tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX April 21, 2019 10:00am-11:01am PDT
>> chris: i'm chris wallace. resident from celebrates of the mueller report is released to the public, but does it exonerate the president? >> no collusion, no obstruction. >> is a clear victory. >> this has been a political proctologist exam and he's emerging with a clean bill of health. >> chris: we will break down what the special counsel found and what it means for the future of the trump administration with the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani. but then, democrats attacked attorney general william barr for his handling of the mueller report. >> he has been disingenuous and misleading. >> chris: and they make the case for obstruction of justice.
>> it outlines multiple attempts by the president to mislead the company to my country. >> chris: we will discuss what comes next post-mueller report with democratic congressman adam schiff, chair of the house intelligence committee. giuliani and schiff, live, only on "fox news sunday." a plus. >> you build america, we build america. >> chris: joe biden is set to announce his candidacy for president this week. we will ask our senate panel how his formal entry will change the 2020 democratic race. and a power player classic. on this easter sunday we would revisit the pens family's pet bunny. >> chris: all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again and happy easter and passover from fox news in washington. we begin with breaking news. in sri lanka, several coordinated explosions have killed more than 200 people. there have been eight bombings,
three churches, where worshipers gathered for easter services. others at luxury hotels. no one has claimed responsibility for the attacks. back here at home, president trump is at his florida retreat for the holidays, but he's not taking a break from both celebrating what he calls exoneration by the mueller report, while at the same time attacking former aides who he said misled the special counsel. meanwhile, democrats are split on whether to push for impeachment, or move on to other issues. in a moment, we will speak with the president 's personal attorney, rudy giuliani, and later, house intelligence committee chair adam schiff. but first let's bring in kevin corke at the white house with the latest developments. kevin. >> the president already busy on twitter, and frankly a real pendulum of emotion following the release of that redacted mueller report swinging from vindication and exultation to downright frustration over its genesis and some of its underlying evidence.
>> this should never happen to another president again. >> president trump's insistence that he did not collude with the russians to sway the 2016 election is a message he not only reiterated once again a person following the release of the redacted mueller report, his frustration boiled over on twitter, where he called at the end result of the greatest witch hunt in u.s. political history. no collusion, no obstruction. but mr. trump also used social media platform to fume at some of the reports -- particularly as it relates to obstruction of just a kid. "fabricated and totally untrue" he tweeted adding that some of the statements in that report were total b.s. and only given to make the other person look good or me to look bad. the latter an apparent reference to don mcgann, whose name appears on 66 of the report's 488 pages, and was, according to the report, routinely criticized for the president for his
persistent, detailed note taking. still the correspondence did little to quell the uprising on capitol hill were congressional democrats have threatened to use it as a launching point for more investigation into the trump presidency. >> it is clear the special counsel's office conducted an incredibly thorough investigation in order to preserve the evidence for future investigators. >> future investigations including a possible impeachment proceeding. by the way, chairman adler has already issued a subpoena for the unredacted special counsel report, including its underlying evidence and grand jury material by may 1st. that's a request the doj is: premature and unnecessary. >> chris: kevin corke reporting for the white house, thanks for that. journeyman, the president's read the mike lee lawyer, welcome back to fox her side and happy easter. it's bigger happy easter, happy passover and good to be with you. >> chris: you were planning we were told to release a counter report to the mueller report, about 45 pages. why haven't you done so and are
you still planning to? >> number one we haven't done so because we plan to do it if we needed to. so far we don't think we need to. that may become necessary. whether they go ahead with the hearings or not. whether other issues are raised by different people. there's probably a point at which we will use it. right now we think the public debate this playing out about as well as we can. why computed with -- it raises a lot of issues that maybe we didn't have to respond to. >> chris: you have said that if you are going to release the counter report it was going to focus on obstruction. here's what the president had to say about that after the mueller report was released. >> they're having a good day. i'm having a good day too. it was called no collusion, no obstruction. >> chris: but mayer, that's not true. the mueller report makes a clear, especially on the issue of collusion -- obstruction rather that he's leaving it to congress. i don't want to pick up on the report. volume two, page eight -- >> rudy: i agree with that.
