>> gotcha! sorry. [laughter] >> i wanted to ask you about public confusion, connected with attorney general barr's release of your report. i will be coding you are in march 27th letter. sarah, in that letter -- and at several other times -- did you convey to the attorney general that the "introductions and executive some summaries accurately >> i have to say the letter itself speaks for itself." >> and those were your words and that? continuing with your letter, you are to the attorney general that "the summary letter the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24th did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions." is that correct? >> again, i rely on the letter itself for its terms. >> thank you.

what was it about the reports -- context, nature, substance -- that the attorney's letter did not capture? >> i think we captured that in the in the march 27th responsive letter. >> this is from the letter. >> i'm directing you to the letter itself. >> you finish that letter by saying there is no public confusion about critical aspects as a result of our investigation. could you tell us specifically some of the public confusion you identified? >> again, i go back to the letter. it speaks for itself. >> could attorney general barr have avoided public confusion if he had released her a summary and executive introduction and summary? >> i don't feel comfortable speculating on that. >> shifting to may 30th, the attorney general in an interview with cbs news said that you could have reached -- "you could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity" on the part of the

present. did the attorney general or his staff ever tell you that he thought you should make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity? >> i'm not going to speak to what the attorney general was thinking or saying. >> if the attorney general had directed you ordered you to make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity, would you have so don done? >> i cannot answer that question in a vacuum. >> director mueller, again, i think you for being here. i agree with your march 27th letter. there was public confusion and the president took full advantage of that confusion by falsely claiming your report found no obstruction. let us be clear -- your report did not exonerate the president. instead, it provided substantial evidence of obstruction of justice leaving congress to do its duty. we shall not shrink from that duty. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> mr. chairman, i have a point of inquiry on your left.

>> the gentleman will state his point of inquiry. >> was the point of this hearing to get mr. mueller to recommend impeachment? >> that is not a fair point of inquiry. the gentle lady from florida is recognized. >> mr. chairman -- >> director mueller -- >> the gentle lady from florida is recognized. >> you are a patriot. i want to refer you now to volume two, page 158. you wrote that "the president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or see to his requests." is that right? >> that is accurate, that is what we found. >> and you are basically referring to advisors who disobey the president's orders, like white house counsel don mcgahn, former trump campaign manager corey lewandowski. is that right? >> we have not specified the persons mentioned. >> in page 158, white house counsel don mcgahn "did not tell

the acting attorney general that the special counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the president's orders." he also explained that an attempt to obstruct justice does not have to succeed to be a crime, right? >> true. >> simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct? >> yes. >> so even though the president's aides refused to carry out his orders to interfere with your investigation, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice by this president, is it? >> i'm not going to speculate. >> to reiterate, simply trying to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct? >> yes. >> you say about the president's efforts to influence the investigation were "mostly unsuccessful," and that's because not all of his efforts were unsuccessful. right? >> are you reading into what we have written in the report?

at >> i was going to ask you if you could just tell me which ones you had in mind as "successful" when he wrote that sentence. >> i'm going to pass on that. >> yeah. [laughs] director mueller, today we have talked a lot about the separate acts by this president, but you also wrote in your report that "the overall pattern of the president's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the president's acts, and the inferences can be drawn about his intent." correct? >> an accurate recitation from the report. >> right. on page 158, again, i think it's important for everyone to note that the president's conduct had a significant change when he realized that it was -- that the investigations were conducted to investigate his obstruction acts. in other words, when the american people are deciding

whether the president committed obstruction of justice, they need to look at all the president's conduct and overall pattern of behaviors. is that correct? >> i don't disagree. >> figure. dr. mueller. director mueller. doctor, also. i will designate that, too. i have certainly made up my mind about what we have reviewed today, that it meets the elements of obstruction. including whether there was corrupt intent. what is clear is that anyone else, including some members of congress, would have been charged with crimes for these acts. we would not have allowed this behavior from any of the previous 44 presidents. we should not allow it now or for the future, to protect our democracy. and, yes, we will continue to investigate. because as you clearly state at the end of your report, no one is above the law. i yield back my time. speak of the gentle lady yields back.

the gentle lady from texas. >> director mueller, you wrote in your report that you "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment." was not in part because of an opinion by the deferment of justice office of legal counsel that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime? >> yes. >> director mueller, at your ma, he explained that "the opening the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing." that process, other than the criminal justice system, for accusing a president of wrongdoing -- is that impeachment? >> i'm not going to comment on that. >> in your report, you also wrote that you did not want to "potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."

for the nonlawyers in the room, what did you mean by "potentially preempt constitutional processes?" >> i'm not going to try to explain that. >> that actually is coming from page 1 of volume to 2. in the footnote, what are those constitutional processes? >> i think i heard you mention at least one. >> impeachment, correct? >> i'm not going to comment. >> okay. that is one of the constitutional processes listed in the report in the footnote in volume 2. your report documents the many ways the president sought to interfere with your investigation. and you state in your report on page ten, volume 2, interfering with a congressional inquiry or investigation with corrupt intent can also constitute obstruction of justice."

