>> [question inaudible] >> their party is in shambles right now. they have the squad leading their party. take a look at so many of the people that were the most outspoken, and they say this was a devastating day for the democrats, and you know it, john, and everybody else knows it. this is a devastating day for the democrats. a very dumb and unfair question. if you look at his correction, he took that totally out of play. he made his decision based on the facts, not based on some rule, so you shouldn't even ask

that question because you know it is a phony. go ahead. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: the democrats had nothing and now they have less than nothing and i think they're going to lose the 2020 election very big, including congressional seats because of the path they chose. now who knows where it goes, from what i hear, they're giving up. i just say, i know them too well, they will never give up. they'll go back in the room and try to figure something out. this whole thing has been honestly been collusion, it's been collusion with the media. it's been collusion with other countries. this has been a disaster for the democrats and i think we're going to win bigger than ever. now i'm going to west virginia, one of the great states, a state that is doing, if you look at

percentage up, number one or number two in the country and nobody would have believed that. west virginia is doing great. i'm going to west virginia. we did have a big case today. we won the asylum case in washington, which frankly, you should be asking about that because that is the real deal. i can't believe how nice you are today, go ahead, give me a question. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: no, because we did nothing wrong, very simple, nothing was done wrong, this was all a big hoax. if you look at it today, nothing was done wrong. now, i believe what you going to find, going to find a lot of things that were done very wrong, but that is going on now, something you haven't been writing about and that has to do with the other side. that has to do with a thing

called investigate the investigators. let's see what happens, that will be interesting. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: look. i think robert mueller did a horrible job, both today and with respect to the investigation, but in all fairness to robert mueller, he had nothing to work with. you can be a builder, but if they don't give you you the right materials, you're not going to build a very good building. robert mueller had no material or nothing to work with, obviously he did very poorly today. i don't think anybody, even among the fakers, i don't think anybody would say he did well. i looked at your people, they are saying it was devastating for the democrats and even i will tell you, the two most nauseous and nausiating networks, whose ratings have gone down, way down, even they

said this was a really bad day for the democrats. so robert mueller did a poor job, but in all fairness, he had nothing to work with. david. >> do you regret -- [question indiscernible] -- >> pres. trump: look, i saw what he did to people, how he ruined people's lives because they didn't remember a date or something minor, he ruined people's lives. the democrats, they took peep and he will destroyed their lives. they went bankrupt, they couldn't afford the fees, they were good people, many, many people. when you ask that question, all they have to do is see how nice this weather is, if i made a mistake, it is i was talking to the media and it was a little bit rainy, overcast, they'd say, he lied. let me tell you, i have seen what they have done to people, destroyed people like general flynn and so many others. no, i

did the right thing. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: well, mueller had no material. sure, mueller had no material to work with and he did a horrible job. obviously his presentation was way off. but that's okay. it didn't matter. he had no material, there was nothing done wrong. in fact, things were done right, there was nothing done wrong and certainly, i mean, look, i read the papers and the press and the internet and if you see what is going on the internet, if you listen to the internet, this was one of the worst performances in the history of our country. you know that, you know that very well. i don't think anybody could have done a good performance, he had no material, it was a fake set of facts that the democrats used and others to try and do really

an illegal overthrow, we'll find out about that. >> pres. trump: well, the asylum is a big -- say it. the asylum is a very big ruling, tremendous ruling today. we appreciate it. we respect the courts very much, that helps us very much at the border. the numbers are way down at the border, a good thing. apprehensions are way down because mexico has 22,000 soldiers and they mean business because they know what happens. the alternative is not good for them. it is also good for mexico, what they are doing because the cartels have been running all of the border for years and years and mexico is saying and the president, we got to clean it up. they have 21,000 soldiers, probably put up more, but this

ruling today on asylum is a tremendous ruling. [question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: so guatemala gave us their word, we were going to sign an agreement and all of a sudden, they backed up and said it was supreme court. i don't believe that. they used their supreme court as the reason they didn't want to do it. we'll either do tariffs or we'll do something, looking at something severe with respect to guatemala. i've cut all payments a year ago, i cut all payments going to honduras, el salvador and guatemala, we used to send them $500 million for nothing, for nothing. they didn't do anything, except set up caravans. so guatemala, we're going to take care of and it won't even be tough. we're looking at a couple different things. one of the things very heavy, as you know, mexico put 6000 people on that border.

[question indiscernible] >> pres. trump: let me just tell you something, i know, you always have a question. you mean my white house aide's lives? what about his aides and mueller's aides? he didn't say that at all. you are untruthful, you are untruthful. when you ask that question, when you ask that question, you are untruthful and you know who else is untruthful, who else is untruthful? his aides and wiseman was untruthful and wiseman got caught with arthur anderson, lost in supreme court 9-0, his aides were untruthful and they put mueller -- not at all, they put mueller in a very bad position. his aides put him in a very bad position. if you were ever truthful, you'd be able to write this.

