one thing that happened with bob mueller, people projected onto him. they said it is mueller time. mother is going to fix this. knowd to say, i don't whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that president trump or anybody around him conspired with the russians. that is why we were investigating, to see what was there. i was not surprised when mueller said there is lots of evidence, but not sufficient to charge. i would urge people to fight to predict the charge. if people would refuse to provide evidence in testimony -- but fight to keep an open mind until those facts are gathered, then reach a conclusion and insist that people hear your view. >> while we have you here, let's go through the facts. first of all, if you were the fbi director, would you open a criminal investigation? dirt?g military aid for >> i might. i don't know the answer, because i would want to talk to the department of justice about how we should think about this. >> who would you talk to? barr? >> i would start with career people and see if they insist on going up the chain. >> for that conversation b

are you surprised that rod rosenstein, the government official who appointed bob mueller, was part of sullying any chance of what mueller might have thought would have been the appropriate remedy for this, impeachment? this, impeachment? mr. comey: i have questions that have not been answered. the first is, what was he doing involved at all, since he was witness in at least one of the obstructive incidents in the report? how did that happen? what was he doing as a judge in a matter of which he was a witness. second, what was the thinking that led them to say, we are going to decline any obstruction case against the president? there is insufficient evidence. when among other things, you have never interviewed the president? the obstruction cases always turn on the content of someone's mind. people said to me, when he asked you to drop the flynn case, did you think that was obstruction of justice? it could be, but it depends on what he was thinking. the best way to figure out what he was thinking is to talk the to the person under oath. how you can shut down, decline, say that there is

were you surprised rod rosenstein who was the government official who appointed bob mueller was part of sullying any chance of what mueller might have thought was the appropriate remedy for finding impeachment? >> i have two questions about rod rosenstein's involvement of not been answered and maybe someone will write a book and answer it. since he was a witness, in one of the obstructive incidents laid out in the report. how did that happen? what was he doing as a judge in the matter in which he was a witness and second, what was the thinking that led them to say we are going to decline any obstruction case against the president, there is insufficient evidence. among other things, never interviewed the president. the obstruction case is always turn on the content of someone's mind. that is why when he asked you to drop the flynn case did you think that was instruction of justice? the answer was i don't know. it could be but it would depend upon what he was thinking. the best way to find out what he was thinking is talk to the person under oath and say why did you do this or that? how

i went to bob mueller's swearing in on the, in the rose garden. i brought my mother -- >> guest: really? >> host: and one of her wonderful friends from wichita, mary lou tinker. i remember the meetings, i'm not saying anything inappropriate here, but i remember when they were looking for candidates, the one thing you heard over and over again about bob mueller was he is the quintessentially perfect candidate to be the fbi director. was it true then, and if it was, if it was or wasn't true, when did the fbi get on this most dangerous of road paths? did it start with mueller? did it start before mueller? is it really a comey/obama problem? what happened in the fbi? >> guest: it started before mueller, but then it escalated after -- >> host: using any power they could -- >> guest: yes. >> host: -- because they're the good guys, they're the g-men, they have the white hats, so they can do these things. they are the truly, you know, elites that can break the rules in the interest of the country. >> guest: the reason i say it began before mueller is beca

with the president and was overwrought and emotional and in an act of retaliation he appointed bob mueller. think about this at 22 month long national nightmare because one guy got angry and knew what he had done was wrong in the day of the appointment after it was announced he's confronted in his office about what he had done in his abuse of power and a violation of the immigration and he cowers behind his desk and levers am i going to get fired back that tells you he knew what he had done was wrong. >> if he had gotten fired earlier we might have avoided this drama. go back to this whole idea of donald trump pre-been elected to the presidency and his relationship with russia. i still have flashbacks to all the interviews and stuff in the run-up to the republic of nomination and the general election in 2016 there was always this intrigue about donald trump was made by russia or bailed out by russia and like a constant theme and there were scant facts or even details but where does this come from? >> it began originally with hillary clinton in 2016. she began began to pepper her speeches w

