monday on the program, newt gingrich, mark levin and evan nunez all join us to every action for what we learned over the weekend. thank you for being with us. we will never be the hate trump media mob. we will see you monday. >> laura: this isit "the ingraham angle" from a colossally busy city tonight. it's finally over. special counsel robert mueller, and we don't know exactly about what specifics were in the report, but we do know that mueller is not recommending any further indictments nor has he included on the inside the report. now, throughout the hour, we are going to be naming names w on wo started this farce, who fueled it during that 675-day period,

and members of the media and the halls of congress who owes the nation a big apology for perhaps their jobs tonight. and in just moments, i'm going to be joined by an expert panel, people with firsthand knowledge of the process going forward. ken starr, robert race, and from the watergate investigation, john sale. you do not want to miss this. no better panel on television tonight. first, chief white house correspondent john roberts is at the white house with what comes next and new details. >> the white house is pretty confident this is over, particularly since mueller says he will be departing the office of the special counsel in the next few days. andl the president is just glad the part of the investigation is over. what's not clear is when we will i hear from william barr as to what is in that report when he hands the summary to congress.

we're told that nothing is likely to happen is tomorrow. the earliest is sunday because there's an awful lot of material ton go through and he has to determine what's classified, what might be subject to executive privilege. and then there's the idea of when william barr consultant but the outside attorneys, jay sekulow and rudy giuliani, about this report that he is going to write for congress. will they be allowed some input into it as well? that remains unclear at this point.le whole lotly isn't a of precedent of what will transpire over the next couple of days. a lot of it will be plowing new ground. also unknown is whether the president's legal team is going to write a response report. i'm told tonight that it all depends on what is in the mueller report, what's in that summary, as to whether or not theyey would put together some sort of response. but i know they have been working on one now for several months. one of the great unknowns is

what happens in congress. when william barr submits his summary report to congress, will congress take a look at it and say, okay, we're satisfied with this, or if it goes the distance to exonerating the president, but only a distance, will they start asking for the entire report? will they then start asking for the source materials? the democrats are being hypocritical calling for the release of the entire report. "when it doesn't work in their favor, they try to change it." and then when this report, when it comes out, completely exonerates theer president, wil the democrat haves to go back to the drawing board, recalibrate and figure out what they're going to attack the president on from now until 2020. remember, laura, rod rosenstein in a letter to grassley in june of last year said, when you're writing these reports, it's

incumbent upon prosecutors not to talk about misconduct amongng people who are not being charged. even if the president was found to have committed some sort of misconduct, the fact that he's not being charged with anything, went and we know that because mueller said he won't be bringing any more indictments, may mean that there won't be much about the president in this report. we'll see. laura. >> laura: thanks so much. joining us now from, ken star, robert ray. also fox news contributors. ken, i want to start with you. apparently tonight we're getting word and seeing some video -- there's another event going down there in palm beach. but it's a celebratory mood. should they be celebrating? >> i think so because there will be no more indictments. we've seen a vindication of law in the face of politics and media and the like.

what we saw today in bill barr, the attorney general's letter, is a letter that simply is grounded in the law. what we're seeing in reaction from capitolat hill is, wait a second, we don't even want to talk about the law and the traditions of the justice department that you don't drag people's name through the mud, that you say john doe hypothetically, are really bad people but we chose not to indict them. the regulations that came into effect in 1999 after the independent statues, including the eareport to congress that led to the impeachment of bill clinton, congress said, we don't want any more of that. and these regulations, i think, are very carefully calibrated to protect these kinds of basic privacy interests and the reputational interests of the people not being charged. >> laura: that's been waived off tonight. i was watching the other

networks, that concern is being waived off, saying, sol, i'll go to you. this is no longstanding rule, this can be dispensed with. schumer today came out. he looked like he just lost his best friend. but he came out today and said this. >> the white house must not be allowed to interfere in decisions about what part of those findings or evidence should be made public. it's imperative for mr. barr to make the full report public and provide its underlying documentation and findings to congress. >> laura: now, sol, i thought mueller was the gold standard. two years, the democrats, mueller, mueller, mueller. now he does this report. apparently it's not going to give the democrats what they want. and they're like, no, we want to see your documents. what would this mean for those to be turned over? and is there a legitimate reason for doing so? >> well, i'm for turning over as much as can be turned over in fairness and in accordance with the law.