>> chris: god, let me put this out here first. the conclusion that congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances in the principle that no person is above the law," so mueller invites congress to look into this and the president, in terms of congress, hasn't been exonerated at all in the issue of the obstruction grade >> rudy: he will never get donna grady. one of the main things that affects that report and makes it a warped report, page two, the standard. you do not apply a standard of exoneration to anyone. whether it's a president in an impeachment -- you can't exonerate. exoneration means proving a negative. but the law has recognized -- >> chris: more than that. he is suggesting that there is a case and evidence that congress should examine. >> rudy: okay, but let's start with this. the standard he used, his
conclusion is i cannot conclude that the president committed obstruction, but i cannot exonerate him. >> chris: i understand radio that he doesn't have to proof innocent is not guilty. >> rudy: totally biased, warped view of a prosecutor's role. if prosecutors in america were asked to exonerate you, and about 90% of the cases they wouldn't be able to do it. >> chris: respectfully, basically what he's saying is i think it should go to congress, that's what he's saying. >> rudy: i know he did. here's the different opinion. number one, if they're going to review his removal power, whether they do it as an attempt or a reality, comey, mueller, whatever. real question under article two whether they can do that. the constitution of the united states gives the congress a role in appointment, advise and consent. delivery doesn't give them a role in removal because they say go back to the constitutional convention. they say that would be too much of an intrusion because if you -- it's a fear in excepting somebody, taking somebody, you
can always go find someone else but if you interfere in removal you're going to force a president to keep someone he doesn't trust, doesn't like. >> chris: excuse me with all due respect, that's not the issue here. the issue is did the president obstruct justice or not? let me just ask this -- i understand you're champing at the bit. let me just ask the question. in june of 2017, the mueller report says that the president called white house counsel don mcgann twice on the same weekend and he told him, and this was a quote from him, "call rod." the deputy attorney general who is overseeing special counsel. call rod, tell rod that mueller has conflicts and can't be the special counsel. mcgann recalled the president telling him mueller has to go. the only reason that that doesn't happen is because mcgann threatens to resign and refuses to carry out what he considers to be a saturday night massacre.
>> rudy: okay, now do you want me to answer? 's bill yes. >> rudy: and you will let me get it? >> chris: sure. >> rudy: number one, had he done it, it would not have been obstruction of justice because there were very good reasons to fire mueller. in the president has the absolute -- >> chris: what was the reason to fire mueller? he'd only been on the job a month. >> rudy: mueller hired a staff in which he had people i would find very questionable as people that would be investigating donald trump. he hired the chief counsel to the clinton foundation. absurd. he hired someone who had been a very, very strong partisan of hillary clinton, that her going away party, whatever that was and had a history of ethical misconduct -- unethical. you asked a complex answer to my question, i've got to give a complex answer. for a lot of reasons. >> chris: i would assume what you're saying is that the investigation is biased. >> rudy: i know you don't want a long answer but in fairness -- >> chris: what you're saying is the investigation was biased. >> rudy: what i'm saying is
you could perceive it that way, which would give you a good faith reason to fire him. and also he demonstrated in the case of comey that he could fire someone and not interfere in the investigation because immediately it was taken up by someone else. he told osterholt that he realized -- >> chris: are not asking about comey, muscular mueller. >> rudy: importing out with his prior conduct. he removed comey and said that will link the moat investigation and if he fired mueller he would have expected someone else came and took it over. the guy had conflicts of interest. he hired a highly partisan biases -- >> chris: it also had come up. i understand you're trying to make the case but but we do have limited time. >> rudy: i'm trying to tell you there's an alternative expo nation. >> chris: there's another alternative explanation which mueller makes and his acclamation is that two days earlier -- the report has come out in the paper that now mueller is investigating him for obstruction of justice and for the first time in this investigation, for the first time the president directly is a
target of the investigation. >> rudy: chris, what you're doing is you're taking the mueller report, which is a prosecutor's version of what happened. you're giving it full credit, and you're not giving me a chance to explain the outside. it's very, very strong and was left out by the prosecutor. i think that's unfair in the case of this magnitude. not to tell the other side. >> chris: i'm asking about the other side. >> rudy: you're not giving a chance to answer. >> chris: we don't need to talk about james comey. >> rudy: it's two or three pages of lies and distortion. it takes a little while. for example -- >> chris: you think that's what the report is? calumny, lies and expansion dormant distortion? >> rudy: half of it's not true. spirit i'm not talking about michael cohen. i was asking about mcgann. listen to this. >> rudy: i think this is a product of not telling the full story. that's not mcgann's fault. you read that, mcgann gave three different versions of that conversation. the first version of that conversation is the president used the word fire and he told
