we'll lay down what the future holds but we will uncover, and already have, the biggest abuse of power, corruption, scandal in american history. guess what? your media was complicit. all right. we are always fair, balanced, not the hate trump media. let not your heart be troubled. lara, in use today? >> laura: can you imagine if any of these lefties, these never trumpers have been falsely accused as the president has been falsely accused, have the entire family tree dragged through the mud and what it would have done for them? what have they been able to withstand the scrutiny? they would've mounted. >> sean: under the most difficult assistant you have more precedents set than any president in modern times, and other under the scry from day one. what they've done here is, number one, they rigged an election for the favorite

candidate. she would've been indicted. number two, they tried to read using russian lies she paid for. they try to rig the outcome of the election for they had their insurance policy -- be one i want the full hillary report >> laura: everybody wants the unredacted report, we want this one, we won that one. i want to know about samantha powers, i want her interview notes. >> sean: lynch, obama. >> laura: they had an aggressive lack of curiosity on the reports or underlying notes on the hillary clinton email investigation, but now suddenly they are so curious about when they have all this transparency. the whole thing is... one other thing, hannity, before you go, don't you let the people who can did show criticism the most horrible things, the second the heat is on them, they start screaming insult at peopl. they are so transparent. i think everybody is on to their game. >> sean: do you know what's

interesting? this boomerang is so real. when people see it, the way we know it, it's all coming, it's going to be a political... you know, the equivalent of a bomb blowing off. every effect, phony newsroom in the country. >> laura: i've got to go, hannity. great show. we'll be watching tomorrow night as well. i'm laura ingraham. we have so much to get to. you are here with us for the hour. you don't want to miss any minute. i'm going to start this way. here are the people who are owed an apology from the democrats, from the people come up from the rabbit never trumpers tonight. first, the president himself. >> i don't need them yearly report to know he's a traitor. >> there is outright treason. >> nothing short of treason this because it's a betrayal of the nation. >> president trump could be indicted or possibly face jail

time. >> this is a potentially more dangerous situation than watergate. >> laura: these destructive and defamatory allegations were based on erroneous reporting, anonymous sources, leaks, and whispers. gossips. but now with the release of the mueller report, we find it was all false. the trump family is also owed an apology. >> when you get involved with the actions of his children, including his daughter and son-in-law, we are getting closer to criminal activity. >> ivanka and don jr. are fully implicated in the selling of american democracy for the trump family gain. >> what you'll see is a man who wants to share the inner workings of the trump crime family. >> laura: none of it was true. attorney general barr certainly deserves an apology.

>> he won't get his reputation back. it's a shot. >> the attorney general of the united states of america has been corrupted. >> he's lost the credibility of the american people. >> laura: all of them. no words for the lies, the false accusations. are they really paying you enough to say that stuff, guys? to those who branded the prime time hosts on this network as state news for daring to tell the truth, not just our truth, but the truth? you owe us an apology. >> fox news will be an incredible asset to the president. that echo chamber is going to announce this as a vindication. >> we talk about this revolving door. there is also, of course, the echo chamber. we know hannity and the president speaks all the time. >> we know that he obsessively watches cable news, really focusing on what fox news is saying. >> what's stayed studied for him

is the echo chamber of fox news. >> laura: no wonder they were so angry today. it was sedition, treason. now... finally, the american people are owed an apology. your precious tax dollars were spent in the countries focus diverted to investigate a president in a on the innocent from the outset based on a dosst was fake and paid for by the clinton campaign. other networks and print media journalist trick viewers and readers into thinking that there president was a russian stooge. it was all false. this was, pure and simple, an effort to undermine the results of the presidential election and manipulate public opinion. every effort should be made to investigate the origins and motivations of this mueller investigation. in the coming hour, we will

separate from you legal fact from fiction on the mueller report. we will unpack the political ramifications and tell you where we go from here. and in just moments, we will be joined by president trump's attorney rudy giuliani. now, first before we dive into our expert panel analysis, i want to give you my takeaways from the mueller report and a few things that you need to keep in mind. number one, the president and his team -- they went above and beyond in their transparency in dealing with the special counsel's office. this openness in it of itself cuts against any suggestions you might be hearing on the other cables of obstruction of justice. my friends, if trump wanted to obstruct justice, he wouldn't have waived executive privilege. if you don't know what that is, it's the doctrine which would have shielded much of the president's internal communications from investigators and from the

