevant in the democratic party. a lot of democrats want him to go away. the questions know if they can't be king, they want to be kingmakers. this organization will help them be a big player in the democratic party. >> tucker: you forget that the clintons are a sad version of the grateful dead. there's a whole bunch of camps, and the followers, and their kids community men? you are supporting a lot of people when you are a clinton. with the clinton foundation, there was speculation that it was going to go on to her failed to get elected. >> two things have happened. first, the cult clinton global initiative is gone, zip, it's g. this is something that happened in december, after she lost. essentially, interests and money dried up by the clinton foundation is not an much better shape. a lot of foreign governments
that gave the millions of dollars, the governor of australia for example has announced after the election if they are not giving them any more. the governor of norway has cut it back by some 87%. so, they'll continue to live a long but it's not going to have the $250 million budget door so that it has has had up until this point because it was a pay to play system. we know from the podesta emails, when the clintons to their own internal review of the clinton foundation, the fed is exactly what it was, that they were exchanging donations for favors. they can't really perform those favors anymore because they don't have any power or access to power. >> tucker: i'm confused. i thought the clinton foundation was its own good works and most of the children and the world would die work on for the clinton foundation. you are saying, the second is no longer have political power, people stop giving to this incredibly good institution? that is kind of weird. >> yeah, that's exactly right. i think they will have continued problems. my theory is, one of the reasons they talked about hillary running for mayor of new york or
chelsea running for congress is they need access to some formal power. they basically had it since 1992, if you don't count being governor of arkansas, they don't have access to power anymore. and there's not a lot of reason for people to get their money. >> tucker: i thought it was for the children. you know, silly me. political, what you are normally cited a positive way, did a pretty good piece, i thought, on the stock trading habits of a bunch of different members of congress. conclusively, as far as i could tell, show that they were trading against policy decisions they were making. still, even after your book. shoving how this is a long-standing and horrifying end of legal practice, they are still doing it. do you think that mr. true? >> yeah, that is exactly right. came out into out of 011, "60 minutes" that a whole floor outcome they passed the stock act, the problem is, tucker, the credibly hard to prove. also, you are relying on federal
officials and prosecutors to go after congress, which of course funds those very prosecutors. there is a very simple solution here, and that is the speaker of the house, paul ryan, the senate majority leader, can both decide that they are going to have new house rules and new senate rules that simply say that you cannot trade stock in a company that you have regulatory oversight on. if you are the senate armed services committee, you cannot buy defense stock, et cetera. they don't have to pass a law, they can pass house rules. if you violate those rules, you can be kicked off the committee. i think that would deter a lot of this behavior. >> tucker: it's just shocking that they don't have them already. there's a bunch of people named, i won't name them tonight. we've invited all of them on come i want to hear their side of it, but if you are buying ste company, touched by legislation you just wrote, i don't see how you can defend that. we'll find that out. peter schweizer, thank you for the ground breaking work you done on the subject. >> thank you, tucker.
we went up next, "saturday night live" having its most-watched season in decades. is that because comedy has gotten funnier? or because the political topics are more palatable to the audience? the panel discusses along with the fact that abc has canceled they hit new show that seems to be working. any other reasons they cancel it? up ahead. umped off a bridge, would you? you hungry? i'm okay right -- i'm... i'm becoming my, uh, mother. it's been hard, but some of the stuff he says is actually pretty helpful. pumpkin, bundling our home and auto insurance is a good deal! like buying in bulk! that's fun, right? progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, abreak through your allergies.? try new flonase sensimist allergy relief instead of allergy pills. it's more complete allergy relief
in a gentle mist experience you'll barely feel. using unique mistpro technology, new flonase sensimist delivers a gentle mist to help block six key inflammatory substances that cause your symptoms. most allergy pills only block one. and six is greater than one. new flonase sensimist changes everything. you're not taking these. hey, hey, hey! you're not taking those. whoa, whoa! you're not taking that. come with me.
you're not taking that. you're not taking that. you're not taking that. mom, i'm taking the subaru. don't be late. even when we're not there to keep them safe, our subaru outback will be. (vo) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.
russia. i thought, he is investigating russia, i don't like that, i should fire him. >> and you are just admitting that? >> uh-huh. >> obstruction of justice. >> sure, okay. >> did i get it? no, i didn't cover nothing matters. absolutely nothing matters anymore? >> tucker: ratings for stephen colbert's "late-night show" are up, to come unexpectedly. >> "the washington post" reporting that donald trump revealed highly classified information to the russian foreign minister and ambassador. the article can't describe in detail what was shared but one official said, this is code word information. you have to say things like "the package has been delivered." "the squirrel is in the basket." "the idiot is in the oval." donald trump, if you are watching, first of all, you're a
bad president, please resign. the second... >> tucker: the managing editor at olympic media, a contributor at "the hill." so, katie, it seems pretty obvious that the numbers are up for shows like this, which people who hate trump on transformation, is that different from wanting comedy? >> the problem of a lot of them are falling into is that they are putting their own personal politics before actual comedy. the way to joke about trump, there's a way to talk about hillary that everyone could find funny. and they are not doing that. they are just being partisan and angry. but they are also taking bucket loads of money, i'll lock trump. he is all the ratings up, and all ratings up, colbert ratings. and they were saying that they have some folk moral problem with taking this quote unquote blood money. and yet, why are they donating it? why are they giving it to the people that trump was apparently destroyed them. they are just taking it and saying that they are very upset. >> tucker: one thing to have
political views, it's another to give people money, okay? there is no chance. >> i would be happy to take it. >> tucker: it's interesting, trump said i will help your ratings, i don't think he meant it this way. this is all people who hate trump. >> oh, yeah. trump is raining gold. the ratings are up on these anti-trump shows because liberal snowflakes who still won't accept that trump is our president, by the way, need tv safe spaces, where they can hear their own opinions reflected back to them over and over again. stephen stephen colbert in part, he really panders to the lowest common denominator of trump paid for his show isn't really funny. you just sit there and slit slanders trump. it is just so political. >> tucker: but it works. it's like that. if it works, it is like the rat hitting the cocaine bar? every time you had it, you get something, why want you -- --dash go >> the effectiveness of this will wear off over time. you got to keep in mind,
colbert, he is not changing any mines. his audience, they are 100% left-wing. >> tucker: i don't think anyone's mind to change at all. okay. it's one thing -- they do what works, i get that, i wouldn't watch. but i don't begrudge them. it's when politics become such a part of the television programming that the other side is not allowed, i get nervous, and the question is, did that happen to tim allen? he is the famous actor, he's been around a long time, he had a show called "last man standing." it did well, apparently. if portrayed positively a character was a conservative christian. conservatives are upset because they said it got canceled because tim allen is a conservative. you think that is true? >> there is a 100,000 person petition to boycott abc going on right now. that is us down again and of itself. the fact that they said that they were replacing such a high rating show with more superhero shows, that with their excuse, and tim allen came out and said that he was blind sided ends donned by this cancellation of what would be the seventh seaso.
they are not doing a lot to make it seem like it wasn't political. >> tucker: nbc gave up its own "access hollywood" tape and leaked it and lied about it to "the washington post." they didn't get anything out of it they just wanted to hurt trump. these people will actually hurt themselves in order to hurt trump. >> it's shocking. it's disgusting that abc canceled the show but i guess it's not really surprising, considering that abc's entire lineup of shows right now just mocks conservative values in every single episode. it's just these executives, these tv executives. >> tucker: i wouldn't watch them for a second. thank you. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: we'll be right back back. ♪ ♪ but with my back pain i couldn't sleep or get up in time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid
plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. and now. i'm back! aleve pm for a better am.
there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. now i can start relaxing even before the vacation begins. your memorial day weekend is very important. that's why booking.com makes finding the right hotel for the right price easy. find great deals now at booking.com. booking.yeah!
amateur criminologists. remember that? the frenzy spun out of control. soon, liberals were not simply talking about a stolen election but about war, actual war. >> if russia is going toal keep attacking america, then america really should fight back. there is an entire buildingic in st. petersburg filled with a russian troll army creating thousands of tweets, memes, news sites comments and flat-out fake o stories designed not to take sides on any issue but just to get us fighting about it. hillary clinton spent overto a billion dollars on the campaign, and the russians beat her with 150 grand because they were able to turn facebook into fake book.bl >> tucker: so you are accusing a nuclear armed adversary of committing an act of war and you are doing it purely in order to gain an advantage in a domestic political dispute? no normal person would do that. it's too reckless and crazy.l
with the more than $100 million hillary clinton's familyo foundation took from uranium one board members? she was the secretary of state at the time. u maybe. just a guess. at some point, we will find out for sure. that's the upside of the hysteria over russiane. collusion. its unintended consequences will be fun to watch. because when you make up a fake scandal, you never really know where it's going to go. richard goodstein has seen a lot of fake scandals. he has been in d.c. a long time. he is a lawyer who has advised both of hillary clinton's presidential campaigns. he joins us tonight. >> great to be back. >> tucker: i was thinking you know, russia obviously is the greatest geostrategic threat in this country. i know that because i listen to the democrats, all my neighborst and i wonder if this has caused you to rethink the position democrats had for 70 years when the soviet union existed where they made excusesd for the soviet union and prevented missile defense from being built in this country. are you rethinking that? is anyone atoning for that? because i watched it, and that happened.
>> yeah, i don't think that's a fair characterization. i think what this uranium one scandal, pardon me if i put it like that, shows me that the u people pushing this feel like the noose of mueller is tightening. otherwise, no self-respecting person, based on the facts, not an ounce of uranium has been exported. >> tucker: untrue. >> the price has dropped by two thirds since this was passed. there's zero evidence, not withstanding the republicans controlled the house andnd senate and could have investigated fairly well, not one stitch of evidence that hillary clinton had anything to do with it, didn't even know about it, nor should she have. >> tucker: i agree with that last point. the republicans could have investigated and they didn't, and that's a fair question. it's hard to believe that you're going to defend that decision signing off on the uranium one deal as a policy matter. knowing what you know about russia, was it really a good idea for the obama administration and the secretary of state, hillary clinton, to approve a deal giving the russians control of 20% of our uranium supply? why was that in our interest? >> again, none of this will ever -- the nuclear regulatory commission keeps this from
being exported. >> tucker: that is absolutely false. you are wrong. >> where is the evidence on that? >> tucker: the nuclear regulatory commission hass conceded that that material has left wyoming, which is where the deposits are mostly in the united states, and left this country. i they have no export licensees as printed in the "new york times." that material has left. so, my question is, you know, first of all, who is surprised by that? the federal government, they can't keep track of anything? why was this a good idea? why did hillary's office and the obama administration sign off on giving the russians a fifth of our uranium? >> so, again, i will tell you i do not subscribe tom? your facts and the evidence i is that -- at our ports, one thing we monitor for is fissile nuclear material. >> tucker: it went through canada. you can read the "new york times" about it. why was it a good idea to allow, to sign off on this? >> again, as your audience should know, there were 9, 10 different federal agencies that all had to sign off. >> tucker: obama agencies. they all signed off. why? >> of course. they did it was noncontroversial.
>> tucker: that's not a good reason. why was it in america's interests to give a fifth of our uranium supply to the russians, which you are now arguing constitute the greatest threat we face. >> some has left the country. a fifth hasn't. >> tucker: they have control of it. why is that a good idea to give a hostile power 20% of our uranium supplies? it's insane. >> there is no shortage of uranium.o that's why the price has dropped. >> tucker: so it is a good idea? >> the price has dropped. why? because natural gas is so cheap that building nuclear power plants frankly doesn't make sense. >> tucker: that is not the concern. the concern is not that this uranium will go to build nuclear power plants.ken. the concern is it will be used for offensive weapons. that's the concern and the fact that a fair amount of it, according to the "new york times," has been exported off this continent. not just to canada but off this continent. but here's the point. you are not going to answer the question. i can't find a single person who will defend this as a decision made by hillary clinton and
barack obama and others in that administration. why would you do this? >> and i'm saying it wasn't a decision made by them. >> tucker: yes, it was.. >> it was made by people in w agencies that they ran. the fact is, again, there is zero evidence. this was raised a year ago, again. >> tucker: so they didn't know? how would hillary clinton not know if a russian company was getting 20% of our uranium supply. what was she doing? >> that is the central fact, conjured fact, that people who are promoting this story have to hold on to. that hillary either was derelict in her duty or knew. neither of which is the case. why should she have known? in the fact, the fact of the matter is, as this case -- the foreign law that deals withr approving or not approving the export of material, that's something that -- doesn't rise to the level of the secretary, her or eric holder or the president. >> tucker: what you said rises to the level of nonsense. o the guy who founded uranium one was a board member ond their family foundation board, gave over $100 million to the clinton family foundation. >> right. >> tucker: they just kind of didn't know.
i think it was over $150 million. frank weister. you just didn't notice that the company he founded is about to go through the regulatory approval process with the agency you run? >> the clinton foundation spent its money largely to tackle malaria, aids, childhoodap obesity, poverty and women empowerment. >> tucker: how is that going? have people gotten a lot thinner? >> millions of people have benefited from this. >> tucker: [laughs] >> go to africa. you can laugh here in northwest washington. go to africa. the fact of the matter is -- so that is a scam. if russians are underwriting that, we pulled one over on them. >> tucker: can i ask you a question? t my final question because sadly we are out of time. you are going to say with a straight face the guy who founded this country gave over $100 million to hillary's family foundation, that company needs approval from her agency, and yet she was somehow unaware of this?fa on a topic that's inherently important to american national security. >> my answer is people in the state department were under oath by the
republicans in the house and senate and two to one, there has been zero evidence to suggest it got to her attention. let alone -- she was one of 10. >> tucker: the fact that her husband was taking half a million dollars in speaking fees from the russians, that didn't come to her attention? >> either that or you haveol widespread examples. >> tucker: this is a tough one to defend. i will give you a-minus mostly for effort. thank you, richard, thank you. >> tucker: victor davis hanson is a fellow at the hoover institution. d professor emeritus at the university of california at fresno. one of the smartest people in the state of california. also author of "the second world wars." he joins us now. mr. hanson, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: i think we can both agree and any sober witness to this whole non-scandal over the past 11 months would also agree we haven't found collusion between the putin government and trump campaign. what have we learned from
this hysteria over russia? >> i think we spent 95% of our investigatory resources -- congressional, independent, media, political -- and we came up with nothing on the conclusion. -- collusion.hi 95% of the narrative whether it was the steele dossier which involved taking theel fifth amendment behind closed doors so that devin nunes' house intelligence committee or the unmasking and leaking in which one member, who was unmasking claims now that the numbers that were masked did not match the times that she did it, in the case of samantha power. now we have the uranium one deal. we have the podesta deal. so what we are seeing is the investigators are being the investigated and because there was never a collusion and the reason the trump administration begs the question, tucker, was this anger, hysteria? a, as you, i think rightly surmised, anger over the lost
election that was blown or b, an effort to overturn the election by impeaching or denigrating trump to such a degree to be ineffective or c, was it a preemptive active effort to disguise a lot of exposure in these scandals that we have talked about? your prior guest was sort of, with all due respect, absurd, his logic is sort of drunk driving is not a threat until you actually kill somebody in a car.ri drunk drivers pose no threat because they haven't killed anybody lately today. and we don't really have 20% of our own uranium.ay we only have about 5%. of that 5%, that's used to generate about 20% of our electricity. so we are dependent on a company that's now controlled by russian interests. we should ask your guest, does he really think that ifif bill clinton went to moscow he would get $500,000 today?es or does he think that the clinton foundation would receive a donation of $145 million today from russian interests? to me, that's absurd. the only reason they got that kind of money, because they had something to offer. that was to green light, as
you said, the authority of russian interests to gain control of uranium. they thought it was at least in their strategic interests. all part of the reset effort by the obama administration. >> tucker: i think it's a great question. richard goodstein has not made it out of our studio yet. i will put him on the screen and pose him the question do you think if he went to moscow today, he would be getting 500 grand for a speech? >> he is getting money like that all over the place, certainly well past the point that hillary was no longer a candidate. >> tucker: you really think when you have got a deal of this magnitude and importance going through and the former president, whosepo wife is one of the people signing off on the deal,l, gets half a million dollars for a speech, i think weeo both agree that's insane. the people who pay him ws expect nothing in return? >> was it insane when ronald reagan got $2 million from a japanese company? >> tucker: if he gave them
20% of our uranium supply. >> what you say is and i hate that fox is doing this, doesn't subscribe to the free market. >> tucker: no, i don't always subscribe to the free market, actually. i think there is such a thing as greed. not every manifestation of capitalism is morally right. some of them are disgusting. prostitution is wrong. that's the market. i'm against it. >> was reagan prosecuting himself? pointing to big dollar numbers of speeches by the president. >> tucker: do you think it's fair to put ronald reagan in the same category as clinton? >> no. reagan wasn't selling anything. he was out of office. the whole donation was designated that hillary clinton was secretary of state and likely be president of the united states. you can ask your guest this year, next year or the year after, the clinton foundation is going to get $145 million from russian interests. the answer is no. they had something to sell. that's what they sold. they don't have anything to sell.. so by their own calculation, they have no market value anymore. h
the market is adjusted. there is a market, but it's not -- there is a free market. but what he fails to point out, it's not a crony capitalism market thatre clinton indulges. now they are in the free market and there is no motive to deal with them, so they are not going to make any money. >> tucker: good point. professor hanson. we're out of time.he thank you for the market lesson. richard, i know you agree. >> absolutely. >> tucker: up next, the firman behind the infamous trump dossier is fighting to keep its records secret. why would they be doing that? what would those records reveal? in a minute, we will talk to a lawyer at the center of that case. stay tuned. t over the course of 9 days... steve chooses to walk 26.2 miles, that's a marathon. and he does it with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move.
don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow... ♪ when can we do this again, grandpa? well, how about tomorrow? ask your doctor about entresto and help make tomorrow possible.
>> tucker: remember the trump dossier, the mysterious, totally unverified document that was made public by buzzfeed?si it included both scandalous allegations about donald trump as well as claims that the web company webzilla was a front for russian hacking of the dnc. it was like a parody of a scoop. it was so juicy it had to be true. except it wasn't. since the dossier's release, webzilla and buzzfeed tre battling it out in court, fusion gps, the company that may have created the dossier is fighting efforts to open its books. this week, the company's executives pleaded the fifth f to congress. why would they do that? what could they be hiding? is there an innocent explanation? we have a founding member of a a boston law group representing webzilla in all of this. thanks for coming on tonight. so, this is one of those stories that central to the russia scandal and hysteria around it, maybe the most interesting thing we have
seen in the 11 months of all of this and yet undercoverred by the press. bring us up to date really quickly on where we stand now. you're representing a company libeled by the people who wrote this. this how does fusion g.p.s. play into it? >> fusion g.p.s. is the party that hired christopher steele, the british mss spy who wrote the dossier. it would be interesting to know who was fusion g.p.s. representing in this transaction. in other words, who hired fusion?ng who is fusion's client?? what was the underlying purpose of the work that fusion has done. and so we sent a subpoena ofof our own to fusion, which they are also trying to fight in court in washington. and i understand that their folks took the fifth which tells me you can't take the fifth unless you have air reasonable cause to believe that the evidence you would give would put you in harm's way.
so that you would actually be admitting to some kind of a crime and begs the question what is it that they think that they did wrong?ha >> tucker: maybe that they are protecting -- they may be protecting the person who paid them. now, i don't know the answer to who paid for this dossier. but i can tell you, which you may know already in washington, is universally believed to be a major republican donor, who was unhappy with trump. do you know, do you have any evidence as to who paid for this? >> we do not as of yet. we will -- we are looking for it. but, again, yes, they are clearly trying to protect the identity of their client. how is revealing that identity a crime, however? in other words, pleading the fifth doesn't just -- youri can't simply plead the fifth because you don't want to reveal some information. have you got to think that -- so i kind of view this as well, a neighborhood boy was hired to
throw a rock from your window and you now want to know who hired him and the bully doesn't want to tell you. that's kind of where i see fusion. >> tucker: whoever hired fusion gps to do this to hire steele and write this dossier did so in order to derail the trump campaign. would there be another reason you would do this? >> i don't see another reason, and certainly from my client's lawsuit, this would be actionable important evidence because it's up to us to prove, since we're the plaintiff, that the agencies -- the allegations are completely false. one way to prove it is to show that the entire motivation for that document was something nefarious. >> tucker: so i don't understand. this is probably a much longer conversation and we have only got a minute. if you are investigating the russian collusion story andnd you are a congressional committee, or you are robert mueller, wouldn't you want to know who paid for the dossier? wouldn't that be one of yourto first questions? >> well, of course. from that point of view, maybe the russians paid fusion and, if so, they
should admit to it and i suppose then fusion might have a problem with everything, including treason. >> tucker: that's a good point. we will find out who paid for that dossier. it's going to be fascinating. >> i'm working hard to find out. >> tucker: thank you, val,l, great to see you tonight. >> thank you. >> tucker: nancy pelosi led the democratic party to defeat after defeat after defeat. basically her full-time job. she says getting rid of her would be, of course, sexism. we'll talk with someone who agrees with that next.e,
in the modern world, it pays to switch things up. you can switch and save time. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. we're on a mission to show drip coffee drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew. that's it.
so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me? we see their hunger. their courage. we see their dreams. we see the things that built our nation. and we wonder, what would happen if everyone had equal access to education? what would they discover? what new worlds would they build? that's why we built a university for everyone. southern new hampshire university.