>> true. >> well, the president has told us that he intends to fight all the subpoenas. his continued efforts to interfere with investigations of his potential misconduct certainly reinforce the importance of the process the constitution requires to "formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," as you cited in the report. this hearing has been very helpful to this committee, as it exercises its constitutional duty to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president. i agree with you, director mueller, that we all have a vital role in holding this president accountable for his actions. more than that, i believe we in congress have a duty to demand accountability and safeguard one of our nation's highest principles, that no one is above the law. from everything that i have heard you say here today, it is clear that everyone else would

have been prosecuted based on the evidence available in your report. it now falls on us to hold president trump accountable. thank you for being here. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. chairman, the gentle lady yields back. >> i just want to think the chairman. after this was first built, we both get in time. our side got our 5 minutes in. also, mr. miller, thank you for being here. i joined the chairman and thanking you for being here. >> thank you. director mueller, we think you for attending today's hearing. before we conclude, i ask everyone to please remain seated and quiet while the witness exits the room. [applause] >> bret: after three hours and 34 minutes, the testimony of former special counsel robert mueller, most recently in this time pointing back to this

448-page report, often asking house members to repeat questions and specific citations. kind of a halting, staccato presentation that was at times pretty tough to follow. before this hearing, as we talked about from democrats, they wanted americans to "see the movie." to animate the mueller report. today, after this hearing, they maybe saying the book is much better than the movie. robert mueller was clearly a reluctant witness. we now perhaps see why. he did say the report did not exonerate president trump, which was the most retweeted moment of this entire hearing. but there were several times he contradicted what was in the report. one of the biggest was in this section of the hearing when he was asked by democratic congressman ted lieu if he wasn't for the office of legal guidance, would he have recommended an adjustment for obstruction of justice. he said yes. he said they took the guidance to consider that they could

never die the present, and that mueller told him the olc was not the only reason he chose not to recommend an indictment. just guidance. he was called out on that by congressman debbie lesko of arizona. this hearing focused on obstruction of justice. we are told the intel committee this afternoon will focus more on the russian interference in volume one. but it was painful at times. >> martha: it was painful at times. i think that olc discrepancy is perhaps one of -- legally, one of the most interesting moments we watched unfold today. we also have to politically remember that the folks outside the room are really the ones who are most important in terms of what happens from here. was there a winner today? did democrats win this? the republicans win this? primary chairman nadler pushed very hard for this hearing. so he will be questioning himself, perhaps. was it worth it? did it enhance or detract from the argument that mueller had laid breadcrumbs for them? and it is now congress' duty to follow those breadcrumbs where

they lead. i.e., potentially impeachment proceedings, or at least investigation. are the american people going to be inclined to want to see more of this investigation after today? or will they agree with the cbs poll be put up earlier that said 53% of americans say it's time to drop this? that it's time to move on? what does nancy pelosi say when she watches this and gathers with her members after all of this? is she going to say it's time to move on, or did they get what they want to connect what about the g.o.p.? what are the things that kept prodding at, whether he had looked into the origins of this in the station. when it came to christopher steele on the dossier, when it came to all of that, he kept saying -- >> bret: fusion gps. >> martha: exactly, glenn simpson. "out of my purview, that wasn't part of my investigation." parts of that seem too obvious would be part of the report. but when they tried to nail down things, they seem to fall outside of his purview. a lot of questions remain here. catherine herridge has been watching all this along with a spear let's bring in catherine

from outside the hearing room this afternoon. catherine? >> thank you, martha, good afternoon paid the former special counsel robert mueller testified that he felt handcuffed by justice department legal opinion that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, and the key section of the exchange with the democratic chairman jerry nadler came when he asked if the president could be indicted once he left office. and robert mueller responded, "yes." but that's in conflict with testimony from the attorney general william barr earlier this year, who said that, in march, mueller told him and others on a conference call that there were evidence issues. that it was not the justice department's legal opinion that was blocking his actions. what we heard consistently from democrats, they said to mueller, "anyone else would have been indicted on obstruction, except this is the president of the united states."

but mueller also testified that in no way was his investigation over the last two years ever blocked or impeded. consistently what we heard from republicans is that there were double standards. congressman john ratcliffe pressed mueller on what justice department policy allowed him to make his decision and his statements on the issue of obstruction. that he did not exonerate the president but they did not bring criminal charges. and robert mueller could not point to that policy, because as ratcliff said, it does not exist. but we heard from congressman jim jordan but there was a double standard. he pressed the special counsel on this intelligence asset, someone who started the ball running on the whole russia investigation. special counsel mueller said that he could not answer that question. jordan responded, "multiple trump campaign associates were prosecuted for lying to the special counsel, yet you say in

your report that he lied to the fbi, yet he was not prosecuted. ." there's an exchange that my going to the radar but it caught my attention because it appeared to be an effort to possibly lay a trap for the special counsel. what i'm getting at is misleading statements to members of congress. this was the exchange with republican congressman stupid. he asked special counsel mueller about this meeting on may 16th. right before he was appointed. whether he had interviewed to the fbi director with the president. he said, no, he was in that meeting to provide input, who should be the fbi director. then a credible question, he said, "you tell the vice president of this was the one job you would come back for?" in the special counsel said, "i do not recall." that might be an important exchange going forward, martha and bret. >> catherine, thank you.