public. but he didn't do that. in fact, i would argue -- remember, i was a former criminal defense lawyer myself, clerked at the court. i would argue that the president's team may have gone overboard in giving barr much information. but anyway, this demonstrates the president's supreme confidence in his own innocence at the very beginning. he had nothing to hide. by the way, the transparency even extended to the release of the report itself. remember, the american people are getting much more than is required by law. and bill barr? he didn't have to do a synopsis of the report. he didn't have to answer press questions this morning. he didn't even have to release the report to the public or to congress. his only other obligation was to report his findings to congress. that's it. number two. the media coverage of this russian collusion coordination

conspiracy story was an epic failure from beginning to -- well, right about now. remember the trump tower meeting in june of 2016? >> the meeting at trump tower and all the lies to cover up that meeting, that direct evidence. >> all of this talk about a second meeting is truly damning. >> the trump tower meeting truly convened for the purpose of collusion. >> laura: all false. it turns out that mueller found there was no evidence that presidents be a five had any advanced knowledge of tower meeting, or involved in any way. they also did not find, by the way, that donald trump jr. or any pictures of pens meeting violated the law instead, the report said, "the government does not have strong evidence of sarah dishes behavior or effort of concealment at the term of the

june 9th meeting." well, the story turned out to be a complete and total farce and the dud. by the way, carter page? he worked for the trump campaign as a foreign policy advisor, at least his name was on an advisory list for eight months. the fbi, though, got a fisa warrant to survey surveil page funded by trump's opponents. >> carter page was conspiring with russia in ways that were nefarious. >> he should have been surveilled. >> it would not be enough if there was probable cause to believe that he was acting as an agent of a foreign power. >> but in the end, mueller writes on page 95 that his team "did not establish that page coordinated with the russian government and his efforts to

interfere with the 2016 presidential election." remember, there were four fisa warrants, all of them incomplet incomplete. another abuse of power by the obama fbi and the rest of the deep state. number three. for all that we already talked about, the mueller report is really kind of just an invitation when you read it and especially towards the end for the house of representatives to run the ball to the impeachment goal line. the resistant media and some left-wing dams are now hanging there impeachment hopes on the fact that mueller did not specifically exonerate trump on obstruction of justice. today, they were grasping at more straws and making a lot of trump's reaction to the appointment of the special counsel when he said, my god, this is terrible. this is the end of the presidency. i am -- well blanked.

the press claims that's the reaction of a guilty man. >> this is the end of my presidency, i am askedded. he slumped back in his chair and said this is terrible, this is the end of my presidency, i am f'ed. >> all this stuff in here. is that not enough? >> laura: when trump said it was the end of my presidency, it's because he believed he was a man unfairly accused. and he was enraged over the fact that his entire agenda would be stymied, and his presidency mired in years of investigation. he understood that from the very beginning. i don't blame him for being that mad. certainly isn't any evidence of an intent to obstruct. anyone who argues differently should have their law license revoked or not commenting on these matters on television.

go to something else. mueller's findings convict trump of obstruction even though mueller stated he could not draw such a conclusion. here's what he says on page eight of volume two. "unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we contained did not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to russian interference, although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the president's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct, judgments about the nature of the president's motive during each phase would you be informed by the totality of the evidence. ." barr and the legal team of doj did examine the totality of evidence, and even used mueller's legal framework to

analyze his findings on obstruction. after two years and $30 million, taxpayer money, the democrats will not except that accept the justice department's findings. barr's findings. they plan to relitigate the entire drama, one way or another, they are going to try to do it from now until 2020. but what they should be investigating is how this farce began. and who was responsible. what their motives were. the surveillance of innocent americans, the deception of the fires of court application, the illegal leaking of government information, and the entire mueller probes were never about holding a president accountable. the purpose? was to destroy trump and his agenda in order to regain political power. here now to our legal power panel, robert ray, former whitewater independent counsel,

sol wisenberg, former whitewater deputy independent counsel, and john yu, former deputy attorney general. your key take away tonight? >> i'm not part of the echo chamber. i'm not being paid for this appearance. i can tell you the attorney general barr's reputation is still intact. and just as you suggested in the prior segment, he did what you'd expect an attorney general to do, notwithstanding democratic criticism of analyzing intent as some kind of opera moment involving the president's conduct. in fact, that's what you do when you figure or not there sufficient evidence to establish whether or not obstruction of justice occurred. finally, the president should be provided with sufficient latitude to defend himself against efforts to try and undermined the little legitimas presidency without having to defend himself with unwanted