>> tucker: we reported on congresswoman maxine waters many times on this show. it's unbelievable she sits in congress still. t she is corrupt. she doesn't live in her own district. she once cheered on a race riot. because of this, she has become a hero on the left. she is called auntie maxine for her willingness to say anything once the camera goes on. for the record, she is too afraid to do this show. we asked her a number of times. now waters has graduated from impeachment fantasies to, it seems like, assassination fantasies. here she is at an event in new york october 13th of this year. watch. >> with this kind of inspiration, i will go and take trump out tonight. [cheers and applause] >> tucker: now, we have called and emailed maxine waters' staff for comment on this to see if they can provide additional context for the remark.me
maybe we are misinterpreting. we are always open to that possibility. they haven't responded. for some reason, most media aren't badgering waters to explain. we know this because waters was interviewed two hours ago by msnbc. he didn't even bring it up. imagine if this had beenen a year ago and a republican congressman said i look forward to taking out barack obama, how do you think that would have been treated? well, nancy pelosi has taken the democratic party to four straight defeats in u.s. house elections. she has played no small role in the party's defeat last november at the national level which, as you know, was shocking to them.. perhaps it's time shel stepped down and give another leader a shot. but no, pelosi said she has got to remain in office. she has to. not for any reason relating to political vision or acura -- acumen. pelosi deserves to stay inec charge, she says, because she is a woman. >> the president invited us to dinner and some of the cabinet members who were at the table.
i was the only woman at the table. and that's why i have to stay there to be the one of the top women -- top people at the table. >> tucker: cathy areu is the publisher of catalina magazine. she joins us tonight to explain what nancy pelosi meant.at thanks for come on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: she says you need me because i'm a woman.n. leaving aside the fact there are a lot of women to choose from. on the hill. why is her gender essential to the job. >> that's not the only reason. she has been in political power for 30 years now. she is a great leader. ore she is great at what sheor does. she is a wonderful role model for women. so she didn't exactly say that she can be the only woman at the table. but she happens to be thehe only woman at the table. >> tucker: she said that t it's important that i'm a woman. >> it's important there is a woman at the table. >> tucker: why is that important? >> because of thent demographics of this country. 51% of the country are women.. we should have the demographics of our politics look like our country.
>> tucker: no, that's not true. >> that's not true? >> tucker: according too modern progressive orthodoxy there are 63 different genders now. not just men and women. not binary, cathy. keeping up with this stuff. >> i'm sorry.us >> tucker: i think it's insane, of course. but you are required to believe it. if there are 63 separatete genders. >> then we should have them all at the table. we should have many genders at the table. w >> tucker: just same old man, woman, man woman. why shouldn't we give someom other gender. >> fabulous.wh we should start with having her at the table and let's invite the other genders at the table.e. let's keep nancy pelosi. she is smart. she is great at what she does. the players on her team want her to lead the team. they want her to be the captain. the dnc chair supports her. the chairman supports her. her caucus supports her. >> tucker: but in real life, look, she held her democrats together for the healthcare vote in the first obama term. that was impressive. i agree with that. >> very, very. republicans can't do that.t. >> tucker: you are right. she lost a historic number of
seats for doing that she did a good job there.e. she has had no victory since then. you know as well as i, i talked to a congressman about it today. she is not going to get to 218. if democrats win in the midterm, she is not going to i be reelected speaker because she has failed again and t again and again. >> everyone in d.c. knows that those losses cannot be blamed solely on nancy pelosi. >> tucker: not solely. >> so many other factors that play into that. >> tucker: okay. i mean, look, pulling the woman card is a little bitit weird to me since we live in a moment where we're told as a matter of official orthodoxy, my kids learn this in school, that you cand change your gender just by saying so. >> okay.ou >> tucker: so in a world where can you change your gender just by saying so, why is it important to be a specific gender? it's meaningless if you can change it just by saying so, isn't it? >> so then we should have a woman and all those other genders at the table.o >> tucker: why is it meaningful to be a woman if a woman can change into a man by snapping his or hero finger, which is what we are supposed to believe. >> if she leaves, then we have all the men back at the table and we are back 50 years. we need her there.
she is a step forward in the right direction. losing her is a step back. >> tucker: okay, try to put a finer point on this. what about being a woman or a man or a member of the other 61 genders makes you a different and better leader than if you weren't? what inherently about being a woman?? >> you have a different perspective. you have a different viewpoint. you see things differently. we need as many people to come to the table so we see things differently. that's what our country is made of. w we all just can't be the same white guys sitting around the table because we are afraid to invite anybody else to the table because men happen to be afraid of women in power.e i mean, that's a fact. >> tucker: democrats are? i live with four of them. i'm not afraid at all. >> no? >> tucker: i'm wondering though.. you are talking about democratso she is not elected by republicans. >> but the g.o.p. loves to take shots at her. >> tucker: the republicans doesn't like her. -- the public doesn't like her.
last question. she lives in one of the richest zip codes in the world. >> just like trump lived. >> tucker: that's fine. i'm not here to defend trump's zip code. i'm just asking, do you really think that nancy pelosi represents all women? >> well, absolutely. she is not bought and paid for by anyone.el >> tucker: your faith is childlike and impressive. media don't hate trump. they don't like or understand who voted for trump. that's the real story. up next, we will talk to the former head of npr who thought a lot about this and decided to spend a world outside of his world in red state, america. and came up with a very different view than he had going. it's a really interesting story. we will be right back. right as i was stepping into the tee box mentioned a tip a pro gave her. no. yep. did it help? it completely ruined my game. well, the truth is, that advice was never meant for you. i like you.
you want to show me your swing? it's too soon. get advice that's right for you. investment management services from td ameritrade.
quote: the media have been harder on trump than any other president certainly that i have known about. the big driver of that hostility could be an unprecedented divide between the american media and the country they write about.ca ken stern was ceo of npr "national public radio" and distinguished member of the liberal bubble himself. as a long-time democrat, he realized he didn't know that many conservativet republicans he did what no one ever does travel country to meet people who think different from them on their e own terms. he has a book out called "republican like me." how i left the liberal bubble and learned to love the right. ken stern joins us tonight. what does your family sayet when you say i want to get out there and meet people who vote differently. >> they thought i was crazy. i live on a nice democratic street in washington, d.c. and my house is 100% democrat. my wife and 10-year-old son was not -- were not too approving of this notion and i suspect my neighbors weren't either. i went out and reallyg saw a world i didn't know of. and it was remarkable experience. i learned tons about republicans, about the country as a whole.
and that's really the source of the book. >> tucker: we do segments all the time about the divideme and increasingly no one ever talks to anybody they disagree with. what were your first impressions about this new world? >> one of the impulses for the book was a notion that we have actually become much more geographically and culturally divided than ever before. 10 years ago, there were about 1,000 landslide counties. counties that one party won byby 25% or more. this time, 2500. increasingly dividing ourselves so one side doesn't know the other. i think going in, i had a typical democratic attitude g not very flattering towards republicans. i sat in churches. you sent me pig hunting in texas. >> tucker: that was my recommendation. recommendation. >> it was a great recommendation. >> tucker: meet any liberals pig hunting in texas? h >> maybe the pigs. but no one else. it was just a remarkable experience.
i met people who i never would have met otherwise. led remarkable lives. served their communities. who had deep thoughts about the way their communities and their governments should work. i learned a ton from them. that's really the experience. >> tucker: funny thing is you told me about this book a couple years ago. i thought it was a really cool idea. now it seems like a completely radical idea that no one would ever do. how do you think having done this and been in the media so long this divide effects the way that we cover news? it seems like most people who work are in the press are from one america but not the other. >> yeah. i think it's a fair criticism.m i think, so i was at npr for a long time. i still know that the people there try to tell a balanced story. but what i never gave credit for until this time is that they live inside a certain bubble. we all do. and it drives what stories are important and what source they look to. how they think about the story. and it's enormous challenge,e, i think for media.
because it means that they don't tell the story of half of the country. i think that's really what's missing from mainstream media. >> tucker: i think that's right. there is very little cultural diversity. i actually learned something as somebody who has spent his life hunting around guns. i didn't know how often guns were used defensively. >> yeah. >> tucker: by law abiding people in this country until i read it from you. >> it's an interesting thing.op all the issues i plunged into. climate change, poverty programs, and guns, i really learned a lot from people, from experts i wouldn't ordinarily talk to. i talked to john lott about guns and learned enormous amount about them. e gun homicides in this country have gone down by over half in the last 20ic years as the number of guns in this country have gone up. we spend time talking about gun control. we don't actually talk about the things that actually drove gun homicides down over the last 20 years. why don't we talk about that more? the interest of the story, i didn't even know the term
defensive gun use before this. and the department of justice ends indicates this happens 60,000 times a year. d florida state study says about a million times a year. >> tucker: but a lot. >> either way. high end, low end, it happens a lot. i actually found stories, i told one of them in the "new york post" this week about o how people use guns to protect themselves.ut it's an important part of the gun story.y. not spoken about very much. >> tucker: you wrote about a store clerk who repelled a a robber with gunfire. walks out, knocks the guy down with a bullet.re cigarette in his mouth andut says "castle doctrine," baby. >> modern day clinton -- clint eastwood. >> tucker: what a great book. good for you doing that i don't know anybody else who would do that in your world. thank you. >> thank you, tucker, for your help with the book. >> tucker: i love it. california is about to punish people more than using wrong pronoun than deliberately spreading disease. are you woke enough? that's the next segment. stay tuned. eryone's got to list.
when it comes to reducing the sugar in your family's diet coke, dr. pepper, and pepsi hear you and we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels, and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org
radio host he joins us tonight to explain how exactly this works. so, law -- ethan, thank you for joining us, especially on this topic. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: law sends a clearus message what our values are. not just who we want to put in jail but who we believe. it is worse to call someone by the wrong pronoun than it is to deliberately infect someone with a fatal disease. that seems like an inverted value structure to me. >> well, it's not worse. and i'm not quite sure where the year is coming from in terms of punishment and, off course, that's up to the judge. but what we have is something called elder abuse is what happens. as our demographics change the law needs to keep up with that. if you want to be called something, shouldn't i as basici human decency, call you what you want to be called. >> tucker: i do that. >> that's not what we're talking about.
>> women get married, for example, or whatever. i want to call you whatever you want to be called. that's my view because i'm trying to be polite. that's different from the state weighing in and saying if you somehow use the wrong name more than once or t several times or in a way that we consider, quote, persistent, we are going to w punish you more severely than we would if you knowingly gave someone a fatal disease. what the hell? >> well, so, we have a couple of different issues there. first off, h.i.v. is no longer the fatal disease. when you and i were going living through the '80s and seeing people dying left and right in san francisco, among other places, it was fatal. and now medicine hasn advanced that it's not fatal anymore. we are keeping people alive. t look at magic johnson. >> tucker: that is true. but if you know people who have h.i.v., i'm sure you do i do. >> i do. >> tucker: first of all, people do die from it for sure. it's a huge deal, it's a big deal. it makes you really sick. it's super expensive. it's terrible. you can say the same thing about tuberculosis. should we decriminalize the intentional transmission of tuberculosis or malaria? of course not.
the only reason you are doing this with h.i.v. is because there is a specific lobby dedicated to achieving this. that's the last government you want to have, one whose laws are written by various lobbies for various reasons. you see where i'm going, right? >> i absolutely see where you are going. and i still disagree with you. what we have here is we have a specific demographic who generally has h.i.v. who is being discriminated againsts and has a tremendous history of discrimination in the united states. otherwise we wouldn't need things like the stonewall riot in the new york city for example. and what's happening. >> tucker: wait a second, why is it discriminatory? >> sigmatized by this. >> tucker: look, i don't care what, quote, demographic you are.e. if you intentionally givee someone an incurable disease, i don't care how much money you give to nancy pelosi, you should be charged with a felony for that. that's ridiculous behavior. i mean, right?, f why are we making excuses for that behavior? >> because it isn't -- it's not attempted --
it's not manslaughter, attempted manslaughter.mo attempted homicide anymore because we are keeping people alive with h.i.v. the medicine has advanced tremendously. >> tucker: so if i give you tuberculosis, which can be managed with antibiotics, most of the time like h.i.v. which can't always be managed but most of the time. should that be a misdemeanor, too? >> yeah. morally speaking, why not any std. gonorrhea for that matter. >> tucker: legally. no, because gonorrhea has nevert had the consequences of h.i.v. or tuberculosis. look, tuberculosis sufferers don't have a lobby, that's the truth hire. as a moral question, do you think it's okay, it shouldn't be a felony to intentionally give someone tuberculosis, is that what you are saying? >> i think it's wrong, just like you do. but is it a felony? is this something that we should be putting? >> tucker: to give somebody potentially on purpose. just to be clear. this is on purpose. this is not, you know, diseases are spread accidentally and we understand that.w, through recklessness or carelessness, this is onon purpose. i'm trying to give you this disease. that's not a felony.
>> no. it's a misdemeanor in the state of california. we have determined. up to six months in jail for each offense. >> tucker: i got it. i wasn't for california becoming its own country. i i'm getting close. ethan, thank you. up next, the great ainsley earhardt needs no introduction. the star of "fox & friends" here to discuss her brand new book.r stay tuned. each year sarah climbs 58,007 steps. that's the height of mount everest. because each day she chooses to take the stairs. at work, at home... even on the escalator. that can be hard on her lower body,
so now she does it with dr. scholl's orthotics. clinically proven to relieve and prevent foot, knee or lower back pain, by reducing the shock and stress that travel up her body with every step she takes. so keep on climbing, sarah. you're killing it. dr. scholl's. born to move. introducing walit's a great days. for a great deal! tender, center-cut sirloin or chicken on the barbie, fries, a draft beer or a coke, all for just $9.99. only for a limited time. so don't walk, run to outback. ♪
>> it was about what i wanted to teach my daughter. my dad always left me little notes before i left for school. i was pregnant and this book, now that have had the little girl, it's what i'm learning through her. through her eyes. we learn through our children. i think my daughter was three months old and i was shopping and flipping through some close at the store. she starts cackling and i turn around and there is a dog behind us. in new york, these ladies take their dogs into the store toto shop. i turn around and my daughter -- she's so excited. i thought she is seeing a dog for the very first time. how cool is that? we love dogs and animals but i got to witness a human being who happens to be my child, who iit love so much, see dogs for the first time. one time i left my umbrella upstairs. i didn't even know it was raining. i came downstairs. i live on the 16th floor.
i come down and it was raining. i am perturbed. now i have to go back upstairs and get the umbrella. i have to turn the stroller around. we are probably late anyway. i'm upset about that or kind of upset about it. look at my daughter and she's id wonder. she sees rain and i realized she is seeing rain for the very first time. this is so amazing. i have a better appreciation for rain. >> tucker: let me say the fact >> tucker: let me say the fact that in the middle of turning the stroller around, they you could pause and appreciate that. it says a lot about you. >> you are so nice, tucker. on my cross. >> tucker: i've hadd a lot -- it's hard to appreciate what you're saying. the fact that your daughter likes dogs at such a young age means that she will be a great person. >> thank you, ainsley earhardt -- if you want to buy it, go to
Commentary, newsmaker interviews and panel discussions.
a lot to get into. stay tuned, it's time for our breaking news opening monologue. we are going to start, we are going to go very slow tonight because a lot of new information. robert mueller and his team of partisan investigators, they want to face off with the president of the united states number but today president trump's attorneys flatly rejected, rightly so, mueller's interview terms. they have countered with a proposal of their own. in a statement, the attorney for president trump, former new york city mayor rudy giuliani wrote "we are restating what we have been saying for months, it is time for the office of the special counsel to conclude its inquiry without further delay." the former mayor is not predicting that the investigation could be over by september 1st. he will be right here on the show with more details in just a few moments. without a doubt, president trump should be aware. mueller, his merry band of anti-trump deep state sycophants, hillary clinton, obama, democratic donors. what's happening here, we all pretty much agree on.
they are laying a perjury trap for that president of the united states. mueller should not get what he wants. the president, his attorney should not give in. the president should not sit down for an interview. tonight we have yet another example of just how corrupt and how flawed mueller's witch hunt really is. according to a shocking new report, john solomon, christopher steele, remember him? the former foreign spy responsible for the clinton bought and paid for dossier? we now know he was also paid by your fbi, your dollars under jim comey while they were desperately trying to influence the ongoing counsel with the hunt into so-called russian collusion and it gets worse. bruce ohr, the fourth highest ranking member of the doj was trying to help christopher steele do it. this is months after he was fired for leaking. he got 11 payments from the fbi. on july 16th 2016 before the election, he wrote "i spoke to my old colleagues last week.
they assured me they would not stand in the way of our re-engagement with the bureau. he texted back i will pass along to my colleagues, thanks. on november 18th, after the election trump won, now mueller's witch hunt was now underway. christopher steele writing "i am presuming you've heard nothing back from your special counsel colleagues on the issues you kindly put to them from me"? and then he goes on to say "to say this is disappointing would be an understatement. certain people have been willing to risk everything to engage with them in an effort to help them reach the truth." just like there's truth in that phony, unverified, uncorroborated, debunked dossier that the clinton campaign used to smear then candidate donald trump, the same russian lies that were used before the election as the foundation for the mueller witch hunt and the opposition research used to
people to sway an election, the bulk of that information that is false, russian lies to get a fisa warrant as top officials, as i said, four separate times like the fisa court judges to spy on an opposition candidate. then he turns around and tries to peddle his lies through bruce ohr. his wife nellie helped to build allies for fusion gps, the dossier. what did they do with it? they wanted to get it to mueller postelection to destroy president trump after the fact that they lost. they try to influence the election, it didn't work. then they try to destroy the president. it is a national, disgusting, despicable disgrace. the biggest abuse of power by the top doj and fbi officials in this country, by the way, not rank and file. according to solomon's report, we will go back to that. these communications between bruce ohr and christopher steele, they were going on until late november 2017.
but first we are also currently tracking another investigation into election hacking. according to wikileaks, senate intel committee has now requested an interview with julianna sanchez. senator burr's office has not confirmed the request but if it's true, it's about time. after all, wikileaks, they were the ones that actually released those hacked emails and unlike so many other so-called journalist in america, we took the time, we went to england, we sat down and we interviewed him right here on the show and on my radio show and he said to us, no government actor was involved in the hacking. you might remember, take a look. >> did russia give you this information or anybody associated with russia? >> estates party, so the answer for our interactions is no. >> you did not get this information about the dnc, john podesta's emails, can you
tell the american people 1000% you did not get it from russia or anybody associated with russia? >> we can say, we have said repeatedly over the last few months that our source is not the russian government and it is not a state party. >> sean: i would assume he knows where he got it and probably has the proof. so let's let this country see where wikileaks got the information from. we will see you posted when or if the senate intel does in fact interview julian assigned. by the way, the house, they need to do the same thing. if the american people, you deserve the truth. but regardless of what you think about wikileaks, it's irrelevant. we know one thing for certain. president trump in no way colluded with russia and instead the president has been extremely tough on vladimir putin's hostile regime and today we have one more example. tough new u.s. sanctions levied against russia in response to an assassination attempt of a former british spy conducted
controversy, the occupy ice movement. are you familiar with any of that? what you think about it? >> i think they should be able to protest. >> i think we need to look seriously at the policies at the moment. >> you are a [bleep] too. >> but i'm nice. >> it doesn't matter. >> you just don't like fox news? >> no because fox news is nothing but a bunch of [bleep] capitalist lies. >> sean: she found a fan. if you are not going to believe how out of touch with reality some of these people really are. now let's return to the horrific breaking story out of new mexico. a father of a missing disabled 3-year-old son has been arrested at a squalid camp that is linked to islamist extremists. 11 children were found on this compound where it is believed weapons training was conducted. with plans of course to use the children in future school shootings. the individual arrested was the son of a brookland imam who was
meanwhile, manafort's attorneys called out what is the questionable character of the star witness rick gates, pointing out that he had up to four extramarital affairs on top of, oh, let's see, embezzlement, lying, extortion and could have faced if he didn't get they get out of jail free card from mueller, could have faced 290 years in jail. wow, 290 years in jail or say something about this guy. i think i will take the jail. i don't think so. as always we will continue to update you on this trial conducted by mueller's team of witch hunters. it has absolutely zero to do with russia, nothing to do with collusion, nothing to do with the campaign, nothing to do with trump. of 2005, put the squares to him so he sings or composes. back to our breaking news story tonight. joining us from the hill, john solomon and fox news investigative contributor, sara carter. john, we will begin with you. let's talk about the new development.
this is massive tonight, a lot of emphasis, go slow, it gets complicated. >> it is. the bottom line is simple though. months after christopher steele was discredited and terminated by the fbi because he has leaked to the media, a major violation of human source intelligence roles, there was an effort underway by him with his buddy bruce ohr, at that time a top deputy to rod rosenstein to try to get him back into the fbi's good graces and possibly get him working, reengaged is the word used in this emails with special counsel mueller. it doesn't appear they ever got to mueller but the mere fact that a senior justice department official was trying to get a discredited artisan intelligence source pass on to the case tells you all you need to know about this case. this is not the way counterintelligence is normally done in the fbi. career people that sources carefully, they manage them carefully. they double and triple check their authenticity and their
accuracy. here we turned a blind eye to their partisanship so their inaccuracy and their documents and we are still trying to get them in the investigation a year later, that is what's wrong with this fbi investigation in this episode is one of the strongest -- at the fbi is talking to bruce ohr, they know this is going on. someone has to come clean and the fbi. >> sean: let's slow it down. not only did hillary and the dnc pay bruce ohr, 11 payments by the fbi, he's fired. >> those payments were not for this case. they were for other work he did. >> sean: understood. but they are still paying the guy. the money came from him, understood. chris steele now hates trump like peter strzok and lisa page, correct? >> he does. >> sean: he even admits under oath in great britain i have no idea if this is true, this is raw intelligence because he was risking perjury. so he tries to get trump, the american people were fed by him,
hillary paid for it lies because they wanted to influence the american people with russian lies that she paid for, correct? >> yes, there's no doubt. >> sean: and then after the election they are trying to drag him back in, the fourth highest ranking justice department official who is right wife, incidentally, we know she worked for fusion gps but we believe on the phony russian dossier and try to bring him back because after trump won and a dossier lies didn't work they were trying to take out the president with more russian lies, correct? >> the only reason to bring christopher steele back into the investigation that we can see in these documents is to sustain an inaccurate narrative in the public domain that they had this extraordinary evidence against president trump and he was colluding with russia, and as you know, james comey said it wasn't there. no one has presented it since that time of any evidence that the president colluded with
russia. it was a political effort, not a counterintelligence effort. >> sean: sarah, your report is also blockbuster tonight. these documents that we now have written by bruce ohr two weeks after the 2016 election, those documents were designed to defeat trump, it didn't work. now they are going back, now they are trying to use it postelection. notes from peter strzok and lisa page have many lawmakers, investigators, fbi had a back channel investigation they never revealed, tell us what you found. >> they never revealed it to the foreign intelligence surveillance court and this is essential because they violated it. they withheld exculpatory evidence that the judges should have known about. also, the documents reveal something very important. these are law enforcement sensitive documents. these are memos written by bruce ohr himself and on november 21st he apparently either met with or spoke with lisa page. she is general counsel for
former deputy director andrew mccabe. she also with peter strzok, or paramore, lover, and when you look at all of this and joe, an fbi agent, the same one that interviewed general michael flynn with peter strzok. this is so important because in that note to himself, basically that memorandum he also mentioned paul manafort, that they were moving forward against paul manafort and that's essential here, because he couldn't move forward against trump. they could move forward against manafort but he did note i would contact christopher steele. he basically noted to himself to contact steele. if so what was he doing with lisa page, peter strzok and joe? what was this doj official doing and why was it not disclose to the foreign intelligence surveillance court? i think those are the most essential questions that need to be answered. >> sean: let's explain in your words, then let's give john a chance. explain in your words what this was all about.
in other words, there were the top people at the fbi, we can go to comey, the deputy fbi director who has been fired and may ultimately end up being indicted and then with that peter strzok and lisa page. all of this going on. now bruce ohr and nelly ohr. they seem to be much more involved than we knew up until this point. explain how this was all about defeating trump and then destroying trump. >> that was it. this was about either destroying trump, before he could be the president of the united states, ruining him before there was even an opportunity and if he did become president, which he did, taking down a duly elected president. that is what they were working for, that is what they continue to do and that is what they were semisuccessful at because what they got, the end result, comey got it when they appointed special counsel robert mueller based on this evidence and they
also got it with the foreign intelligence surveillance court. >> sean: he was trying to get to mueller through bruce ohr. >> that's absolutely correct. >> sean: according to both of you, you are both telling me there's still a lot more to come. john, you are shaking your head. did they get to mueller? it seems like they connected based on these emails we have. >> i don't want to go that far. i think the fbi was receiving information during the time special counsel mueller is in charge of the investigation. it is not clear that peter strzok or the other fbi agents told that to mueller. we know that peter strzok had interviews as late as the summer of 2017 with the fbi with ohr getting the information. it definitely made it into his investigation. >> sean: out of time. thank you both. there's more new information coming. tick tock. up next, a hannity exclusive with president trump's attorney rudy giuliani.
also alan dershowitz and so much more straight ahead. ♪ are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck,
severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. 3 toddlers won't stop him.. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain, from being on his feet. dr. scholl's. born to move. whenshe was pregnant,ter failed, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa.
and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today.