the president i'm going to resign directly. he then recants that and says no fire, no statement that i was going to resign and then he comes up with that person and then a third version which is even softer which says something like he should be fired. or he has conflicts, he can't be special prosecutor. >> chris: and that mueller has to go. >> rudy: is a very complex set of facts. on the other side, the president says i didn't say to fire him. i didn't want him to go, i want at the conflicts to be taken into consideration. but the president's version. you got to pick one version of the other. >> chris: may i? >> rudy: since you can't prove it, there's no obstruction. and finally, if he had fired him there wouldn't have been an obstruction so long as he was replaced by somebody, which he would have been, and there were good reasons, arguable reasons. >> chris: here's the question -- >> rudy: if this is really important. the president of the united states was an innocent man being charged with something
he didn't do. you have to grant that now when they say no proof of underlying crime. you've got to grant that as a legal and factual matter. >> chris: no, i don't. i don't. >> rudy: wait a second. these things are being done by an innocent man. >> chris: this is called an interview. it's not your closing argument. you got to give me the opportunity -- >> rudy: and her to defend the president. >> chris: i understand that and i'm here to ask you some questions. >> chris: one of your arguments has been that the obstruction of justice can't have happened because there was no underlying crime. that's what you say. you say that he was being framed and he was fighting back. let's look at what you said, sir. put it up on the screen. >> it's kind of ridiculous to go after a man for obstruction when he was falsely accused, he was defending himself. his intent in each one of these situations, all ten of them, is easily explained as an intent to not get framed. >> chris: that's what you just said. >> rudy: i set up a couple days ago. >> chris: okay, i understand,
but that's the point you're making, again. the special counsel -- i'm not arguing that the special counsel is right or wrong, i'm simply presenting arguments to try to get you to respond to it. the special counsel says that what you just said is not true. volume two, page 157. obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests to protect against investigations for underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. mueller says the injury to the justice system is just as great. it doesn't matter whether there was an underlying crime. it still obstruction. >> rudy: one did mueller become god? he says the injury to the justice system is still as great -- there was no injury, by the way. were talking about it in code crime. something that didn't happen. there was no obstruction. nothing was denied. nobody crushed cell phones like hillary did.
nobody deleted 33,000 emails like hillary's people did, and nobody bleached a server like hillary did. there was no obstruction -- they don't point to a single obstruction and investigation. the one from day one today an end they got everything they wanted. >> chris: that's not true. >> rudy: they are not entitled to testimony, no prosecutors. >> chris: that is what you said. you said they got everything they wanted. >> rudy: they are not entitled to that. >> chris: that's a different issue. >> rudy: now we are going to take the perception of innocence, where going to throw it out -- >> chris: i'm simply saying you said they got everything they wanted. >> rudy: they were going to trap him into perjury like they did with flynn. if you think i'm a full? i would have been disbarred if i let him testify. there were so many indications if they wanted to trap him into perjury because they don't have a case that they were not in good faith. here's what they did to flynn. they called flynn income of the go to his offense, tell me does need a lawyer -- >> chris: i got a minute left. i want to talk about trump.
>> rudy: have to look at the conduct of the prosecutor. >> chris: i understand it. >> rudy: they created as flynn's crying. they have the answer that if they ask him. >> chris: we're not talking about flynn. >> rudy: you are asking what is the president not go stand in front of them and let them try to trap and into perjury? because he had good lawyers and he's not a fool. if they were fair people i would have been there in a minute. >> chris: okay. >> rudy: what they did to flynn said to me they're going to try to do to my client. >> chris: here's the final question. >> rudy: you're treating his people as if they're fair. they're not. it begins with he's got to prove his innocence. then we are throwing out the fifth amendment. how many more management would would like to throw out? >> chris: you say that they gave -- you gave, the president gave them everything they wanted. i understand you're saying they didn't have a right to testimony. it was look at the president's testimony. >> rudy: by the way --
>> chris: a no, sir. at least 37 times he said in written answers he did not recall. >> rudy: oh, my goodness. >> chris: you say oh, my goodness -- one hillary clinton did that during her investigation. about the report, here's what the president said, take a look. >> when she was interviewed by the fbi she claims she couldn't remember important events 39 times. so she really didn't remember, that's a problem. and if she did remember, that's a problem. >> chris: you've got 30 seconds. why is that a problem for low clinton but it isn't for donald trump? >> rudy: because hillary clinton was guilty of the underlying crimes. she did crush the cell phones -- >> chris: who made you god, as you said about mueller? >> rudy: are not got about mueller. >> chris: who made mueller god, now you're declaring whether she was guilty or not. >> rudy: i'm saying there's a difference -- i'm just saying there's a difference -- i'm not saying she's guilty.