just ask bob mueller. you can look at the manifesto from the shooter in el paso to know that what donald trump says on twitter impacts people's perceptions about what they should and should not do. we're talking about a private corporation, twitter, that has terms of use. and as far as i'm concerned and i think most people would say, including members of congress who he has threatened, that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. the bottom line is that you can't say you have one rule for facebook and you have a different rule for twitter. the same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. they are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to

mueller came out with his report, there was this ugly confrontation between trump's lawyers and bob mueller and his team of partisans in which mueller admitted there was no evidence of collusion, and trump's lawyers became angry. why don't you tell this to the american people? he refused to do it, and a shouting match ensues with trump's lawyer pounding on the desk and yelling at bob mueller. and the third reveal would be that at that time, trump's lawyers were deeply worried about the mental state of bob mueller. he seemed lost, confused, disoriented. he didn't understand fundamental facts about the case. he seemed to be oblivious to the law of obstruction of justice. and of course we learned a year and a half later, just this last july, when mueller testified, it was as if the -- you know, the curtain was pulled back on the wizard of oz, and he wasn't what his reputation had promised. steve: wow. well, there you go, thank you, gregg, very very -- >> these are some of the many stories in the new book "witch hunt", which just came out. steve: everyone's got to go and get it. "witch hunt". t

you recall bob mueller said fusion gps, i'm not familiar with that.refused to recognize the fact that glenn simpson had met with the russian woman who had the juice and he met with her the night before and the night after. bob mueller said that was not my jurisdiction. lou: there is so much to investigation. right now, rudy giuliani calling it the illicit impeachment inquiry. the president making the decision now to inform the speaker of the house that there will nobody further cooperation with the house and its various committees because there has been no vote in the republican party obviously is being shunted aside and denied its traditional privileges that are required of either party in take on something so important or what should be so important as an impeachment inquiry. your thoughts, joe? >> it's obvious what the democrats are doing. they have not had a vote on the floor of the house to start a formal impeachment inquiry. if they were to have such a vote, under the house rules, the republicans would get subpoena power. in order to avoid givin

officials to bruce ohr, and also had a professional working relationship with bob mueller after 9/11, the one who told me, why don't you go to rome with the company to this university where we are going to introduce you to many people there who can help you on the donald trump campaign. none of these people were russian. most of of these people were high-level lawyers or connected to western governments, so i didn't think there was anything suspicious. i go to rome. trish: okay. >> then i go to rome to this place called link campus which is currently under investigation by both italian intelligence services, the italian government and william barr and john durham. is this joseph mifsud, the picture you are looking at? this is the guy you met? >> yes. so i meet joseph mifsud in rome. after i'm introduced to him by the italian foreign minister. before my name is public in the "washington post" i'm being chaperoned in rome by the italian foreign minister to meet this video receive mifsud. later in london on april 26 after i had been probed by the australian government, the british govern

not bob, director, sorry. director mueller clearly did not trust the questions and the way he would be pushed by either side, didn't want to be perceived as favoring one side or the other, and he would not word from the text of the report. he kind of backed himself into a providehere he wouldn't any answers beyond the report, and that undermined the appeal and the effectiveness of the testimony. >> he could have repeated many of the statements in the report to make it better known to the public. mr. mccabe: the whole thing just didn't come off -- you do the testimony knowing that most people are not going to read the 400 page report. i'm not sure that they accomplished that. these are not normal times. this is straight up fascism. we are seeing it. the evidence is there. the rule of law can only mean something if something is actually done about what is happening. i have two questions. carl: one question. >> ok, whatever. if you will not take to the demand the to trump regime must go, what will you do if trump is reelected, ev

not bob, director, sorry. director mueller clearly did not want to -- did not trust the questions and the way he would pushed -- he would be pushed by either side in the hearing didn't want to be perceived as , favoring one side or the other, and he would not stray one word from the text of the report. he kind of backed himself into a corner where he wouldn't provide any answers beyond the report, and he backed himself into a court where he would not -- in a corner where he would not reveal anything more and that undermined the appeal and the effectiveness of the testimony. >> he could have repeated many of the statements in the report to make it better known to the public that did not read it. mr. mccabe: it did not come off as -- you do the testimony knowing that most people are not going to read the 400 page report. you put the testimony on to make sure people understand. i'm not sure that they accomplished that. >> let's be honest. these are not normal times. this is straight up fascism. we are seeing it. there is the evid