>> completely made up. led to nothing except several fraudulent fisa wires. and now we have mueller, who doesn't seem to care that he's sitting on top of a totally illegitimate investigation. >> sean: nothing about the dossier that she paid for in the fact that the fbi paid steel, it was designed to misinform the american people with russian lies to influence the election. there's a great irony here. >> may be if mueller and his band of whatever they are, democrats, write, or fair-minded, maybe they would investigate -- maybe that's the collusion. be that's the collusion. >> sean: did you ever hear the adam schiff tape that we played? just dying to get naked pictures of trump with a russian on tape. there is your evidence. you can't make it up. if it wasn't so seriously -- not only did they try to lie to the american people with russian lies, now we know after the
election they tried to destroy the president with lies and now they are connected to mueller perhaps? >> i've never been involved in an investigation on either side that's more illegitimate than this one that is so obviously more illegitimate and i wonder where is the sense of justice on the part of mueller, on the part of the justice department. after all, the justice department -- this is a justice department investigation. he is working for rosenstein. and at some point you've got to say the irregularities, the unethical conduct, the double standard, the way in which people who hate trump will put into primary positions of power has completely tainted this investigation. >> sean: the families from law enforcement, my mom was a prison guard, my dad, new york city, so many cops in my family. fbi agents. i cannot believe -- the rank and file are so good. here's the thing, you responded
today to mueller's latest request and you think this could be over by september. let's start with that. >> i think of it isn't over by september than we have a very, very serious violation of the justice department roles. you shouldn't be conducting one of these investigations in the 60-day period. he's got plenty of time. either decide -- we offered him an opportunity to do a form of questioning. he can say yes or no. we can do it. if he doesn't want to do it, he knows the answers to every question that he wants to ask. he's going to ask them, did you tell comey to go easy on flynn? the president will say no i didn't. hey, bob, you know it. why do you want to get him under oath? do you think we are false? want to trap him into perjury. we are not going to let you do that. >> sean: there's two separate issues. collusion and so-called obstruction. there's a report today that you said no questions on obstruction. am i assuming here that your response to him was maybe a
couple of written answers only? >> i can't tell you what it is yet. i can't. i can't. my cocounsel is much stricter about this than i am. he will get very angry. i would love to tell you, but the reality is, the reality is he doesn't need to ask a single question on obstruction, he has all the answers. they are not going to change, the president is not going to change his testimony, so stop the nonsense. you are trap him into perjury because they don't have a case. >> sean: mr. mayor, the constitution as our good friend mark says, mark levin, is on the president's side. i agree it's illegitimate, has been, the double standard is so glaring. we have been pointing it out now every night and with new details every night. my question is, i wouldn't give him a thing. you don't owe him a thing and if he wants a fight, then there's going to be a fight. >> we don't like to fight.
>> sean: i used to watch your press conferences, i disagree with that. >> the real story here is not that this case is going to fizzle, it's going to blow up on them. the real question is what we talked about before, there's a lot more to what they did that nobody knows about yet. a lot more to the obstruction of justice, to the collusion, to the fake dossier. trying to bring steel back in after he was completely discredited. >> sean: and then feed it to mueller. >> and mueller is going to have a lot to answer for. i said a long time ago the investigation here as to be of the investigator because we can't let that don't make this happen again in american history. we may not have a president as strong as president trump. a lesser president could have really been cracked by this. >> sean: mueller, jeanie rae, andrew weissmann. here's my question, we know the department of justice has absolutely denied congressional subpoenas.
as great a lawyer as you are, i don't think you would get me out of trouble if i was ignoring a subpoena. >> i don't think i could. >> sean: but the president has the power to go through these documents from fisa and make it unredacted and let the american people see that the bulk of information was what christopher steele himself said wasn't verified. >> that something that as his private lawyers commit that he has to deal with and his government lawyers. >> sean: would you suggest he should? >> i can't tell you what i suggest. it's privileged. >> sean: let me ask you about the fisa lies. the bulk of information in the memo came from the phony dossier that hillary paid for. if that turns out to be alive. the author of it says he can't corroborate it. here's my question, they used it for separate terms to spy on an american citizen, an opposition party candidate campaign associate in the lead up to the election after the election.
again, what if i lied to a judge? i wouldn't think of lying to a judge without getting my life in jail afterwards. >> you would be investigated for perjury, investigated for contempt. your career would be ruined. your life would be ruined and i believe that when this plays out over the next year or two it's not going to be about president trump. it's going to be about all the things they did. you know how sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime? in this case the investigation was much worse than the no crime. the president did nothing wrong. >> sean: my sources are telling me that when the american people get to the bottom of all of this it will shock the heart, the soul, and the mind of any fair-minded american. >> i think it's going to lead to some very, very big reforms, just like watergate. a different kind of watergate on the side of the investigator. corrupt investigations through
and through. >> sean: why would you even consider a counterproposal? >> when it's over with i will explain it to you. >> sean: i'm not getting anything out of it tonight. good to see you, mr. mayor. thank you. when we come back, andy mccarthy, alan dershowitz. maybe i will get more out of them. that's straight ahead. >> they are much smarter than me. ♪ pressure... ...that's just my favorite boat. boom. (laughs) make summer go right with ford, america's best-selling brand. and get our best deal of the summer: zero percent financing for sixty months on f-150. right now, get this special offer on f-150: zero percent financing for 60 months - during the ford summer sales event.
uhp. i didn't believe it. again. ♪ ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth? ♪ i want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ♪ ooh i'm not hearing the confidence. okay, hold the name your price tool. power of options based on your budget! and! ♪ we'll make heaven a place on earth ♪ yeah! oh, my angels! ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ [ sobs quietly ]
donald trump, alan dershowitz, i'm glad you got out of martha's vineyard. i'm assuming, i don't know, i don't have any information whatsoever but i'm assuming the response today was what we will with written answers to written questions, there is a precedent in the case of ronald reagan. >> if i were the president's lawyer, and i'm not, he has a terrific lawyer, rudy giuliani, i would make mueller an offer, to paraphrase the godfather, that he couldn't accept. >> sean: that he can't refuse. >> let me tell you why. of the president can say i wanted to testify. it was mueller who didn't let me testify. he turns it down. i think it's very important that the american public see who actually made the decision not to testify. >> sean: that might actually help in an argument if there's a subpoena that ultimately arrives at the supreme court, correct? >> i think so and the
supreme court is likely to divide the issue and say you can't ask the president about his motives, why did he fire comey? you can't ask a senator or congressman or a judge. you can't ask about motive. but this one question they can ask them which would be a very difficult one, they can say did you know about the meeting with your son in the office, the trump tower? the president has artie said he didn't know about it. cohen has said he did know about it. >> sean: i think under oath he said something different according to the testimony he he originally gave. >> if the president says no and is truthful that he didn't know about it, mueller would still have enough to charge them because all you need is one person, the perjury trap. >> the big problem here i think is the burden is on the wrong side. you don't get to just as a prosecutor question the president of the united states, you wouldn't get the to question
a journalist. you would need to show that there was a serious crime that you had the president implicated in somehow and that he is the source of evidence that you need to make the case that you can't get from any other source. >> sean: 's of the constitution is on the president's side. >> absolutely. the constitution is on the president's side, the law is on the president's side. you just can't ask the president to explain why he took an action. politics you can ask him, his opponent can ask him. >> sean: he has the right to fire anybody. >> and to pardon anybody and to end any investigation. >> sean: adam schiff on tape talking to a russian, oh, really, naked pictures, putin saw them? or the russian lies hillary paid for. that collusion, is that conspiracy? >> i don't want to see anybody. i just don't understand why at this point -- look, in 99% of
investigations investigative secrecy is a very important priority because most cases don't involve the president of the united states, but i think at this .2 years down the road we are entitled to know if the special counsel has a case and he should be -- he should have to come forward and show what the crime is. >> sean: are they going to push this to a subpoena? >> i think they will and i'm not sure they are going to win. comey in his book says you never bring in a subject in your investigation and let you know exactly what he's going to say. he basically lays out the perjury trap theory. >> sean: he is also the one that gives the most exculpatory evidence on a couple of points. somebody in my team wanted russia collusion, you've got to do that. let me ask you a question, -- >> they shouldn't need to say. >> sean: 2005 tax case. he manafort come up with the
screws so you will sing or compose to get an impeachment or prosecution against trump. here's my question, here's gates, their star witness, facing 290 in jail perhaps. let's say 100. i'm thinking a lot of people would lie and take the bribe of a get out of jail free card and say whatever the prosecution wants. >> i can give you personal evidence of that. i've had so many clients who have told me they are prepared to compose to make up a story to get out of jail. >> sean: did the world trade center. >> in my office under rudy and going forward, you would not have gotten a plea agreement like this. you would have had to plead guilty to everything. >> sean: why would a juror believe a guy facing 100 years in jail gets a get out of jail free card but he has to testify? >> it depends on how corroborated he is. >> without a corroboration it's a bookcase.
>> sean: 95% conviction rate. that is scary. >> that's because mostly they go after people where the evidence is overwhelming. but when you start thinking about a manafort case where the judge himself said you are not going after manafort. they're going to squeeze in. >> sean: tommy laren and secretary nielsen next. ♪ this is not a screensaver.game. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪
you have a real motorcycle? and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog! champion.
to some protesting, some controversy, a lot surrounding your mayor and the occupy ice movement. are you familiar with any of that? >> yes. >> what do you think about it? >> i think they should be able to protest. >> do you think that portland has gotten more militant in the last year, two years? >> i will just say crazy. >> crazy? do you think abolishing ice is a step in the right direction? >> i think we have to look at our entire immigration policy. our policy has failed. >> do you think that protesting on either side has gotten out of hand? >> for sure. >> do you think it's about really standing up for rights or is it about getting attention, what do you is the goal? >> i think people have a lot of goals, they want to be personal warriors. >> social justice warriors may be? >> for sure. >> fox news, you are if we've too. >> but i'm nice. >> i don't care. >> my name's tommy. >> i don't care.
>> very hostile in portland. >> a fortunately only views that are being projected out here are extremist views so you get extremist reactions and that's why you get extremist behavior with people coming up to you and flipping you off. >> you think a lot of people in portland are miswarned? >> they'll think about the corruption, coming in, the drugs. >> do you plan to go to any of the occupy ice protest? >> depending on what my work schedule is like. >> sean: liberal cities on the west coast, they aren't the only places protecting illegal immigrants. listen to what the governor of new york, andrew cuomo, set about ice. >> i will do nothing cooperatively with ice. i have sent them letters asking for an investigation. i have said if they do in a criminal acts, which a police force can do, we will take criminal action against ice
because i believe they are politically motivated. >> sean: and you will never be president. much more reaction. kirstjen nielsen is with us. by the way, madam secretary, i'm very sorry. i saw what happened to you in a restaurant and i know there's been other incidents is with you. it shouldn't happen and we have democrats telling people to get in the faces of secretaries, people in the cabinet like yourself. what's your reaction to that? >> i think the activism might be slightly misplaced in the sense that what needs to be reformed are our laws. we don't have laws that will let us do what we need to do to protect the country. that's where we should place our activism, to reform the laws that we can secure the homeland. >> sean: let me tell the audience about a case that we just found out about and this is out of the city of brotherly love, this is out of philadelphia. previously deported immigrant from honduras raped a child
after philadelphia authorities ignored ice detainers and released him. it goes back to this particular man, 45. he faced a couple years in prison and was deported from the u.s. in 2009. back in the country in march of 2014, taken into custody. then after local criminal charges against him were dropped, philadelphia officials did not comply with a detainer by the immigration and customs enforcement. he was released after his release he was rearrested and convicted for the rape of a child, and unlawful contact with a minor. isn't that about philly's decision to disregard ice detainers like andrew cuomo just talked about? couldn't that have been prevented? >> it could have been prevented and it should have been prevented. we owe the american people better. this is a perfect example of when jurisdictions decide not to cooperate with federal law enforcement. we put our communities at risk.
the men and women of dhs go back into community at their own risk and the risk of the community where the criminal is. to try to re-interdict and detain that person. >> sean: as one person said he got a free pass from the city of philadelphia and its department of prisons headed straight back into our community, committed a heinous crime. he never would have had the chance to commit had the city of philadelphia complied with the ice detainer. this is happening much more than people know. how many times a year -- how often is this happening? we have them, we know they are here illegally, we know they violated laws and then cities don't cooperate and they get released and then commit other crimes. >> it does. the good news is that we continue to increase our prosecution and our removal of criminal aliens, dangerous criminal aliens. but you are absolutely right. the only way this works to protect our country is if we can get back to a place where law enforcement works with
law enforcement. it's crazy that we have pitted blue on blue. they are here to protect the public together. >> sean: i had a source of mine recently told me that drones are being used by drug cartels out of mexico and the use the drone to find out where our law enforcement is positioned so that those that are either involved in human smuggling or drug smuggling, that they will know which direction, which route to take that is the most safe for them. and i'm told even though we know these drones are coming from mexico, we can do nothing to take them out of the sky unless we get a warrant. the problem with that would obviously be if we get the warrant, the drones are back in mexico. is that true? >> it's not just that, but let's face it, when we are talking about the technology we have today, these drones can fly up to 100 miles per hour so the concept of using an antiquated law to get a warrant to stop a nefarious drone is ridiculous. we've been working really hard
with congress, there is bipartisan legislation that has been introduced in both houses, but congress has got to act. i need the authorities now to protect the homeland. this is not a question of if, it's a question of one. >> sean: thank you for being with us. when we come back, an important video of the day that you don't want to mess, straight ahead. his good when you rent from national...
it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? for my constipation, my doctor recommended i switch to miralax. stimulant laxatives forcefully stimulate the nerves in your colon. miralax is different. it works with the water in your body. unblocking your system naturally. miralax. now available in convenient single-serve mix-in pax.
Commentary, newsmaker interviews and panel discussions.
cut off all ties with christopher steele because he was leaking and lying about potentially classified information to the media again to peddle his lies to influence the outcome of our election. this all comes on the heels of last night's shocking report that showed that christopher steele was working closely with bruce ohr before and after the 2016 election, again to spread the lies from his dirty dossier. he had no faith in those lies. throughout the highest levels of what is supposed to be our fair and unbiased justice system. equal justice under the law, equal applications of the law. at the time, the fourth highest ranking member of obama's department of justice, he has since been demoted because of his unethical ties to steal and fusion gps. sara carter, john solomon will be joining us in a moment with more details. these are shocking new developments. it is far worse than we ever thought. but first we are also currently
tracking another investigation into election hacking. according to wikileaks, senate intel committee has now requested an interview with julian assange. senator burr's office has not confirmed the request but if it's true, it's about time. after all, wikileaks, they were the ones that actually released those hacked emails and unlike so many other so-called journalist in america, we took the time, we went to england, we sat down and we interviewed him right here on the show and on my radio show and he said to us, no government actor was involved in the hacking. you might remember, take a look. >> did russia give you this information or anybodyu associated with russia? >> estates party, so the answer for our interactions is no. >> you did not get this information about the dnc, john podesta's emails, can you tell the american people 1000%
you did not get it from russia or anybody associated with russia? >> we can say, we have said repeatedly over the last few months that our source is not the russian government and it is not a state party. >> sean: i would assume he knows where he got it and probably has the proof. so let's let this country see where wikileaks got the information from. we will see you posted when or if the senate intel does in fact interview julian assange. by the way, the house, they need to do the same thing. if the american people, you deserve the truth. but regardless of what you think about wikileaks, it's irrelevant. we know one thing for certain. president trump in no way y colluded with russia and instead the president has been extremely tough on vladimir putin's hostile regime and today we have one more example. tough new u.s. sanctions levied against russia in response to an assassination attempt of a former british spy conducted with chemical or biological weapons.
these new sanctions will be applied to all russianon state owned businesses and will reportedly affect 70% of thehe russian economy. i thought the president was compromised by putin.ia that's what fake news tells us, or nbc news suggesting he might actually be a russian agent. president trump -- while the president makes serious policy decisions and as he's conducting consequential peace through strength diplomacy, many on the far left, they are obsessing over ice, the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement agency.. as part of their grand plan to get open borders, many on the left want to band together andu ban ice altogether. earlier this week we sent tomi lahren to portland, oregon, to interview some of these anti-ice activists. a small portion, take a look. >> i don't know if you've seen the last couple of weeks, but your city has been kind of home to some protesting, some controversy, the occupy ice movement.
are you familiar with any of that? what you think about it? >> i think they should be able to protest. >> i think we need to look seriously at the policies at the moment. >> you are a [bleep] too. >> but i'm nice. >> it doesn't matter. >> you just don't like fox news? >> no, because fox news is nothing but a bunch of [bleep] capitalist lies. >> sean: she found a fan. if you are not going to believe how out of touch with reality some of these people really are. s now let's return to the horrific breaking story out of new mexico. a father of a missing disabled 3-year-old son has been arrested at a squalid camp that is linked to islamist extremists. 11 children were found on this compound where it is believed weapons training was conducted. with plans of course to use the children in future school shootings. the individual arrested was the son of a brookland imam who was
named as an unindicted coconspirator in the 1993 world trade center attack. sadly the remains of the young child were also found on this compound. a scary, tragic story we will continue to follow. we also have another topic to get to and it comes to us right here in new york city. sorry, i pay high taxes, i'm stuck here.. far left mayor comrade bill de blasio has a new favorite villain. they are looking at it right now. during a recent interview comrade blamed fox news for dividing america. he tells the guardian "if you could remove news corp. from the last 25 years of american history we would be an entirely different place. that's true. we would only have one opinion on the news, from the far left. a universal a pendant becauseth they all a bunch of sheep, utopian dream for comrade de blasio. it like a true left wing extremist, he detests diversity of thought.
that's not good. imagine 30 years without russia.ut 30 euros without talk radio. 23 years without fox news. finally tonight, our last topic covers day seven of the trial of the century. the 2005 tax and bank fraud charges against paul manafort. remember, no collusion, has nothing to do with donald trump, nothing to do with the campaign, nothing to do withlu russia and while team mueller is embarrassing themselveshe attempting to put the screws on manafort as judge ellis said to get him to sing or compose against president trump so they can impeach or prosecute him, mueller's prosecutors were actually feeling the heat from the presiding judge purity yesterday judge ellis berated the legal team and even accused one prosecutor of being such a tough guy he was tearing up like a little crybaby. today judge ellis reportedly urged the prosecution "focus sharply, speed up the pace of the trial saying "judges should be patient. meanwhile, manafort's attorneys
called out what is the questionable character of the star witness rick gates, pointing out that he had up to four extramarital affairs on top of, oh, let's see, embezzlement, lying, extortion and could have faced ifn he didn't get they get out of jail free card from mueller, could have faced 290 years in jail. wow, 290 years in jail or say something about this guy. i think i will take the jail. i don't think so. as always we will continue to update you on this trial conducted by mueller's team of witch hunters. it has absolutely zero to do with russia, nothing to do with collusion, nothing to do with the campaign, nothing to do with trump.ot of 2005, put the squares to him so he sings or composes. back to our breaking news story tonight. t joining us from the hill, john solomon and fox news investigative contributor, sara carter. john, we will begin with you. let's talk about the new development. this is massive tonight, a lot of emphasis, go slow, it gets
complicated. >> it is. the bottom line is simple though. months after christopher steele was discredited and terminated by the fbi because he has leaked to the media, a major violation of human source intelligence roles, there wasas an effort underway by him with his buddy bruce ohr, at that time a top deputy to rod rosenstein to try to get him back into the fbi's good graces and possibly get him working, reengaged is the word used inn this emails with special counsel mueller. it doesn't appear they ever got to mueller but the mere fact that a senior justice department official was trying to get a discredited artisan intelligence source pass on to the case tells you all you need to knoww about this case. this is not the way counterintelligence is normally done in the fbi. career people that sourcesth carefully, they manage them carefully.y. they double and triple check their authenticity and their accuracy. here we turned a blind eye to
their partisanship so their inaccuracy and their documents and we are still trying to get them in the investigation a year later, that is what's wrong with this fbi investigation in this episodeon is one of the strongest -- at the fbi is talking to bruce ohr, they know this is going on. someone has to come clean and the fbi. >> sean: let's slow it down. not only did hillary and the dnc pay bruce ohr, 11 payments by the fbi, he's fired. >> those payments were not for this case. they were for other work he did. >> sean: understood. but they are still paying the guy. the money came from him, understood. chris steele now hates trumpn: like peter strzok and lisa page, correct? >> he does. >> sean: he even admits under oath in great britain i have no idea if this is true, this is raw intelligence because he was risking perjury. so he tries to get trump, the american people were fed by him, hillary paid for itju lies
because they wanted to influence the american people with russian lies that she paid for, correct? >> yes, there's no doubt. >> sean: and then after the election they are trying to drag him back in, the fourth highest ranking justice department official who is right wife, incidentally, we know she worked for fusion gps but we believe on the phony russian dossier and try to bring him back because after f trump won and a dossier lies didn't work they were trying to take out the president with more russian lies, correct?se >> the only reason to bring christopher steele back into the investigation that we can see in these documents is to sustain an inaccurate narrative in the public domain that they had this extraordinary evidence against president trump and he was colluding with russia, and as you know, james comey said it wasn't there. no one has presented it since that time of any evidence that the president colluded with russia. it was a political effort, note
a counterintelligence effort. >> sean: sara, your report is also blockbuster tonight. these documents that we now have written by bruce ohr two weeks after the 2016 election, those documents were designed to defeat trump, it didn't work. now they are going back, now they are trying to use it postelection. notes from peter strzok and lisa page have many lawmakers, investigators, fbi had a back channel investigation they never revealed, tell us what you found. >> they never revealed it to the foreign intelligence n surveillance court and this is essential because they violated it. they withheld exculpatory evidence that the judges should have known about. also, the documents reveal something very important. these are law enforcement sensitive documents. these are memos written by bruce ohr himself and on november 21st he apparentlyiv either met with or spoke with lisa page. she is general counsel for former deputy director andrew mccabe.
she also with peter strzok, or paramore, lover, and when you look at all of this and joe, an fbi agent, the same one that interviewed general michael flynn with peter strzok. this is so important because in that note to himself, basically that memorandum he also mentioned paul manafort, that they were moving forward against paul manafort and that's essential here, because he couldn't move forward against trump. they could move forward against manafort but he did note i would contact christopher steele. he basically noted to himself to contact steele. if so what was he doing with lisa page, peter strzok and joe?e? what was this doj official doing and why was it not disclose to the foreign intelligence surveillance court? i think those are the most essential questions that need to be answered. >> sean: let's explain in your words, then let's give john a chance. explain in your words what this was all about. in other words, there were the
top people at the fbi, we can go to comey, the deputy fbi director who has been fired and may ultimately end up being indicted and then with that peter strzok and lisa page. all of this going on. now bruce ohr and nelly ohr. they seem to be much more involved than we knew up until this point. explain how this was all about defeating trump and then destroying trump. >> that was it. this was about either destroying trump, before he could be the president of the united states, ruining him before there was even an opportunity and if he did become president, which he did, taking down a duly elected president. that is what they were working for, that is what they continue to do and that is what they were semisuccessful at because what they got, the end result, comey got it when they appointed special counsel robert mueller based on this evidence and they also got it with the foreign intelligence surveillance court.