claims that he obstructed justice. >> laura: i want to go to you with that. mueller states that article two powers of the president, that given some huge wide berth to fire people, hire people, so forth. it doesn't mean that you cannot have corrupt motives. and you cannot carry out your duties corruptly. thus, we go through all of these instances where they lay out the facts of potentially obstructive conduct. what did you think of that part of the report? >> well, i was disappointed in it because they quoted some of the same cases that were floated in the brookings institution report a year ago, which is a blueprint for the left. really, i think the arthur anderson case, which we discussed on the show and number of times, the supreme court case, puts those into doubt. these are cases that say even if you do something that's illegal on its face, it can be

obstruction. i believe that if all you are doing, if everything you are doing is within your power and legal on your face and you are the president, if it's within your authority, and not otherwise criminal, it cannot be obstruction. what's interesting here is that barr, if i understand him correctly, said, "look, we don't agree with bob mueller's framework for what he thinks obstruction is. but in making our determination, rod rosenstein and myself, of whether or not if there was a criminal obstruction case, we bought his overall theory. we accept his theory and look at the evidence and see as prosecutors whether under doj principles we would've gone forward. i thought that was interesting. >> laura: it certainly gave an enormous amount of, again, credit and deference to mueller. again, even though there was clearly a disagreement on the constitutional or statutory

standard to examine obstruction, this is why i'm really glad i'm a lawyer, by the way. some others in the media, by the way, things that mueller's decision not to conclude one way or another on obstruction is actually an invitation to congress. watch. >> there is a sentence here that is all but an explicit invitation to congress to impeach the president. >> laura: john, what's going on here? he's referencing the section on obstruction of justice and, again, that standard of whether or not you can obstruct, if there is no underlying crime and can the president obstruct if he has the right to fire and hire anyone he wants at any point in time? >> yes, lara. i think, one, mueller concluded and we all recognize there is no evidence of collusion. why doesn't mueller end right there? why does he keep going when he knows that justice department policy is to -- you cannot indict a sitting president?

instead, mueller says, well, there are other ways the president might be brought to heel, he drops this footnote and says impeachment, says we are going to keep going in the investigation, going to preserve the evidence, memorialize testimony in case someone else wants to make use of it. i think that's where mueller went too far and all this discussion of obstruction, he wasn't really following justice department policy, he was putting things on a platter in hopes that may be congress or maybe somebody else may do it. may i just add, i saw that from toobin and i believe that he and msnbc have completely missed read that sentence. that sentence that was in the mueller report was not an invitation to congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry. what he was saying was that congress has the prerogative and the right to pass and obstruction statute that would also apply to the president of

the united states. that was the context. i had to read it three times to make sure i wasn't missing it. but that is a complete misapprehension of what, in fact, mueller said bit i know it may appear it says that. >> laura: it does. >> i don't believe. read it again. i do not believe -- -- >> laura: i will read it for the fifth time. what do you think? >> i want to criticize jeff toobin. what was just thinking? >> laura: all three of you, because i know you are writing, all three phenomenal writers. i've got to say, just as a writer myself, the writing in this report -- you can tell different people wrote different sections. it was not consisting writing. but at that point, andy mccarthy, he said the way that mueller handled the obstruction part, basically up in the deep assumption of innocence. he said that early in this network. he was very disappointed in the

handling on this. the left is upset at mueller for not finding collusion, but mccarthy said that basically this report as john said should have ended when they realized there was no joint conspiracy or coordination between russia and members of the mueller campaign. instead, they went on down the yellow brick road to try to find the glory here. >> i agree with what andy said earlier. i respectfully disagree with what john just said. because in a way that's a catch-22. if we say that you can't indict a sitting president, then why are you allowed to investigate him at all? to me, it was perfectly proper for mueller, assuming that he was properly chartered, to look at any efforts to obstruct his investigation. but i do have a problem when you say we can't clear him, you know, we can't say that he's innocent, nor can we exonerate it. that's not the typical standard