the differences there is overwhelming evidence that you actually obstructed justice. she denied the investigators the information. nothing was denied to them. by the way, in the report they say they didn't have to question him because they had the answers to all the questions. write in the report. >> chris: they also see the answers were inadequate and they also said that to go through a subpoena was going to take a prolonged period of time. >> rudy: if my client has an unclear recollection, i'm not going to go stretch out for the prosecutor so the prosecutor can mail them -- >> chris: mayor giuliani -- >> rudy: like the one after that great general and ruin his life and bankrupted him. they should be ashamed of them selves. >> chris: mayor julie article thank you, thanks for sharing your holiday weekend with us. >> rudy: happy passover. >> chris: if you are a heck of a lawyer. >> rudy: you're a heck of an interviewer. >> chris: up next we will talk with adam schiff, the democratic chair of the house intelligence committee, who promises to continue investigating the president. but will that lead to impeachment? ♪
uh, i'll look into it. (phone rings) lisa jones! lisa: (on phone) hey carl, what are you charging me for online equity trades? (nervous chuckle) lisa: and do i get my fees back if i'm not happy? like a satisfaction guarantee? ugh. schwab! lisa: oh right, i'm calling schwab. thanks, carl! wait, lisa! lisa... are you getting low costs backed by a satisfaction guarantee? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. ♪ >> chris: democrats have issued a subpoena for the full unredacted mueller report and are calling on attorney general barr and special counsel mueller
to testify before congress. they remain divided over how far they should take their investigation of the president. joining us now from california, democratic congressman adam schiff. chair of the house intelligence committee. chairman, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> congressman schiff: thank you, good to be with you. >> chris: after the release of the mueller report, you and some other top house democrats, including house speaker nancy pelosi said that impeachment of the president would be a mistake. here you are. >> many of us do think the president is unfit for office but unless that's a bipartisan conclusion, and impeachment would be doomed to failure. i continue to think that a failed impeachment is not in the national interest. >> chris: but now it since you said that, some top democrats, including elizabeth warren, senator warren, a candidate for president, say the house should do its constitutional duty and begin impeachment proceedings. do you still think they are
wrong? >> congressman schiff: look, i think it's a very difficult decision and were going to have a carcass about this over the next couple weeks to try to figure out what the best course is. not for the party, but what's the best course for the country. i think it's certainly the case that an impeachment would be unsuccessful if the republican party continues to place party above country, continues essentially to back the president no matter how unethical or dishonest is kind of creepy and sadly that's where we are right now. so we will have to decide do we nonetheless go through an impeachment because to do otherwise would signal that somehow this president's conduct is okay, that future presidents can engage in this kind of corruption without consequence, or do we decide that we are better off doing oversight for the context of oversight hearings by the various committees rather than a formal impeachment? that's going to be a very consequential decision and one that i'm going to reserve judgment on until we have a chance to fully deliberate about
it. >> chris: chairman, you've been leading the charge for more than a year that president trump and his campaign colluded with the russians to interfere in the 2016 election. here are just a few examples. >> this is about as clear evidence as you could find by intent by the campaign to collude with the russians, to get useful information from the russians. >> i think is pregnant evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. >> i did say there is ample evidence, and indeed there is, of collusion of people in the trump campaign with the russians. >> chris: let's look at what the mueller report found. and i want to put it up on the screen. volume one, pages one, two and five. if we understood coordination to require an agreement, tacit or expressed, between the trump campaign of the russian government on election interference. the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government and its election interference activities.
