it's arthur anderson petitioner versus united states.e the district court level arthur anderson lostthe circuit court level in the fifth circuit they lost but what did they lose? they were accused of obstructi obstruction, destroy documents among others andrew wiseman, deputy to mr. mueller, he led the effort. arthur anderson went broke, 80000 people lost their jobs in the supreme court reversed the lower court's in a c nine-zero opinion and six, seven, eight pages long and almost perfunctory. but they say and here is wait a minute, you can't just accuse someone of objection because we don't like what they said or that the try to impede. there are elements to describe the not so easy to prove. knowingly dishonest and a corrupt intent. resident of the united states says to the white house counsel, if in fact this is true the president denies it, but says to his white house counsel look, i want you to get hold of the justice department and get rid of mueller because he's conflicted and got a whole bunch of people who are conflicted. how is that obstruction of justice if the president i

it's arthur anderson petitioner versus united states.istrict court level, he lost, the fifth circuit, they. [inaudible] among others, andrew weissman, the director of mr. mueller. arthur anderson went broke, 80000 people lost their jobs and the supreme court reversed the law of courts in a 9 - 0 opinion, six, seven, eight pages long. what they say in here is, wait a minute, you can't just accuse someone of obstruction because you don't like what they said. there are elements to this crime and the not so easy approve. knowingly dishonest and a corrupt intent, the president of the united states said this is white house counsel. if in fact this is true, the president denies it and says to his white house counsel i want you to get hold of the justice department and get rid of mueller because he's conflicted and he's got a whole bunch of people who are conflicted. how is that obstruction of justice if the president is saying, not be because he wants to kill an investigation, clearly everything else he did demonstrates he doesn't want to kill

wiseman got caught just like with arthur anderson where he lost to the supreme court 9-0 high pressure his aides were untruthful and they put mueller -- not taufrl 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 the truth. >> no but i'm very happy. i haven't called boris but i'm very happy that he won. >> you know what happened with strzok and paige, meaning the two lovers is a disgrace. because 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, didn't know anything. but strzok and paige were texting. don't forget they were the ones with just in case we lose we have an insurance policy. this is the same strzok and paige. that was the a very, very bad situation. what they did and mueller did he deleted their text messages back and forth, probably thousands of them. that's a serious problem. >> i think it's going to help us because everyone sees now that this has been go

wiseman got caught just like with arthur anderson where he lost to the supreme court 9-0 . his aides were untruthful and mueller 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 the truth. >> [indiscernible] >> no but i'm very happy. , i haven't called boris but i'm very happy that he won. >> [indiscernible] >> you know what happened with strzok and paige, meaning the two lovers is a disgrace. because 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, didn't know anything. but strzok and paige were texting. don't forget they were the ones with just in case we lose we have an insurance policy. this is the same strzok and paige. that was a very, very bad situation. what they did and mueller did he deleted their text messages back and forth, probably thousands of them. that's a serious problem. >> [indiscernible] >> i think it's going to help us because every

. >> one of your top prosecutors against arthur anderson lower court which was subsequently overturned and a unanimous purchase. >> i'm not going to get into that -- may i just finish? may i just finish my answer? >> yes. >> i'm not going to get involved in a discussion on that. i will refer you to that citation that you gave me at the outset for the lengthy discussion on just what you're talking about and to the extent i have anything to say about it, it is what we've already put into the report on that. >> i am reading from your report when discussing this section. i'll read from the decision of the supreme court unanimously reversing mr.wise man when he said it's striking how little it's required. even a -- instructions also diluted the meaning of skruptly such that it covered innocent conduct. >> let me just say -- >> let me move on. i have limited time. you take the broadest possible provision and applied it. i'm concerned about your over criminalizing conduct by officials and private citizens alike. to emphasize how broad it is, i want to ask a few examples. in 2015 during the in