first of all, there's no way it's's going to all be turned over. it can't be under the law turned over right away if there's any grand jury material in it. and you have to have a court order, even before you can turn that over under sealed to congress. we had to get a court order. if there's any grand jury material that is turned over, there has to be a court order. so that's number one. but bill barr has already said, i want to be transparent. i want to turn over as much as i can. i will say this. i very much agree with the philosophy that says you should not smear a person if you're not going to indict them. and i think this report will follow that principle, except i think that they will -- it's very clear that they're fixated -- the mueller people have been fixated on the obstruction question with respect to president trump. and i think what you will find is a discussion of efforts to

stymy the mueller team. i think it'll be done in a very dispassionate way. i think they have a different view of president trump precisely because he can't be indicted. i think they may go after him a little bit when they talk about obstruction. i don't think there's a criminal case, but i think they'll talk about. >> laura: schiff on another network continued to say, given the fact that there's all this information out there that the president obstructed the probe, we need all the information. it was like this report isn't even coming out and it's not going to reveal what we know, it's probably not going to reveal what they wanted. it's almost like they're fantasizing this away in their commentary tonight. what else do they do? they've spent two years using words like treason, collaborate with putin and so forth. now they're at this point, and i'll play a sound bite for you,

where eric swalwell, one of the presidents chief critics in congress is talking about moving the goal posts away from even obstruction to just a general honor code. let's watch. >> i think the american people want to know whether this president violated conduct, whether heprte violated not onle law but that honor code that we all count on. >> laura: robert, what's the honor code they're talking about? >> i have absolutely no idea. i mean, the only thing that's applicable are the standards that are embodied in the constitution. and, i mean, that's arguably by implication the impeachment process, which gets to only one question, and that is, whether there's a violation of the public trust? but in general here, beware of efforts to move the goal post and which part of over, meaning o-v-e-r, do the democrats not understand? i think, some perspective is

important here. it's an investigation that was conducted over a period of 22 months. it is now concluded. that's the end of it. now, if congress wants to, in their infinite wisdom through house democrats, to conduct their own investigation, that's one thing. they don't have subpoena power. -- they do have subpoena power, but the administration should and would be correct in doing so, resist any efforts to essentially dump raw data over into the congress voluntarily.aw i do think that congress is entitled -- and i agree with sol on this point -- as to the president alone, that congress is entitled to bob mueller's findings, the basis for why he either decided to bring charges or not, in this instance, not to bring charges. that much i think is somethingit that congress appropriately in its oversight capacity is entitled to and should get.

and i don't think, frankly, i don't think that the administration is going to resist that. >> laura: no. >> and i think cooperative, the message that seemed to be sent today by this letter is that bill barr, in conjunction with rod rosenstein and bob mueller in these remaining days, and i think this will happen fairly quickly, will be t delivering up those finding to the congress in an appropriate fashion. >> laura: i think they want to pull mueller upe to testify on capitol hill, maybe bring bill barr up again. because, again, it's always the narrative shift. when they don't get what they want, we have to shift to another point. although, there are still media folks, which i think the real collusion is the media with the dnc who are keeping this thing going. but chris hayes last night was saying this about what he would believe. >> let's say mueller says, look, all these things happened, the president happened in these ways, but there was no actual