>> sean: he was trying to get to mueller through bruce ohr. >> that's absolutely correct. >> sean: according to both of you, you are both telling me there's still a lot more to come. john, you are shaking your head. did they get to mueller? t it seems like they connected based on these emails we have. >> i don't want to go that far. i think the fbi was receiving information during the time special counsel mueller is in charge of the investigation. it is not clear that peterer strzok or the other fbi agents told that to mueller. we know that peter strzok had interviews as late as the summer of 2017 with the fbi with ohr getting the information. it definitely made it into his investigation. >> sean: out off time. thank you both. there's more new information coming. tick tock. up next, a hannity exclusive with president trump's attorney, rudy giuliani. also alan dershowitz and so much more straight ahead. ♪
-morning. -morning. -what do we got? -keep an eye on that branch. might get windy. have a good shift. fire pit. last use -- 0600. i'd stay close. morning. ♪ get ready to switch. protected by flo. should say, "protected by alan and jamie." -right? -should it? when you bundle home and auto... run, alan! ...you get more than just savings. you get 'round-the-clock protection.
fraudulent fisa wires. and now we have mueller, who doesn't seem to care that he's sitting on top of a totally illegitimate investigation. >> sean: nothing about the dossier that she paid for in the fact that the fbi paid steele, it was designed to misinform the american people with russian lies to influence the election. there's a great irony here. >> maybe if mueller and his band of whatever they are, democrats, right, or fair-minded, maybe they would investigate -- maybe that's the collusion. be that's they collusion. >> sean: did you ever hear the adam schiff tape that we played? just dying to get naked pictures of trump with a a russian on tape. there is your evidence. you can't make it up. if it wasn't so seriously ---- not only did they try to lie to the american people with russian lies, now we know after the election they tried to destroy the president with lies
and now they are connected to mueller perhaps? >> i've never been involved in an investigation on either side that's more illegitimate than this one that is so obviously more illegitimate and i wonder where is the sense of justice on the part of mueller, on thel part of the justice department. after all, the justice department -- this is a justice department investigation. he is working for rosenstein. and at some point you've got to say the irregularities, the unethical conduct, the double standard, the way in which people who hate trump will put into primary positions of power has completely tainted this investigation. >> sean: the families from law enforcement, my mom was a prison guard, my dad, new york city, so many cops in my family.st fbi agents. i cannot believe -- the rank and file are so good. here's the thing, you responded today to mueller's latest
request and you think this could be over by september. let's start with that. >> i think of it isn't over by september than we have a very, very serious violation of the justice department roles. you shouldn't be conducting one of these investigations in the 60-day period.d. he's got plenty of time. either decide -- we offered him an opportunity to do a form of questioning. he can say yes or no. we can do it. if he doesn't want to do it, he knows the answers to every question that he wants to ask. he's going to ask them, did you tell comey to go easy on flynn? the president will say no i didn't. hey, bob, you know it. why do you want to get him under oath? do you think we are false? want to trap him into perjury. we are not going to let you do that. >> sean: there's two separate issues. collusion and so-called obstruction. there's a report today that you said no questions on obstruction. am i assuming here that your response to him was maybe a couple of written answers only?
>> i can't tell you what it is yet. i can't. i can't. my cocounsel is much stricter about this than i am. he will get very angry. i would love to tell you, but the reality is, the reality is he doesn't need to ask a single question on obstruction, he has all the answers. they are not going to change, the president is not going to change his testimony, so stop the nonsense. you are trap him into perjury because they don't have a case. >> sean: mr. mayor,e the constitution as our good friend mark says, mark levin, is on the president's side. i agree it's illegitimate, has been, the double standard is so glaring. we have been pointing it out now every night and with new details every night. my question is, i wouldn't give him a thing. you don't owe him a thing and if he wants a fight, then there's going to be a fight. >> we don't like to fight.
>> sean: i used to watch your press conferences, i disagree with that. >> the real story here is not that this case is going to fizzle, it's going to blow up on them. the real question is what we talked about before, there's a lot more to what they did that nobody knows about yet. a lot more to the obstruction of justice, to the collusion, to the fake dossier. trying to bring steele back in after he was completely discredited. >> sean: and then feed it to mueller. >> and mueller is going to have a lot to answer for. i said a long time ago the investigation here as to be of the investigator because we can't let that don't make this happen again in american history. we may not have a president as strong as president trump. a lesser president could have really been cracked by this. >> sean: mueller, jeanie rae, andrew weissmann. here's my question, we know the department of justice has absolutely denied congressional subpoenas.
as great a lawyer as you are, i don't think you would get me out of trouble if i was ignoring a subpoena. >> i don't think i could. >> sean: but the president has the power to go through these t documents from fisa and make it unredacted and let the american people see that the bulk of information was what christopher steele himself said wasn't verified. >> that something that as his private lawyers commit that he has to deal with and his government lawyers. >> sean: would you suggest he should? >> i can't tell you what i suggest. it's privileged. >> sean: let me ask you about the fisa lies. the bulk of information in the memo came from the phony dossier that hillary paid for. if that turns out to be alive.o the author of it says he can't corroborate it. here's my question, they used it for separate terms to spy on an american citizen, an opposition party candidate campaign associate in the lead up to the election after the election. again, what if i lied to a
judge? i wouldn't think of lying to a judge without getting my life in jail afterwards. >> you would be investigated for perjury, investigated for contempt. your career would be ruined. your life would be ruined and i believe that when this plays. out over the next year or two it's not going to be about president trump. it's going to be about all the things they did.no you know how sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime? in this case the investigation was much worse than the no crime. the president did nothing wrong. >> sean: my sources are telling me that when the american people get to the bottom of all of this it will shock the heart, the soul, ande the mind of any fair-minded american. >> i think it's going to lead to some very, very big reforms, just like watergate. a different kind of watergate on the side of the investigator. corrupt investigations through and through.
>> sean: why would you even consider a counterproposal? >> when it's over with i will explain it to you. >> sean: i'm not getting anything out of it tonight.s good to see you, mr. mayor. thank you. when we come back, andy mccarthy, alan dershowitz. maybe i will get more out of them. that's straight ahead. >> they are much smarter than me. ♪
these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4 week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/save and never go to the post office again
enterprise car sales and you'll take any trade-in?rom that's right! great! here you go... well, it does need to be a vehicle. but - i need this out of my house. (vo) with fair, transparent value for every trade-in... enterprise makes it easy. ♪ >> sean: here with reaction to my interview with president trump's attorney, the breaking news tonight, rudy giuliani, former assistant united states attorney for the all-powerful southern district of new york, andrew mccarthy. this book right here, you see it on your screen, i have it in my hand. i finished it. everybody should read this. it is amazing. this is not a political book. this is a book about thed constitution and about the rule of law, equal justice under the law. so many important issues that regardless of political party you should care about. the case against impeaching donald trump, alan dershowitz,
i'm glad you got out of martha's vineyard. i'm assuming, i don't know, i don't have any information whatsoever but i'm assuming the response today was what we will with written answers to written questions, there is a precedent in the case of ronald reagan. >> if i were the president's lawyer, and i'm not, he has a terrific lawyer, rudy giuliani, i would make mueller an offer, to paraphrase the godfather, that he couldn't accept. >> sean: that he can't refuse. >> let me tell you why. the president can say i wanted to testify. it was mueller who didn't let me testify. he turns it down. i think it's very important that the american public see who actually made the decision not to testify. >> sean: that might actually help in an argument if there's a subpoena that ultimately arrives at the supreme court,es correct? >> i think so and the
supreme court is likely to divide the issue and say you can't ask the president about his motives, why did he fire comey? you can't ask a senator or congressman or a judge. you can't ask about motive. but this one question they can ask them which would be a very difficult one, they can say did you know about the meeting with your son in the office, the trump tower? the president has already said he didn't know about it. cohen has said he did know about it. >> sean: i think under oath he said something different according to the testimony he he originally gave. >> if the president says no ane is truthful that he didn't know about it, mueller would still have enough to charge them because all you need is one person, the perjury trap. >> the big problem here i think is the burden is on the wrong side. you don't get to just as a prosecutor question theth president of the united states, you wouldn't get the to question a journalist.
you would need to show that there was a serious crime that you had the president implicated in somehow and that he is the source of evidence that you need to make the case that you can't get from any other source. >> sean: it's if the constitution is on the president's side. >> absolutely. the constitution is on the president's side, the law is on the president's side.s you just can't ask the president to explain why he took an action. politics you can ask him, his opponent can ask him. >> sean: he has the right to fire anybody. >> and to pardon anybody and to end any investigation. >> sean: adam schiff on tape talking to a russian, oh, really, naked pictures, putin saw them? or the russian lies hillary paid for. that collusion, is that conspiracy? >> i don't want to see anybody. i just don't understand why at this point -- look, in 99% of investigations investigative
secrecy is a very important priority because most cases don't involve the president of the united states, but i think at this .2 years down the road we are entitled to know if the special counsel has a case and he should be -- he should have to come forward and show what the crime is. >> sean: are they going to push this to a subpoena? >> i think they will and i'm not sure they are going to win. comey in his book says you never bring in a subject inpo your investigation and let you know exactly what he's going to say. he basically lays out the theory. trap >> sean: he is also the one that gives the most exculpatory evidence on a couple of points. somebody in my team wanted russia collusion, you've got to do that. let me ask you a question -- >> they shouldn't need to say. >> sean: 2005 tax case. manafort come up with the
screws so you will sing or compose to get an impeachment or prosecution against trump. here's my question, here's gates, their star witness, facing 290 in jail perhaps. let's say 100. i'm thinking a lot of people would lie and take the bribe of a get out of jail free card and say whatever the prosecution wants. >> i can give you personal evidence of that. i've had so many clients who have told me they are prepared to compose to make up a story to get out of jail. >> sean: did the world trade center. >> in my office under rudy and going forward, you would not have gotten a plea agreement like this. you would have had to plead guilty to everything. >> sean: why would a juror believe a guy facing 100 years in jail gets a get out of jail free card but he has to testify? >> it depends on how corroborated he is. >> without a corroboration it's ail bookcase. >> sean: 95% conviction rate. that is scary.
>> that's because mostly they go after people where the evidence is overwhelming. but when you start thinking about a manafort case where the judge himself said you are not going after manafort. they're going to squeezea him. >> sean: tomi lahren and secretary nielsen next. ♪ we know what it's like to learn from the best. we know there's nothing quite like watching a son rise. we know that what's outside can change what's inside. we know the great outdoors. we love the great outdoors. bass pro shops and cabela's bring you the fall hunting classic with huge savings on the latest gear. like savings of 40% on redhead silent hide camo shirts and pants. and save $130
on this garmin handheld gps. ♪ ♪ whenshe was pregnant,ter failed, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa.
and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today.
your mayor and the occupy ice movement. are you familiar with any of that? >> yes. >> what do you think about it? >> i think they should be able to protest. >> do you think that portland has gotten more militant in the last year, two years? >> i will just say crazy. >> crazy? m do you think abolishing ice is a step in the right direction? >> i think we have to look at our entire immigration policy. our policy has failed. >> do you think that protesting on either side has gotten out of hand? >> for sure. >> do you think it's about really standing up for rights or is it about getting attention, what do you is the goal? >> i think people have a lot of goals, they want to be personal warriors. >> social justice warriors may be? >> for sure. >> fox news, you are if we've too. >> but i'm nice. >> i don't care. >> my name's tomi. >> i don't care.ox
>> very hostile in portland. >> unfortunately the only views that are being projected out here are extremist views so yor get extremist reactions and that's why you get extremist behavior with people coming up to you and flipping you off. >> you think a lot of people in portland are miswarned? >> they'll think about the corruption, coming in, the drugs. >> do you plan to go to any of the occupy ice protest? >> depending on what my work schedule is like. >> sean: liberal cities on the west coast, they aren't the only places protecting illegal immigrants. listen to what the governor of new york, andrew cuomo, set about ice. >> i will do nothing cooperatively with ice. i have sent them letters asking for an investigation. i have said if they do in a criminal acts, which a police force can do, we will take criminal action against ice because i believe they are
politically motivated. >> sean: and you will never be president. much more reaction. kirstjen nielsen is with us. by the way, madam secretary, i'm very sorry. i saw what happened to you in a restaurant and i know there's been other incidents is with you. it shouldn't happen and we have democrats telling people to get in the faces of secretaries, people in the cabinet like yourself. what's your reaction to that? >> i think the activism might be slightly misplaced in thehe sense that what needs to be reformed are our laws. we don't have laws that will let us do what we need to do to protect the country. that's where we should place our activism, to reform the laws that we can secure the homeland. >> sean: let me tell the audience about a case that we just found out about and this is out of the city of brotherly love, this is out of philadelphia. previously deported immigrant from honduras raped a child after philadelphia authorities ignored ice detainers and released him.
it goes back to this particular man, 45. he faced a couple years in prison and was deported from the u.s. in 2009. back in the country in march of 2014, taken into custody. then after local criminal charges against him were dropped, philadelphia officials did not comply with a detainer by the immigration and customs enforcement. he was released after his release he was rearrested and convicted for the rape of a child, and unlawful contact with a minor. isn't that about philly's decision to disregard ice detainers like andrew cuomo just talked about? couldn't that have been prevented? >> it could have been prevented and it should have been prevented. we owe the american people better. this is a perfect example of when jurisdictions decide not to cooperate with federal law enforcement. risk.t our communities at the men and women of dhs go
back into community at their own risk and the risk of the community where the criminal is. to try to re-interdict and detain that person. >> sean: as one person said he got a free pass from the city of philadelphia and its department of prisons headed straight back into our community, committed a heinous crime. he never would have had the chance to commit had the city of philadelphia complied with the ice detainer. this is happening much more than people know. how many times a year -- how often is this happening? we have them, we know they are here illegally, we know they violated laws and then cities don't cooperate and they get released and then commit other crimes. >> ithe does. the good news is that we continue to increase our prosecution and our removal of criminal aliens, dangerous criminal aliens. but you are absolutely right. the only way this works to protect our country is if we can get back to a place wheret law enforcement works with law enforcement.ou it's crazy that we have pitted
blue on blue. they are here to protect the public together.em >> sean: i had a source of mine recently told me that drones are being used by drug cartels out ofof mexico and the use the drone to find out where our law enforcement is positioned so that those that o are either involved in human smuggling or drug smuggling, that they will know which direction, which route to takev that is the most safe for them. and i'm told even though we know these drones are coming from mexico, we can do nothing to take them out of the sky unless we get a warrant. the problem with that would obviously be if we get the warrant, the drones arent backn mexico. is that true? >> it's not just that, but let's face it, when we are talking about the technology we have today, these drones canus fly up to 100 miles per hour so the concept of using an antiquated law to get a warrant to stop a nefarious drone is ridiculous. we've been working really hard with congress, there is bipartisan legislation that has
been introduced in both houses, but congress has got to act. i need the authorities now to protect the homeland. this is not a question of if, it's a question of one. >> sean: thank you for being with us. when we come back, an important video of the day that you don't want to mess, straight ahead. when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro.
see what i did there? does it look like i'm done?yet? shouldn't you be at work? [ mockingly ] "shouldn't you be at work?" todd. hold on. [ engine revs ] arcade game: fist pump! your real bike's all fixed. man, you guys are good! well, we are the number-one motorcycle insurer in the country. -wait. you have a real motorcycle? and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog!
champion.
>> [question inaudible] >> their party is in shambles right now. they have the squad leading their party. take a look at so many of the people that were the most outspoken, and they say this was a devastating day for the democrats, and you know it, john, and everybody else knows it. this is a devastating day for the democrats. a very dumb and unfair question. if you look at his correction, he took that totally out of play. he made his decision based on the facts, not based on some rule, so you shouldn't even ask
that question because you know it is a phony. go ahead. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: the democrats had nothing and now they have less than nothing and i think they're going to lose the 2020 election very big, including congressional seats because of the path they chose. now who knows where it goes, from what i hear, they're giving up. i just say, i know them too well, they will never give up. they'll go back in the room and try to figure something out. this whole thing has been honestly been collusion, it's been collusion with the media. it's been collusion with other countries. this has been a disaster for the democrats and i think we're going to win bigger than ever. now i'm going to west virginia, one of the great states, a state that is doing, if you look at
percentage up, number one or number two in the country and nobody would have believed that. west virginia is doing great. i'm going to west virginia. we did have a big case today. we won the asylum case in washington, which frankly, you should be asking about that because that is the real deal. i can't believe how nice you are today, go ahead, give me a question. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: no, because we did nothing wrong, very simple, nothing was done wrong, this was all a big hoax. if you look at it today, nothing was done wrong. now, i believe what you going to find, going to find a lot of things that were done very wrong, but that is going on now, something you haven't been writing about and that has to do with the other side. that has to do with a thing
called investigate the investigators. let's see what happens, that will be interesting. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: look. i think robert mueller did a horrible job, both today and with respect to the investigation, but in all fairness to robert mueller, he had nothing to work with. you can be a builder, but if they don't give you you the right materials, you're not going to build a very good building. robert mueller had no material or nothing to work with, obviously he did very poorly today. i don't think anybody, even among the fakers, i don't think anybody would say he did well. i looked at your people, they are saying it was devastating for the democrats and even i will tell you, the two most nauseous and nausiating networks, whose ratings have gone down, way down, even they
said this was a really bad day for the democrats. so robert mueller did a poor job, but in all fairness, he had nothing to work with. david. >> do you regret -- [question indiscernible] -- >> pres. trump: look, i saw what he did to people, how he ruined people's lives because they didn't remember a date or something minor, he ruined people's lives. the democrats, they took peep and he will destroyed their lives. they went bankrupt, they couldn't afford the fees, they were good people, many, many people. when you ask that question, all they have to do is see how nice this weather is, if i made a mistake, it is i was talking to the media and it was a little bit rainy, overcast, they'd say, he lied. let me tell you, i have seen what they have done to people, destroyed people like general flynn and so many others. no, i
did the right thing. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: well, mueller had no material. sure, mueller had no material to work with and he did a horrible job. obviously his presentation was way off. but that's okay. it didn't matter. he had no material, there was nothing done wrong. in fact, things were done right, there was nothing done wrong and certainly, i mean, look, i read the papers and the press and the internet and if you see what is going on the internet, if you listen to the internet, this was one of the worst performances in the history of our country. you know that, you know that very well. i don't think anybody could have done a good performance, he had no material, it was a fake set of facts that the democrats used and others to try and do really
an illegal overthrow, we'll find out about that. >> pres. trump: well, the asylum is a big -- say it. the asylum is a very big ruling, tremendous ruling today. we appreciate it. we respect the courts very much, that helps us very much at the border. the numbers are way down at the border, a good thing. apprehensions are way down because mexico has 22,000 soldiers and they mean business because they know what happens. the alternative is not good for them. it is also good for mexico, what they are doing because the cartels have been running all of the border for years and years and mexico is saying and the president, we got to clean it up. they have 21,000 soldiers, probably put up more, but this
ruling today on asylum is a tremendous ruling. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: so guatemala gave us their word, we were going to sign an agreement and all of a sudden, they backed up and said it was supreme court. i don't believe that. they used their supreme court as the reason they didn't want to do it. we'll either do tariffs or we'll do something, looking at something severe with respect to guatemala. i've cut all payments a year ago, i cut all payments going to honduras, el salvador and guatemala, we used to send them $500 million for nothing, for nothing. they didn't do anything, except set up caravans. so guatemala, we're going to take care of and it won't even be tough. we're looking at a couple different things. one of the things very heavy, as you know, mexico put 6000 people on that border.