for the department of justice. and so i was a little disappointed in that. i am let's say that while the president is completely exonerated on the collusion front, and he's more or less exonerated legally, i believe, on the obstruction part, really, the obstruction sections of the report are very troubling for the president engaged in very reprehensible conduct repeatedly having his subordinates lie, asking his subordinates to lie, and is very fortunate that for the most part they refused to do so. it ended up really helping to save him, i think. >> laura: john, if that's the case, and mueller goes into great detail, tell that don began, tell this one come corey lewandowski, then explain to our viewers why there is no, in your mind, obstruction here? >> the key part of obstruction, which mueller could not nail down, did the president, when he

executed his congressional prerogatives which on their face are in the president's power, did he have some kind of corrupt motive? is not just department policy that you can indict a sitting president so this is where i think he went too far. if you read to the end of the report, he has a lengthy section that seizes power from the attorney general and tries to say, i'm going to interpret the president's constitutional powers the a way the justice department has never before and i'm going to be able to show that even the president is using his constitutional authority to remove law informing officers, which no one disputes, i can still make crime out of it if he has the wrong state of mind. i have a great deal of respect for him, but his team went too far and actually took away part of attorney general barr's prerogatives and the long history and tradition of justice department practice and opinion. >> laura: robert, i have to ask you this. i wish i could do to go hours with all three of you.

do you agree with the underlying decision-making of the trump legal team to waive all these instances of executive leverage? i was actually stunned, they just waved at all. for someone who cares about article two powers here. i don't know, i would've done what they -- it's not like they got any credit from the critics out there. >> that's a fair point, but i think it's somewhat of a compromise but are they also there on the other hand, the president accepted the advice of his personal counsel not to provide testimony under oath and agreed to submit to an interview, which i think was a wise decision to have made now that i see what is in the

report. i think i agree also generally with the thought that when you've got someone, a special counsel with that kind of power issuing a report after the end of all this in which he basically says, i can't exclude the possibility that the president may have had corrupt intent to obstruct the justice and therefore i'm not going to exonerate him, doesn't that sound an awful like a comey- comey-esque statement to be making? it's not the department of exoneration. it is not the department of a clean bill of health. it is not the department of condemnation. it is the department of justice. you make a binary choice about whether or not there is sufficient evidence to believe that if a case were submitted to a jewelry, the jury would be able to convict on that evidence. that's all prosecutors do, and

to john yoo's point, it's all that prosecutor should be doing under a long-standing department of justice policy. >> laura: i think all three of you and i are in agreement of that. fantastic analysis. chief correspondent ed gentry standing by with breaking your reaction from the 2020 democratic hopefuls. >> as you've been talking about, remember when democrats shifted from collusion to obstruction and in recent days it's been a charge of cover-up by attorney general william barr over reductions that now seem like silly argument since he didn't reject as much as they expected. now when they can prove any of those threes, you have beto o'rourke declaring tonight, even if there is no collusion, and might of been cooperation with russians where there is eric swalwell running for president despite the fact that he, like adam schiff, has been claiming for the better part of two years that there was evidence of collusion between the trump camp in russia. one might think that robert mueller's findings might lead to some self reflection.

maybe some apologies. no. swallow it's all his fault and it barr who should step aside, not swallwell or schiff. you can represent the people or represent the president. you cannot do both. a common theme as senator kirsten gillibrand also running said that barr's press conference was a farce and embarrassing display which she called propaganda on behalf of president trump it senator elizabeth warren saying it's a disgrace to see the attorney general acting as if he's the personal attorney and publicist for the united states united president of the united states. kamala harris chiming in, barr is acting more like the president's attorney then the nation's attorney general. you see a theme there. swalwell and orrock both went on camera tonight to say this.

>> i think he should resign. >> if you did not have collusion, there might've been very well corroboration or there is certainly the trump campaign devon benefiting from and calling for the release of information by wikileaks and by extension the russian government. >> meanwhile, a dramatic shift among top democrats on capitol hill. steny hoyer, number to go in the house declaring what's based on this report, he says, pursuing impeachment is not worthwhile. telling the cnn, this will be decided instead in the 2020 election. that's a sign the democratic leaders may be concerned about political blowback from impeachment and also under pressure to get some things done beyond just investigating the president. laura? >> laura: phenomenal run down for us. thanks so much. trump's legal team called mueller's report a total victory for the president, but the

report left the door open as they been talking about for congress to continue investigating trump. house intel chair adam schiff says, well, he's considering it. >> if the special counsel, made clear, had found evidence exonerating the president, he would've said so. he did not. he left that issue to the congress of the united states, and we'll need to consider it. >> laura: joining me now, president trump's personal attorney rudy giuliani. okay, rudy. where the president cooperate? will he march up the capitol hill and sit down and answer adam schiff's questions? >> the fourth investigation, when the standard of proof is you have to exonerate yourself, that guy is a lawyer? when does the standard of proof becomes -- i've got to prove a negative? that, actually, is page two of the special counsel's report. we couldn't exonerate him. okay. you aren't supposed exonerate him to use you are supposed to tell us if you did anything wrong or not.