>> the dems have nothing, now they have less than nothing. that was president donald trump. hi, i'm greg gutfeld with kennedy, juan, live from d.c., jesse waters and sandra smith, this is "the five." so we hear donald trump will speak in a few more minutes, we're not sure when, we'll go back to that. in the meantime, quick reaction to the mueller hearing from the table and from juan, who was in d.c. sandra, good to see you. >> sandra hi, greg. the president just wrapped what we were witnessing throughout the day. in his own words, a bad day for the country, he went on to say good day for him. it was a great day for me. democrats should be ashamed for bringing this in the first place, on republicans, they defended something great today, called them warriors.

robert mueller, on his presentation, the president said he believed he did not have a presentation, did not have material when he went into the hearing rooms, we will hear more on this. democrats are reacting. it is not over yet. >> oh, yes it is. >> sandra both sides -- >> i'm not disappointed at all. >> reaction to trump? >> he was combative, sure of himself, looked very, very confident and relaxed and relieved over today because i think everybody agrees even the democrats and the mediaa would agree this is absolute catastrophe for them. i predicted this would back fire on democrats, backfired worse than i expected. the entire day, they tried to strike and light that match for impeachment and it wouldn't light. there was no big t.v. moment. mueller didn't deliver, he was stumbling, bumbling, trump knows tha that, optically, it was a bomb

and substantively it was a bomb. he was pushing back on the press, shows how sure he is, he closed this chapter and impeachment, i believe the impeachment train has stopped dead on the tracks and the kind of questions the white house correspondents were asking, like they didn't even watch the hearing, how biassed and baseless they were. are you worried about being indicted when you leave office? no, he's absolutely not worried about that. >> kenny. >> i thought it was interesting, the president was shot out of a cannon and we have to mark contrast in tone in reaction from today versus may 29, when robert mueller came out and had that somewhat odd press conference, he managed to say two things. one, i don't want to go before congress and now we understand why he was hesitant to go before congress and the president was really waiting for a moment like this to button the whole thing up and jesse is right, he is

incredibly confident, combative and the tone in the white house and for the president's allies markedly different than it was two months ago. >> greg: juan, are you there? i think president trump is happy how this panned out, right? >> juan: absolutely, no choke pill for him, exuberant, bubbling like champagne. i think, though, you have to be careful. you shouldn't judge a congressional hearing by entertainment value. we would have been age of cable news and clicks and social mid media, you can see the wave there. the wave and that is what president trump is picking up on, my opponents feel deflated. you heard that from jesse, right? no collusion, no obstruction. it is easy to forget, trump and the republicans didn't want these hearings. but you get the hearing and now you get into a situation where i think a lot of people are saying, you know what, we thought the movie was going to be better than the book.

hmm, turns out the book was better than the movie, especially for the democrats. you can't get away from the fact, that is what democrats tried to show today. they laid out the case for obstruction, laid out that russia interfered and as you heard, even at the very end, from adam schiff, intelligence committee, he still thinks there is a case to be made here and the one thing mueller was clear on is russia interfered in 2016 to help trump and they continue to interfere as we head toward 2020. >> greg: the hype turned into tripe. >> sandra so many awkward moments. andy mccarthy reacting, even involved in the investigation, when you saw the way he was ill prepared for questions that came at him, including who appointed him in massachusetts, u.s. attorney? he answered george h.w. bush, he

was corrected it was ronald reagan. how many witness interviews did you sit on, 500 of them, he answered few. fusion gps, he said he was not familiar with that, behind the steele dossier. i felt bad. >> mueller is a stand-up guy, i felt that the democrats set him up and trotted him out when he wasn't ready or prepared and it made him look terrible. >> he had the aide that was sworn in to help him follow along. he didn't know what was in his own report, it was wiseman's report. they slapped mueller's name on it. he was not running this investigation, he was asleep at the wheel, they trotted him out, he's got a great brand and served honorably for so many years. no clue what was going on, no clue about the hiring process, he didn't know the details, he was stammering and stumbling. and juan likes to say the

republicans were fearful of this, if the republicans could go back and say, hey, maybe, i think we'd change our mind. we want this hearing and were happy he went out and testified. >> juan: you were saying, don't bring mueller here. >> jessica: i says it was going to back fire. that is what happened. >> juan: no, no, no, important distinction, jesse, he didn't wilt. i think he thought in his mind, i'm going to present myself as the ex-marine, the straight-shooter, man of great aptitude and came off as uncertain of the facts. >> greg: juan, going back to trump. >> your answers are generally untruthful, what do you say to that? >> pres. trump: he didn't say that at all. you are untruthful. when you ask that question, you are untruthful. you know who else is untruthful?