if mr. chairman, the special counsel did not find the kind of coordination that you said was there. >> congressman schiff: chris, as you know, and it was you had played the rest of some of those clips, i went on to say that whether that collusion, that evidence of collusion rises to prove beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of conspiracy was a different question. and indeed, that distinction is made in the opening pages of the mueller report, so when the president and his allies repeat this mantra of no collusion, they clearly haven't read or are ignoring the plain language of the report where bob mueller says two things. he says we are not going to look into the question of whether it's collusion, that's a common lay terms that can be criminal or noncriminal conduct. we are going to look at the crime of conspiracy. and on that issue, bob mueller says something else that i've been saying frequently, which is the fact that you may not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a criminal conspiracy doesn't mean there is an absence of evidence of crime. and when i talk -- you're
absolutely right, i talked with us all the time on the course of the last year. when i talked about evidence of collusion in plain sight, i used those words, in plain sight, and appointed to the meetings of trump tower that don jr. and kushner and manna manafort took. what more clear intent to collude could you have done the russians offering dirt on hillary clinton as part of what was described as an effort to help mr. trump in the campaign and don jr. saying if it's what you say, i would love it. i don't know find you how you e abundant evidence of the attempt to collude. >> chris: let me just say, the mueller report look at a lot of those specific incidents as you talk about. for instance. if the trump tower meeting. the fact that paul manafort shared polling data with someone from the ukraine who had ties to the russians, and here's what they found. again, from the report, volume one, page 66. the investigation examined whether these contacts, and they agreed there were contacts,
involved or resulted in coordination of a conspiracy with the trump campaign and russia. including with respect to russia providing assistance to the campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination. here was the reaction after the report came out from white house counsel or kellyanne conway. >> i was the first person to publicly call for adam shifts resignation from the intelligence committee chairman several weeks ago on your network. i'm going to double down on that. not only should he resign, he should produce the evidence that he says he has. >> chris: is no question there were contacts, but i think when he went other democrats -- i'm not saying it's just you -- talk about collusion, there was the feeling of a working arrangement, an agreement and that somehow the trump campaign was involved in the hacking of
the dnc and john podesta emails. and that there was a back-and-forth, working relationship as opposed to individual meetings. do you have evidence of that kind of working relationship that the mueller report didn't seem to find? >> congressman schiff: first of all, i never said that the trump campaign was involved in the hacking itself. what i did say is that for example in the trump tower meeting there was a clear intent to collude with the russians. there was a willingness to receive russian health. the president himself called on the russians to assist his campaign hacking hillary clinton's emails. and if you look at pages 180-190 that discuss that trump tower meeting. it wasn't that they found a lack of evidence of all the things that i talked about. in fact, the meeting did take place. in fact they did offer dirt on hillary clinton, in fact the president's son did say he would love to have it, in fact the president's sunlight about it, in fact the president was involved in dictating that lie, all the facts i've set out are proven.
but what bob mueller said, the reason he didn't charge don jr. and jared kushner and paul manafort if he found that he could not establish with admissible evidence that don jr. was knowing -- knew that he was breaking the law. knew that he was essentially ignorant of the law. with respect to paul manafort, we only have one sentence as to why some of that experience didn't know that seeking the help and receiving the help of a foreign government was a crime, and that is something we're going to want to ask bob mueller when he testifies. he also said he couldn't establish the value -- so i would say this to kellyanne conway. the only reason that mueller says he didn't charge a crime about that trump tower meeting was because he believed that do don jr. was too ignorant of the law to be charged. and because the russians didn't deliver the dirt they promised. not that that campaign didn't try to get dirt. but the russians didn't live up to their end of the bargain.
that's what mueller found. >> chris: we got limited time, i want to ask you one question, the publicans are now calling for a full investigation of how the fbi investigation against the president or the trump campaign began and the mueller report found that the dossier which had all kinds of information about relationships between president trump and the kremlin, that much of that information was either false or impossible to verify. as chair of the house intelligence committee. isn't that a legitimate source of inquiry? not saying you shouldn't investigate the president, but don't you think the question of exactly how this investigation began, was it a russians disinformation campaign to try to get since they were trying to set americans against each other to not only tarnish hillary clinton, but also to tarnish donald trump make isn't that a legitimate source of an investigation? >> congressman schiff: chris, the reality is that the
republicans on our committee spent two years investigating exactly that because frankly, they weren't that interested in what russia had done. the systemic attack on our democracy. they spent the focus of their two years investigating the investigators and investigating exactly that question. >> chris: a moment got 30 seconds left, we do have new information, the mueller report discredits a lot of that, says there was no indication that carter page did anything wrong. shouldn't you be looking at that just to find the truth? >> congressman schiff: what we are going to be looking at is we're going to be looking at all of the counterintelligence findings that were the genesis of this investigation. we have requested that on a bipartisan basis, one of the few things that devin nunes and i agreed upon. let me just be very clear about this. the mueller report makes it absolutely crystal clear that the initiation of this investigation was not only warranted, but absolutely necessary because it revealed a widespread systemic effort by the russians to help the trump campaign. and that i think is the
overriding conclusion of this report. and we need i think to put our emphasis on making sure that kind of intervention never happens again. >> chris: chairman schiff, thank you. thanks for joining us, always good to talk with you. >> congressman schiff: thank you. >> chris: coming up we will bring in our sunday group to break down the mueller report. is it the end of the russia investigation, or just the start of a new chapter? ♪ kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin trusted advice for life. kevin, how's your mom? life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you.