no, this is not my providence, these committees. it's more for the white house counsel for my personal view is i wouldn't cooperate. i think it's totally legitimate. >> laura: page 13 of the report, the barr said there was no in person interview, but you did submit written answers on some russia investigations at you didn't submit answers to questions about obstruction. and on the transition, what happened during the transition. why? >> actually it was broken down by time pete weise admitted answers to questions before he was elected president of the united states. no presidential privilege, we did not answer after the date. >> laura: so you did provoke presidential privilege? >> we said take us to court, see what happens. i think we would've beaten them. do you know why? it was right there in the report. they had all the answers.

why did they want the questions? to entrap him in perjury like they did to general flynn. unfortunately, general flynn did not have a lawyer. >> laura: he agreed to be questioned by the fbi. >> they misled him and have the answer to the question. >> laura: they had the transcript. >> he said i remembered i don'. >> laura: mueller's repetition after this report -- >> i think it hurts it the most, i think, the people he hired. i will never understand how you hire a completely partisan, biased staff of people, one of whom was the counsel to the clinton foundation to investigate president trump. if i was investigating hillary clinton, i hired the head of the trump foundation, i think we'd be in a lot of trouble. >> laura: you are a former u.s. attorney. saying we are not exonerating on the accounts -- we had three

former whitewater lawyers -- >> i do not understand where they come up with their standard of proof. exonerate? prosecutors exonerate? i mean, that would be ridiculous but turns the whole burden of proof. 2,000 years of roman, english, american law. >> laura: on this holy thursday, mayor, standby. when we come back, rudy tells us what one thing mueller and his team wrote that has the most incensed. see if it's the same thing that incenses me. don't go away. to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it starts acting in my body from the first dose and continues to work when i need it, 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes

or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i choose once-weekly trulicity to activate my within. if you need help lowering your a1c, ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.

...finding the right drop can be overwhelming. and ordinary eye drops... ...just add temporary moisture. but you want more. you want relief that lasts. you want to address the main cause of dry eyes. you want soothe xp eye drops... ...from bausch + lomb. the only eye drop that contains restoryl mineral oils. it's shown to help restore the lipid layer. to seal in moisture... and protect against further irritation. ordinary drops can't do that. soothe xp. the right choice for dry eyes.

>> may make rudy giuliani regret he's been bragging on his own response for all these many weeks. >> laura: i love it when he says, holding it aloft. back with me now is president trump's attorney rudy giuliani. your response to william? >> i don't understand what he's saying. oh, well, . i think the report really displays the fact that this is over. and i think the reaction -- b1 it's not over. they are going to run on this for 2020. >> they don't know it yet. >> laura: a former director of the fbi said that mueller lays out a obstructive activity, the ten points telling mccabe to go and tell this -- >> you can look at it that way.

>> laura: his staff said they weren't going to do any of this. >> of the actions of an innocent man are different from the actions of a guilty man. if i'm a bank robber and i rob a bank and i tell you to say that we had dinner the night the bank was robbed, i'm asking you to lie. but if i'm an innocent man and we had dinner, the honest one, i'm asking you to testify for me, i'm even pushing you to do it. i'm begging you to do it. well, i'm just seeking justice. >> laura: did the president tell anyone to live? >> no, absolutely not! they interpret things as lies. if he says about manna for it, i really appreciate the fact that the man is telling the truth. he is telling the truth. they want him to say, they want manafort to say that the president knew about involvement with russia in the election. he didn't, manafort didn't know that, they are trying to get manafort to a lie. you've had jerome corsi on your

show, having your? jerome corsi actually sent us, i think, the documents that demonstrate they were trying to get him to live. >> laura: what incenses you the most about this report? >> speak with complete deceptiof trying to present the facts from cohen as if they are true. >> laura: michael cohen. >> i can tell you any of the things i have personal knowledge about on the report from cohen our lives. to take him and put them there as if we are going to take his credibility over the president of united states is totally warped. at least you've got to put out in that report the issues of his credibility, some people are warned that he lied, what, three years ago months ago in front of cummings that he didn't seek a job. he saw a pardon with me. i will testify against him and his perjury trial and i'll call