you know who else is untruttrut his aides. and wiseman was untruthful. >> were your aides lieing and impeding the investigation, mr. president? >> pres. trump: not at all. they put mueller in a bad position, his aides put him in a bad position. if you were truthful -- i evaporate called boris, but i'm very, very happy. so what happened was -- the two lovers is disgrace. they had a lot of text messages and mueller illegally deleted the text messages and they didn't get too much into that

because he forgot, he didn't really know, he didn't know too much, he didn't know anything. they were texting. they were the ones with "in case you should lose, we'll have an experience policy," the same situation, bad situation. what they did and what mueller did, he deleted text messages back and forth, probably thousands of them. that is a serious problem. >> mr. president, have you heard from kim jong-un? [question indiscernible] [questioning over each other] >> pres. trump: i think it is going to help us, everyone sees now this thing has been going on for so long, in all fairness to mueller, this has gone on long before mueller, gone on from some time after we came down the escalator and i got great poll

numbers. from the beginning, i was leading. this took place right after we came down the escalator, the first lady and myself and i will tell you something, i think it is going to have a huge negative impact on 2020 for the democrats. [question indiscernible] >> greg: the only thing that could top that, jesse, my monologue. >> jesse: i would agree. >> greg: let's do it. can you repeat the question, sir. >> can you repeat the question, sir, that went fast for me. >> could you repeat the question. >> can you repeat the question. >> the impact -- >> all right. >> can you read the last question? >> the last question was -- >> i want to make certain i got it accurate. >> can you repeat the question, where are you reading from? >> i'm reading from my question. [laughter] >> then could you repeat it? >> okay. >> this is very, very painful, those aren't my words.

david axewell,rod, tweeting. the dems got was a damp spark ler. they wanted empire strikes back, but got a rerun of matlock. they wanted super bowl and got a test pattern. was it a disaster for the democrats? >> i think this has been a disaster for the democrats and a disaster for the reputation of robert mueller. he is very uncertain with his brief. he doesn't know, seem to know what things that are in the report. >> greg: don't take it from him, i had to watch, too, it was on at the gym, it was that or real housewives. if you did a shot every time mueller said, could you repeats question, you would be dead. it is not his fault, it is the dems, wanting to relive the past and hoping the ending changes. like guy who got dumpd and thinks playing their song over and over might rekindle the

romance, the conclusion, same as before. mueller says trump is not guilty, dems want him to say, okay, trump may not be guilty, that doesn't mean he is innocent . trump wasn't exonerated, exoneration, declaring someone innocent , is impossible. watch this painful exchange. >> mr. mueller, does the attorney general have the power or authority to exonerate? what i'm putting up here is united states code, the attorney general gets his power and the institution and onannotated versions of this. i went to case western, i thought maybe your law school teaches it differently and got the criminal law textbook from your law school. mr. mueller, nowhere in these, we had them scanned, is a process or description on exonerate, no office of exoneration at the attorney general's office, no certificate at bottom of his desk. mr. mueller, would you agree, the attorney general does not have the power to exonerate?

>> i'm going to pass on that. >> why? >> this is the headline on all of the news channels while you were testifying today. mueller, trump was not exonerated. mr. mueller, what you know, this can't say mueller exonerated trump because you don't have the power or authority to exonerate trump. >> greg: oh, that did not go well. 400-page lump drafted by unhappy staffers collapses like a bad souffle. trump continues to unleash economy and adversaries sit stranded, arms flailing, going nowhere and the future starts looking like 2016 all over again. democrats wanted for mueller to give his report new life instead he took it out to the woods and shot it. kennedy, youment to bring up point about impeachment? >> kennedy: we have to ask, democrats were hoping this was their best hope and inviting the fire of impeachment.

the pilot light is lit, the flames are there. so today was kerosene or ice water. >> greg: yes. >> kennedy: unfortunately for democrats, pinning their hopes on this pivotal moment, it was the latter. >> greg: here is why. the messenger was not effective. it was like he didn't have all his facultys, he was bumbling and stumbleing and did not deliver the goods. it was clear he was not running the investigation, he was just a figure head. he testified under oath, greg, the investigation was not obstructed, yet democrats want to impeach trump for obstructing an investigation that the lead investigator said wasn't obstructed. trump is presumed innocent in this country. what the hearing established, when mueller said that i cannot exonerate you, he violated the bedrock principle of the american judicial system that