1990's or early 2000's, part of a team that worked in texas against enron and they convicted arthur andersonf abstraction, the supreme court overturned the obstruction counts saying they were creatively written and i wanted mueller to make a comparison of those charges against arthur andersen and the charges against trump, because the court said they were created but not real law. host: for our viewers who may not have recognized the lawmakers, mary gay scanlon, a freshman, following behind her is matt gaetz from florida, republican, members of the committee making their way into the room to take their seats to have their turn to ask robert mueller five minutes worth of questions. we understand inside the binders at the seats at each lawmaker is that the mueller reports. we're almost ready for mr. mueller to make his way to the witness table. we have about 10 minutes before we bring you into the room and let you watch what is happening as the committee starts to kick off at 8:30 a.m. eastern time is when they are expected to start. they will go for three hours for the house judiciary committ

at transitions.com >> weissmann was untruthful and weissmann got caught just like he did with arthur andersonsupreme court 9-0. his aides were very untruthful and they put mueller. and they put mueller -- not at all. they put muller in a very bad position. his aides put him in a very bad position. >> we're continuing our coverage of robert mueller's testimony today on capitol hill. during the hearings, robert mueller repeatedly showed an apparent lack of familiarity with the report and some key individuals in it. to be clear the report that his name is on. someone wrote the mueller report. he clearly didn't. who did? fox chief intelligence corespondent catherine herridge joins us tonight. catherine. >> at times robert mueller seemed tone deaf to the politics of his own investigation and the fact that so many members of his team openly supported hillary clinton and donated to democrats. today, republicans singled out andrew weissmann, mueller's so-called pit bull prosecutor who went to hillary clinton's election night party in new york anticipating her victory. and weissmann praised senior jus

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 pr

. >> andrew wiseman against arthur anderson lower court which was subsequently overturned in an unanimous supreme court decision rejected legal theory advanced by wiseman, correct? >> i'm not going to delve into that. >> may i just finish -- may i just finish my answer to say i'm not going to get involved in a discussion on that. i will refer you to that citation that you gave me at the outset for the lengthy discussion on what you're talking about. to the extent i have anything to say about it, it is what we've already put into the report. >> i am reading from your report when discussing this section, and i'll read from the decision of the supreme court, unanimously reversing mr. wiseman when he said, indeed, striking how little culpability the instructions require. for example the jury told even a petitioner honestly and sincerely agreed if lawful the jury could convict. deluded corruptly in that it covered innocent conduct. >> let me say for the record -- >> i have limited time. your report takes the broadest possible reading and applies it to the president's acts. i'm concerned about

those cases -- >> let me ask one of your prosecutor sandra wiseman obtained a conviction against arthur anderson in lower court which was overturned in unanimous supreme court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by wiseman, correct? >> may i just finished? and i will refer you to that citation you gave me at the outset for lengthy discussion on what you are talking about. it is what we put into the report. >> i am reading from your report, i will read from the decision of the supreme court unanimously reversing mister wiseman. and the jury was told they were lawful. >> let me move on. i have limited time. the broadest possible reading, there's implication for over criminalizing conduct for private citizens to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, on october 11, 2015, during an investigation into hillary clinton's private email server president obama said it posed a national security problem and america is national security was endangered. assuming his comments did influence the investigation couldn't president obama be charged. >> i refer you to the report. with andrew wi

. >> one of yourop prosecutors, andrew wiseman, obtained a conviction against arthur anderson, lower court, which was subsequently erturned in a unanimous supreme court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by wiseman, correct? >> well, i'm n going to get into -- >> let me read from that -- >> may i just finish? may i just finish my answer? to say that i'm notoing to get involved in a discussion on that. ly refer you to that citatione that you gav me at the outset for the lengthyiscussion on what we talk about. it was already put into report. and unaniusly reversing mr. wiseman, when he said, indeed, it's striking how little culpability the instructions required. the jury told that even if a petition honestlily said it was lawful, e jury could convict. the destructions deluded the caning of pt>>or lhet s mlyeuc just say - >> let me move on. i have limited time.co i'm erned about the implications of your theory for overcriminalizing conduct by public officials and private citizen ace like. so to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, i want to ask you about aew ex

an dry weissman obtained a conviction in arthur anderson lower court which was overturned in a unanimous supreme court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced my weissman, correct? >> i'm not going to delve into that. >> let me read from that -- >> may i just finish my answer? >> yes. >> to say that i'm not going to be getting involved in a discussion on that. i will refer you to that citation that you gave me at the outset for the lengthy discussion on just what you're talking about. and to the extent i have anything to say about it, it is what we've already put into the report on that issue. >> i am reading from your report when discussing this section. and i'll read from the decision of the supreme court unanimously reversing mr. weiss whenman when he said it's striking how little culpability the instructions require. the jury was told that even a petitioner honestly and sin veerly fwlefd was lawful the jury could convict. they diluted the meaning so much it had -- >> let me just say -- >> let me move on. your report takes the broadest possible reading of this provision and a