cuomo the justified because cuomo knows he was seeking. >> laura: why was mcgahn threatened to quit? >> actually at one point he said he told the president he was going to quit. actually had to amend that to say i didn't tell the president that, i had to told that to someone else. >> laura: he recounted in detail to the special counsel. >> he was also wrong after to go very important things. the president never said fire. which is a pretty -- i guess the president had a representation reputation for firing people. but he never said that. the reality is, again, if you are an innocent man, he's being framed, which is what was happening here. and you say, please help me? >> he was frustrated. the president wanted his agenda. he knew the agenda would be

stymied. he still got a lot done. >> i think that whole conversation with mcgahn, if you look at different versions because he had about three of them, i do not think that conversation is accurate at all and i had a big fight with somebody about it. >> laura: anderson cooper, by the way, anderson cooper tonight had white house press deputy hogan gidley on and he pressed on this issue whether the president lied. let's watch. >> did the president live? >> they have to put up or shut up -- >> did the president lie? to the president of the united states live? >> what did he say? >> he says he feels bad for hogan or anyone who says the boss didn't lie. >> he works for zucker, that guy for the president didn't lie. total nonsense. but we are doing now? is like 5-year-olds.

you know what happens today? they didn't get anything in this report. this report has nothing to do -- it's all the same garbage we've been talking about for about a year. i read through it, finish it at 4:00 in the morning. when i finished, i said to my cocounsel, did you find anything new here? may be a detail here, detail here. >> laura: where do people go to get the repetitions back, people like sam club is reputations back, carter page -- >> general flynn, who was trapped. okay. he says he lied. i'm not sure he did. they also had his son jammed up, dealing with people who were's ground rules were scoundrels, what they did to a general, a decent man. >> laura: the sanctions conversation or not, well within his right to talk about sanctions so i don't know why he would not have told -- he had every right to talk about sanctions at that point! >> he invited them over, the

second day in being in the white house after the inauguration. >> laura: the fbi comes over and says, we want to interview you. the answer is no -- >> how about this from mccabe. "general, it's not a big deal." it's a big deal! we are coming over to entrap you in perjury. we are hoping you say you don't remember, then we can jam you up in perjury. >> laura: they were -- b22 got gummed up in it. >> it's necessary to give the same amount of attention to see who made it up, where did it come from. i think this was planned. >> laura: do you think cheryl mills, did they get immunity deals? i want those reports! i want that information. >> how about the guy who hammered -- b1 is that transparency? you are >> laura: you are unbelievably transparent with this.

>> there is no underlying climb crime. you gave everything -- b1 they didn't get their interview for they are >> laura: they are mad because they didn't get their interview. they didn't get their interviews so they couldn't show whatever intent they were going to show and if they had the guts and have the confidence in their position, they would've taken you all to court. if they had so much confidence that trump obstructed justice, they would've taken you to court and run it all the way to supreme court. they didn't have the guts to do that. >> the only reason we would have a concern about testifying was not the truth, it's because they are sneaky and they trap people into perjury. >> laura: rudy, thank you for being here. >> and they are unethical. >> laura: thank you for coming on. head had met, we are going to call out some of the biggest lies in the russian inclusion delusion. don't miss it.

>> it's really corroborated a lot of the good journalism that was done. he went after all of us every single day. "the new york times," "washington post" "washington post," cnn. >> laura: oh, really? lie number one. mueller had evidence that michael cohen was in prague in the 2016 election. the proof according to mueller, was never in prague and not concerned about this allegation. line number two, the busby bombshell that claims be nine told cohen to lie to congress. the president did not direct them to provide false testimony. and number three, cutter, carter page was conspiring with the russian government to the investigation joining me, dan bongino, fox news contributor, host of the the dan

how did you manage to pull that off? i want to start with you. you worked on this campaign, is this vindication for you and your colleagues and is there any possible, little window that they could slide through all the way to impeachment? >> this is total vindication for the president of the united states. when he was a candidate, he was maligned during the transition as president-elect, maligned and in the white house he was unfairly, this delusion of collusion has been going on for now almost three years and it is outrageous and all of you folks that worked on this campaign, whether it was myself, corey lewandowski, any of the other folks that worked on this campaign, you know, we are maligned and really bad mouth and dragged through the mud, so i'm glad -- >> laura: welcome to politics! look what they say about me tonight! i am just, like, asked me if i