you are innocent until proven guilty and he abused his prosecutorial authority by making that claim. and, he had no control over his own team. he said he didn't even ask questions when he hired his staff. they hired 14 democrats, no republicans, clinton donors and clinton lawyers, they come on the team, he didn't know about those conflicts. he found out, he didn't do anything about the conflict. >> kennedy: that was one moment he got fired up today, defending those on his staff, the lawyers that work for him. lawmakers chose to question about political affiliate yop, democrats donating to hillary clinton's campaign, he fired up and actually looked at everybody in the room and said not once when i have hired people have i ever asked their political affiliation, i would say that is one moment he defended himself the most. >> the only time he perked up. juan, the bottom line, he does

not have ability to exonerate, that crushs the democrats. >> juan: you know, i disagree, greg. it seems to me he's the special counsel, not like a prosecutor in your hometown who indicts or doesn't indict, goes to the grand jury and gets the charge or doesn't. he's a special counsel and under his mandate, he was to give a report and by the way, supposed to be a private report, it was up to the attorney general bill barr to release it, bill barr released it, as much as he thought was appropriate and he said, i don't find the conspiracy and by the way, i thought you guys were going to hit mueller on the fact he couldn't distinguish conspiracy from collusion. >> greg: we'll get there, long show. >> juan: i'm saying, i think what he had in his hand was to say, one, this is headline out of today, guess what, yes, the president can be indicted.

but we didn't make that determination because of the office of legal counsel direction, the policy direction coming from justice and i think that is really important for people to understand. he was constrained. >> greg: juan, you saying he's special counsel doesn't make him special, he's still a prosecutor, no prosecutor -- >> juan: no, he's not a ordinary prosecutor, jesse. >> jesse: no attorney general has power to exonerate anybody, innocent until proven guilty in court of law. >> juan: i love it, jesse, that is not the case here. the case here -- >> kennedy: i have to disagree, juan. he is appoint said as a prosecutor, that is his job and basis of prosecution and the judicial system is presumption of innocence, that is where you work from, not backward. it is not a spy novel with excited twists and turns it has to be straight-forward. if we have equal justice under

the law. >> juan: kennedy, what you guys are saying is true if you were street criminal. we are talking about guy operating as special counsel under special law, he didn't have ken starr's authority, ken starr was a special prosecutor, this guy is special counsel, he was supposed to issue a report and in the report, he can say what he wants to say about exoneration. again, this is a false standard being set up by republicans to try to say, ah, nothing here. >> kennedy: go back to -- >> juan: it wasn't john dean. >> kennedy: what about exchange jesse mentioned with ratcliffe, though, he was asked by the congressman, robert mueller was, can you give example other than donald trump, where the department of justice determined an investigative person was not exonerated bau innocence was not conclusively determined? he replied, mueller replied, i cannot, this is unique situation. ratcliffe says, leave it there. i wish they would have gone on with that statement and let him respond to that.

>> never happened in america, juan, never happened in america. this is not a banana republic. this guy has authority under the executive branch. he can do what he wants under those legal guidelines. he can't go out of legal guidelines. speaking of his mandate, he didn't follow through on his mandate. mandate to look into russian interference in the election, yes, the core people involved in the origination of the investigation and the origination of the russia collusion narrative, glen simpson and christopher steele, let off the hook by special counsel, miss foot lied and was never charged with perjury. robert mueller said he never heard of fusion gps, clinton dirty arm. >> juan: give it a break, jesse, come on. >> jesse: looks the other way, that is why people think this is

rigged. >> juan: how many times did he say not in my purview? go ask people at justice, go ask intelligence agency, not what he was supposed to be looking at. >> jesse: russia interference covers collusion and americans conspiring and that is what the democrats did. >> juan: and the transition. >> kennedy: he had an opportunity to defend himself in the room today and we didn't see that. moving on, about to hear from top democrats reacting to robert mueller earlier today at the hearings. democrats honed in on their key issue. should president trump be charged with a crime over obstruction of justice? take a look at this. >> the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, true? >> correct. >> warrant a lot of time in jail if convicted? >> yes. >> why did the president of the united states want you fired? >> does ordering determination of the head of a criminal

investigation constitute obstructive act? >> in my view, anyone else in america engaged in these actions, would have been charged with witness tampering. >> all right, a lot of obsession in that room today. kennedy, start us off here. >> kennedy: we see split hearings with big moments like this. democrats tried to throw robert mueller various lifelines what struck emotion was when they were talking about his record and there was confusion about that, but democrats also, you know, were trying to sort of lead him into parts of the report that were damming for the president and even with that and with that guidance, special counsel still shut them down with these one-word answers and the need for clarification over and over and over again. >> sandra greg, to quote al green, a wow moment did not