[question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: let me just tell you something, i know, you always have a question. you mean my white house aide's lives? what about his aides and mueller's aides? he didn't say that at all. you are untruthful, you are untruthful. when you ask that question, when you ask that question, you are untruthful and you know who else is untruthful, who else is untruthful? his aides and wiseman was untruthful and wiseman got caught with arthur anderson, lost in supreme court 9-0, his aides were untruthful and they put mueller -- not at all, they put mueller in a very bad position. his aides put him in a very bad position. if you were ever truthful, you'd be able to write this.
>> the dems have nothing, now they have less than nothing. that was president donald trump. hi, i'm greg gutfeld with kennedy, juan, live from d.c., jesse waters and sandra smith, this is "the five." so we hear donald trump will speak in a few more minutes, we're not sure when, we'll go back to that. in the meantime, quick reaction to the mueller hearing from the table and from juan, who was in d.c. sandra, good to see you. >> sandra hi, greg. the president just wrapped what we were witnessing throughout the day. in his own words, a bad day for the country, he went on to say good day for him. it was a great day for me. democrats should be ashamed for bringing this in the first place, on republicans, they defended something great today, called them warriors.
robert mueller, on his presentation, the president said he believed he did not have a presentation, did not have material when he went into the hearing rooms, we will hear more on this. democrats are reacting. it is not over yet. >> oh, yes it is. >> sandra both sides -- >> i'm not disappointed at all. >> reaction to trump? >> he was combative, sure of himself, looked very, very confident and relaxed and relieved over today because i think everybody agrees even the democrats and the mediaa would agree this is absolute catastrophe for them. i predicted this would back fire on democrats, backfired worse than i expected. the entire day, they tried to strike and light that match for impeachment and it wouldn't light. there was no big t.v. moment. mueller didn't deliver, he was stumbling, bumbling, trump knows tha that, optically, it was a bomb
and substantively it was a bomb. he was pushing back on the press, shows how sure he is, he closed this chapter and impeachment, i believe the impeachment train has stopped dead on the tracks and the kind of questions the white house correspondents were asking, like they didn't even watch the hearing, how biassed and baseless they were. are you worried about being indicted when you leave office? no, he's absolutely not worried about that. >> kenny. >> i thought it was interesting, the president was shot out of a cannon and we have to mark contrast in tone in reaction from today versus may 29, when robert mueller came out and had that somewhat odd press conference, he managed to say two things. one, i don't want to go before congress and now we understand why he was hesitant to go before congress and the president was really waiting for a moment like this to button the whole thing up and jesse is right, he is
incredibly confident, combative and the tone in the white house and for the president's allies markedly different than it was two months ago. >> greg: juan, are you there? i think president trump is happy how this panned out, right? >> juan: absolutely, no choke pill for him, exuberant, bubbling like champagne. i think, though, you have to be careful. you shouldn't judge a congressional hearing by entertainment value. we would have been age of cable news and clicks and social mid media, you can see the wave there. the wave and that is what president trump is picking up on, my opponents feel deflated. you heard that from jesse, right? no collusion, no obstruction. it is easy to forget, trump and the republicans didn't want these hearings. but you get the hearing and now you get into a situation where i think a lot of people are saying, you know what, we thought the movie was going to be better than the book.
hmm, turns out the book was better than the movie, especially for the democrats. you can't get away from the fact, that is what democrats tried to show today. they laid out the case for obstruction, laid out that russia interfered and as you heard, even at the very end, from adam schiff, intelligence committee, he still thinks there is a case to be made here and the one thing mueller was clear on is russia interfered in 2016 to help trump and they continue to interfere as we head toward 2020. >> greg: the hype turned into tripe. >> sandra so many awkward moments. andy mccarthy reacting, even involved in the investigation, when you saw the way he was ill prepared for questions that came at him, including who appointed him in massachusetts, u.s. attorney? he answered george h.w. bush, he
was corrected it was ronald reagan. how many witness interviews did you sit on, 500 of them, he answered few. fusion gps, he said he was not familiar with that, behind the steele dossier. i felt bad. >> mueller is a stand-up guy, i felt that the democrats set him up and trotted him out when he wasn't ready or prepared and it made him look terrible. >> he had the aide that was sworn in to help him follow along. he didn't know what was in his own report, it was wiseman's report. they slapped mueller's name on it. he was not running this investigation, he was asleep at the wheel, they trotted him out, he's got a great brand and served honorably for so many years. no clue what was going on, no clue about the hiring process, he didn't know the details, he was stammering and stumbling. and juan likes to say the
republicans were fearful of this, if the republicans could go back and say, hey, maybe, i think we'd change our mind. we want this hearing and were happy he went out and testified. >> juan: you were saying, don't bring mueller here. >> jessica: i says it was going to back fire. that is what happened. >> juan: no, no, no, important distinction, jesse, he didn't wilt. i think he thought in his mind, i'm going to present myself as the ex-marine, the straight-shooter, man of great aptitude and came off as uncertain of the facts. >> greg: juan, going back to trump. >> your answers are generally untruthful, what do you say to that? >> pres. trump: he didn't say that at all. you are untruthful. when you ask that question, you are untruthful. you know who else is untruthful?
you know who else is untruttrut his aides. and wiseman was untruthful. >> were your aides lieing and impeding the investigation, mr. president? >> pres. trump: not at all. they put mueller in a bad position, his aides put him in a bad position. if you were truthful -- i evaporate called boris, but i'm very, very happy. so what happened was -- the two lovers is disgrace. they had a lot of text messages and mueller illegally deleted the text messages and they didn't get too much into that
because he forgot, he didn't really know, he didn't know too much, he didn't know anything. they were texting. they were the ones with "in case you should lose, we'll have an experience policy," the same situation, bad situation. what they did and what mueller did, he deleted text messages back and forth, probably thousands of them. that is a serious problem. >> mr. president, have you heard from kim jong-un? [question indiscernible] [questioning over each other] >> pres. trump: i think it is going to help us, everyone sees now this thing has been going on for so long, in all fairness to mueller, this has gone on long before mueller, gone on from some time after we came down the escalator and i got great poll
numbers. from the beginning, i was leading. this took place right after we came down the escalator, the first lady and myself and i will tell you something, i think it is going to have a huge negative impact on 2020 for the democrats. [question indiscernible] >> greg: the only thing that could top that, jesse, my monologue. >> jesse: i would agree. >> greg: let's do it. can you repeat the question, sir. >> can you repeat the question, sir, that went fast for me. >> could you repeat the question. >> can you repeat the question. >> the impact -- >> all right. >> can you read the last question? >> the last question was -- >> i want to make certain i got it accurate. >> can you repeat the question, where are you reading from? >> i'm reading from my question. [laughter] >> then could you repeat it? >> okay. >> this is very, very painful, those aren't my words.
david axewell,rod, tweeting. the dems got was a damp spark ler. they wanted empire strikes back, but got a rerun of matlock. they wanted super bowl and got a test pattern. was it a disaster for the democrats? >> i think this has been a disaster for the democrats and a disaster for the reputation of robert mueller. he is very uncertain with his brief. he doesn't know, seem to know what things that are in the report. >> greg: don't take it from him, i had to watch, too, it was on at the gym, it was that or real housewives. if you did a shot every time mueller said, could you repeats question, you would be dead. it is not his fault, it is the dems, wanting to relive the past and hoping the ending changes. like guy who got dumpd and thinks playing their song over and over might rekindle the
romance, the conclusion, same as before. mueller says trump is not guilty, dems want him to say, okay, trump may not be guilty, that doesn't mean he is innocent . trump wasn't exonerated, exoneration, declaring someone innocent , is impossible. watch this painful exchange. >> mr. mueller, does the attorney general have the power or authority to exonerate? what i'm putting up here is united states code, the attorney general gets his power and the institution and onannotated versions of this. i went to case western, i thought maybe your law school teaches it differently and got the criminal law textbook from your law school. mr. mueller, nowhere in these, we had them scanned, is a process or description on exonerate, no office of exoneration at the attorney general's office, no certificate at bottom of his desk. mr. mueller, would you agree, the attorney general does not have the power to exonerate?
>> i'm going to pass on that. >> why? >> this is the headline on all of the news channels while you were testifying today. mueller, trump was not exonerated. mr. mueller, what you know, this can't say mueller exonerated trump because you don't have the power or authority to exonerate trump. >> greg: oh, that did not go well. 400-page lump drafted by unhappy staffers collapses like a bad souffle. trump continues to unleash economy and adversaries sit stranded, arms flailing, going nowhere and the future starts looking like 2016 all over again. democrats wanted for mueller to give his report new life instead he took it out to the woods and shot it. kennedy, youment to bring up point about impeachment? >> kennedy: we have to ask, democrats were hoping this was their best hope and inviting the fire of impeachment.
the pilot light is lit, the flames are there. so today was kerosene or ice water. >> greg: yes. >> kennedy: unfortunately for democrats, pinning their hopes on this pivotal moment, it was the latter. >> greg: here is why. the messenger was not effective. it was like he didn't have all his facultys, he was bumbling and stumbleing and did not deliver the goods. it was clear he was not running the investigation, he was just a figure head. he testified under oath, greg, the investigation was not obstructed, yet democrats want to impeach trump for obstructing an investigation that the lead investigator said wasn't obstructed. trump is presumed innocent in this country. what the hearing established, when mueller said that i cannot exonerate you, he violated the bedrock principle of the american judicial system that
you are innocent until proven guilty and he abused his prosecutorial authority by making that claim. and, he had no control over his own team. he said he didn't even ask questions when he hired his staff. they hired 14 democrats, no republicans, clinton donors and clinton lawyers, they come on the team, he didn't know about those conflicts. he found out, he didn't do anything about the conflict. >> kennedy: that was one moment he got fired up today, defending those on his staff, the lawyers that work for him. lawmakers chose to question about political affiliate yop, democrats donating to hillary clinton's campaign, he fired up and actually looked at everybody in the room and said not once when i have hired people have i ever asked their political affiliation, i would say that is one moment he defended himself the most. >> the only time he perked up. juan, the bottom line, he does
not have ability to exonerate, that crushs the democrats. >> juan: you know, i disagree, greg. it seems to me he's the special counsel, not like a prosecutor in your hometown who indicts or doesn't indict, goes to the grand jury and gets the charge or doesn't. he's a special counsel and under his mandate, he was to give a report and by the way, supposed to be a private report, it was up to the attorney general bill barr to release it, bill barr released it, as much as he thought was appropriate and he said, i don't find the conspiracy and by the way, i thought you guys were going to hit mueller on the fact he couldn't distinguish conspiracy from collusion. >> greg: we'll get there, long show. >> juan: i'm saying, i think what he had in his hand was to say, one, this is headline out of today, guess what, yes, the president can be indicted.
but we didn't make that determination because of the office of legal counsel direction, the policy direction coming from justice and i think that is really important for people to understand. he was constrained. >> greg: juan, you saying he's special counsel doesn't make him special, he's still a prosecutor, no prosecutor -- >> juan: no, he's not a ordinary prosecutor, jesse. >> jesse: no attorney general has power to exonerate anybody, innocent until proven guilty in court of law. >> juan: i love it, jesse, that is not the case here. the case here -- >> kennedy: i have to disagree, juan. he is appoint said as a prosecutor, that is his job and basis of prosecution and the judicial system is presumption of innocence, that is where you work from, not backward. it is not a spy novel with excited twists and turns it has to be straight-forward. if we have equal justice under
the law. >> juan: kennedy, what you guys are saying is true if you were street criminal. we are talking about guy operating as special counsel under special law, he didn't have ken starr's authority, ken starr was a special prosecutor, this guy is special counsel, he was supposed to issue a report and in the report, he can say what he wants to say about exoneration. again, this is a false standard being set up by republicans to try to say, ah, nothing here. >> kennedy: go back to -- >> juan: it wasn't john dean. >> kennedy: what about exchange jesse mentioned with ratcliffe, though, he was asked by the congressman, robert mueller was, can you give example other than donald trump, where the department of justice determined an investigative person was not exonerated bau innocence was not conclusively determined? he replied, mueller replied, i cannot, this is unique situation. ratcliffe says, leave it there. i wish they would have gone on with that statement and let him respond to that.
>> never happened in america, juan, never happened in america. this is not a banana republic. this guy has authority under the executive branch. he can do what he wants under those legal guidelines. he can't go out of legal guidelines. speaking of his mandate, he didn't follow through on his mandate. mandate to look into russian interference in the election, yes, the core people involved in the origination of the investigation and the origination of the russia collusion narrative, glen simpson and christopher steele, let off the hook by special counsel, miss foot lied and was never charged with perjury. robert mueller said he never heard of fusion gps, clinton dirty arm. >> juan: give it a break, jesse, come on. >> jesse: looks the other way, that is why people think this is
rigged. >> juan: how many times did he say not in my purview? go ask people at justice, go ask intelligence agency, not what he was supposed to be looking at. >> jesse: russia interference covers collusion and americans conspiring and that is what the democrats did. >> juan: and the transition. >> kennedy: he had an opportunity to defend himself in the room today and we didn't see that. moving on, about to hear from top democrats reacting to robert mueller earlier today at the hearings. democrats honed in on their key issue. should president trump be charged with a crime over obstruction of justice? take a look at this. >> the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, true? >> correct. >> warrant a lot of time in jail if convicted? >> yes. >> why did the president of the united states want you fired? >> does ordering determination of the head of a criminal
investigation constitute obstructive act? >> in my view, anyone else in america engaged in these actions, would have been charged with witness tampering. >> all right, a lot of obsession in that room today. kennedy, start us off here. >> kennedy: we see split hearings with big moments like this. democrats tried to throw robert mueller various lifelines what struck emotion was when they were talking about his record and there was confusion about that, but democrats also, you know, were trying to sort of lead him into parts of the report that were damming for the president and even with that and with that guidance, special counsel still shut them down with these one-word answers and the need for clarification over and over and over again. >> sandra greg, to quote al green, a wow moment did not
happen. sol wisenberg asked the question or made the point, this did not move the needle, amazing when nancy pelosi, who we are about to hear from in a short bit, nancy pelosi was asked about the hearing and she was watching it. she said just a little bit, only a few moments. >> greg: passed by a big box store and saw it. dems are caught in this dilemma, they love the indictment strl and collusion story but americans doesn't. the more they use these golf clubs, it keeps them from coming up and generating ideas that might attract voters. the collusion argument is equivalent of smoking pot when you wake up in the morning. you get nothing done the rest of the day, democrats. start collusion early, you're done. [laughter] >> sandra jesse? >> jesse: everybody knows collusion didn't happen. obstruction thing, you cannot impeach president for
obstructing crime he didn't commit or obstructing crime that the lead investigator said he wasn't obstructed on and of course you fight back when you have been framed by democrats and investigated by democrats coming after your company, your family, your personal assets and trying to set perjury traps for you, tee up impeachment and set up obstruction case against you, you are going to fight back. he fought back, he complied. he never claimed executive privilege, handed over thousands of documents and he won. that is what democrats want to impeach him for. potus never fired robert mueller, he never said fire robert mueller, he asked his personal lawyer to ask the acting a.. go, can we replace robert mueller with someone not conflicted. if democrats hang th impeachment hat on that, go fishing. >> sandra ask juan, did the hearings persuade nancy pelosi to move forward with
impeachment? did it move the needle? >> juan: i don't think it moved it with nancy pelosi, chris wallace, on the programs all day with me, he said he thought this helped nancy pelosi because she's been trying to hold a lot of democratic fire brains back on the argument that hey, the election is coming up, if you make trump into a martyr it might help him get re-eshg elected. quickly, jesse, this is not a street criminal activity. you have to understand that when trump says to his lawyer, to mcgahn, go fire mueller, go call me back. what are you talking about? that is on the record, in the report, curead it. >> jesse: i did read the report, glad you brought that up. they got caught, mueller's team, overcooking the statute. a statute they use against multi national companies for auditing
irreg laritys and for shredding documents. creatively empowered this statute to make any executive action criminal. they actually brought this up, barack obama could be charged under the over interpretation of the statute when he went on the record and said hillary clinton's e-mail server was not that big of a deal and was not a threat to national security. that is how convoluted and creative the use of -- >> juan: you are so far off. >> greg: bill barr caught them red-handed -- >> juan: you should be celebrating what happened today, instead, you are in the weeds and distracting people, the reality is -- >> jesse: not a distraction. >> juan: you should be happy. >> kennedy: juan, i want to add something, democrats were hoping this would be the kind of big flash that eclipses the i.g.
report coming out. it was crucial to have mueller testify. he was supposed to testify last week and obviously, this was put off by a week for very, very obvious reasons. robert mueller came out himself and forcefully said in writing and in person that he did not want to testify. and it is obvious why. and we don't know what is going to be in the i.g. report, many people are stringing the facts together, who realize that is an ugly necklace that could hang democrats on this issue. >> sandra juan, president tweeted, truth is force of nature. after the conclusion of the first hearing with the judiciary committee today, he sent out, this is first part of the tweet, i would like to thank democrats for holding this morning's hearings, after he was seering about the aide being present and he changed his mind as the
morning went on. do you think democrats will regret this, regret getting robert mueller in there for the hearings today? >> juan: no, in terms of moving the needle, politics of it, i don't think anybody who had an opinion going in changed it. i think democrats hoped they would push, especially independent voters based on the credibility of robert mueller as a war hero, long-time f.b.i. director, i don't think that happened. that is what democrats are hoping for, let them. >> sandra that have to do that, necessary for democrats because impeachment has not been polling well for them. >> juan: oh, no, remember impeachment among democrats pose very well. what have you to understand, the dynamic inside the democratic caucus, which is why chris wallace was saying nancy pelosi may be quite grateful for what happened, now some of the fires may be pulling back. in terms of the democratic base, there is no question, they'd like to see trump impeached.
now you have a question, what do we do going forward, a big august break coming up, we come back in september, are democrats going to come back to this? believe me, adam schiff is not going away. the whole talk of impeachment of this guy, not going away. >> sandra jesse, hureaction when i said at the top of the show, there was disappointment on both sides. republicans went in hopeing and wishing to dig in deeper to origin of the investigation, robert mueller made it clear at the top of the hearing he would not go there. >> jesse: you asking me? >> sandra respond. >> greg: i thought you said jesse, do i look like jesse? i don't know, here is the deal. i'm more interested in how the media portray this now. i can't tell the difference between media reaction and democratic reaction. sweaty, feverish anti-trump
hatred make its hard for anyone to take righteous end of the world shrieking seriously. everyday is the apocalypse at the hearing, no one is listening, everybody is tuned out, but us, we don't trust what we hear. imagine if the media hadn't given in to bitter emotion after being humiliated, cnn hadn't been fearmongering or had a panel call everybody racist, people might listen to this stuff. too late. >> the media stuff. same people who spent years pushing fake trump-russian collusion conspiracy theory and thought for months mueller's testimony would get trump. none of that happened. here is the best of the media mueller meltdown. >> from democratic perspective to me, it's been a bust. >> if you are telling a story through congressional hearing, what you want is the witness to tell the story.
>> bob mueller's grasp and presentation of the facts was not very detailed. >> the shortcoming is appearing fact pattern. >> they fumbled accountability mission they were on. optics, this was a disaster. >> kennedy, notice how the media is obsessed with the optics of this, had has always been about the optics, never about the substance, optics of proving trump guilty in the world of public opinion and getting the rest of the country to follow along. >> sandra when you hiss the focus, it erodes whatever goal you ultimately had, for people like todd in the media and certainly for congressional democrats, they want focus to be impeachment. move from conspiracy to collusion to well, this is a little bit unethical, that is problematic when you are trying to make a forceful point.
you can really sense the disappointment and you have to ask, if you are disappointed, what did you expect from today and how did you think the outcome was going to be difference from this? >> i think they thought, greg, democrats on the committee could sell it. the olc opinion, don mcgahn and rosenstein, can't really sell a political scandal the way a burglary or dead body can. >> they had the edge. the party and media were hand in hand. i said to jim, 140 minutes i was there. cnn's lower third was mueller, trump was not exonerated. they went with that. carnival news network had one thing to bark. >> sandra the first change -- >> all they add, they can't report on good news, it is linked to trump. they have this, they seize on only thing they can, they don't
care how good the country is going, they just want revenge for what happened to them, they were humiliated. >> juan: wait a second, can i jump in here? wasn't trump saying all along and believe me, talking about media, his use of twitter and social media, facebook, all the people he's had at the white house who support him online, wasn't trump saying this is a witch hunt, the russia stuff is a hoax, didn't he say mueller wants democrat and want a second bite of the apple? he was going at it in terms of his media, his bubble and he's getting through a message and guess what, it wasn't what he said, that is why i said to jesse, you guys should have been saying, no obstruction, no collusion, let's have him in here, get mueller in. >> greg: we haven't changed that line, juan, no one has been charged with -- >> juan: he makes the point, guess what, this president can be, if not for -- >> if that is what you take away from this hearing, wait, no, not
two years, six years and you can lock trump up. sandra, one main takeaway today was that a lot of the american public that hadn't been following this are hearing things for the very first time. they did a study, mrt.v. about how the networks portrayed this russia investigation. 1.5% of the coverage on the text messages, the dossier, 1.3% of the coverage, fisa abuse .8%, the country doesn't know until you watch fox or read on twitter about the corrupt origin of the investigation. >> sandra: and only time will tell. waiting to hear from democrats how they will proceed. >> they are at the bar. >> sandra: i wasn't at the gym, i was getting ready. >> jesse: i was at the stair climber. >> sandra: republicans attack mueller's investigation at hearing, trying to portray
republicans in the first hearing room as going on the attack. perhaps that is the way they were dealing with robert mueller appearing weak, as you heard from some democrats. >> kennedy: how else do you get answers? judiciary committee is full of lawyers, former prosecutors on the committee who are going to ask questions in a certain way, some to better effect than others. biggest problem, robert mueller decided what he was going to talk about and negotiated with jerry nadler and doug collins because when things got difficult for him, instead of answering the question, he would say, no, i'm not going to, that is not in my purview. certain things were not in his purview, we are talking about basis for the investigation. that seems like a pretty critical link in this investigatory chain. >> greg: what is amazing, they actually held mock hearings, they practiced for this.