collusion, or even says further and says, we exonerate the president. i don't know if he can do that. but do you trust the outcome of whatever this is, whatever it says? >> laura: again, john, mueller, they built up his professionalism and reputation and a lot of us conservatives were concerned about the makeup of his prosecutorial team. and the democrats said you couldn't question bob mueller. but now you can't trust the report when it comes out. where does this leave us today in the public fear, looking at the prosecutorial priorities of this country, the justice department? how did this period affect the integrity or the trust, i would say, that people have in institutions like the american media? >> laura, i can tell you, practicing in this area, that there is a lack of confidence. confidence has been shattered. but mueller has been held up as a deity. everyone saying, let's wait for

the mueller report. and i have never said it's a witch-hunt. i think it was a legitimate investigation. but what everybody's forgetting is he's a prosecutor. he's not judge, jury and execution... and the devil's in the details. we really don't know what the specifics are. but i think the president is entitled to have his representatives read it and prepare a response, because prosecutors are advocates. they're not the be-all and end-all. and furthermore, can i say one other thing where i've gotten some pushback from some of my good friends who are more on the left? i've said that during the course of this period, the president is entitled to the presumption of the innocence. and people come back and say, that's only in a courtroom. but this is the presidency. and an investigation like this is a cloud over any president. and like any citizen, he's not above the law, but he's not below the law either. why are we not assuming he

didn't do anything wrong? otand one other thing. in watergate, we are roadmap, which a judge allowed grand jury material to go to the congress, but we didn't draw any conclusions. we didn't exonerate and we didn't find anyone incriminated. we just provided citations and evidence and let the congress make its own decision. >> laura: all right. i want to get all of your reactions to some of the worst wreckless accusations from our former intel chief. >> do you still believe the ntpresident could be a russian asset? >> i think it's possible. i think that's why we started our investigation. and i'm really anxious to see where director mueller concludes that. >> more and more, i come to the conclusion that after the performance and since, that i really do wonder whether the russians have something on him. >> i used the term that this is

nothing short of treasonous because it is the betrayal of the nation. he is giving comfort to the enemy. >> laura: ken, aid and comfort to the enemy, treasonous. we had renowned historians saying the same thing. any repercussions here? especially as we call the deep state, folks? >> on the deep state, we shall see. i do have great confidence in michael horowitz, the inspector general. we'll see what his report -- and i know there have been comments, why don't we see that report? but it's s very simple. i didn't expect any report about possible wrongdoing within the deep state until after bob mueller had finished his work. i really think this should be a time, but it's not going to be because we are living in the age that we're living in, where people say, look, here is someone, bob mueller, very respected, attacked by the president, it could pretty

and who has assembled around him people who are not friends of the president, to put it mildly. and now he has determined that there is no basis for charges. in short, when we go back to the articulation may 2017 of why he was appointed, the issue was, was their collision or crimes committed under the umbrella of collusion? and he clearly must have concluded that there are not such crimes. or, the investigation would still be underway. i think this should actually be a time of celebration that our president was not involved in the campaign in colluding. were there contacts and communications?? of course, they were. final point. we've seen with what i call for a year now contra indications of collusion. in the two huge indictments at bob mueller and his team brought

against the russian individuals and organizations. l,t one word in those very detailed indictments suggest collusion. and that tells me a lot. >> laura: sol, we had jim comey, who kind of started this all when that memo of his, the memo to the file after his conversation with the t presidet was sent over to his pal at the times, who leaked it to the new york times, a professor at columbia. and now he's saying that he doesn't care what the investigation uncovers, even though he started the whole thing. he kind of saw where this is going in the end and he had gone on this book tour, speaking nota favorably, obviously, toward the president, and clearly wantedpr this investigation to happen, and now it's kind of skedaddling away from it. thoughts there? >> there's a reason they calll him saint jim. that's allll i'll say. he's got kind of a god complex. i think you've raised an

important point. i think it's important to make a distinction between former director comey and andrew mccabe and peter strzok and the fisa, the alleged fisa abuses that we're going to find out about. we already know for sure the fisa court wasn't told everything that bruce ohr told the doj and the fbi. there's a difference between t that and between mueller's operation. mueller was asked to do this and he did it. and i know there are some people that disagree with some of mueller's tactics. and i think he should have been much more careful in the team he originally assembled. but i'm unaware of one unethical thing that anybody on mueller's team did. and this will end up being, yes, they were too tough with roger stone, yes, they played hardball with --