happen. sol wisenberg asked the question or made the point, this did not move the needle, amazing when nancy pelosi, who we are about to hear from in a short bit, nancy pelosi was asked about the hearing and she was watching it. she said just a little bit, only a few moments. >> greg: passed by a big box store and saw it. dems are caught in this dilemma, they love the indictment strl and collusion story but americans doesn't. the more they use these golf clubs, it keeps them from coming up and generating ideas that might attract voters. the collusion argument is equivalent of smoking pot when you wake up in the morning. you get nothing done the rest of the day, democrats. start collusion early, you're done. [laughter] >> sandra jesse? >> jesse: everybody knows collusion didn't happen. obstruction thing, you cannot impeach president for

obstructing crime he didn't commit or obstructing crime that the lead investigator said he wasn't obstructed on and of course you fight back when you have been framed by democrats and investigated by democrats coming after your company, your family, your personal assets and trying to set perjury traps for you, tee up impeachment and set up obstruction case against you, you are going to fight back. he fought back, he complied. he never claimed executive privilege, handed over thousands of documents and he won. that is what democrats want to impeach him for. potus never fired robert mueller, he never said fire robert mueller, he asked his personal lawyer to ask the acting a.. go, can we replace robert mueller with someone not conflicted. if democrats hang th impeachment hat on that, go fishing. >> sandra ask juan, did the hearings persuade nancy pelosi to move forward with

impeachment? did it move the needle? >> juan: i don't think it moved it with nancy pelosi, chris wallace, on the programs all day with me, he said he thought this helped nancy pelosi because she's been trying to hold a lot of democratic fire brains back on the argument that hey, the election is coming up, if you make trump into a martyr it might help him get re-eshg elected. quickly, jesse, this is not a street criminal activity. you have to understand that when trump says to his lawyer, to mcgahn, go fire mueller, go call me back. what are you talking about? that is on the record, in the report, curead it. >> jesse: i did read the report, glad you brought that up. they got caught, mueller's team, overcooking the statute. a statute they use against multi national companies for auditing

irreg laritys and for shredding documents. creatively empowered this statute to make any executive action criminal. they actually brought this up, barack obama could be charged under the over interpretation of the statute when he went on the record and said hillary clinton's e-mail server was not that big of a deal and was not a threat to national security. that is how convoluted and creative the use of -- >> juan: you are so far off. >> greg: bill barr caught them red-handed -- >> juan: you should be celebrating what happened today, instead, you are in the weeds and distracting people, the reality is -- >> jesse: not a distraction. >> juan: you should be happy. >> kennedy: juan, i want to add something, democrats were hoping this would be the kind of big flash that eclipses the i.g.

report coming out. it was crucial to have mueller testify. he was supposed to testify last week and obviously, this was put off by a week for very, very obvious reasons. robert mueller came out himself and forcefully said in writing and in person that he did not want to testify. and it is obvious why. and we don't know what is going to be in the i.g. report, many people are stringing the facts together, who realize that is an ugly necklace that could hang democrats on this issue. >> sandra juan, president tweeted, truth is force of nature. after the conclusion of the first hearing with the judiciary committee today, he sent out, this is first part of the tweet, i would like to thank democrats for holding this morning's hearings, after he was seering about the aide being present and he changed his mind as the

morning went on. do you think democrats will regret this, regret getting robert mueller in there for the hearings today? >> juan: no, in terms of moving the needle, politics of it, i don't think anybody who had an opinion going in changed it. i think democrats hoped they would push, especially independent voters based on the credibility of robert mueller as a war hero, long-time f.b.i. director, i don't think that happened. that is what democrats are hoping for, let them. >> sandra that have to do that, necessary for democrats because impeachment has not been polling well for them. >> juan: oh, no, remember impeachment among democrats pose very well. what have you to understand, the dynamic inside the democratic caucus, which is why chris wallace was saying nancy pelosi may be quite grateful for what happened, now some of the fires may be pulling back. in terms of the democratic base, there is no question, they'd like to see trump impeached.

now you have a question, what do we do going forward, a big august break coming up, we come back in september, are democrats going to come back to this? believe me, adam schiff is not going away. the whole talk of impeachment of this guy, not going away. >> sandra jesse, hureaction when i said at the top of the show, there was disappointment on both sides. republicans went in hopeing and wishing to dig in deeper to origin of the investigation, robert mueller made it clear at the top of the hearing he would not go there. >> jesse: you asking me? >> sandra respond. >> greg: i thought you said jesse, do i look like jesse? i don't know, here is the deal. i'm more interested in how the media portray this now. i can't tell the difference between media reaction and democratic reaction. sweaty, feverish anti-trump

hatred make its hard for anyone to take righteous end of the world shrieking seriously. everyday is the apocalypse at the hearing, no one is listening, everybody is tuned out, but us, we don't trust what we hear. imagine if the media hadn't given in to bitter emotion after being humiliated, cnn hadn't been fearmongering or had a panel call everybody racist, people might listen to this stuff. too late. >> the media stuff. same people who spent years pushing fake trump-russian collusion conspiracy theory and thought for months mueller's testimony would get trump. none of that happened. here is the best of the media mueller meltdown. >> from democratic perspective to me, it's been a bust. >> if you are telling a story through congressional hearing, what you want is the witness to tell the story.