not bob, director, sorry. director mueller clearly did not want to trust the questions and the way he would be pushed by either side, didn't want to be perceived as favoring one side or the other, and he would not stray one word from the text of the report. he kind of backed himself into a corner where he wouldn't provide any answers beyond the report, and that undermined the appeal and the effectiveness of the testimony. >> he could have repeated many of the statements in the report to make it better known to the >> these are not normal times. this is straight up fascism. we are seeing this. it's there. the rule of law can only mean something if something is actually done. i have two questions. >> one. >> let me read my question. if you do not take to the streets now to demand the trump regime must go, what will you do if trump is reelected? even if you lose the popular vote. -- he loses the popular vote. trump losesu do if the election but refuses to recognize the result? >> we are going to make that the last question. [laug

bob, director. sorry. director mueller clearly did not want to, you know, he didn't trust the questions and the way that he'd be pushed by either side in the hearing. and he did not want to be perceived as favoring one side or another and the way he would do that is to not stray one comma or one period or one word from the text of the report. and so that is backing himself into a corner where he would not provide any answers beyond the report, and i think that is ultimately going to undermine the appeal and the effectiveness of the testimony. >> he could have repeated many of the statements in the report to make it better known to the public that didn't read it? >> yes, the whole thing didn't come off as the testimony that most people are not going to be reading the 400-page report so you put on the testimony so that people know what is there, but i am not sure they accomplished that. >> yes, ma'am? >> so to be honest these are not normal times and this is straight up fascism, and there is evidence there, and so, you know,

they did this with bob mueller here, and we see them doing it with the statement from the white house yesterday, calling bill taylor and his colleagues radical, unelected bureaucrats, right? this is where they are going to go. they are going to try to smear career public servants, but trying to smear someone like ambassador taylor, just like trying to smear bob mueller i think is going to be a very, very difficult process. >> yes, but don't -- bill taylor's testimony, for example -- these people who have testified seem far more ready to roll than bob mueller did. >> well, no, absolutely. and i think what we're seeing here is again and again, more and more people are coming out by the week, revealing exactly what happened. i mean, going back to glenn's point i think before here, right, we've seen this. and david's point before. we saw this in black and white in the transcript released by the white house of that call. president trump made the ask. boom. it's right there for the entire world to see. but now what we're seeing is more and more people who know what was happening behind the

and bob mueller i think we as far as he possibly could to essentially call every ball in the air in the presidents favor. and despite that, in a report that details ten separate categories of obstructive behavior, i think in eight of those tenbe categories he finds that the presidents behavior is essentially satisfied all the elements of the offense of obstruction of justice. we knew that a limited himself to not, about come he followed assiduously the doj policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, event andsi his own sense of fairness decided it would also be improper to say that anyone else who had committed these acts would likely be charged with obstruction of justice. >> jaworski did the same thing also in the nixon investigation, jaworski also did not specifically accused nixon. he gave a roadmap. >> right. >> is that what mueller did? >> i believe it is. unfortunately, the roadmap is incredibly dense, tough to follow, and so when you lose the opportunity to kind ofun deliver that final conclusion, you lose a lot of the audience. in an effort that essentially, what happen

not only that, he ought to look at bob mueller's conflicts of interest in this case which are egregious. >> laura: hold that thought, we are going to get into that in a moment. when you talk about john brenna john brennan, the man ran the cia and now he has smeared the r and now he has smeared durham one of the most respected attorneys alive. >> it makes me think the hand of politics is now being used to massage what this ongoing review is. i am concerned. >> laura: what they were carrying out is not a fraudulent investigation but what does that tell you about how scared they are? >> they are terrified, deny everything, that's where they are at right now. john brennan, even his rhetoric is dangerous, both to the united states national security and because we know his involvement with investigating part of this entire issue of the investigation into president trump's campaign began with john brennan, why do i say that? because we know it occurred overseas. we were accepting information, from christopher steele who is a foreign former spy for mi6. he was funneling information, that inform