but nothing they did was improper under doj rules or unethical. and i think mueller is a great public servant. i've never agreed with him about everything, but he's a man of integrity. and the irony is, this will end up helping the very man that attacked him relentlessly -- president trump.gr no one has ever accused mueller of being anything other than thorough. he said there is no crime connected with collusion. >> laura: it is kind of ironic, in the end, it looks like mueller, his conclusions will benefit trump, and the democrats, who are praising mueller, are implicitly criticizing the mueller findings if they don't get all the information. and they're obviously skeptical of this idea, you didn't find any wrongdoing or not enough that it rises to the level of criminality.

they're skeptical of mueller. so it's kind of a flip deal here in the end. >> you can't have it both ways. and by the way, "the new york times" doesn't buy that. in and editorial for tomorrow's paper, they say very pointedly is that one of the things this has shown is the law prevails. and the second thing is that the president is very fortunate that he had bob mueller as his prosecutor. along the way, they take a cheap shot at judge star but that just goes to show that a lot that goes about here is score settling. we're going to get past this. the news tonight really is that a full and fair and complete investigation was conducted and that -- >> laura: robert, i've got to jump in. >> it stops before the administration.

>> laura: that's true. but in the last two years, we've had the nation in the vice grip of this anxiety. it's great to sit here tonight, well, isn't it wonderful? yeah, it is. but it begs the question, should this investigation have been triggered the way it was, the fisa warrants that were clearly, at the very least, misleading as to the true providence of that dossier, how the dossier came into being, how it was distributed, who paid for it? it should never have happened. >> the president has a very clear positionev with regard to that. and he may well be proven to be right. we may not know that unless there's further investigation along the lines that sol is mentioning. and we may not know that until we have the benefit of history. i've already said that we should, and i think it required

not only release of what horowitz has been finding along the way, but it's clear already, as sol has mentioned, that what happened, the games that were played with the fisa court, essentially is that the inside the department, there was a real debate about this. it went from the fbi to responsible officials. and the fact of the matter is, they proceeded forward with an application to the fisa court and they did not fully t discloe what they knew, which is thatly the information was biased. >> laura: and at the same time, john, there was pressure put on the process to not indict hillary clinton for her egregious abuse of government protocols and classified information handling. so there was pressure, i think, on comey not to do that, not to pursue that. so, i think there's a lot -- and again, it's wonderful that it's

turned out, it looks like, the way it has for the rule of law and all of that, but the fact that this happened to an individual, the president of the united states, and lord knows what opportunities we lost in the process along the way. albatross to this administration. who knows what maybe we would have been able to do something with russia to helpwh the count, our security. but we certainly didn't. i don't want to let anyone off here as to how this whole thing started. and comey's cute little op-ed notwithstanding, i think people want these questions answered so this doesn't happen again to anyone, let alone the president of the united states. that's enough of my soapbox here. >> it's unfortunate that the president has to be the victim of what really are needed reforms in the criminal justice system. i mean, it's just as tragic if it happens to any citizen, as when it happens to the president. with the president, we pay

attention to it. with the mueller report, if we'll call it that, now it'swe going to be call the barr summary. the devil's in the details. i think the celebrationon is a little premature. it's a very good day for the president, but let's see what happens, what details are there, and as i can -- >> laura: it's a hell of a long way from the president was committing treason and conspireing with putin against the american electoral system, which is what we hard for two-plus years. >> how could the person who was supervising, rod rosenstein, this investigation, be a person who was talking about wearing a wire on the president? >> laura: thank you. i didn't even think about that. hold on a second. even though mueller is done though, and i think john is right, we've got the southern district of new york hanging out there, correct, and democrats on capitol hill want to launch their own probe.