care. >> none of us care. >> i care. >> these lies that the democrats have been talking about and spouting, it's out of control. >> laura: it's out of control. it moves, mats, into an effort to undermine this presidency. he was right. >> good instinct, yeah. >> laura: what was he telling click my people picking all these notes about his investigation. he's worried this will undermine the agenda -- he just won the election. he was right about that! >> the whole thing. byron york had great conversations with one of trump's lawyers, john dowd, about the fact that even mueller understood that the president was in a bad political position and he had to defend himself and the president didn't take any privileges, he put everything forward, never stopped anyone from talking him. >> laura: , dan, i got to ask you.

we only played three of the lie lies. you've been coming on the show, and hannity, we were called state media for it. we were right and they were wrong. what other lies were told to? 's vehicle remember the deutsche bank case? they are looking into donald trump's records would fall spirit remember the wikileaks don jr. story? falls. remember the mike flynn instructed? false. they got all those collusion stories that heard on the side of making donald trump look bad. a story, remember the story of the century, the media is entirely incurious about the use of a human intelligence asset -- think about that, to target members of the donald trump campaign! entirely, completely and curious about the episode. unbelievable. >> laura: when we come back, we'll talk about what's next.

and will we ever find out the report -- what was in the report about hillary's disruption of documents? emails and are emails and her whole team. we'll get into that. lightning rounded next. - there are so many ways to get our message out these days.

but what are we actually saying? any message is a story. and all stories tell the tale of the times we live in right now. how do you want to be remembered? how do you want your story to play out? our own experiences make the best stories, and your words carry a lot of weight. think about what you want to say before you say it. or send it.

him >> laura: back with me now,

dan bongino, matt schlapp, dave bossie. after all this, around the table? >> i think they are going to figure out that they are overreaching and they are going to figure that out quick. >> they've already come out and saint no, but aoc and their ilk, they'll push this far. >> they steak there and >> laura: number two, will we ever see, speaking of desire, guys are transparency, will we ever see the underlying documents related to the hillary clinton email investigations! >> i hope barr is in paneling a grand jury to investigate the investigators and that'll be part of it. >> lightning, yes! we are going to see it. >> laura: this sounds like a mclaughlin group. will we ever see these documents? we've got transparency from the trump team, all these people interviewed, white house counsel

interviews, and we still don't really know, do we, what happened with mueller comey, the edits, what he came out with a press conference. >> the ig concluded they could not determine there was a political bias in this way from the clinton investigation to the trump team contrary what the media tells you. >> laura: how did you stay out of the report? >> when you don't do anything wrong, it's easy to stay out of it. >> laura: come on! it's like doing that search function on the computer today -- bossie is not in there! >> i didn't get questioned by mueller. >> laura: why does lewandowski always get the short end of the stick. great panel, have a wonderful easter. but when we come back, my final thoughts on this entire charade. don't go away. 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.

findican be overwhelming.r dry eyes... for relief that lasts... you want soothe xp from bausch + lomb. soothe xp helps restore the eyes' lipid layer... ...seal in moisture... ...and protect against further irritation. soothe xp. the right choice for dry eyes.

>> laura: okay, remember this tweet sent out a couple of weeks ago by former fbi director jim comey? so many questions in the redwoods. now tonight, this is a new tweet. so many answers. it says, pine needles? he loves the wilderness. maybe he should stay there. he is a crying in the wildernes wilderness. my friends, this has been a ridiculous two years for this country and its president still has gotten so much accomplished. imagine what he could've gotten

accomplished if this hadn't been an albatross around his neck. that's all the time we have tonight. my podcast dissected this entire report. go to podcast1.com. you'll love it. shannon bream and the "fox news @ night" team have unbelievable analysis here. shannon? >> shannon: do you speak latin, i wouldn't be surprised if you do. >> laura: that's the only reason i know it, shannon. >> shannon: don't try to full lust. thank you welcome to fox news at "fox news @ night." we are celebrating fact from fiction on this long-awaited mueller report. the president says no collusion, democrats say it's not game over yet. the president's lawyer jay sekulow is here. plus expert legal and political analysis you will not find anywhere else. kai benson, pam bondi, and guide to paris. first, fox team coverage