democrat david axelrod, senior advisor to president obama, treated out at the end of this hearing, "this is very, very painful." let's bring in former independent counsel kenneth starr. he's also a fox news contributo contributor. ken, you are mentioned a couple times in this hearing. your thoughts on this day's testimony? >> one of the critical things, guys, is the very idea of book n exoneration is very unfortunate. bob mueller should not have written book 2. that came out very early on in the hearing. congressman ratcliff from texas was extremely clear in saying, "this is not your job." it's not just the focus on exoneration are not exoneration. it's the very idea they were going to lay out all this evidence with an opportunity to respond on the part of the president.

that it's fundamentally not only unfair, and the fact that it's fundamentally unfair is why this report was read dramatically tot over again, it simply not appropriate. so i'm going to be very blunt -- bob mueller did not give a good reason for why he wrote, and his staff wrote, the second volume. which is what this hearing was all about. the second volume, the second part of his report, was on "obstructive acts." and there is inconsistency with exactly what was the conclusion. and, why did he not do what the prosecutor was charged with doing? what he was charged with doing was to it, in fact, make a determination of whether there was a chargeable offense. of course, he failed to do that. i think that should be frustrating to everyone. it was certainly frustrating to attorney general barr. "that's what you were hired to do."

let the record also show that in terms of the whole obstruction of justice, and everyone else would have been charged, that is just wrong. there are prosecutors who would say, "hey, given this evidence --" which is untested, through just allegations -- "given this body of evidence, anyone else would be charged." that is just wrong. i would summon to the standard rod rosenstein. not just bill barr, but rod rosenstein made the judgment in consultation with career people in that apartment of justice, accepting book 2 or volume 2 as true, that we would not charge this. this is not -- it does not rise to the obstruction of justice. i think something was really messing from today, that is, it came out once. i've studied the entire report. what cries out is how frustrated the president of the united states was. how upset he was. that was emphasized, right? but why was he upset?

the missing thing was, "i've done nothing wrong! i don't know the russians. there was no collusion, there was no conspiracy," and the like. book 1, the first part of the report, in fact makes that very point. because we now know from book 1, the first book, on collusion, that bob mueller concluded based on obviously some very sensitive sources that vladimir putin was telling his oligarchs, "we don't know donald trump." i'm obviously paraphrasing. "we don't know donald trump." "do you guys know i'm? we don't know anyone at his campaign." the whole idea, if we go back to the providence of this, the origins of it, carter page never charged with a crime. and he should not have been charged with a crime. the entire process has been so unfortunate, to be honest -- and i love bob mueller as a human

being, as a patriot -- but i think he has done a grave disservice to our country. in the way he conducted this investigation. by the way, he said time and again, "i don't question politics of my staff." i understand that. but you aren't blind to what your staff members are all about as human beings. you don't ask them about it, but you don't have to ask to know that you are andrew weissmann types are very, very partisan in their outlook on life. partisan people can put aside their partisanship, but it's a test. can they? and what steps did bob mueller take to assure the american people that he had, shall i say, a fair and balanced staff? that was one thing i thought was very revealing and missing. >> bret: a judge, a couple of quick things, quickly. one, he was asked whether this -- and its different guidelines, you were an independent counsel, he special counsel three different rules. this was supposed to be a

confidential report to the attorney general. and he made the decision, with the doj, of what happened next. he was asked, kneeling was today, whether he thought this report would be public. he said no. he did not come in the report, recommended impeachment. democrats, however, see this as a road map to impeachment. he did not talk about that today. just your thoughts quickly on all of that? >> my thought is i have to disagree with bob mueller. when i read volume 2, it was designed for congress. he turned himself into an independent counsel, with the reporting obligation to the congress of the united states. >> martha: ken, as i turn to the panel here can be found 13 charges of impeachment against bill clinton? is that correct? >> 11. >> martha: 11. it's interesting -- let me go to the panel now, andy mccarthy -- it's interesting, he said he didn't want to talk about impeachment.