>> bob mueller's grasp and presentation of the facts was not very detailed. >> the shortcoming is appearing fact pattern. >> they fumbled accountability mission they were on. optics, this was a disaster. >> kennedy, notice how the media is obsessed with the optics of this, had has always been about the optics, never about the substance, optics of proving trump guilty in the world of public opinion and getting the rest of the country to follow along. >> sandra when you hiss the focus, it erodes whatever goal you ultimately had, for people like todd in the media and certainly for congressional democrats, they want focus to be impeachment. move from conspiracy to collusion to well, this is a little bit unethical, that is problematic when you are trying to make a forceful point.

you can really sense the disappointment and you have to ask, if you are disappointed, what did you expect from today and how did you think the outcome was going to be difference from this? >> i think they thought, greg, democrats on the committee could sell it. the olc opinion, don mcgahn and rosenstein, can't really sell a political scandal the way a burglary or dead body can. >> they had the edge. the party and media were hand in hand. i said to jim, 140 minutes i was there. cnn's lower third was mueller, trump was not exonerated. they went with that. carnival news network had one thing to bark. >> sandra the first change -- >> all they add, they can't report on good news, it is linked to trump. they have this, they seize on only thing they can, they don't

care how good the country is going, they just want revenge for what happened to them, they were humiliated. >> juan: wait a second, can i jump in here? wasn't trump saying all along and believe me, talking about media, his use of twitter and social media, facebook, all the people he's had at the white house who support him online, wasn't trump saying this is a witch hunt, the russia stuff is a hoax, didn't he say mueller wants democrat and want a second bite of the apple? he was going at it in terms of his media, his bubble and he's getting through a message and guess what, it wasn't what he said, that is why i said to jesse, you guys should have been saying, no obstruction, no collusion, let's have him in here, get mueller in. >> greg: we haven't changed that line, juan, no one has been charged with -- >> juan: he makes the point, guess what, this president can be, if not for -- >> if that is what you take away from this hearing, wait, no, not

two years, six years and you can lock trump up. sandra, one main takeaway today was that a lot of the american public that hadn't been following this are hearing things for the very first time. they did a study, mrt.v. about how the networks portrayed this russia investigation. 1.5% of the coverage on the text messages, the dossier, 1.3% of the coverage, fisa abuse .8%, the country doesn't know until you watch fox or read on twitter about the corrupt origin of the investigation. >> sandra: and only time will tell. waiting to hear from democrats how they will proceed. >> they are at the bar. >> sandra: i wasn't at the gym, i was getting ready. >> jesse: i was at the stair climber. >> sandra: republicans attack mueller's investigation at hearing, trying to portray

republicans in the first hearing room as going on the attack. perhaps that is the way they were dealing with robert mueller appearing weak, as you heard from some democrats. >> kennedy: how else do you get answers? judiciary committee is full of lawyers, former prosecutors on the committee who are going to ask questions in a certain way, some to better effect than others. biggest problem, robert mueller decided what he was going to talk about and negotiated with jerry nadler and doug collins because when things got difficult for him, instead of answering the question, he would say, no, i'm not going to, that is not in my purview. certain things were not in his purview, we are talking about basis for the investigation. that seems like a pretty critical link in this investigatory chain. >> greg: what is amazing, they actually held mock hearings, they practiced for this.

>> mock hearing probably went better than the real hearing. juan, quick question. the fact that the media, who we know is one-sided, hate trump, the fact the media would admit on live t.v. this thing was a catastrophe, how bad was it actually for democrats? they didn't -- >> juan: i thought it was bad for -- have to say the media was honest, you agree with them, right? you think this did not go well for democrats? >> greg: only time they are honest, when they agree with me. >> juan: have you to agree. the big news, there are facts out there and people tomorrow morning when they pick up the so-called media, i don't care, left or right, guess what, he said that you can't indict a sitting president under policy, he didn't make that determination because of policy. he laid out the facts, he could have -- >> jesse: for obstruction and

that would have made the president unindicted co-conspirr co-conspirret -- conspirrator, why didn't he do that? >> kennedy: good question, juan. >> juan: even in michael cohen with the payoff to women, he is conspirrator one, they don't name him there. they are protective of his rank. >> jesse: you think mueller protects the presidency and was protective of him. i disagree. >> kennedy: where is johnimism mitchell, going to go to prison for the crime. not being caught in certain traps. by the way, i thought that was one of the best lines of questioning of the day, jim jordan talking about joseph and asking, here is a person who is clearly working for either british intelligence or u.s.