interfere with the 2016 presidential election. but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans alluded in those efforts. >> chris: attorney general william barr announcing special counsel robert mueller found no collusion with russia in his final report. and it's time now for our sunday group. jason riley of "the wall street journal." bob woodward from "the washington post." a former democratic congressman jane harman. director of the woodrow wilson center. an fox news correspondent gillian turner. jason, what's your reaction to the mueller report? how convincingly does it clear the president of collusion, and how much does it not clear the president on obstruction? >> i think this report are to be good news for the country. good news for everyone. democrats and republicans alike. the mueller report found that no one in the trump campaign from the president on down conspired with a foreign entity to win the election. despite the efforts of russia to
interfere. this ought to be good news for everyone. we are to be celebrating this yet we have some democrats and some members of the media were deeply disappointed in this outcome. because they had pushed a certain narrative that turned out to be untrue. >> chris: congresswoman, if you were still in congress, would you vote to initiate impeachment proceedings? >> here's what i would do. what's her member fred malik, a mutual friend of ours who chaired the wilson center board and was a passionate republican. what fred always said was he only likes politicians who put the country first. could we have a little conversation about that? what does the country need now that this report has come out? it's a nuanced report and its complicated and on the obstruction charge, mueller said congress or i guess the people in the next election need to decide. i don't know what i would do if i were in congress now. i would first wait for mueller's testimony in congress to hear why he wrote what he wrote. and what it means. he didn't say -- i saw your long
event with rudy giuliani. exoneration is not the standard patrol of the report does not exonerate anybody and it is time for the country to come together around what the next step is. >> chris: bob, when you read volume two of the mueller report, which is the part that centers on obstruction and mueller lays out ten specific potential cases of obstruction, how disturbing do you find them? >> there disturbing. i think there's a pattern of lying and corruption here that can't be dodged. but jason is right. the big conclusion -- collusion is about work. no coordination between the trump campaign and the russians. that is a big deal and it's not to be faced. and there is -- there are elements in the report that are very disturbing.
basically -- i'm sure trump would not acknowledge this, it confirms what was reported in "the new york times," my newspaper, and "the wall street journal," in a very significant way. the question bubbling here is, is this watergate? is this nixon? and the big missing element in all of this is money. nixon used campaign money for the watergate aspiration, espionage and sabotage. he used campaign money to pay for the silence of the people involved in watergate, clear obstruction. in this case, you have no money paid by trump or his associates. you know who paid for the russian meddling in our election? vladimir putin. >> chris: i want to ask you one quick question and i don't mean in any way to compare this
to watergate. there are obvious a lot more serious crimes that nixon and the committee to reelect were involved in than anybody in the trump campaign did. but i was looking back at the june 23rd smoking gun tape in which the president says to his then chief of staff, instruct the cia to tell the fbi to lay off the watergate investigation because it's a national security matter. and that wasn't the real reason. it was because it was obviously going to incriminate people involved in the campaign. is that so different from donald trump telling -- i'm not talking about the underlying crime. telling don mcgahn or corey lewandowski and the special counsel investigation? >> if you go back to that june 23rd tape in the nixon case, that's six days after the watergate burglary and what nixon's chief of staff said to the president, where worried about the fbi because they are tracing the money.
the money is the key to watergate. i will repeat, in this case there's no money transfer. does that mean there isn't much to investigate? indeed there is, and i know people in my business are going to be aggressively looking for new information. clearly the democrats in the house -- mostly what i want to bring in jillian but before i do i will say this was somebody some members had to you, follow the money. >> that was in the movie versio version. >> chris: it let me go to you, jillian. what about attorney general bar? one of the things that strikes me, he in fact says there's a lot of reasons, one of which is the olc, the legal ruling of the justice department, you can't indict a sitting president. i'm going to shift this over to congress, what you think of the fact that william barr said no, i'm going to make a judgment on this and i'm going to play the president? >> it's within his prerogative
as the attorney general to make a conclusion. if mueller doesn't get to decide whether the attorney general gets to make the conclusion, and he did. i will see the bigger problem attorney general bill barr has is he's the messenger here and everybody knows what happens to the messenger. i think in this instance he was the first person that got their voice heard by the american people after the report in the investigation were finalized. he was the first person to see the report, the first person to comment on it publicly after reading it, and in this instance, the democrats obviously disagreed with everything about how he's handled this, from what he said, to how he said it, to the order in which he said it. i think democrats here are shooting the messenger. >> chris: all right, we have to take a break here, but when we come back, joe biden is set to officially announce he's running for president this week. what does that mean for the rest of the 2020 field? plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the russia investigation and the allegations of fbi misconduct?