"impeachment was not a part of my purview." it's interesting to note, would he go back to the ken starr investigation, there were 11 articles of impeachment found. >> not only that, but in his statement on may 29th, which i think he teed up -- he was trained to help the committee, he teed up impeachment for them they are better than he does in his report. he is very clear, saying that in our system it's not for federal prosecutors to be the ones to regulate misconduct by the president. that the constitution as another vehicle for that, and another level of responsibility. it was clear that he was talking about impeachment. >> bret: also, trey gowdy, chris wallace from fox news sunday. mr. chairman, your thoughts on the day? >> he said he didn't want to come, now we know why he didn't want to come.

i don't think the report should have been made public. i don't think you should have testified. prosecutors don't engage in these collateral consequences like impeachment. you either indict or you shut up. the three main takeaways for me, johnny ratcliffe discussing the flipping of the bird. even the president is presumed innocent. he's not above the law, which was the democrat mantra, but is not beneath the law. under the former federal prosecutor said, "if you can reach a conclusion on conspiraco indictment, why couldn't you do it on obstruction?" so, the big take away to me was the democrats wanted this to fuel their impeachment narrative, and i'll bet you if they could cancel this afternoons hearing, they would. >> bret: chris? >> this morning i had kind of a tough comment about the opening session. i think i may have used the word

"disaster." in any case, i had an email exchange after that with a member of the democratic committee staff. very professional conversation, email exchange. he said, "look, we did not expect --" i love this expression. "we did not expect robert mueller to be the most expressive witness." that's an understatement. "but we thought in this exchange we could bring the report, the 448-page report, to life." ultimately i think this is less about legal issues and political issues. ultimately, impeachment is a political decision by the house. i really wonder, after those three plus hours, whether or not they did bring it to life. there were certainly some moments. you had jerry nadler asking, "did you exonerate the president?" "no." "did you find no obstruction?" "no." the exchange of ted lieu, which may or may not have contradictory of your think he said, where he basically said, "the reason i didn't indict was because of the office of legal counsel ruling." the real question is, is this

going to be a game changer? is this going to change -- 95 democrats have voted for impeachment, are a lot more now going to vote? more importantly, nancy pelosi says, is there could be some bipartisan buy-in on this? i don't see this changing many minds. i don't see anymore move to impeachment, and to the degree that nancy pelosi doesn't want to go down that route, she may end up unintentionally being the big winner today. because i don't think the drive for impeachment gain any momentum. in fact, it may have lost some. >> martha: trey gowdy, as you watch this back and forth, very difficult moments there. for the questioners who worked on this questions, then you have robert mueller in many cases just starting at point a, "can you rephrase the question?" is there anything you would do the situation as you look toward this afternoon, to make this a little more fruitful? >> more leading questions, more questions were he just says yes or no. and he is going to have to get better on the purview question. to argue that the term toward

meeting is in his peer purviewt meetings hours before and after are not is a weakness that he has just never been able to overcome. that, and the bias. if you fired peter strzok because of an appearance of bias, but you kept people who showed up for what they thought would be a victory party, and he kept people who donated to secretary clinton, you got to reconcile how much bias is too much and how much of it is okay. this afternoon, is if adam schf can't cancel it -- which is what he liked to do -- more leading questions, les mueller. and schiff is good as that. he's good at making the focus the question and not the answer. >> martha: you said many times that adam schiff said there is evidence of collusion. do you expect adam schiff to press him on that? >> no, ma'am. the three eyed raven, adam schiff, saw collusion that no one has seen. now the house intel, and not mueller.

he hopes we will not remember what he said in march of 2017. they are going all obstruction. there is no conspiracy, no collusion. since all obstruction. >> bret: you don't think we will get it to russia specifically, what they did or didn't do in that intel here in? >> i think that was the ruse to get mueller to come back. the election security is really important, what russia did. but based on answers i heard this morning, he's not going to be very much. politically, he needs to be obstruction. they lose on collusion. >> bret: lastly, andy, democratic lawmaker at the end of this hearing was trying to shore up the resume a special cancer mueller, asking him what president appointed in u.s. attorney. >> yeah. and he couldn't remember. look, the big issue -- or one of the big issues coming in here --dash was attorney general barr had said that mueller told him on march 5th, when they first sat down to have their first meeting about this, that the office of legal counsel guidance says you can't indict a sitting president. it had nothing to do with his

termination of the case. two weeks later, he files the report, and of course he is relying on it in a big way. what a lot of people said was, "how could these two things be true?" i think if you watch mueller for three hours today, those two things could absolutely be true. >> bret: in other words, the staff drove the train? >> two weeks earlier, maybe he didn't know what the role of the olc gardens was paid by the time they filed the report , they braced him on the change. >> bret: panel, thank you very much. we have an afternoon of coverage with the house intelligence committee. we will hand it over now to "outnumbered" in just a bit. they've been watching along with us. we will be back for the house intel committee hearing. harris come over to you. >> harris: martha, bret, thank you very much. we are awaiting formal special counsel robert mueller's testimony before the house intel committee, as bret just said. he just completed his testimony before the house judiciary. that ran approximately three and half hours. there were a slew of dramatic

moments. "outnumbered" now. i'm harris faulkner. melissa francis, coanchor of "america's newsroom." sandra smith is back! fox news contributor, emily compagno. in the center seat, you want tom dupree. former deputy associate attorney general under president george w. bush. let's quickly go around and get everybody's first thoughts. tom? >> tom: huge disappointed if the democrats. they clearly wanted to bring the impeachment passions to a boil and they didn't even achieve a low simmer. i think mueller was the presently held in , disconnected from his own investigation, and they were clearly leading up to try and say he felt he obstructed justice. not only did mueller refuse to agree with that come here from here for merely contradicted them. >> melissa: i thought we instantly knew why that day he took to the podium and didn't take any questions, and we were all surprised about that, i think we knew wide today we saw this. he had a tough time answering the questions he seemed to not know at a time.