>> mock hearing probably went better than the real hearing. juan, quick question. the fact that the media, who we know is one-sided, hate trump, the fact the media would admit on live t.v. this thing was a catastrophe, how bad was it actually for democrats? they didn't -- >> juan: i thought it was bad for -- have to say the media was honest, you agree with them, right? you think this did not go well for democrats? >> greg: only time they are honest, when they agree with me. >> juan: have you to agree. the big news, there are facts out there and people tomorrow morning when they pick up the so-called media, i don't care, left or right, guess what, he said that you can't indict a sitting president under policy, he didn't make that determination because of policy. he laid out the facts, he could have -- >> jesse: for obstruction and
that would have made the president unindicted co-conspirr co-conspirret -- conspirrator, why didn't he do that? >> kennedy: good question, juan. >> juan: even in michael cohen with the payoff to women, he is conspirrator one, they don't name him there. they are protective of his rank. >> jesse: you think mueller protects the presidency and was protective of him. i disagree. >> kennedy: where is johnimism mitchell, going to go to prison for the crime. not being caught in certain traps. by the way, i thought that was one of the best lines of questioning of the day, jim jordan talking about joseph and asking, here is a person who is clearly working for either british intelligence or u.s.
intelligence and mueller obviously couldn't give clarification on that, if he had lied to f.b.i. and special counsel three separate times, why wasn't he charged with one of the process crimes? he was the impotus, a launching pad for this entire process. i thought that was very well played -- >> sandra jesse, miskcalculatio by the media, they were awesome this morning, other media coverage when the hearing began this morning, george stephanopoulos asked question out of the gate, what will it mean about impeachment? he went on to say and wonder what crimes would be revealed by mueller, asking what will mueller say about the president, russia and crimes. there were high expectations by democrats and media head intoing this. >> sounds like george stephanopoulos never read the e kne mueller would not stray from the report. >> the report is taller than george.
back up the report, i can't see it. >> never forget how hypocritical the media is, to pretend in 2019, they cared about russian collusion, when in the '80s they were sympathetic with the ussr, eight times the size of russia and make fun of anti-communist and thought we had nothing to worry about and obama made fun of mitt romney for being skeptical of russians as being good for us. then here and now, all they care about is nailing trump. not actually looking at the collusion, the russian side. >> sandra on that note, christopher christopher wray came out and laid out the threat that china poses. here we are still obsessing about russia and talk about retro, that is the early odds once they are big foreign threat back and technology.
>> juan? >> juan: nope. >> greg: want to take it from here? take it away for us? >> juan: you know what i think, what this is driving toward is 2020 election and i think that is where we're going to see the impact of what took place today. what you get is a situation where people already are trying to figure out the politics of it. we have a democratic debate scheduled for next week, we'll see how the democrats handle what took place here today. do they see it as a dud or see it differently? sandra, what do you think happens at the debate? >> sandra the debate? mueller conversation, where does it go from here? that is what we're about to hear from democrats. jerry nadler and nancy pelosi, democratic leadership is about to talk and the basis what we are about to hear, the press release here, they will hold press availability after the mueller hearings, how they plan to proceed after the hearings this morning. this is a huge narrative for
them and you heard so much from the presidential candidates on this, juan, what part is this now going to play in 2020? how much can democrats lean on this narrative? >> juan: i think they will, i think they have so many problems with trump, they don't have to sell it, they have to be convincing and once they head toward the general election, we will see a shift. take a look at this, we have some reaction from some democrats, here they are. >> no matter what this current attorney general and the president of the united states try to say, the american people are smart enough to know what is and what is not true. >> president donald trump did everything he could to obstruct justice. it is time to bring impeachment charges against him. >> that report is enough of an -- >> here we go. >> all right. so here we see democrats, go
democrats, go. >> what happened and how it conforms to the law or not. the president likes to have his poster that said the mueller report took this many days, cost this much money, this, that and the other. we have a corresponding contradictory chart. mueller investigation by the numbers. 40 million dollars recovered for the u.s. government. remember he said how much it would cost less than that, 37 people and entities charged with crimes, 25 ongoing criminal cases referred, seven convicted, including five top trump campaign officials. and then he had no collusion, no this or that. 10 instances of obstruction, yes. no exoneration. that is some of what we heard today. i want to go to another point. the same time as we're on this
path of the mueller investigation to recognize that the mueller investigation was prohibited from looking into the president's demands and that is what our committee of jurisdiction had been doing. as we legislate for the good of the american people, we're also investigating so that we have the grift of the mill to litigate in court. those cases we won in lower court, they of course ark peeld and we feel strongly that the position of article 1, legislative branch having right to have oversight over every other branch of government, but that is important because it means we can get the information to show the american people what the obstruction of justice was further all about. very, very proud of our committee, the judiciary committee and great chairman jerry nadler, the intelligence
committee, great chairman, adam schiff, we will hear from now and also joined by elijah cummings chair of the government oversight committee, a committee that is winning courts in case, as well. i will yield with great respect to all three of our chairman and we will take questions. yield to distinguished chairman of the judiciary chairman, mr. nadler. >> thank you, madam speaker. today the american people heard directly about what the special counsel investigation uncovered. as to russia interference in the 2016 election, and the president's cooperation with it and obstruction of justice. mueller made clear that the president is not exonerated. mueller found evidence of obstruction of justice and abuse of power by the president. he -- the report said the president could be indicted for obstruction of justice after he
leaves office. mueller found that trump would and did benefit from russia's help and that the campaign welcomed that help. mueller found multiple instances, all three elements charging criminal obstruction of justice were met. trying to fire the special counsel in order to stop the investigation, trying to have people lie and cover up for him, for the same purpose, trying to limit or impede or constrict special counsel investigation, trying to tamper with witnesses, tamper with witnesses, cooperating with investigators. all of these were found with great evidence. president trump went to great length to obstruct the special counsel investigation. anyone else who acted in this way, if they were not the sitting president, would face criminal prosecution, would face indictments, only the office of legal counsel opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president saved or is saving the
president from indictment because all the elements of these crimes were found with substantial evidence and people have heard this, the president's chant of no obstruction is nonsense, his chant that he's been totally exonerated is a simple lie. >> first of all, i want to thank director mueller for lifetime of service to the country, from his days as a young marine in vietnam through his decades of service as a prosecutor, as director of the f.b.i. and through his service as special counsel, this nation owes him enormous debt of gratitude. director, mueller, thank you personally for all of your service. today the director outlined in powerful words how russia
intervened massively in our election systematically in a sweeping fashion, how during the course of the intervention, they multiple approaches to the trump campaign and the trump campaign welcomed it, made full use of it, put it into communications and messaging strategy and then lied about it. lied about it to cover it up, lied about it to obstruct the investigation to that very attack on our democracy. part of what i found so powerful about his testimony today was not just when he was asked about the law, but asked about the ethics, the morality, the lack of patriotism of this conduct and most chilling moment i think in our committee, when he expressed the fear this become the new normal and of course i think what is animating that fear of the director, certainly
animates it for me, is the fact even after the nightmare of the last 2-1/2 years, the president of the united states will still not fore-swear receiving foreign help again. that to this point, the president still continues to call this russian ark attack a hoax, something director mueller today refuted. he still calls a witch hunt, something director mueller directly refuted. and so, we go into this next election more vulnerable than we should be. we can't control completely what russia does, although we must do everything to harden election defenses to make sure there are paper trails, to make sure that we deter and disrupt any kind of russian intervention, we cannot control that completely, we can control what we do. and director mueller made it clear in no uncertain terms that it is up to us whether we act
ethically and patriotically, when we refuse to be a party to a foreign ark tack attack on our democracy and we thank him for his service. >> thank you very much. >> i think first i want to applaud chairman nadler and -- who is our judiciary committee and certainly our chairman of intelligence committee for what they did today and there are many. what they did did was paint a picture for america. one of the most showing things that i have noticed, that i've witnessed, is when a member, former member of my committee, a republican went to a town hall meeting and got a round of
applause in a republican district after he had said that he felt that the president should be impeached. that wasn't the thing that got me. what really got me was when a lady at the end of the town hall meeting said, i didn't know that there was anything negative in the mueller report about president trump. that says a lot. and to her credit, house speaker made it clear that we need to paint a picture for america. so they could fully understand what is going on. this is a critical moment in our country's history. don't be fooled. >> all right, time for final thoughts. iment to go first. it is clear nancy pelosi didn't watch it.
she talked about seized assets,y which i think if you confuse the seized assets from the investigation, let's use it to build a wall. >> there you go. >> nancy pelosi calling was crossing the threshold, it was a big day for us. she says she watched it a little bit when asked earlier. she said the american people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our constitution. i think this gives you some sense that the calls for impeachment will not completely be ignored by the speaker of the house. speaker nancy pelosi was smiling because it was over today, not because it went well. if she's no pivoting to getting trump's taxes. nadler and adam schiff look like they need prozac. if it was ugly out there, look like there was a death in the family. they've done nothing, nancy's congress so far besides 100 hearings on a hoax and i checked on the government. they've done nothing on health care infrastructure, trade, or drug prices. at the end of this, no one was charged with collusion or criminal conspiracy and no one
was charged with obstruction. >> but there's no exoneration. it's interesting to look at the tone of the democrats and the press conference. in the tone that the president had when he was talking to the press that we had at the very top of the show and those are so different. that is such a contrast. as he says it is all about objects. it's very obvious how the objects are -- >> could get a better haircut if that were the case. final thoughts? >> i thought nancy pelosi made her point. she said, look, we have oversight responsibility, and then you heard nadler come forward and say anybody else who had been found to have obstructed in this manner would be indicted. maybe that will come through as news. you heard elijah cummings say at the end, a lot of americans didn't read the report, maybe this will get through. but i think overall you saw the president, you saw the democrats, the president is a happy guy, right? >> mueller probably didn't read it. >> like the rest of the country.
same that is very frightening is how they manipulate the system, what they could do with the system if they're not kept in check, this is the reason why the democrats are doing everything in secrecy. this is why ratcliff had to come out and others had to say once we question taylor, the whole thing fell apart, sorry we >> breaking tonight details in cannot show this to you because the mission to take down the leader of isis is president they are keeping the secret from the american public, with the trump had a major success. american public should understand, we should look at welcome to "the next both sites and hear all the revolution". arguments but we should have the public. these hearings must be public, they should not exist to begin per worker, pro-family and more importantly than ever, with but they should be public in the american people should pro-america. he was members of the army elite delta force copying from hear everybody including q&a helicopters that led to the between the house lawmakers and death of albert gotti. in the dead of night in the people calling to testify. >> that's under lock and key, it northwestern syria order by president trump. is so damning to the president, let it out. >> he died after running into a >> they are saying it will and dead-end tunnel, crying and screaming all the way. there will be a public stage of this. the compound had been cleared by and therefore the republicans are going to jump in.
this time with people either surrendering or shot and killed. that just seems to be wrong when you have kurt volker, he said baghdadi's demise demonstrates there was not quid pro quo. >> remember when robert miller's relentless pursuit of terse leaders and our commitment to testimony was going to top the president, the 18th time, the the enduring and total defeat of isis and other terrorist reason it didn't is because this guy did not know what was in his report, that's because it was organizations. steve: we've got you covered on the story and other big news done public, live television, imagine if that was going on right now, the reason it's going on in secret is so they don't get tripped up to the actual people who are testifying and they can cherry pick. eventually weather in the house into the origin of the russia or senate this will be done in investigation becoming a criminal probe. and of course the latest on impeachment. let's discuss the news with our guest senior fellow of the public. >> culture thought, we have to take a quick break but we'll be washington post colonist, trump right back with much more don't 2020 campaign national press right back with much more don't gmy insurance rates are probably gonna double. secretary and fox news contribute or, great to see you. but dad, you've got allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up sarah, let's focus on the just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed.
arguments that are swirling are you in good hands? around us. what has been so interesting compared to what we saw with bin doctor bob, what should i take for back pain? before you take anything, laden, immediately the trump i recommend applying topical relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. haters are trained to pick holes hisamitsu. in this and the one particular thing i would love your take on, i get it all the time. see, this proves that the president is getting out of the middle east is completely wrong "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... because if they had not been ...and choose any car in the aisle. there they could not have done this. it seems this is exactly what he's talking about, really simple and strategic, go in and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. there get the bad guy, get out. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. >> is exactly what he's talking about, and what military officials have talked about for a long time called the lily pad looking good, patrick. strategy. you have commanders, special operation units and teams i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. targeting terrorist and other nations. you don't have to send in the full battalion. you don't have to send in the full army unit is not like world war ii, this is not like world war i, it's a much different
work, were fighting in unconventional enemy. this is what is so successful is the use the delta force, the special force to go when and helicopters in the dead of night with actionable intelligence, let me tell you that is one of the most difficult things in all of this operation, to have actual intelligence to know where he's going to be to target him and get him. this is one of the most successful operations in military history against the terrorist against a monster who had taken thousands of lives, destroyed thousands of lives across the globe in over 143 countries and this team of commandos, the quiet professionals did it, and the president made the right call and he should be commended for this. the same way we commended president obama when they got bin laden. this is not political. this is about doing the right thing for the country and the right thing for the world.
>> the one person out today commended the president was lindsey graham. i will play what he said, he was at the podium in the white house, let's listen to a couple of plays in the heart of some of the issues. >> been talking to the president for months about the war on terror and every time i would bring up a topic, he would tell me without any hesitation. i'm going to get that guy. when it comes to terrorism the president changed the rules of engagement, you think the cal state destroyed itself, he made a conscious decision and he went to iraq to change the game when with moderate to severe it came to destroying isis. everything changes when the ulcerative colitis or crohn's, people you're fighting with have skin in the game. i want to complement the your plans can change in minutes. president for coming up with a model in syria that we probably should've done in iraq. your head wants to do one thing, steve: the reason i picked those but your gut says, "not today."
if your current treatment isn't working, is because it's devout and you ask your doctor about entyvio. look at those altogether, what it shows is a country of what entyvio acts specifically the critics say that the in the gi tract to prevent an excess president is impulsive and of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. changing policy. entyvio has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. he has had a really clear strategy all along. pml, a rare, serious, >> he has, how funny to watch the media today for the last three weeks has said isis is potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus reemerging and growing, today we have news that the leader of isis with obama's may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, counterterrorism and he was the experience frequent infections singular voice of isis, he had or have flu-like symptoms or sores. gone because of president trump liver problems can occur with entyvio. and all tony 14, 2015, 2016, not ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic one time did have a sing a piece of intelligence to find out the just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. singular focus on getting this entyvio. relief and remission individual and i want to take a within reach. moment for all the markets who lost their lives, the hands of isis and justice was served in kayla's mom who had a hostage steve: here we are back with impeachment, what we talked who lost her life.
i still think kayla should be here and if it wasn't for about his argument i was making president trump maybe she would have been. steve: i'm not heard that. henry, what is your take on this. do you think there is a coherent to what the president is doing earlier, yes we can complain in relation to isis in the about the process, it's a disaster and should not be secret. middle east? but that is not a substitute for talking about the facts, is not >> he was clear during the true the facts don't help the campaign that he wanted to go president, they do. and particularly in relation to the central question of getting into syria, where he did not ukraine to investigate the bidens, as relayed out on the show, there is ample ground or asking ukraine to do that. want to do was to go into syria and other places to fight for other people's interest that were only connected to us. american taxpayer money going to the government of ukraine and so what were talking about today then going to the ukrainian energy sector, some of it, we is perhaps the combination of a three and half year from don't know how much went there, floodwater on isis. it is completely consistent with joe biden was controlling the the pullback in syria which not money and he boasted about controlling it, his son is on the board of the company that may or may not be a recipient, anyway how do you find out what happened to the u.s. money that involve the work in isis but it went to the government of involves other competing ukraine without involving the interests and other competing values that the americans might not want to have a stake in. in getting involved in the turks. government. >> we chose when were going
after isis to make alliance with >> how do you do that, you cannot. you have to involve the a section of the kurds from the government of ukraine. let's be frank, from the turks had disputes with over beginning of every presidency, joe biden is a perfect example their actions within the borders of turkey to support terrorism of this. within turkey. that was necessary in order to be isis when trump decided to do people have always said you will not get a unless you do this, when the battle was one it was this is our stipulation, there is nothing illegal about it, time to get out of the way with there is nothing wrong with it, the whole issue was, i will respect to the ongoing battle with taking the crude side met bring this up and this is something that i thought, when taking the relationship right the president made those transcripts public, he was there is no side to taken that. proving a point that he himself but completely coherent decisi did not think he did anything wrong, he was not guilty of decision. >> this is where we need to be anything, i personally would very direct and relies our have never made those public. allegiance and alliance with because everybody especially in people in that region of the world, i sent a lot of time an executive office the right to private conversation between during the time the isis was world leaders. i have said this before, over down below and holding that and over again, if we took every conversation, every transcript town, basically designated the population in the region. of every conversation, president obama had was a world leader and there is a way to balance this i'm sure we'd see far worse in in the middle east and there is
a way to not turn our backs on the public mind. but there is issues that people talk about between one another the kurds and at the same time not entering a full-scale of military operations in a think and you brought up a very good point. how do we look at this now. the president is playing this very carefully, i think the fact biden publicly stated that they they are working with us and are going to withhold over a billion dollars unless this worked with us so closely to get up al-baghdadi, i think we taket attorney was fired. and he said by god they did it. and there trying to turn this on one step at a time. steve: taken together all your trump. steve: i heard this. the other thing i want to get points, president trump realizes he cannot just sit in washington into in the time we have left, looking ahead, it looks as if and micromanage the middle east, you have to be focused and what the timing means you end up with the interest in defeating the all this going on in an election year end it insane for them -- terrorist and what a triumph on something where there is divide that front tonight. last night it should say. we cannot leave the story and absolutely the idea that without mentioning the insane headline, i'm sorry about this i'm not going to ask you to comment. the insane headline about this is an impeachable defense with whether something to get an account by the voters to do it
in election years is nuts. >> i think they would love to have this handled before the al-baghdadi, the religious election your start but it's not going to happen. i think they cannot hold back their base. the basis wanted to impeach trump since he was inaugurated. scholar, here is some that we there was a poll that said that in separate 2017 over 60% of liked, it definitely, passionate democrats wanted to impeach trump, they could not hold back community planner and public their base anymore. >> the voters saw this, of swing speaker -- stalin nor to the states 53% against impeachment agrarian refers to. [laughter] and we saw and i will pull only 7% want impeachment and one for killed millions dead at 74. michigan voters, one told the network i was for biden and when in this illini, he made the train on time. impeachment started i was died at 61. switched to president trump. >> to have a perfect connection this is a bit of fun and a great day for america. to what's coming up next. in exclusive interview with todd young of indiana. he has a plan that can help a lot of people. the ids probe into fbi and d.o.j. in 2016, now criminal investigation. we will find out what it is that is next. (male announcer) the leaves are falling, the wind is blowing, and the smell of pumpkin is in the air. celebrate halloween at bass pro shops and cabela's,
where kids can make a craft and get their picture with the peanuts gang in the pumpkin patch all for free. motor? nope. not motor? it's pronounced "motaur." for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. ♪ ♪ oh! you got a fast one there just can't get him to slow down
this class will help with that we get it... you got it! we're petsmart!
that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys and like all doors, they're safer when locked. for those who were born to ride, that's why you need xfinity xfi. ♪upbeat music everything was so fresh in the beginning. [sniff] ♪ dramatic music but that plug quickly faded. with the xfi gateway, ♪upbeat music luckily there's febreze plug. devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside it cleans away odors and freshens for 1200 hours. from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. [deep inhale] and people inside breathe happy with febreze plug. from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today.
that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today. steve: welcome back, breaking steve: what you see on tv, the tonight freshman mechanic member stories of impeachment and nonsense. announced this evening she will but meanwhile in the real world resign from congress amid allegations of inappropriate relationships they treated the one of the biggest issues facing america from every state, one she has her constituents in her country. her resignation is a book to elected official is doing what democrats and last year's he can to fix the problem. i had the chance to talk to midterm, she served as vice indiana senator todd young.