they, i don't think -- these things don't have anything to do with russian election enter -- interference. so the trump handling of security clearances and classified information, the list goes on. >> there are any number of examples that i could give you of information, information ivthat's become clear from the special counsel investigation that may not be neatly summed up in a decision or a disclosure that we decided to indict a but not b. >> the special prosecutor has specific mandate to prosecute with that interference of the collusion by the trump administration or anybody else with an interference in the election and only to look at crimes. the southern district of new york also only looks at crimes. we have to look at a much broader question. >> i don't see how he does not have indictments waiting for him. >> laura: the white house counsel's office is kind of fed up with all these requests and

they basically are stiff arming the house democrats on these ridiculous requests and for the most part not responding. ken star, problems on the horizon, though. they do have oversight power. a lot of these have nothing to do with the president's conduct in office. >> there's no question. but we've moved to politics and the 2020 election. the iowa caucuses, the democratic debates, there are a lot of candidates. what we're seeing is fodder for the political process. but happily tonight we're talking more about law than about politics. and we have an attorney general in bill barr who's going to turn square corners and go by the law. what we're hearing from congress is, we don't want you to abide by your regulations. we want you to do something entirely different. we essentially want you to become our agent, help us in the impeachment process.

and as you know, that was the structure of the old independent council statue under which several of us served. happily that's gone away. so, it's been a new day. and if congress did not like the nature of the reporting requirements that have been in these regulations now for 20 years, then they should have held a hearing, talked to an attorney general, and said, "we needed a little bit more information. if the occasion arises, we need more information." these are minimalist reporting requirements. and i think that's what bill barr is going for. now, i understand the other side, which is we want maximum transparency, but don't we want maximum transparency consistent with the rule of law? we shall see. >> laura: really quick, southern district of new york. the democrats are whispering about that tonight.g peril ahead for the trump family, the president himself. >> well, keep in mind, anything

is possible, but keep in mind that rumors you've heard to the contrary notwithstanding, the southern district is actually part of the department of justice. they actually report to bill barr and have to take orders from him. i'm very confident that barr will not do anything to improperly interfere with them but he will make it clear that he wants to be kept abreast of the investigation and i have great confidence in him. >> as the department is required to be informed, anyone -- andto this is where the media have to be vigilant. anybody who thinks that the southern district of new york should be used as a stalking horse for the continuation of the mueller investigation, i think they should have their head examined. and it's going to require super vision and to be monitored by the department in washington. >> laura: up bill barr made an excellent choice, and it calls

it all into question, and that's all you need to know. >> that's wearing thin already. >> ana laura: it's just not wor. what a phenomenal panel. thank you for staying up with us tonight. we really appreciate it. the country appreciates it. and the delivery of the mueller report today got me thinking. how did we get here? because from more than two and a half years, there have been people inside the obama justice leand intelligence departments d the fbi, the media, trying to find evidence of a criminal conspiracy. yes, a criminal conspiracy between trump and russia. now, remember, this all began in the summer of 2016 during the campaign. the fbi uncovered efforts by russian actors to interfere in the election. they tried to verify with no success allegation that is trump associates were assisting in this effort. and just two weeks after they launched the intel investigation into the campaign, known as cross fire hurricane, this text

was sent by fbi special agent peter strzok to his girlfriend then fbi lawyer lisa page. he said, "i want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in andy's office, that there's no way he gets elected. but i'mm afraid we can't take that risk." it's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before your 40. now, by this time christopher steele had been working with clinton's campaign for months. and theyri were digging up by research on trump, whether or not it was verifiable. now, what was unknown to most at the time was that bruce ohr, and obama doj official, was working with steele as well as trading information on trump and russia. now, steele's completed work of course became known as that infamous dossier, which even intel officials who hated trump thought was a fantasy. w but despite that, buzzfeed published the dossier in full, which sent the media into apaplexy.

it didn't matter that it was tabloid trash. the die had been cast. trump was, in their view, officially compromised. in the following months, national security advisor michael flynn would be fired for speaking to the russian ambassador after the election and we would later discovered he lied to other fbi agents as well, which is what he was eventually charged with. and that's somewhat been called into question. but former fbi director comey meanwhile became a central figure to the muellerec investigation after he was fired in may of 2017. now, comey leaked, as i mentioned earlier, a these confidential memos that he wrote after his meetings with trump to his friend to writing about and ultimately get this put into the new york times. now, why did this happen? >> my judgment was, i needed to get that out into the public square because i thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.