with now it was a different situation, it looks worse. but the rest of it was struggling and it made it seem like he didn't know his own report. the beach and butter together. there was a time he was asked a question, and i knew the answer from the report and he did not. >> harris: like, "what is fusion gps?" he didn't know. much of the country involved in watching all of this would know. it's very odd. sandra? >> sandra: fascinating reaction about robert mueller himself and the way he appears, the way he has asked for questions to be repeated on multiple occasions. and it's coming from both sides of the aisle. david axelrod, former advisor to former president barack obama, he is saying "this is a man who i deeply respect." he hasn't text defied publicly in over six years, but he says he does not appear to be as sharp as as he was there. brit hume singh mueller is still struggling to answer questions, even after they were repeated.

i don't know that democrats or republicans going into this side robert mueller or even thought that would be an element of this hearing, that robert mueller was struggling to really take on some of these questions and answer them. >> harris: you know, emily, how is mueller's credibility holding up at this point? you are making some comments as we were watching. >> emily: i think that's what the republicans had gone after. frankly, it's been eroded. the overarching theme i saw today, was this erosion of what we perceived as the commander of a two-year investigation, to kind of be reduced to this feeble man that frankly had zero command of the report or the content, with a self admission that it was a segmented investigation? so republicans are counting on it. they are pouncing on the credibility both of him as well as the investigation, because it's now and admitted staff-that investigation. democrats are focusing on the attempts, alleged attempts, at obstruction and the "but for." the olc report.

he testified but for the olc report. we have that now. however, barr, was the "but for." we want i want to get a louie gohmert. get it go back and forth it was interesting. the point where -- was occlusion, was it conspiracy? that whole convoluted conversation that went on between mueller and another lawmaker. >> tom: that was addressing. i think the point of that exchange was to basically try and rebut the president's tweets saying they found no collusion. the point that i think they are trying to bring out at the hearing is that collusion is defined in the federal criminal code is not the the dash i thot it was fairly effective. when people speak colloquially in plain english they will often say "collusion, experience a don't act on my confederacy " it basically means the same thing. i think it was basic at the point. >> harris: it seems like he was saying it for us that they were kind of, as you say, colloquialism. kind of equal. then legally not equal. it was really confusing. >> tom: that was one of the points. it seemed like merely made a

statement at the hearing, then when i directed him to what he wrote in the report, it contradicted. >> harris: it didn't match! >> tom: it didn't match and he didn't seem to acknowledge there was a mismatch i kind of leaned back and said, "i will just rest on the report." >> harris: as journalists we just look for inconsistencies. so we might not have your legal mind but we know when something doesn't match. >> tom: we should know what's in the report. at the end of the day. [laughs] >> harris: you and i were here when it broke. it now has artwork, mind. >> tom: my and is dog-eared, too. >> harris: louie gohmert at one point was asking mueller about having those anti-trump lovers. the fbi agent and has paramore, on his team here is that. watch. >> peter strzok hated trump. you didn't know that before he was made part of your team. >> i did not know that. >> all right. >> actually, when i did find out, i acted swiftly to have him

reassigned elsewhere. >> well, there is some discussion about how swift that was prewhen did you learn about the ongoing affair he was having with lisa page? speak out about the same time. >> he's not currently acting in order to see that justice is done. what he's doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice, and the fact that you ran it out for two years means that you perpetuated injustice. >> >> harris: talk to me, tom. what was happening there? >> tom: i was interested in several things. one, that mueller engaged on the question of whether he knew there was someone on his team who harbored this deep bias. number two, mueller, for all the talk in the report -- and i think he sincerely believes about preserving the in periods of impropriety -- he seemed a little oblivious to the fact hed this guy, and lisa page, on his team who could harbored by us. that's what surprising to me. he says he recognizes the importance of appearing of

impropriety, but he wasn't taking the steps at the same time, probably, to be free of that. >> harris: this comes back to something that melissa was saying. that has to do with not just his preparedness for today, but has actual involvement in the case. look, we need to take a quick monument break. we may come back, counsel to the president jay sekulow has given a statement. i will share it. stay close. >> president trip is tearing our country apart. his immigration policies are separating parents from their children. his crimes and corruption are threatening the rule of law. his racist rhetoric is picking americans against each other. the constitution is very clear -- congress has oversight over the president. so, what's the response? that they are going on vacation for six weeks. seriously? we are in a crisis. that's why i'm asking speaker pelosi to cancel summer

vacation and conduct daily public oversight hearings to hold trump accountable for his crimes, corruption, and racism. business as usual is not working for the american people. we need action, now. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message, because we have to stand up to donald trump before he destroys our democracy. join me. together, we can change this. >> we are back with live coverage as we continue watching robert mueller, he's had a bit of a break right now before he faces the intelligence committee, which is chaired by adam schiff. an opportunity that they have all said they wanted for some time. after some of the reviews have come in this morning, of mr. miller's performance, they maybe questioning whether or not this is helping their case. at this point. >> bret: continued coverage on fox news, our thanks to the "outnumbered" crew. harris teased there is a new statement from the president's attorneys. jay sekulow, counsel to the president, says this.