just go to facebook or twitter, @foxnewssunday, and we may use your question on the air. ♪ okay, i picked out my dream car. now's the really fun part: choosing the color, the wheels, the interior. everything exactly how i want it. here's the thing, just because i configured this car online doesn't mean it really exists at a dealership. but with truecar, i get real pricing on actual cars in my area, i see what others paid for them and they show me the ones that match the car i want, so i know i can go to a truecar certified dealer and it'll be right there waiting for me... today, right now.
>> this should never happen to another president again. this hoax. it should never happen to another president again. >> chris: president trump kicking off what may be the next chapter of the russia probe, looking into why the fbi launched the investigation and we are back now with the panel. well, mr. woodward. more than two years ago back in january of 2017 when the dossier first surfaced, i remember you saying right here on the show that it is a "garbage document.
do you feel that the mueller report basically discredited it, and to what degree do you think it played a role in the russia investigation? >> that's what's going to be investigated by lots of people, including the attorney general and including senator lindsey graham. >> chris: the inspector again until mike general is also doing it. >> and it should be. at what i out recently, which was really quite surprising, the dossier, which really is got a lot of garbage in it and mueller found that to be the case, early in building the intelligence community assessment on russian interference in an early draft, they actually put the dossier on page two and kind of a breakout box. i think it was the cia pushing this, real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this
is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out. but in this process the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments as mueller also found out is highly questionable. needs to be investigated. >> chris: i just want to pick up, we want to ask you for questions for the panel and on this issue of the mueller report and the genesis of it, we got this on twitter. how quickly do you think bill barr will start going after those who weaponized department of justice and fbi against trump and his campaign? gillian, how do you answer leo and to what degree do you think the whole russia investigation was if not started by, fueled by a disinformation campaign either from the russians or from the clinton campaign? >> i think we are getting out
ahead of our skis if we assume barr is going to go after anybody. what he said during his remarks is that he's going to look at the sum total of what all the various ongoing investigations have found and then make a determination of whether this needs to be investigated. but i will say the dossier's origins and all of that sort of pales in comparison to the real hard information that mueller confirmed, which is there might not be an indictment of president trump in this report, but there is certainly a scathing indictment of social media companies here. and of the russian government's attempts to infiltrate them. we learn he confirmed 126 million people on facebook, 2 million people on twitter exposed unknowingly to russian propaganda that may or may not have influenced the way they wanted to vote. i didn't hear chairman shift talk about that on your show earlier this morning. as the chairman of the intelligence committee. that's where the focus should be going forward. >> chris: all right, and a time we have left, we are going to talk some 2020 democratic presidential politics because it appears that joe biden, who recorded the polls at the front
runner is finally expected to enter the race this week and perhaps wednesday in charlottesville, virginia, which of course was the sight of that terrible white supremacist rally back in 2017. here was biden this past week at a rally for striking grocery workers. >> wall street bankers and ceo did not build america. you built america. we built america. ordinary middle people build america. >> chris: congresswoman, how steep incline does he faced, one because of his age, and two because he seems to be a relative moderate in a field that's moving further to the left? >> two points. first, putting the country first, let's keep on eye on the fact that russia is actively interfering in the election. we need to take steps to stop that, not focus blame on each other. on biden, eight years ago today on easter my cell phone rang, it's joe, are you okay matt why was he calling me? i didn't work for him.