intelligence and mueller obviously couldn't give clarification on that, if he had lied to f.b.i. and special counsel three separate times, why wasn't he charged with one of the process crimes? he was the impotus, a launching pad for this entire process. i thought that was very well played -- >> sandra jesse, miskcalculatio by the media, they were awesome this morning, other media coverage when the hearing began this morning, george stephanopoulos asked question out of the gate, what will it mean about impeachment? he went on to say and wonder what crimes would be revealed by mueller, asking what will mueller say about the president, russia and crimes. there were high expectations by democrats and media head intoing this. >> sounds like george stephanopoulos never read the e kne mueller would not stray from the report. >> the report is taller than george.

back up the report, i can't see it. >> never forget how hypocritical the media is, to pretend in 2019, they cared about russian collusion, when in the '80s they were sympathetic with the ussr, eight times the size of russia and make fun of anti-communist and thought we had nothing to worry about and obama made fun of mitt romney for being skeptical of russians as being good for us. then here and now, all they care about is nailing trump. not actually looking at the collusion, the russian side. >> sandra on that note, christopher christopher wray came out and laid out the threat that china poses. here we are still obsessing about russia and talk about retro, that is the early odds once they are big foreign threat back and technology.

>> juan? >> juan: nope. >> greg: want to take it from here? take it away for us? >> juan: you know what i think, what this is driving toward is 2020 election and i think that is where we're going to see the impact of what took place today. what you get is a situation where people already are trying to figure out the politics of it. we have a democratic debate scheduled for next week, we'll see how the democrats handle what took place here today. do they see it as a dud or see it differently? sandra, what do you think happens at the debate? >> sandra the debate? mueller conversation, where does it go from here? that is what we're about to hear from democrats. jerry nadler and nancy pelosi, democratic leadership is about to talk and the basis what we are about to hear, the press release here, they will hold press availability after the mueller hearings, how they plan to proceed after the hearings this morning. this is a huge narrative for

them and you heard so much from the presidential candidates on this, juan, what part is this now going to play in 2020? how much can democrats lean on this narrative? >> juan: i think they will, i think they have so many problems with trump, they don't have to sell it, they have to be convincing and once they head toward the general election, we will see a shift. take a look at this, we have some reaction from some democrats, here they are. >> no matter what this current attorney general and the president of the united states try to say, the american people are smart enough to know what is and what is not true. >> president donald trump did everything he could to obstruct justice. it is time to bring impeachment charges against him. >> that report is enough of an -- >> here we go. >> all right. so here we see democrats, go

democrats, go. >> what happened and how it conforms to the law or not. the president likes to have his poster that said the mueller report took this many days, cost this much money, this, that and the other. we have a corresponding contradictory chart. mueller investigation by the numbers. 40 million dollars recovered for the u.s. government. remember he said how much it would cost less than that, 37 people and entities charged with crimes, 25 ongoing criminal cases referred, seven convicted, including five top trump campaign officials. and then he had no collusion, no this or that. 10 instances of obstruction, yes. no exoneration. that is some of what we heard today. i want to go to another point. the same time as we're on this

path of the mueller investigation to recognize that the mueller investigation was prohibited from looking into the president's demands and that is what our committee of jurisdiction had been doing. as we legislate for the good of the american people, we're also investigating so that we have the grift of the mill to litigate in court. those cases we won in lower court, they of course ark peeld and we feel strongly that the position of article 1, legislative branch having right to have oversight over every other branch of government, but that is important because it means we can get the information to show the american people what the obstruction of justice was further all about. very, very proud of our committee, the judiciary committee and great chairman jerry nadler, the intelligence

committee, great chairman, adam schiff, we will hear from now and also joined by elijah cummings chair of the government oversight committee, a committee that is winning courts in case, as well. i will yield with great respect to all three of our chairman and we will take questions. yield to distinguished chairman of the judiciary chairman, mr. nadler. >> thank you, madam speaker. today the american people heard directly about what the special counsel investigation uncovered. as to russia interference in the 2016 election, and the president's cooperation with it and obstruction of justice. mueller made clear that the president is not exonerated. mueller found evidence of obstruction of justice and abuse of power by the president. he -- the report said the president could be indicted for obstruction of justice after he

leaves office. mueller found that trump would and did benefit from russia's help and that the campaign welcomed that help. mueller found multiple instances, all three elements charging criminal obstruction of justice were met. trying to fire the special counsel in order to stop the investigation, trying to have people lie and cover up for him, for the same purpose, trying to limit or impede or constrict special counsel investigation, trying to tamper with witnesses, tamper with witnesses, cooperating with investigators. all of these were found with great evidence. president trump went to great length to obstruct the special counsel investigation. anyone else who acted in this way, if they were not the sitting president, would face criminal prosecution, would face indictments, only the office of legal counsel opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president saved or is saving the