"this morning's testimony exposed the troubling deficiencies of the special counsel investigation. this testimony revealed that the probe was conducted by a small group of politically biased prosecutors who, as hard as they tried, were unable to establish either obstruction, conspiracy, or collusion between the trump campaign and russia. it's also clear that the special counsel conducted his two-year investigation unimpeded. the american people understand that this issue is over. they also understand the case is closed." again, from the council to the president. we are back with ken starr, also our panel, and we have chris wallace, andy mccarthy, and former house oversight committee chairman and fox news contributor, trey gowdy. judge starr, let's start with you as we head to the house intelligence committee. the guess is that this will focus more on the russia interference part of this. what are your thoughts on the looking at where we've seen and what's ahead? >> i think when we go back and analyze all that bob mueller, in

a very thorough investigation, we have to admit. very thorough, very conference of, and essentially unimpeded. some quibbling about that. but there was, in fact, no collusion. it just did not happen. again, when we go to the report itself and we see all these contraindications, that there was any collusion, when we go to the two indictments of the russian individuals and the russian organizations, when you read all that and think about the corporation, general flynn, who is now in a different situation, out of all that not a single suggestion of "collusion." and the report seemed to me, in book one, not only that you have to tease this out but the conclusion as you read it, "no collusion, no conspiracy." and lots of contraindications. that is to say, not only was there not sufficient evidence of collusion, there was lots of

contrary evidence suggesting exactly the opposite. including those two indictments. the diamonds of the russian individuals, the russian organization, they cry out collusion. these are the russian operatives taking their active measures to sow seeds of mischief and controversy within the american political system. they're not doing it collaboratively with the trump campaign or anyone associated with the trump organization. >> bret: trey gowdy, one of the things special counsel mueller was tripped up on, the collusion, conspiracy, and he said -- in the report, it's essentially the same. asked about that early period to the judge's point here, there are no indictments on construes with the russians. there were no indictments on church injustice. the olc guides about the present, they could have indicted somebody for obstruction of justice. if there were indictments to be pushed forward. right? >> i think he did give the democrats a little bit of an

opening this morning. republicans like to say "no evidence." they like to set standards of the law does not recognize. mueller correct them and said, "insufficient evidence." i bet you the democrats are going to spend their time on that quantum between "no" and "insufficient." that could be up to 94%. the fact is you can't prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, there does not mean there is no evidence. i bet you chef and swalwell and the others talk about the evidence of collusion and can experience even though it didn't result in an indictment. >> martha: chris, politically, as the democrats look to this -- and we will talk to tom perez, chair of the dnc, tonight on this story. how do they play this at this point? how do they gauge whether or not they should kind of close this book after today, or whether or not -- as trey points out -- there's enough there to continue to sow the seeds? would be fruitful for them electorally? >> they aren't going to close the book.

nancy pelosi issued a statement. i think it was yesterday. even before this hearing, that indicated they will continue to investigate about these allegations. about allegations of other misdeeds by president trump. you know, you can do a lot of things short of impeachment that can mobilize your base and maybe shift some persuadable voters over to your side, by pointing out things that you say the president did wrong. this will be part of the election campaign. i certainly don't think that you got any fuel today for impeachment. to the degree that you had robert mueller saying things, he was simply ratifying what was already in the report. there was no new evidence from him. i just want to follow-up on congressman gaudi. this was -- on page 2, point 1, i'm going to get some news out of this thing for this is w. "the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian

government and its election interference activities." not insufficient evidence, they are saying, "we did not establish there was this conspiracy." so that'll be a pretty tall hill for the democrats to climb today. there was much more evidence. i'm not going to say it's conclusive, or sufficient, but it was much more evidence on the obstruction front. there really is no evidence of a coordinated effort between the trump campaign and the russians to interfere in the election. there are contacts but no sign of what they would consider -- >> martha: that's the entire crux of this whole two-year investigation. this idea -- and they brought up roger stone, they brought up wikileaks, but to the present know about it? new coronation and no cooperation on the part of this campaign. anyone, or any american, they said. because the americans that were indicted in this were indicted on separate issues. not related to collusion. >> bret: and not including some of the people they talked

about, like massoud, who lied to the investigators. the beginning of this investigation, andy mccarthy, is what a lot of republicans and a lot of viewers want to know, having looked at some of the question marks. this is not something robert mueller has been getting into. the ig and the other investigation. >> yeah, this goes to there being so little evidence of collusion, i think the issue they started to try and hone in on the first hearing -- and we will hear more about it today, in the second hearing -- when did they know that they did not have a collusion case? it seemed to me that was one of the two areas. the oil see guidance being the other one. that mueller seemed to have been prepped on. >> bret: and he had his assistant. >> that he interfered or tried to jump in on this question about timing. this is important. not just what ken star had to