i didn't work in the obama white house. i left congress but my husband had died a few weeks ago and he wanted to check up on me. that's what joe biden is. a thoroughly decent, thoughtful, caring man. is he too will? hope not. should he be elected? let's see how the campaign plays out. in political terms, there are years between now and 2020. should he enter the race? absolutely. is there a place for moderates? you bet. there are 30 new moderates or democrats in the house of representatives. should the ticket reflect the diversity of america? i think so. but i think my view is that joe biden should run. he has a lot to offer it is one of nicest people on the planet. >> chris: jason how do you handicap this race and what do you think are the chances that joe biden, who is the front runner getting in, will remain the front runner as this campaign rages on? >> that initial point is what is making this grade back in the
2016 psych we're probably talking at this point about jeb bush and marco rubio being the strongest candidates and we saw how that turned out. i think the democrats have to decide whether they want a politically correct ticket for a ticket that can compete in the states that they need 2020. joe biden obviously someone who could compete in the upper midwest and states like that. they're going to have to decide if they can put aside the fact that he is a white male and that they want more diversity on their ticket. so that's the dilemma they have. if you have a progressive wing that wants more women, once more minorities. but i will say on the minority front i think joe biden would bring a lot of goodwill on black americans to the ticket because of his affiliation with barack obama for eight years. so they have something to do. >> chris: on the other hand -- barack obama, noticeably silent, even though he worked alongside joe biden. he has done nothing to push his candidacy. >> true, it is probably said to himself and going to stay neutral during this primary
process. >> chris: i have a feeling we will discuss joe biden and the whole democratic race often. thank you panel, thank you all for coming and easter. see you next sunday. up next our "power player of the week" ." the botus who made a splash when he arrived in washington and continues to have quite a following there. ♪ beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast.
♪ >> chris: finally this easter weekend, he stole the show in vice president pence and his family arrived in washington. and two years later he still helping the second family teach children about civics and history. here is our "power player of the week" ." >> he will sit and hold a pose and wait until you get a lot of shots. it's really adorable. he's kind of a prima donna. >> karen panza talk about the family's pet bunny. the main character in a children's book she and her daughter charlotte have written called "marlon bundo's day in the life of the vice president" but before we get to the book, there is marlon's story. charlotte was working on a college film project and needed a bunny. >> i asked the owner how much for the funny and they said to
make him an offer. so it became this godfather joke with my friends. >> chris: marlon brando became marlon bundo, who escapes from his cage just as two teams break out of their troubles. >> he's kind of a metaphor, he's very deep. >> chris: in 2017 when the family moved to washington, they spotted marlon being carried off air force to buried >> for some reason it became this phenomenon, that oh, my gosh, the pences have a bunny so charlotte thought it would be a lot of fun to start marlon's own instagram account. >> chris: marlon made his first official appearance at an event honoring military families and clearly upstaged the vice president. >> you know who this is, don't you? whisper it. >> marlon, this is chris wallac chris wallace. mr. chris wallace. this is the botus. >> chris: yes, that stands for bunny of the united states. >> chris: at my families have
had a bunch of bunnies and none of them were ever as well behaved. >> he's good. we think is kind of -- he likes the spotlight a little bit. >> chris: and so was born the idea for a book about marlon following grandpa, the vice president around washington for a full day of meetings. mrs. pence, was an accomplished artist, did the illustrations while charlotte broke the story in verse. >> allow me to introduce myself, i am marlon bundo pens. i live with my family here at the vice president's residence. >> chris: pences art donating proceeds proceeds from book to charity. charlotte to fight human trafficking. mrs. pence to support art therapy. charlotte says marlon brings funny letters together, erasing political lines, but comedian john oliver came out with his own book trolling the vice president. with proceeds going to lgbt and age groups. >> our story is about marlon bundo falling in love with another boy rabbit because our marlon bundo --
>> on marlon's instagram, marlon actually said the only thing better than one bunny book that benefits charity is two bunny books that benefit charity. >> chris: marlon can be seen on instagram flipping the pages of his book. while mother and daughter are clearly enjoying their collaboration. >> every time i see a picture of a kid reading the book it just makes my day. >> one of the first pictures she sent me on her phone was the binding where it says pence, pence. it was really sweet. >> chris: this month, the pence family released a new botus book. it's called marlon bundo 'has day in the nation's capital. and that's it for today. have a great week and we will see you next "fox news sunday" " ♪
and take control of your financial future, then get ready because real estate multimillionaire and best-selling author than merrill, star of a&e's hit tv show, flip this house has one heck of an opportunity for you. for the last decade, you've seen than all over tv and now than's chosen to hold a free two hour live class where you'll learn how you can start making money in real estate on a part-time or full-time basis. you'll learn a step-by-step blueprint for flipping homes and buying and holding income properties that generate consistent cash flow. this is the exact process than and thousands of students have used to get started