i really appreciate your work on chair of the powerful house this. it is such a big issue. some surveys i've seen that this is the number one issue for oversight. that story breaking within the last few hours but at the end of last week, huge news on the russia hoax. according to sources john durham voters under the age of 35 or 40. and unlike the democrats who propose a canceling all duct and in 2016 has become a criminal investigation. absolutely no one surprised the a government takeover of the democrat are up in arms. whole system. you have a very different approach. listen to this ridiculous tell us how your plan works. statement. >> bernie sanders and some of my other colleagues are promising a these reports if true raise profound new concerns with the department of justice and lost its independence for president debt-free education, we have come up with a market-based trump's political revenge if the innovation, this is an innovation that will allow department may be used as retribution which i cannot go on private investors to invest in student whether they aspire to a four year degree at purdue with. the rule of law will suffer university or technical education at the schools in irreparable damage, i think the indianapolis. wall should street journal with a headline democrats deployed essentially, this is the income share agreement works, a funder trump on ukraine in 2016. approach is a group of students this is so ridiculous. were particular student and says i want to invest in your they are saying, when it's their training for particular program
of study in the two parties will negotiate an income share that story, the truth is going to be the student will pay after they pursued by parts of the systems but when it's somebody else's finished the program of study. these are by definition story, it's conspiracy. manageable payments to be paid >> it's like when everything is back from the student after they land a job, it's debt-free over done on president trump, they the course of the education and were the ones that committed all our model provides consumer of these acts let's take a look, protection for the student so john durham, the reason why this goes from in a ministry to review your criminal inquiry is because john durham and attorney they know they will never pay anything back if they're not general william barr have discovered more evidence, banking on the backend of education twice the poverty probably something none of us know that has changed the game, level. they know that the if they run into life trouble they can discharge the income share has moved the game, we know he went to italy and spoke to a towing intelligence and know he's listening to tapes what we agreement in bankruptcy, something you cannot do with government loans. did believed to be spice who was this is a win win win, it working for webster intelligence provides the workers we desperately need and ensures the students the predict ability of in george papadopoulos with promises of the hill or quit nemos and we know they've gone payment after they land a job in the marketplace. to london william barr was there and it make sure that we all
benefit from having workers who are trained for the jobs of tomorrow during this dynamic in july and talking to counterparts in london and time in our economy. intelligence community. now we see john brennan, james clapper in the game shaking in >> in terms of the entity who is their boots, they don't know putting in the money and later what's going to happen next, they do know they will be questioned. >> how do we know that they gets to share the income, is not an employer, is that how you know. >> they have actually said both see, the employer will say any brennan and copper have been student to learn this skill and admitted that they will be questioned. and copper through president i'll pay for the education, they will come and work for me and i get some of the back from the obama under the bus and copper income. as a healthworks ? always an employer? >> it could be an employer, it says i don't know how we can be accused of anything criminal could be a foundation like the when it was obama who gave them the order. >> that is huge. lilly foundation in indiana or instead it could be an investor you will have a lot of confused americans because everything you said has been hit from the light of day and prior to joining the or group of investors. wherever the private capital comes from is less important than the fact that he gets to trump campaign i heard a lot of fake news, they hid the scandal from the viewers in the 2016 election. the new york times story that broke that this was becoming a the student and the payment terms are manageable. it does not come from taxpayers. particlpolitical probe, they dit
nongovernmental funding in an mention the steel dossier. entirely different way of thinking about how we pay for an education in this country. steve: is very creative, what's at the heart of the fisa in it -- let's take the private investor, people can understand allegation in the heart of what the id is looking into. last point, currently the ig report is going to explain why in case of an employer. in case a private investor what's in it for them. why would they want to do the. >> private investor will want to invest in a student so after graduation the student earns a high level of income higher than they would've prior to making an this is turned to upper criminal probe. you have a lot of confused americans in the ig report will be right there. investment in the investor's >> it's interesting that any questioning of the mueller report and what led up to the action going to get a return on whole process is immediately dismissed as the nazi computer y their investment in the student's future, over a period of years they will not only receive all the money back that they paid the finance in the theory and much were evidence to support the suspicion that there is wrongdoing within the training program or the program ministry to state under obama's of study but they will also receive more on top of that over control. a number of years. this will be a great investment then anything that supports the for the investor and more portly russia collision. >> the thing that i like about a investment for the student. what will happen now, unlike the mueller report and the impeachment what we seen for the this is not a novel concept, other countries have done this, last three years, this will not
be leaked fast one on one. this will be an airtight criminal case and what they've have implemented what we call income share agreement, purdue university has implanted a got will go before in a federal version of this for their students to pursue bachelors judge before indictment. it'll bypass the media, the degrees in my home state of leaks in it'll be airtight in a indiana, kinsey academy is a way and then these things can begin to hold up. technical school in indianapolis and paying for students entire they will pursue what they can convict in court and obvious in education because outside funders who are paying for the the indictment. steve: what are you expecting, education and they met with great success in receiving those funds paid back with interest on when the next set of big stage. >> through the few things that will happen. the backend. steve: last question, what's the stake, you get your bill, what can happen next? >> right now were receiving or it's become a criminal review and they can basically subpoena bipartisan cosponsors, i was witnesses, they can subpoena for documents, they can panel a hand fortunate to work with mark warner of virginia, chris of delaware, both democrats, marco in triggering jury and we might rubio of florida, were working not be the wiser, we may not know, there may be a grand jury and panels looking at this. what is so fantastic about john together to get more cosponsors but as we approach years and will see this legislation passed as part of a tax bill or higher durham, he was actually supported by people on both sides of the aisle, democrats
and republicans have a lot of respect for him. he was the one that dealt it was education bill that were trying to get across the finish line. very well known in the >> that is great. intelligence community and respected among political. they cannot say this is a bar i love hearing about this but i want to make sure our audience understands you're working on so many things that fit all the issues on the show pro issue, and he is supporting community, you really have that president trump, we have john durham right in the middle and he will be the buffer, and he populist approach and we really appreciate you joining us this evening. >> thank you so much for having was 100% right on which he talked about christopher steel dossier. because you brought it up and me. you brought it up, they went to foreign sources, he was in mi6 >> coming up, the democrats are in a panic about the presidential candidate some british by and they went to joseph who is basically in wonder if who must not be named. intelligence asset for the italian and stuff on even though that is coming up nex he was u.s. cambridge professor (male announcer) it's here. the rut. but a u.s. citizen, he was and for the next two weeks, working at london in the time this is where you'll be. it's your season, so hurry to bass pro shops and cabela's when he lured carter page in george papadopoulos overseas. for big savings on the gear you need steve: then they went to the from top brands. the go hunt sale is going on now. russians and it was paid for by hillary clinton.
so you don't have to stash antacids here... steve: there we are. much more to come on the story. but now we have a quick victory here... or, here. to share with you. we told you in july about how kick your antacid habit with prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. amazon was using tactics to secure a 10 billion-dollar jedi what do you look for when i want free access to research. a confusing contract with the yep, td ameritrade's got that. free access to every platform. defense. mhm, yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. they even hired a government official who is deeply involved in the program. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. here was my recommendation to i want to know what i'm paying upfront. the president. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? >> mr. president if you want to hm. well i say no to kale. keep draining the swamp, don't mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, let them bail out, fill it back but that seems like a lot of work. now offering zero commissions on online trades. up. good news on friday, they we charge you less so you have more to invest. announced that the contract would be going to microsoft ♪ instead of amazon, they were surprised about it and surprised that the methods did not work. but the swamp never gives up even when it comes to the theory in normal years during work theory like snack and beer, they should because washington national are playing and plenty of decision-makers are watching
as they reported yesterday, it is swamp ads from defense contractors and government technology so there we have it, the swamp finds a way to ruin everything. i have strong views on the impeachment news this week, that is straight ahead. ♪ ♪ when you look at the world, what do you see? ♪ where others see chaos, we see patterns. ♪ connections. relationships. ♪ when you use location technology, you can see where things happen,
before they happen. ♪ with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪ great weather, great friends. you just saved a bunch of money by switching your boat insurance to geico. it was easy. folks, can it get any better than this?
is that what i think it is? that is an armada of tiny sushi boats. awesome! i forgot to pack lunch. you had one job... chopsticks wasabi and soy! comin' in a little hot. it only gets better when you switch and save with geico. with your dna results from ancestry®. i was able to discover one cousin, reached out to him, visited ireland, met another 20 cousins. they took me to the cliffs of moher, the ancestral home, the family bar. it really gives you a sense of connection to... something that's bigger than yourself. greater details. richer stories. and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com. steve: helping me with my time management. very helpful, i want you to relish this headline on a new york time story last week. is there anybody else?
they say the candidates they very not doing the job. what do you think henry. >> first. i think paraphrase charles pickens, hillary clinton hillas political career is deader than jacob marley. i don't know they can force the dogs to eat the dog food. steve: continuing the animal analogy, put up this quote from david axelrod. you know big figure in democratic party. >> with trump looming there is genuine concern that the horse many have bet on may be pulling up lame and the horse who sprinted up front may not be
able to win. >> david axelrod never holds back, he lays it out, he never flowers or embellishes, who can >> this week the democrats really contained in self when they thought they found theing . move ahead. >> right now no one. frankly, as we look at the >> i think is very damning and i platform of the democrats, they really have none. only platform they have is they think it puts a politically at hate trump, that it is it. the american people are not going to buy that. this presidency. >> devastating to donald trump read the most disturbing dirt in we're not going to see president congress. trump lose 2020 based on the >> shocking. >> shocking, devastating, these platform that democrats hate people are ridiculous. trump. what got them so excited, bill >> and david axelrod also worked taylor, our ambassador to with joe biden. >> a great point. ukraine that claimed the president wants to withhold >> this is a lackluster field of military unless the new light weights, joe biden raised 15 million in third quarter, president publicly said he's investigating not just 2016 trump campaign about this in two election meddling but the bidens too. his claim is also in published days. with regard to hillary clinton, witness statements. what is the truth, we don't know do not underestimate the ego of all of it because the whole thing is still being run in secret, the republicans calling a scorned politician.
out led to a new talking point to democrats and trump hating steve: interesting, brilliant media. the factor back for the quotes, shows what a panic they are in senator brown, his wife president, that is nonsense and said, they are getting calls, i here is why. have been surprised by some we have facts, one there was called me, people they are speculating about. nothing new in bill taylor's this is what laughable, idea they will do better, have you testimony, essentially he embellished we heard weeks ago mrs. clinton. when a bunch of text messages bloomberg. were leaked. and john kerry they say? two, when taylor was question >> oh, gosh. >> eric holder. >> eric holder? about his quid pro quo, his story fell apart, here's he is considering a last minute entry, oh, he will really save republican john. >> to cameron kraft wanted to the day, what planet are they believe his testimony would support with the was a blur said when in fact his testimony on. >> they are realizing it might established opposite. steve: bill taylor story was be too late to jump in, who is also contradicted by another diplomat josé involved in all of left? elizabeth warren? steve: that is the actual thing, she is in the lead but they are this current broker, he was interviewed by the impeachment committee weeks ago. worried -- he said lame, 5 too r but you did not hear the democrats jumping up and down about that. left. >> more light weights to already because as we told you weeks ago a lackluster field of light
his evident exonerated president trump on the main impeachment weights. steve: she too far left. charges. it looks like the democrats love for the green diplomat have >> democrat realize they cannot fallen over and extends as far control their party, their to get president trump. voters want to go way too far this was not the smoking gun, lift for america, they don't know what to do about it it is a bill taylor is a bus, he coul cs didemocracy, they can't do anything about it president trump will win in a landslide. >> dncrigged it last time. he's not biased. that's not the point. this is about populist versus establishment. inside not republican versus steve: it will be fascinating, a democrat, is system striking huge thank you to great people at turning point usa, i spoke to back, of course bill taylor is a fired up group of students political and biased just like this morning here in california, it was inspiring to see their energy and commitment to all the career civil service coming out of the woodwork. populous move. , giving me such hope for they want power without accountable the in the very people who lectured us but these future, as it does when they see sarah, caylee and henry, thank bureaucrats on pedestal extent of exposing them for what they you so much. >> and come back again next are. they were trained to take the sunday when the next revelation president challenging the syst will be televised.
system. finally bill taylor is such a fine outstanding unbiased service of the people, why the hell did he not call on ♪ ukraine's two investigate the bidens, joe biden boasted about controlling aid to ukraine. >> i said you are not getting it ♪ mark: h hello america, i am mark and i think it was six hours. and the prosecutor is not fire, you're not getting the money, levin, this is life, liberty and levin, mark limbaugh how are [bleep] >> the real scandal is not the you, esquire, you are my lawyer, firing of the prosecutor, it is cash, billions of dollars of i tell you why i wanted you on. u.s. taxpayer cash controlled by joe biden going to ukrainian you have written a definitive energy including for his mom where his son was on the board. book on the left, guilty by how much taxpayer money did he reason of insanity, the democrats must not win, very important. give to a biting family business. why didn't bill taylor look into that, because along with biden he is part of the establishment and this is how they roll, by the way all these democrats
saying it damages national security to hold up ukraine military aid. we did that first your president pressure is obama. he refused at all, it was president trump who did, this whole part of the impeachment is the biggest crock of you know what since the last one they put out. they consume this country for two years and i and proved to be nothing. they hate trump, they hate you for voting for him in 2016 and that terrified that your we elect him in 2020 because he is the economy booming and delivers promises. finally, this is not just about the president personally. it's about his policy agenda in the populist movement. the system is striking back, they are trying to crush the populace revolution and we have to fight to defend it. please share this by following us as steve hilton at fnc.
you seem to enjoy that. >> i did. you were spot on. this is the deep state orchestrated hit job against the president, a democrat orchestrated coup against the president the starter being planned on the day when trump was inaugurated. several outlets said impeachment process has begun in democrats are setting up white tights about impeaching the president, millions of ads about impeaching the president. before we ever knew about ukraine. you hit tonsil well of what the deep state portion of this is. you had chuck schumer same before the president was inaugurated the community has six ways to get back at you, boy do we see that now. they want to take down the president, it's against the president and the american people. >> even if we take bill taylor and say fine, he did what he did and there was a quid pro quo and they were right. you who
is also not some trump appointee, you cannot claim that who said the exact opposite, we went through the other week, and his statement six times he said i do not see anything in quid pro quo. even if you accept bill taylor, he's totally contradicted by someone who is the same. >> the thing that democrats don't want to acknowledge is evidence that suggest trump did nothing wrong or what he did was not impeachable. the truth is going to come out in the senate trial controlled by the republican majority of the state senate. they can hold the star chamber meetings and leak all they want they can kick it over to her republicans will control the process and will be done in process and the president will not be removed from office. >> with her the same nonsense for two and half years, they keep trying to find something to take down donald trump. something to coup the president
seem to have everything that's been a response to everything that the democrats have done. they announced impeachment charges, michael horowitz report. bill barr is out there. articles are introduced. horowitz testifies today. on one hand they get exactly what they want. they create sort of confusion about mueller, the obsession to get trump. that story is out there. it seems as if this is part of a strategy the way the trump administration has used the government to respond to impeachment. >> last night in hershey, pennsylvania, i was there, covering president trump's rally. he talked about the ig report. he talked about the ongoing impeachment inquiry. he claimed that he was spied on. this is the counternarrative that has been building on the trump campaign, on the white house side, the republican party for a long time. when you read the ig's report there was not an intention, according to horowitz, to spy.
what was going on was counterintelligence investigation about possible russian interference in the 2016 election. as part of that investigation, they did have fbi assets that took stock of whether trump campaign advisers were being entangled with russia in any way. that was part of the counterintelligence investigation. president trump escalating this report into spying is making it a political weapon in 2020, and many of his advisers tell me it's effective. >> frank, it sounds like the fbi is being put on trial today. >> in a sense, it is. but it's even larger than that. the neutral objective fact finder, the ig and the fbi -- >> pause you there. geoff bennett has dianne feinstein. let's go to her real quick, ranking member. go ahead, geoff. >> reporter: she just walked in, chuck, but i asked her what she hopes democrats achieve with this hearing today and she said
a full and fair exposition of the facts. she is among the senators straggling in here as this hearing hopefully starts somewhere from being on time. >> totally get it. frank, i interrupted you. i do feel as if you're going to see -- maybe that's what this hearing ends up being about, where half the questions are about defending the fbi. feels like the fbi is going to be on trial. >> it will be a rough day for the bureau today. really it will be a rough day for any neutral objective fact finder. the ig himself is on trial today. it's fact versus political opinion today. you'll hear the democrats keep coming back to the adequate evidence to open all of these investigations, yes or no. yes, there was. and you'll hear the republicans say well, i don't agree with that predication level. >> you made an important point to me off air while maya and i were talking. i don't understand why barr is putting himself in a position that jim comey put himself in.
it may or may not be ready by spring or early summer, which directly ties to the democratic national convention. >> let's remind ourselves every time we watch a clip of the pete williams interview with ag barr, we are watching a violation of doj policy. >> how? explain. >> a prosecutor cannot comment on a pending criminal matter unless there's a compelling public interest. what did barr hint at as the compelling public interest? i didn't want the public to be confused. we're more confused than ever. >> the ig report is what barr thought it was a compelling public interest to respond? >> the facts found by the ig merited violating doj policy and coming out with a counter opinion. and the timing of the durham investigation is going to be hung over our heads until it's convenient to come out. >> chuck rosenberg, do you concur with frank that basically the attorney general is committing the same error in
judgment that jim comey did? >> he has the standard right, we don't talk about open investigations unless there's a public reason, public safety, warning people they may be at some risk and we have an ongoing investigation. let me say one thing there, chuck, which i think is important. the fbi did make mistakes. why? well, actually, because it's comprised of human beings. human beings are fallible. therefore, they make some mistakes. do we need to fix stuff in the fisa process? apparently so. we may need to tweak the guidelines and allow the fbi to have certain authorities in certain cases and certain instances, but none of that is surprising, right? ask any airline pilot if she's had a perfect flight or any doctor whether he has had a perfect operation or any anchor whether they've had a perfect broadcast. that's not the way human beings operate. >> haven't had one yet. >> of course not. none of us have. none of us will have a perfect day either. that said, there are things that
we need to fix. >> ari what jumped out at you reading this today, reading a statement? >> the bottom line here is they didn't find what made everyone interested in this report. people weren't waiting to discuss the third and fourth round of the foreign intelligence surveillance act warrants. it's just not why everyone is interested. you could go back and pretend that the trump administration is stark with libertarians or members of the senate committee are really concerned about international wiretap abuse but they actually have a record of opposing those kind of controls. indeed, political conservatives tend to back up any national security surveillance of any kind. what you have is a lot of folks trying to pretend that the carter page piece of it, i interviewed him last night, that
that is the big deal. in fact, that's the house that's left. >> maya, you read this opening statement. >> i'll agree with ari, what we're not talking about -- >> he is getting ready to take a seat. >> he will open by reminding us that the whole thing started in terms of russia investigation around a friendly government telling us that this conversation had started with a trump campaign aide. so, that's really important on the question that we're really talking about, which is not what this report is about, which is why it was legitimate and important for us to pay attention to what was happening in our elections. >> thank you all very much. >> we will let the hearing go. >> mr. horo with. itz, thank you. i really appreciate what you have done. do you have your team here with you? >> yeah. >> would it be okay if they raise their hands? would that be all right? >> if they're okay with it, i'm okay with it. >> thank you all. you have labored hard and your
work product is impressive. and i just want to thank you all for what you've done for the country. and mr. horowitz, i'm dying to hear from you. i haven't made 20 minutes of opening statements in a year but i'll take a little longer to try to lay out what i think is before us as a nation. crossfire hurricane was probably the best name ever given to an investigation in the history of investigations, because i think that's what we wound up with, a crossfire in a hurricane. there's been a lot of media reports about your report before it was issued. and i remember reading all these headlines. lawful investigation with a few irregularities. everything okay. people got off track. if that's what you get out of this report, you clearly didn't
read it. if that's your takeaway that this was lawfully predicated, you entirely missed the report. how do you get a headline like that? you want it to be that and nothing more. and i can assure you if this had been a democratic president going through what president trump went through, that would not have been the headline. the headline would be fbi takes law into its own hands, lied to court. ignored exoneration. so the first thing i want you to know is how the cake is baked here. and my goal is when this is over, whether you like trump, hate trump, don't care about trump, you look at this as more that happen a few
irregularities, because if this becomes a few irregularities in america, then god help us all. now, the people that were in charge in this investigation were hand picked by mr. mccabe, who is now a cnn analyst, high up in the fbi, the number two guy. the first question i will ask in a bit, is this the best of the best? are these people normal representatives of their department of justice and the fbi? i hope you say no because i believe it to be no and if i believed otherwise, i would be incredibly depressed. so, ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to assume something for the sake of argument. that there was a lawful predicate to open up a
counterintelligence investigation. and i want you to know that the standard to open one up is about like that. i also want you to know that a counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. they're not trying to solve a crime. they're trying to stop foreign powers from interfering in america. that a counterintelligence investigation is designed to protect americans from foreign influence. i want the american people to know there was an effort to affect hillary clinton's campaign by foreign actors. the fbi picked up that effort. they briefed her about it and they were able to stop it. we will be receiving a defensive briefing tomorrow as a committee from the fbi to tell us all about what we should be watching for, and they may be some
specific threats against us, i don't know. but i know they're going to brief us to protect us. not just surveil us. here is what i want every american to know. from the time they opened up crossfire hurricane to this debacle was over, they never made any effort to brief donald trump about suspected problems within his campaign. they had one briefing talking about, you know, the russians are out there. you better beware. nothing about carter page. nothing about papadopolous, nothing about the other people that they thought might be working with the russians. why did they not tell him that? i hope you can give us an answer. bottom line, counterintelligence investigation is a good thing until it becomes a bad thing.
because it doesn't take much to open one. the worst thing that can happen is for people to open one up whose best interest is not to protect an american but investigate one. senator feinstein, a long-time employee was suspected of having ties to a foreign government. they informed her and she took appropriate action. how easy would it be for somebody to come in our campaigns as a volunteer, we really don't know who they are. you appreciate any help you can get. how easy it would be for all of us to get caught up in this scenario? i hope all of us would appreciate if you really believe there's somebody in my campaign working with a foreign power, please tell me. so i can do something about it. why didn't they tell trump?
we'll figure that out later. i think it's a question that needs to be asked. for a moment let's assume there was a lawful predicate to open up a counterintelligence investigation. what's been described as a few irregularities becomes a massive criminal conspiracy over time to defraud the fisa court, to illegally surveil an american citizen and keep an investigation open against a sitting president of the united states, violating every norm known to the rule of law. many of your prosecutors, many of you have been u.s. attorneys. many of you have been defense attorneys. trump's time will come and go. but i hope we understand that what happened here can never happen again, because what happened here is not a few irregularities. what happened here is the system fail
failed. people at the highest level of or government took the law into their own hands. when i say defraud the fisa system i mean it. abuse of power i never believed would actually exist in 2019. how bad is it? it was as if j. edgar hoover came back to life. the old fbi, the fbi that had a chip on its shoulder and wanted to intimidate people and find out what was going on in your life and the law be damned. martin luther king, and just fill in the names. so, who ran this thing? the people were hand picked by mccabe, number two guy at the
fbi, deputy assistant director of counterintelligence peter strzok, a big player in all thing things crossfire hurricane. lisa page. you may have heard of her. who was she in an fbi lawyer working for mccabe. these are two central characters in this debacle. let me tell you a little bit about who these people are. and where they're coming from. thanks to a lot of hard work by people from mr. horowitz, the fbi and others, here is what we know. strzok, the front-line supervisor, february 12th, 2016. he's -- trump, abysmal.