say about it. they seem to preclude the possibility of collusion. i would also point out that in september of 2017, they would have been due to go back to the fisa court to get a reauthorization of the warrant on carter page. that would have required them to reaffirm what they have been referencing up to the point, that the fbi believed there was a collusive arrangement between the trump campaign and the russian government. they did not go back to the fisa court of temper. >> bret: trey gowdy, you are one of the people have seen the unredacted fisa documents. you followed this from the very beginning. how much there there will there be? >> we have to separate the dossier from the russian appropriate in terms of the origins, the early summer of 2016, i said before on your show. there was something for the

bureau to look into. with or not they planted that something and then looked into it, i hope horowitz will tell us. the dossier never verified, vetted, hard time believing they use that in the court proceeding. looking into whether or not russia was interfering in our 2016 election, there was a predicate for that. and he was a much better prosecutor than i ever was, for what makes me nervous about "when did you know there was no collusion can buy" is it that mueller is prepped? he will say, "you only know when you interview the last witness, and we wanted to talk to president trump and y'all wouldn't let us." if i were a democrat i would spend a lot of time saying that the guy who had a lot of answers, you wouldn't let us talk to. i didn't hear much about this morning. >> martha: in fact, you did. when you have the opportunity with hillary clinton bringing it up again and again in the way that she was interviewed, that it was sort of under very different circumstances. as we know, president trump never provide that opportunity for them at all.

that is something they could be probably sounding a lot more. >> bret: ken starr, we are seeing bob mueller under the spotlight. he, as we said, has appeared before congress some 90 times in his career. senator john kennedy just a little bit ago said, "i just find the whole thing sad. i see it as one big anticlimax. bob mueller has served his country well and honorably and i hope this isn't the american people's last memory of him." >> that's a very fair comment. i served alongside bob mueller. during president bush 41. i will tell you this, he was semper fi. a person of integrity, ability. but an enormous amount of energy. obviously he was going to be cautious today and what he said. this was not bob's finest hour, so i agree with that sentiment that we should be grateful for all that he has done for the country. but it would seem today that he was not in command and control of what his office produced.

that is both a tragedy but also a disaster for the country. >> bret: chris, as you are a democrat sitting on this panel and you just watch the last three and a half hours, what are you thinking? >> i'm going to go with trey gowdy. that sounds like pretty good stuff. first of all, you can't expect or rely on bob mueller to save your bacon. you are going to have to do -- we were talking before, to ask your leading questions and try to get a "yes" or "no" out of him. he seemed better in the second half. >> bret: especially when the people were under attack. he seemed to perk up. >> i would think the democrats would be very careful, to the degree that they can, to see things that are on the record in the report and then get him to affirm that they are in the report rather than relying on him to lead the way. i don't see much of that going on today. >> martha: it's interesting, when you look at the collusion side of the equation, you were

saying, trey gowdy, that obstruction is the more fertile ground with this investigation. however, with regard to collusion, the oversight of the equation is pretty rich. when you start to look at how all this got laid out, the collusion, the meetings that happened with professor mifsud. why wasn't he investigated? why didn't they look intimate? is he western intelligence or russian intelligence? why wasn't a globs-off relationship with mifsud? you think about a downer, putting out these little feelings for papadopoulos, for carter page along the way. i would imagine that the folks on your side of the aisle are going to have quite a few questions about that. and perhaps the nonanswers from mueller will speak volumes there. >> he's going to say that's not in his preview. kenny buck, former federal prosecutor, they had an extra question for the democratic mantra was "the president is not above the law, no one is above the law."

except apparently professor mifsud. in the report, you said he lied to the fbi and yet he's not charged. flynn was, papadopoulos was, gates was. why not him? so that's at least one person who is above the law. kenny had a great line of questions. think back to the comey-rogers hearing where this became public. where comey confirmed the existence of a russia investigation. remember, devon had a public hearing. they said they couldn't answer. think back to how chef and swalwell and himes handled that. they read the salacious headlines, and knowing the witness could not answer, all of the focus was on the question. all the focus was on the member of congress, and then you have this witness saying, "i cannot answer." i think that's what we are going to see his afternoon. hopefully the staff told him. he's going to be the focus, and the members, the question will be what we are talking about in three hours are not the answer. >> bret: andy, what we do

know, and one of perhaps the most powerful things bob mueller said, was the reiteration of the beginning of the report. and that is the systemic attacks by russia. which likely will be a focus in this. >> that's true. although he ran into a little bit of trouble because the federal judge gave the justice department a very hard time recently in one of the cases he brought, because they didn't establish that there was strong evidence that the russian regime as opposed to russians were buying the propaganda effort. >> bret: as bob mueller enters the room. again, this is the house intelligence committee. likely to be a different focus in the questioning. you saw the first round deal primarily with obstruction. likely, to get more to the russia side of this equation and how much russia did or didn't do, with the trump campaign did or didn't do. the photographers taking position here and we will see an opening from the chairman adam schiff. >> martha: it's worth pointing