>> i wish bob mueller could have my seat right now.uld tell you. >> he seems very uncomfortable, he doesn't do well in public. >> brian: a right. he mumbles a lot. >> bob mueller is a national treasure and the war hero. anyway the facebook conversation, that's when they started to regulated. to make it sound like she was drunk and slowing. and. and that's just facebook. >> those are vital means. and they think -- >> 75,000 people -- >> should alex jones be able to post ads and say sandy hook never happened or 9/11 truth or his or her birth there is? up to elizabeth warren because she wants to break the company up. mark zuckerberg has learned a lesson from the nba and china. it's better to stand with three speech, the constitution of the united states and western value rather than censorship. >> melissa: be sure to catch dana perino's exclusive interview with mark zuckerberg right here on fox news channel. >> jessica: former arizona governor calling out this photo, speaker nancy pelosi pointing her finger at president trump. some media

officials to bruce ohr, and also had a professional working relationship with bob mueller after 9/11,he one who told me, why don't you go to rome with the company to this university where we are going to introduce you to many people there who can help you on the donald trump campaign. none of these people were russian. most of of these people were high-level lawyers or connected to western governments, so i didn't think there was anything suspicious. i go to rome. trish: okay. >> then i go to rome to this place called link campus which is currently under investigation by both italian intelligence services, the italian government and william barr and john durham. is this joseph mifsud, the picture you are looking at? this is the guy you met? >> yes. so i meet joseph mifsud in rome. after i'm introduced to him by the italian foreign minister. before my name is public in the "washington post" i'm being chaperoned in rome by the italian foreign minister to meet this video receive mifsud. later in london on april 26 after i had been probed by the australian government, the british governme

this just shows a secretive communication with bob mueller. just after comey is fired.on't think he was recused from issues that he was thinking he ought to be investigated, later there is another email that he sends out to a friend of his spirit he says, the day before he appoints mueller. i am with mueller, he shares my views, duty calls, sometimes the moment she was as awesome. what is going on here? you have an anti-trump official, mr. rosenstein bringing in an anti-mueller. how else would you see that email, especially given the later contact or later conduct of the special counsel operation that was so abusive towards president trump. every investigation of president trump during the obama administration through the special counsel investigation and now here has been elicited, corrupt, and i tell you, something needs to be done in figuring out what these other discussions were about. they also showed that rosenstein was a regular contact with the media and the media was cheering him on. 60 minutes reporter, good call on a mueller! you would be great when in the in

that is why there are special councils like bob mueller that are appointed when there is a conflict for the investigation. few people think that he is using this to investigate himself or his friends and allies. the evidence points to something more like an abuse of law enforcement powers to target rivals. the same "new york times" articles says the news may raise alarms that he is going after his key enemies and he made clear he sees the typically independent justice department a tool to be yielded against his political enemieenemies, that m sound harsh. some of the most damming evidence comes from trump, just today he confessed those goals again. >> terrible things went on for our country and we have a great attorney general, a honorable man. >> and they're reporting that they're reviewing these people in the mueller probe for potential crimes. that means that the justice department has to of prove the evidence of crimes. so who committed the crime here if there was a crime. is it rosenstein? comey? no one is tugting they are automatically above scrutiny, but the president already gav

that was documented fully by bob mueller.rly didn't rein in the president from being outlandish publicly or from engaging in impeachable acts. as president. so i just think it's a fallacy to think that anyone can be put around him who can actually regulate him. at the end of the day, the people he keeps around are the people like stephanie grisham who have this sort of maoist approach and will just write peons to the great leader and not actually challenge him on strategy or policy or anything else. and any good adult, any competent adult, running an organization, whether it's a business or the government is someone who takes advice from other people, consults other people, understands they don't have all the answers. that's never been donald trump. why he didn't have a successful business and why he's had a haphazard presidency. he runs a cult of personality. he doesn't really manage an organization. >> mimi rocah, are we three days away from reading that rudolph giuliani was my attorney for a very short period of time, anot