>> laura: he wanted that out. he had his own press operation. eight days after he was sacked, comey got his wish.op and what do we got now to this wmueller report? for an estimated $30 million in expenditures thus far, they have been brought up on charges on a number of trump associates, some close, some distant, and they'vee been brought up on charges including false statements, tax evasion, bank fraud, and so on, but not one thing pointing to conspiracy or collusion between trump and russia. despite that, the media have been irresponsibly ringing the collusion bell. >> the picture of russia collision is coming into focus now. >> i can certainly say with confidence that there iscoll significant evidence of collusion between the campaign and russia. >> this is evidence of willingness to commit collusion.

s it's so obvious that they were eager to collude with russia. now we're seeing evidence that there was a conspiracy to cover up. >> right now we don't have evidence of collusion. >> we have paul manafort's yevidence of collusion. >> we are looking at the possibility that the president of united states concluded with a hostile foreign power to undermine the basis of our democracy. >> laura: by the way, most of them are on tv today acting like they didn't get anything wrong. for the last 22 months, the mueller investigation has been an albatross around the president's neck. there was speculation he would indict his son or son-in-law. but tonight, mueller's work is officially done, no further indictments are expected, as i said. the much-awaited report now becomes a political football, one the democrats can't wait to get their hands on. ranking members of the house devin nunes and byron york will join me now and in just moments, we'll break this all down.

we will take a quick break, stas there. wondering if eating out is eating into saving for their first home. this is jc... (team member) welcome to wells fargo, how may i help? (vo) who's here to help with a free financial health conversation, no strings attached. this is the averys with the support they needed to get back on track. well done guys. (team member) this is wells fargo. webut some of us turn outhose dreams...... into action... the bookers. the doers. the 'hit that confirmation button and let's go!'- ers! because bookers know that the perfect place to stay... is right there for the booking. be a booker at booking.com the world's #1 choice for booking accommodations.

>> laura: the faces on the >> laura: the faces on the other network looked a lot like election night 2016, and their anger, fury in getting that election wrong, made a lot of them jump to wild conclusions about trump and russia, especially voices over at msnbc. >> whether or not russia had help, whether they had confederates inside the trump campaign when they launched this attack, the presidency is effectively a russian op. i mean, that is so profoundly big. this is not partisan warfare between republicans and democrats. this is international warfare against our country. >> laura: no hyperbole there.

joining me now from the world ag expo, devon nunez. ranking member of the house and tell committee, byron york. chief correspondent and fox news contributor. congressman, any indication when your committee could get its hands on this report? >> my guess is it's probably going to be next week at someis point.>> i think what you're seeing tonight, laura, is the unravelling of the biggest scandal in american history, the biggest political scandal in american history. i really believe that's what that is. i listened a little bit ago toie what you were saying about the history of this. and i think people need to remember, this actually likely dates back to late 2015, early 2016. and this began nothing more, nothing less than a clinton/obama operation with ato bunch of dirty cops at the fbi and career justice department officials that were all part of it. >> laura: and carter page got

wrapped up in this. hundreds of thousands of legal bills. roger stone could go away for the rest of his life. obviously, manafortt and everything he went through. most of this stuff has nothing to do with what the underlying accusation was. byron, you wrote a fantastic piece -- i don't know how you dash it off so fast -- tonight about the things we need to learn from what happened, who got things really badly wrong, why w it's important to note th. >> it's important to say we don't know what's in the report itself. but there are a lot of things we actually do know now and they affect some of the things that we heard about most in the last two years. the first thing that is not in the mueller investigation is, he did not charge anyone in the trump campaign or associates with conspiring with russia to fix the 2016 election. did not happen, no charges about that. he didn't indict some of the