out that aaron zebley is sworn in on this half of the testimony this afternoon. this intelligence inquiry. and also that adam schiff is the chair. it's set to go about two hours based on the number of questioners in this case. and we will see where this goes as we see robert mueller surrounded once again by photographers. perhaps this will be one of his last days in the spotlight. he didn't want to do this at all in the first place, but he is doing his duty and has appeared today. he starts the second segment of all of this with chairman adam schiff. >> at the outside, and be off of my colleagues, i want to thank you for a lifetime of service to of the country. your report, for the don't like those who have the time to study, his methodical methodical and i'm sitting. he tells a foreign adversary's sweeping and systematic

intervention in a close u.s. presidential election. it's enough to deserve the attention of every american as you well point out. your report tells another story, as well. the story of the 2016 election is also a story of disloyalty to country, greed, and about lies. your investigation determined that the trump campaign, including donald trump himself, knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built russian meddling into their strategy, and used it. disloyalty to country -- those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent? which did not obligation on it or turn it away? but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full use of it?

that disloyalty may not have been criminal, constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents and the use of cryptic communications, your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. so, not a provable crime in any event. so i think maybe something worse, it crime is a violation of law, written by congress. but disloyalty to country violates the very oath of citizenship. our devotion to a core principle in which our nation was founded, that we the people and not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide who governs us. this is also a story about money. about greed and corruption, about the leadership of the campaign willing to compromise the nation's interests. not only to win, but to make money of the same time.

about a campaign chairman, who tried to use his position to cleanest ethnic millions. about a national security visor using his position to make money from still other foreign interests. and about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them put together. the real estate project, that tim was worth a fortune. hundreds of millions of dollars, and the realization of a lifelong ambition. a trump tower in the heart of moscow. a candidate who, in fact, viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history. donald trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make money. for russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. putin wanted relief from sanctions imposed in the wake of russia's invasion of ukraine, and over human rights violations. the secret trump tower meeting between the russians and senior

campaign officials was about sanctions. the secret conversations between flynn and the russian ambassador about sanctions. trump and his team wanted more money for themselves, and the russians wanted more money for themselves and for their oligarchs. but the story doesn't end here, either. your report also tells a story about lies. lots of lies. lies about a gleaming tower in moscow, and lies about talks with the kremlin. lies about the firing of fbi director james comey and lies about efforts to fire you, dr. mueller. and lies to cover it up. lies about secret negotiations with the russians over sanctions and lies about wikileaks. lies about polling data and lies about hush money payments. lies about meetings to suck up secret back channels and lies about a secret meeting in new york trump tower. lies to the fbi. lies to your staff, and lies to this committee. lies to obstruct an

investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. that is where your report ends, director mueller. with a scheme to cover up obstruction, to seem every bit as systematic and persuasive as the russian disinformation campaign itself. but far more pernicious, since this rot came from within. even now, after 448 pages and two volumes, the deception continues. the president and his acolytes say you are found no collusion, though your report explicitly declined to address that question since collusion can involve both criminal and noncriminal conduct. your report laid out multiple offers of russian help to the trump campaign. the trump campaign acceptance of that help, and over acts for the rents to russian help. to most americans, that is the very definition of collusion. whether it's a crime or not.

they say report found no evidence of obstruction, although you outlined numerous action by by the presidents to obstruct the investigation. they say the president has been fully exonerated though you specifically declare you could not exonerate him. in fact, they say your whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt. that the russians did not interfere in our election, that it's all a terrible hoax. the real crime, they say, is not that the russians intervened to help donald trump. but that the fbi had the temerity to investigate it when they did. worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed, is the disloyalty to country. for that, too, continues. when asked if the russians intervened again, will you take their help, mr. president ? "why not commit" was the essence

of his answer. "everyone does it." no, mr. president, they don't. not the america envisioned by jefferson, madison, and hamilton. not for those who believe in the idea that lincoln labored till his dying day to preserve the idea animating our great national experiment, so unique then, so precious still, that our government is chosen by our people, through our franchise, and not by some hostile foreign power. this is what is at stake. our next election, and the one after that, for generations to come. our democracy. this is why your work matters, director mueller. this is why our investigation matters. to bring these dangers to light. ranking member nunes?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, everyone, to the last gas of the russia collusion conspiracy theory. as democrats continue to foist the spectacle on the american people, as well as you, mr. mueller, the american people may recall the media first began spreading this conspiracy theory in the spring of 2016. when the fusion gps, funded by the dnc and the elder clinton campaign, started developing the steele dossier. a collection of outlandish accusations that trump and his associates were russian agents. effusion gps, steel, and other confederates -- and to top officials in numerous agencies, quitting the fbi, the apartment of justice, and the state department. among other things, the fbi used dusty allegations to obtain