i keep hoping the charade will end and people will just dump him. the problem then is that rubio will likely lose to cruz. i never quite made it. i can understand why they would not consider me a serious candidate. the republican party is utter shambles. when was the last competitive ticket they offered? march 3rd, 2016. page. god, trump is a loathsome human. strzok. oh, my god. he's an idiot. newsrooms nt all over the country people are nodding this represents the attitude of a lot of people in america and you can have that attitude, but you shouldn't be in the journalism business. you shouldn't be at the fbi. if you were in the military and you said anything like this about a commander in chief, you would be charged with a crime. remember the mcchrystal debacle where they had a bar room
discussion with a reporter from "the rolling stone"? what's takeaway? don't go to a bar with "the rolling stone" reporter. they were talking about how they don't like joe biden. i was the first to say that is out of bounds. you can have all the political opinions you want. if you're an officer in the united states military, you will park those opinions and you will not speak ill of the commander in chief. but that obviously is not a rule at the fbi department of justice. march 16th, 2016, i cannot believe donald trump is likely to be actual serious candidate for president. july 16th, we're getting closer to when this thing opens, and while donald trump is an enormous douche. again a lot of people agreed with that. the first thing out of his mouth was we're going to win so big. the whole thing is like living in a bad dream. july 19th, 2016. trump is a disaster. i have no idea how destabilizing
his presidency would be. and a lot of people believed that. you're entitled to believe that, but you should not be an investigator. july 30th, the investigation is open. and damn this feels momentous, about the investigation, because this matters. the other ones did, too, but that was to ensure we didn't "f" something up. this matters because this matters. so super glad to be on this voyage with you. i hope you understand what this voyage was about. august 8th, 2016. three days before stzrok was named the front line supervisor. he will never become president, right? page to strzok. no am, he won't. we'll stop it. these are the people in charge. august 15th, 2016, i want to
believe the path you threw out for consideration in andy's office that there's no way gets elected but i'm afraid we can't take that risk. that the american people will pick their president. it's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. august 26th, 2016. just went to a southern virginia walmart. i could smell the trump support. people in charge. october 11th, 2016. currently fighting with stu for the fisa. stu was a lawyer who thought this thing was not on the up and up. stood his ground until he couldn't stand it anymore. eventually got run over. october 19th, i'm all riled up. trump is an f'ing idiot, unable
to provide a coherent answer. "new york times" probability numbers are dropping every day. i'm scared for our organization. november 3rd, 2016. oh, my god! this is f'ing terrifying, referencing an article entitled a victory by trump remains possible. november 9th, 2016. rougher going to give out your calendars? some kind of depressing. maybe it should be the first meeting of the secret society. november 13th. i brought all the -- i bought all the presidents men. i figure i needed to brush up on watergate. november 13th, 2016. finally two pages away from finishing "all the president's men." page to strzok, do you know the president resigns at the end.
strzok. what? god, that would be so lucky. may 18th, 2017, the date page accepted a position on the special counsel's team. for me, in this case, i personally have a sense of unfinished business. i'm leashed with nye, whatever that means. now i need to fix it and finish it. strzok, who gives an "f"? one more assistant director or whoever, an investigation leading to impeachment. may 2017. you and i both know the odds are nothing. if i thought it was likely, i would be there, no question. i hesitate in part just because of my gut sense and concern
there is no big there there, talking about impeachment. may 22nd, 2017. i'm torn. i think no, i'm more replaceable than you are in this. i'm the best for it, but there are others who can do it okay. you're different and more unique. this is yours. talking to page. all right. that's the front line supervisor and the lawyer to mccabe. there is a guy named klinesmith who eventually alters an email to the cia from the department of justice and fbi and mr. horowitz's team found this out. how they did it, i will never know. i'm jumping ahead here. but when you read this report,
what they find is that a lawyer supervising the fisa process at the fbi, according to mr. horowitz, doctored an email to the cia and fbi and will be referred for criminal prosecution. why is that important? carter page, who has been on the receiving end of all of this, the foundation to believe he was a foreign agent comes from a dossier that we'll talk about in a minute, provided by christopher steele, and we'll talk about him in a minute. they claim carter page meets with three people known to be russians. russian agents. people associated with russia. carter page, while being wiretapped by his government, says i don't know two of these people and to this day, there is
no proof that he ever met two of those three. the third person, he says, yeah, i met him. i told the cia about my meeting because i was a source for the cia. so they would have you believe that carter page is working against our government not with our government. so carter page, in the summer of 2017, is trying to tell anybody and everybody, i was working with the cia. i reported my contact with this pers person, and nobody believed him. the cia had told the fbi it was true earlier, but it never made it through the system. somebody got so rattled at the fbi, they asked mr. klinesmith to check it out. he checks it out. he communicates with the cia.
is carter page a source for you? in an email exchange they say, yes, he is. what does mr. klinesmith do? he alters the email to say no, he's not. and you caught him. i don't know how you caught him, because you got to dig into this email chain. it would be like getting a lab report from the fbi, the fingerprints don't match and the agent says they do. that's how bad this is. so now let me tell you a little bit about mr. klinesmith if i can find it. do you have the klinesmith stuff? okay. this is the lawyer supervising the fisa warrant process, the guy that altered the cia email because he didn't want the court to know that carter page was actually a source.
why does that matter? because if the court had known, then there's a lawful reason for mr. page to be talking to the russian guy. he wasn't working against his country. he was working with his country, which undercuts the idea he's a foreign agent. that's why klinesmith lied, because he didn't want to stop this investigation. all right. this is after the election. i am so stressed about what i could have done differently. the day after the election. i'm just devastated. i can't wait until i can leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days. i'm sure a lot of people felt that way after trump got elected, maybe still feel that way. but you shouldn't be in charge of supervising anything about donald trump if you feel that way. i just can't imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we've made over the last eight years. the obama administration. the crazies won finally.
this is the lawyer that they put in charge of supervising the warrant process. i'm sure there are newsrooms across america that are saying that is absolutely right. what is wrong with that? also, pence is stupid. whatever. this is what the guy is saying right after the election. and it's just hard not to feel like the fbi call s caused some of this. it was razor thin in some states. plus my goddamn name is all over the documents investigating trump staff. >> we have been listening for this much awaited presentation of a doj report on the origins
of the russian probe. i'm ari melber here in our msnbc headquarters. our panel of experts is back with me. i'll tell you exactly what we're going to do. as soon as the inspector general speaks, we'll go back into the hearing. i want to turn to senator claire mccaskill. i want to get a context of what we're hearing. obviously the chairman has a strong view, not only of the report but going beyond the four corners of the report to make his case. what are you hearing? what's the context and what fact checks do people need to make in mind as he makes a case that goes well beyond what the report found, which is no buy as ias. >> lindsay is a good lawyer. he knows who present an opening statement. he is doing a good opening statement that is trying to take things out of context and elevate exchanges between people who, frankly, had a personal relationship and were expressing personal opinions when there's
no evidence that it impacted their work. and the other thing i would say about this is let's just think for a moment. i know lindsey graham pretty well, or at least i thought i did. if, in fact, the fbi was investigating somebody, which they were, manafort, before he came to work on the trump campaign, and they were investigating him for getting a lot of money from russian influence, okay, and then he went to work on a presidential campaign and then, lo and behold, the platform gets changed at the democratic convention to more fully love russia, can you imagine what lindsey graham would be doing if the fbi had not opened an investigation? lindsey graham would be screaming from the rooftops, you've got a russian guy who is taking millions of dollars from russia, who is going into the heart of a presidential campaign in the united states. we have evidence that russia is interfering in the election and, by the way, they even changed the republican platform.
of course you have to investigate. this is such hypocrisy on the part of lindsey graham. >> frank, i'm curious what you think about the elevation of certain texts that have already been public in mr. graham's opening, because you go to the fbi or any large organization, you may find republicans and democrats. you may find yankee and mets fans, you may find a whole range of views. the report goes through and methodically sifts all that evidence to reach a conclusion. what do you think of senator graham's effort here to sort of preset -- i should mention it's a much longer opening statement than typical for this type of hearing, to preset for the audience what he thinks is really important before horowitz even testifies. >> what we're hearing is not unexpected. it is disappointing. instead of hearing a healthy discussion about policy and protocol, we're hearing a rehashing of personalities. the reading of these texts. for example, lisa page.
lisa page, the inspector general found, had absolutely nothing to do with the opening of any of these russian-related cases, yet we're hearing about texts related to her relationship with pete strzok. >> let's slow down on that fact che check. you're speaking about the person that the president has attacked, former fbi official suing the federal government over this. there's a lot to be debated there and plenty of people would read this, or that text, and say they disagree with it or they don't like someone talking about their favorite candidate that way, be it trump or obama. your point here, though, is that is not 20 or 10% relevant but zero relevance because she didn't open the probe? >> lindsey is laying the foundation for bias and prejudice, saying these are the people who ultimately helped weigh in on these cases and look at their mind-set at the time. the problem is that we should be having a discussion whether cases were properly opened following the rules and after
the cases are open, do we need to change policy and procedures? so far, we're not getting any of that substantive discussion. >> frank figliuzzi, senator mccaskill giving us some views. heidi pryzbyla in washington joins us. heidi, quite an opening statement that's still going. wh as i told viewers, when we get to the watchdog actually testifying, we'll go back. what does this opening mean? >> lindsey graham is ensuring that there will continue to be a cloud over the russia investigation, facts be damned in horowitz's report. he's creating an obstacle court through those facts. he can't deny there was a lawful predicate for this investigation. he says yes, it was lawful but it doesn't take much to open t he goes through these text messages, that we've all known about for months and months,
ari. when the news and report was that horowitz also uncovered series of pro-trump messages, which i bet if you don't hear it from lindsey graham, and you won't, you'll hear it from some other member on the panel. this is a regurgitation about carter page, yes, he uncovered serious infractions related to those fisa warrants but carter page was not the basis for the opening of the russia investigation. it was intelligence gleaned from an australian diplomat who had met with george papadopolous and the inspector general concluded there was every lawful reason to open this investigation. did not have to do with carter pag page. >> senator graham revensed certain texts that referenced the candidates in the 2016
primary, ted cruz, marco rubio. both are here in the senate. cruz on this panel with an oversight function and senator graham himself. he made self effacing remarks that he wasn't seen as a big enough candidate to wind up in the texts. i wonder if you could walk our viewers through the politics that hangs overall of this with candidates who lost to donald trump, who are now trying to defend him and as you say are trying to carry water for a view of a quote, unquote, witch hunt even on the day of the testimony of the person who debunked it. >> there's such a split screen, including ted cruz, become one of the president's most ardent defenders. we can talk about these texts and go back to the whole history of the campaign. there was a bitter rift between these two menace trump came after ted cruz in a visceral way
about his father, implicating his own father and assassination of president kennedy, that he was somehow present there with that conspiracy theory, going after ted cruz's wife and her physical appearance and now you have ted cruz emerging as a very poignant book end in the transformation we've seen from this republican party from the campaign when you had everyone like lindsey graham, whose own statements can be turned back on him, calling the president a threat. >> it's striking, particularly as we watch the watchdog, horowi horowitz, who is not a household name but has become central to so many of these disputes. up until this report dropped this week, he was seen as the great hope among many on the
right for a potential resuscitation of bias at the fbi, he has done his job, debunked that. waiting for his turn to finally present during this opener. i'm going to fit in a little break. when we come back, we'll get to the meet of it when mr. horowitz as well as democrats on the panel weigh in, following the opening statement you heard from lindsey graham. keep it right here on msnbc. linm keep it right here on msnbc. unpredictable crohn's symptoms following you?
for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®.
i've always loved and i'm still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'll go for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? sharing my roots. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.
i'm part of a community of problem solvers. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. from packaging tape... to tape that can bond materials to buildings... and planes. one idea can unlock a breadth of solutions. at 3m, we are solving problems that improve lives.
welcome back. you're watching breaking news of a much-awaited hearing on the doj watchdog's probe of the origins of the russia investigation, which ultimately turned into the mueller probe. we'll bring you highlights as warranted, that are newsworthy. senator claire mccaskill, maya wiley, frank figliuzzi. m maya, if they have not read the whole report and they're hearing lindsey graham mention things that are either largely old, meaning disclosures, whatever you think of them, that are not new to this hearing or also pushing a theory we know and have been reporting the bulk of
the doj report debunks, the idea that there was a type of bias that mattered. >> we're having a partisan politics conversation instead of a conversation about what we need to do to understand these issues that an independent inspector general found need to be fixed. that's what congressional oversight is about when it's found there's need for management changes in any agency. it's a common problem. it happens all the time. the issue here is that there are articles of impeachment that are related to donald trump's abuse of power and now lindsey graham is trying to flip the script to say that the abuse of power is at the fbi, even though this independent inspector general has said there was no bias that
we could find. we talked to 170 some odd people and looked at all the documents and reminding us, in his opening statement, which we haven't even gotten to yet, that the reason the russia probe was opened in the first place was because a friendly government tipped us off that russia was trying to interfer interfere. >> another one of those major days of 2019 that's quite striking, there is a complete contrast here between the senate looking backwards to a 2016 origin probe that resulted in many convictions and resulted in bob mueller saying some things were ultimately helpful to donald trump, like he didn't find a chargeable election conspiracy. take it if you want it. that was an outcome. it comes on the same day that the house judiciary later today
will begin formal consideration of these articles of impeachment. >> a connection for your viewers between what we're watching right now and ultimately the impeachment in the senate hearings to come. we're watching a coming traction today in lindsey graham. we're hearing the attack that we're likely to see in the senate trial during impeachment on the origins of the case. if you make that go away, if you undermine how the fbi worked this case, you make the whole russian problem go away. it's not accurate. it's not going to work. but we're seeing a trailer, basically, on what the senate trial could look like. >> what i was thinking was you can't make ukraine go away. to the extent they're trying to reinforce, to frank's point, they've just been out to get trump. this really has nothing to do. there's nothing to see here about trump's abuse of power. what we should be doing is looking at our own law enforcement, our own national
intelligence services, our own origins of democracy. i think we all agree law enforcement needs checks and balances. we need to ensure that law enforcement is not abusing its considerable power. that's why we have mr. horowitz sitting in that seat. what he has come to tell us, we're not even hearing. >> as soon as we get a little more news from the hearing, senator feinstein giving the democrats' response, we'll cover some of that, as we covered some of graham. bob costa, i'm told, has been keeping in touch with his sources. bob, what are you hearing? >> talking to people close to president trump and white house advisers, they are watching this hearing. they know that the ig report, mueller report, entire impeachment inquiry has cast a shadow and now along with
attorney general bar, republicans in congress fighting a political war against the department of justice and the fbi. questioning in sharp terms its own conduct. and that is setting up this entire 2020 battle, which many democrats and some republicans privately feel is muddying the water about these important institutions in the country. >> bob, because i have you and we're watching this, walk us through where lindsey graham fits in as a former political nemesis of donald trump with a long record we've played on air of all the terrible things he called donald trump including, quote, race baiting kook, end quote, who has become one of his chief defenders and as a former lawyer and judge advocate general, he has proven more adept than some in the house. he is one of the most vocal defenders of the president, facing the threat of impeachment
this week. >> reporter: there is an impression of senator graham being a friend of senator mccain and maverick on immigration. that's only a sliver of senator graham's entire public persona. a few weeks ago at the washington post i reported that senator graham met personally with attorney general barr to go over this ig report in its unveiling at a meeting at the department of justice. you see him working closely with the attorney general and other allies of president trump and not having second thoughts about pursuing this aggressive probe of the doj and ig report. he has been in lockstep. the explanation is possibly political. he has been working with president trump since the start. he is someone who seems to be, his friends tell me, a true believer. this is not just a political calculation. he has gone across the line in terms of truly being with president trump on this front. >> i suppose that raises the question which you may or may
not have to answer. was he a true believer when he said the opposite? >> reporter: it's a great question. is he someone who, like so many republicans have, accepted that president trump has the political capital to dominate this party for now and in the future. he is not ready to contest that in any way. in that 2016 primary campaign in which senator graham ran, that was the last gasp for many republican leaders in terms of countering the trump politics. >> bob costa, stay near your camera and newsroom if you will. we'll keep watching these opening statements. i want to build on that point, senator mccaskill and bring you back in. part of the suggestion there with reporting, that lindsey graham and bill bar plans this o out, return of the four-page letter approach, something news
viewers remember quite well. you don't have to worry what's in the report as long as you get ahead of it, repeat it and double down, you can get basically nullify a lot of the details. i see senator feinstein getting ready so booel take part of her time as we did the majority member. >> for 25 years. i have great appreciation for this inspector general. i just want to make those personal remarks. this is a tough arena. and as you can see, there are very tough people in part of that arena. to have an inspector general who tells it as they see it and does this year after year is a saving grace. and i hope people will get this report. if i have a grievance, it's that the print is too small. >> i agree with that. >> thank you very much.
and it is heavy to carry around. but last year, this inspector general pledged to congress that he would examine whether the fbi played a role to investigate ties between russia and the trump campaign. inspector general kept his promise. his office conducted a 19-month investigation. they interviewed more than 100 witnesses, reviewed more than a million documents and issued this 434-page report that contains several important findings. first, on a question of bias, inspector general horowitz found no evidence that political or anti-trump bias was at play.
according to the ig's report the fbi complied with existing department and fbi policies in opening the investigation and the ig, quote, did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced this decision, end quote, or any specific investigative steps taken by the fbi. that's the finding. and this is important. why? in public statements, beginning last spring, the attorney general expressed his belief that senior government officials may have, quote, put a thumb on the scale, end quote, because of political bias against trump. his comments echoed the president, who has repeatedly alleged that there is a deep state within the government against him. he has used this to the entire russia investigation as a
witch hunt and a hoax. the ig's report conclusively refutes these claims. this was not a politically motivated investigation. there is no deep state. simply put, the fbi investigation was motivated by facts, not bias. secondly, the inspector general confirmed that there was an adequate predicate, meaning a legitimate factual and legal basis to investigate. the basis was not, as some have claimed, the so-called steel dossier. in fact, reporting from mr. steel played no role in opening the investigation. instead this report confirms that the fbi opened the investigation after being told
by as straul yeah, that trump adviser george papadopoulos learned in the month of april that russia had and was willing to release, quote, information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate clinton, end quote. the ig found that this information provided the fbi with a factual basis that if true, quote, indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security or both may have occurred or may be occurring. the ig also found that when the fbi learned that in late july 2016 the bureau was aware of russian 40s efforts to enter cl in the 2016 elections including
russian hacking of democratic campaign computers. materials stolen by russia had been released online including by wikileaks, and the u.s. intelligence community assessed in august of 2016 that, quote, russia was considering further intelligence operations to impact and disrupt elections, end quote. against this backdrop, the fbi was obligated to investigate possible ties to the trump campaign. according to bill precept, the fbi assistant director who authorized opening the investigation, other officials conveyed a similar obligation and sense of urgency to investiga investigate. david laugh man, a national
division security chief said it would have been, quote, a dare ligs licks of duty and responsibility of the highest order not to commit the appropriate resources as urgently as possible to run these facts to the ground and find out what was going on, end quote. the decision to open the investigation was unanimous. not a single official disagreed. as a result america ultimately learned extensive details about russia's sweeping and systemic attack on the 2016 election including that the trump campaign knew about, welcomed and, quote, expected it would benefit electorally, end quote, from russia's efforts. the inspector general's report also identifies several errors made by fbi and justice department line personnel when
seeking parents for surveillance on carter page from the fisa court. fbi director wray submitted a written response accepting the ig's findings including the key finding that the fbi had sufficient cause to investigate the trump campaign ties to russia. director wray also said that the ig's findings of fisa errors are, and i quote, constructive criticism that will make us stronger as an organization and that he has already taken action to address the ig's recommendations. by contrast, attorney general barr issued a press release that continues to criticize the fbi for investigating the trump campaign. it's really extraordinary that the attorney general continues to make unsupported attacks on
the agency that he is responsible for leading. i believe strongly that it's time to move on from the false claims of political bias, and those who showed great interest in the question of politically motivated investigations against president trump should show the same concern about politically motivated investigations requested by the president or his attorney general. inspector general horowitz, i want to thank you on behalf of this side and your staff for the hard work. we look forward to hearing from you. >> thank you. mr. horowitz. >> chairman graham, senator feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. the report that my office released this week is the product of a comprehensive and exhaustive review conducted over the past 19 months by an oig
team that examined more than 1 million documents in the department's and fbi's possession including documents other u.s. and foreign government agencies had provided to the fbi. our team conducted over 170 interviews involving more than 100 witnesses, and we documented all of our findings in the 434-page report that we issued this week. i would encourage everybody to read the report. although i understand 400-plus-page reports can be hard to get through. we have a pithy 19-page summary with it which i'd encourage people to read at a minimum. i want to commend, also, the tireless efforts of our outstanding review team for conducting such rigorous and effective independent oversight. it's exactly what we are supposed to do as inspectors
gener general. the fbi investigation the subject of this report crossfire hurricane was opened in july 2016 days after the fbi received friendly reporting from a foreign government. the reporting stated in a may 2016 meeting trump campaign foreign policy adviser george papadopoulos, quote, suggested the trump team received some kind of suggestion, closed quote, from russia, that it could assist in the election process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate clinton and then president obama. following receipt of that information, the fbi opened crossfire hurricane. given the nature and sensitivity of such an investigation, we would have expected fbi personnel to faithfully adhere to the fbi's detailed policies, practices and norms. the fbi has developed and earned a reputation as one of the
world's premier law enforcement agencies in significant part because of its adherence to these policies and its tradition of professionalism, impartiality and non-political enforcement of the law. however, our review identified significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised, particularly the fbi's failure to adhere to its own standards of accuracy and completeness when filing applications with for foreign intelligence surveillance act authority known as fisa, to surveil carter page, a u.s. person who was connected to the trump for president campaign. we determined that the decision to open crossfire hurricane was made by then fbi counterintelligence divisions assistant director bill pre stap and his decision reflected a
democrats say thisat is much ass they hate trump this was wrong they say they don't care it'sng wrong they t hate trump the keyt not to fall into this trap as an viewer or anybody.go you have to channel your angerfr and frustration into productive work and turn it into energy anm don't waste your time looking at that stuff you lose a battle o figure outut how to win the war and you only do that if you're focused in good health with ara strong frameme of mind and it ps to note none of these cranks anc the hackkss were celebrating abt something that directly benefits the average american. they weren't celebrating becaust they got rid of no cash bail or reduced inflation or fixed of s the porous bordepor they rejoicd over their own mental state.e ba of those other bad things bec continue because they don'tth matter to themin it said their derangement that gets priority it's no different than when the puart their mental suffering ovr trump's mean tweets ahead of thr