people who have been wildly speculated they would be indicted. >> laura: how many times have we heard about that, and moping about, who called the unknown phone number? oh, my god. but we knew it was ridiculous. i knewis it was ridiculous. but they were so invested in this story, byron. a lot of money they made off pushing the story. >> the senate judiciary committee produced transcripts of the interview. not many people read it. he did not subpoena the president. remember how much we talked about that? and also for his part, trump did not interfere with the investigation. bill barr actually said that in his letter.in and finally, he did not fire mueller. how many times did we talk about that? >> laura: he was going to fire mueller, he was going to interfere with the investigation. it was a parade horribles, that donald trump was going to shut it all down and it was all going to be blown up in the american justice system and never be the same again. but earlier tonight, your counterpart on the intel chair,

adam schiff, threatened to subpoena mueller. watch. >> i would first argue that the department cannot adopt a a doue standard and should cooperate willingly. but if it doesn't, we will havef to subpoena the evidence. we'll have to subpoena mueller or others to come before the congress and answer questions because if there is evidence of a compromise, whether it arises of criminal conduct or not, it needs tori be exposed. >> laura: and moments ago, of congressman eric swalwell just committed to subpoenaing mueller as well. is that necessary? there's also talk of subpoenaing the fbi's notes that were submitted to mueller. congressman nunez, they don't want to let this go. >> look, there's some reason that i would like to talk to mueller to, not the same things that adam schiff and swallow

well want to talk about. but here's the problem. he was supposed to, as mueller was conducting the operation, this investigation, as he built that investigation out, when he found things that didn't directly do what the scope memo what he was supposed to be investigating with, he sent those off, right? so, he busted people like michael cohen, trump's attorney. that's a good example. well, wait a second. you were looking at intel, leaks of classified information, likel michael flynn, general flynn's conversation with the russian ambassador that leaked out all over the place. there was no criminal referral there, all right, that was made public. there's other examples. you guys were just talking about the trump tower meeting, it was an obvious setup where you had the asian gps and the clinton campaign operative machine that was involved in the entire set up. there's numerous examples like this. i don't think people should forget this. this is a scandal. we are only really at the beginning of unravelling all the dirty cops that were involved in this. >> laura: i completely agree.

i loved our first panel, but they were doing kind of the legalistic, it's great the system worked, the integrity of the system is intact. thehe integrity of the way the i was operating is in shambles and nobody has gone to jail for it or been disbarred. >> there is so much we need to find out. remember, we found out that the assignment to mueller was just for show and he gave him a real assignment on august 2nd of 2017. and that's a secret. we don't even know what his assignment was. hopefully we find out. >> laura: john meacham who was an esteemed historian got caught up in all of this. i want to play the sound bite really quick. >> if, in fact, donald trump knew about the russian efforts on his behalf, then there's a live question about whether he gave aid -- he has been givingg aid and comfort to the enemy, which is the definition of treason in the constitution.

>> laura: using the word "if," congressman nunez, does that soften the blow?ne >> we can name numerous media people, historians, they should all be embarrassed of themselves. these people have poisoned the minds of millions and millions ofof americans. we were just talking about doj and fbi and the integrity. i listened to your first panel. there is no integrity left over there. hopefully, attorney general barr is now going to put the department of justice on the right path. until the inspector general and we get a real investigation of all of these crooks and liars that were involved in this scandal, republicans, i guarantee you in this country, and conservatives do not trust the department of justice and the fbi. >> laura: brennan, klapper and -- other one.