president from indictment because all the elements of these crimes were found with substantial evidence and people have heard this, the president's chant of no obstruction is nonsense, his chant that he's been totally exonerated is a simple lie. >> first of all, i want to thank director mueller for lifetime of service to the country, from his days as a young marine in vietnam through his decades of service as a prosecutor, as director of the f.b.i. and through his service as special counsel, this nation owes him enormous debt of gratitude. director, mueller, thank you personally for all of your service. today the director outlined in powerful words how russia

intervened massively in our election systematically in a sweeping fashion, how during the course of the intervention, they multiple approaches to the trump campaign and the trump campaign welcomed it, made full use of it, put it into communications and messaging strategy and then lied about it. lied about it to cover it up, lied about it to obstruct the investigation to that very attack on our democracy. part of what i found so powerful about his testimony today was not just when he was asked about the law, but asked about the ethics, the morality, the lack of patriotism of this conduct and most chilling moment i think in our committee, when he expressed the fear this become the new normal and of course i think what is animating that fear of the director, certainly

animates it for me, is the fact even after the nightmare of the last 2-1/2 years, the president of the united states will still not fore-swear receiving foreign help again. that to this point, the president still continues to call this russian ark attack a hoax, something director mueller today refuted. he still calls a witch hunt, something director mueller directly refuted. and so, we go into this next election more vulnerable than we should be. we can't control completely what russia does, although we must do everything to harden election defenses to make sure there are paper trails, to make sure that we deter and disrupt any kind of russian intervention, we cannot control that completely, we can control what we do. and director mueller made it clear in no uncertain terms that it is up to us whether we act

ethically and patriotically, when we refuse to be a party to a foreign ark tack attack on our democracy and we thank him for his service. >> thank you very much. >> i think first i want to applaud chairman nadler and -- who is our judiciary committee and certainly our chairman of intelligence committee for what they did today and there are many. what they did did was paint a picture for america. one of the most showing things that i have noticed, that i've witnessed, is when a member, former member of my committee, a republican went to a town hall meeting and got a round of

applause in a republican district after he had said that he felt that the president should be impeached. that wasn't the thing that got me. what really got me was when a lady at the end of the town hall meeting said, i didn't know that there was anything negative in the mueller report about president trump. that says a lot. and to her credit, house speaker made it clear that we need to paint a picture for america. so they could fully understand what is going on. this is a critical moment in our country's history. don't be fooled. >> all right, time for final thoughts. iment to go first. it is clear nancy pelosi didn't watch it.

she talked about seized assets,y which i think if you confuse the seized assets from the investigation, let's use it to build a wall. >> there you go. >> nancy pelosi calling was crossing the threshold, it was a big day for us. she says she watched it a little bit when asked earlier. she said the american people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our constitution. i think this gives you some sense that the calls for impeachment will not completely be ignored by the speaker of the house. speaker nancy pelosi was smiling because it was over today, not because it went well. if she's no pivoting to getting trump's taxes. nadler and adam schiff look like they need prozac. if it was ugly out there, look like there was a death in the family. they've done nothing, nancy's congress so far besides 100 hearings on a hoax and i checked on the government. they've done nothing on health care infrastructure, trade, or drug prices. at the end of this, no one was charged with collusion or criminal conspiracy and no one

was charged with obstruction. >> but there's no exoneration. it's interesting to look at the tone of the democrats and the press conference. in the tone that the president had when he was talking to the press that we had at the very top of the show and those are so different. that is such a contrast. as he says it is all about objects. it's very obvious how the objects are -- >> could get a better haircut if that were the case. final thoughts? >> i thought nancy pelosi made her point. she said, look, we have oversight responsibility, and then you heard nadler come forward and say anybody else who had been found to have obstructed in this manner would be indicted. maybe that will come through as news. you heard elijah cummings say at the end, a lot of americans didn't read the report, maybe this will get through. but i think overall you saw the president, you saw the democrats, the president is a happy guy, right? >> mueller probably didn't read it. >> like the rest of the country.

>> that is it for us. what an exciting day. "special report" is up next. ♪ >> bret: welcome to washington, i'm bret baier. breaking tonight, the rhetorical smoke is still clearing in the building behind me after more than five hours of some of the most politically charged hearings on capitol hill in recent memory, whether former special counsel robert mueller adequately supported his report or crumbled at the hands of inquisitors is largely in the eye of the beholder. mueller, as protected, relied almost exclusively on the 448 page report, saying more than 200 times he couldn't answer the questions or deferring to what was written down in that report. the president tonight is doing a victory lap, democrats meantime are plotting what happens next. we will have complete coverage,