>> listen, i think brennan should be singled out in this, not only because he accused the president of treason but it was given extra respect because until 2019, people assumed there was some secret knowledge that he had that laid behind some of his accusations. very damaging. >> laura: thank you very much tonight. mueller's most impactful findings revolve around manafort and the ukraine. but what is missing from this story? what surprising names from the obama administration might be wrapped up in this? joe devitt joe digenova and schr have the details, next tums chewy bites with gas relief

has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

>> laura: now, remember, one of the mostme important findings fm the mueller probe revolved around manafort and ukraine. but are bad actors beingt ignod

in this situation? may of 2018, sessions sent pompeo an urgent letter, imploring him to remove the ambassador of ukraine. murray jovanovich. she remains on hold today, reportedly demonstrating clear anti-trump bias. she isn't the only part of obama's orbit to have extensive exposure in the ukraine. greg craig may soon be charged by the justice department. he allegedly engaged in illegal unregistered overseas lobbying for the russian-backed president of ukraine. and there arera sources revealig to "the ingraham angle" tonight that officials were actively involved in ukranian matters ten through trump's inauguration. he visited the ukraine ten days before trump was sworn in.

>> it's a pleasure to be here, to reaffirm the depths of the partnership between our two peoples. this is my sixth visit to ukraine as vice president. >> laura: what to you need to know about this obama connection and how it relates here? author of the book "secret empires," coming out on tuesday. joe, i bet the obama administration did not see that one coming. >> no, they didn't. and, in fact, laura, you mentioned that the ambassador, i murray jovanovich contrary to what most people thought did her job. learned this evening that the president has ordered her dismissal from her post as the united states ambassador to ukraine as a result of her activities there. she is known and reported by people there to have bad mouthed

the president of united states, president trump. and finally, her activities have caught up with her. >> laura: and peter, we learned now tonight from joe from this ambassador has been removed, should have been removed a year ago. that's a separate story. but what do we need to know about biden's frequency of visits to ukraine? >> yeah, no, it's very curious, laura. he was the point person for the obama administration to ukraine. and of course, a very complex situation there between some pro-russian factions, ukrainian nationalists. in april of 2014, joe biden goes to ukraine to meet with ukrainian officials. as he's there, his son hunter biden is placed on the board of this corrupt energy company. it was founded by and run by a ukrainian energy minister who

was tied to the previous pro-russian governments. and we know from financial records that as joe biden is interacting with ukrainian officials, his son over a 14-month period is connected to a bank account that receives $3.1 million from the ukrainians. dare i add that hunter biden has no background in ukraine or energy policy and his job reportedly was regulatory compliance. what hunter biden knows about that ukraine, who knows. so, it's a very, very troublesome issue and has all the markings of payoffs to the biden. >> laura: joe, we have to get your reaction to the report tonight, really quick. >> there's no question about it that this has all the markings of bribery and extortion and it's something that deserves and full-blown investigation into the conduct of the biden family

in ukraine. there's very disturbing details about it that are about to come out. and i think once those details come out, i think there's going to have to be a full-fledged criminal investigation. >> laura: and revealing, perhaps, deep connections to how the mueller probe started? >> oh, absolutely, because whaty happened was the ambassador there, who has been removed, was involved in generating false information about manafort, other information that went into the so-called black, binders. >> laura: all right, joe, hold that. we have to take a break. we'll be right back. my final thoughts. .. all money managers might seem the same,

but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

about 50% of people with evesevere asthma k? have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12

and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. >> laura: for the last two years, the nation's been sidelined, the >> for the last two years the nation has p been sidelined, th president distracted by a probe that never should have been brought.

that's the true outrage. we will not let this go, we will not stand by and allow this to happen to anyone else in the united states and we are going to be covering the issues that matter to you, the border, what's happening with our health where, we will be back monday, shannon bream and the fox news 19 take it from here. shannon: special counsel robert mueller wrapping up the investigation into potential russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and sent to get straight to the attorney general, the report findings not yet public, democrats already speculating about the possibility of subpoenaing robert mueller. what is in the report and where we go from here? legally and politically will hear from the trump campaign and a member of the house intelligence committee.