bob mueller goes into the oval office as either the f.b.i.on who is investigating the president. the next day he was named special counsel by rod rosenstein. that's significant. in the congressional testimony he didn't phrase it that way. i don't think they're looking for a referral. they aren't going down that road. but when he was asked about it in congressional testimony he did not say that he was a candidate for f.b.i. director. documents show differently. >> bill: we'll see you at 6:00. thank you, bret. >> sandra: former "today" show host matt lauer strongly denying new allegations of sexual assault against him. laura engel joining us with more. >> new details of what allegedly occurred inside a hotel room during the sochi olympics in 2014 before the day show host and former nbc employee could help explain why network executives moved so quickly to fire lauer in 2017 when that employee came forward. allegations revealed in an excerpt reported by variety magazine of the book by ronan farrow. nbc releasing a statement this morning reading

why rosenstein appointed bob mueller. >> rosenstein appointed mueller as act of revenge against trumpinging criticism. rosenstein blamed jump. in a fit of anger, he was overwrought and emotional, he would retaliate against trump and appoint bob mueller. when confronted about what he had done, he was hiding behind his desk and blubbered, am i going to get fired? quintessential rod rosenstein. ainsley: another reveal you say within a few months of his appointment mueller admitted to no collusion in 2018. >> the pivotal meeting took place a year before the mueller report, march 5th, 2018. a angry confrontation ensued between trump's lawyers and bob mueller and several members of his team of partisan prosecutors. and mueller admitted there was no evidence of criminal collusion. and trump's lawyers were incensed, why haven't you stopped this nonsense. mueller's response was, well, i want to question the president about obstruction because he has been criticizing us as if that is obstruction of justice. and he said, i'm going to go to a federal judge, and force the president to answer quest

they had 2.5 years of bob mueller. that didn't even do any good, as far as they are concerned.o do everything to begin donald trump so they can beat him. >> melissa: capri, would it hurt the most if they got to the senate and started to do this trial? i mean, it would hurt the president, you would think. >> absolutely. >> melissa: as they bring up various points. or it might enliven his base. it could hurt joe biden, quite a bit. as republicans bring out all the points as to why the president would be asking. "here's all things out will not joe biden did." maybe it's not the smartest thing for joe biden to ask for." >> what joe biden doing don't like is doing right now is less of a long game and were kind of an immediate reaction that to s happening right now. i don't think the biden campaign is thinking longer term. i think there thinking about the immediate issues right now, fighting a 2-front ward. one from president trump and his camp, the republicans are running ads basically targeting joe biden and hunter biden in this entire narrative. and as you mentioned, senator eliza

important to keep in mind about this news is that in practice it means the mueller investigators and bob mueller were part of some sort of criminal conspiracy targeting president trump. they will say that, well, we're not talking about the mueller probe, we're talking about the origins of the probe. but what's really important to remember is that bob mueller and his investigators in the nature of things had to look at every little -- you know, every little part of this investigation. and if there was criminal conduct they would have seen it. and since they didn't mention it, that must mean they're part of it. so it's really important to take stock of and understand and to absorb just how broad a conspiracy they are alleging against president trump. and, you know, as you've said in your intro, we've seen bill barr will do almost anything to cover for the president. he's made that clear. >> josh, good to talk you as always. josh marshall of talking points memo. one thing keeping donald trump and how effective its been in radicalizing his supporters. that's next. s been in radicalizing his supporte

bob moo bob mueller in a hearing, he said it's happening right now. >> i should note you're the only person who asked about that. >> i'm a classically trained case officer. that's what you do. but how do you handle disinforming? now, handling disinformation overseas is a lot easier because disinformation is a part of covert action. the cia cannot conduct covert action in the united states of america because the national security act of 1947. so who is responsible for dealing with that? now, social media companies, you can look at the tactics, techniques, and procedures that some people are using in order to do disinformation, to highlight people that are moting disinformation. but do you want the federal government to tell the media that this is wrong or this is bad speech or this is disinformation? the media plays a role in it. we know how to deal with disinformation from a violent extremism perspective. the way you handle countering violent extremism is the same way you handle disinformation, just the payload is slightly different. but who's responsible for that? yes, we can defend

the only one to remember the parts of bob mueller that you want to remember, which by the way nobodyi have to say these days, and why is that? because this idea that this is a violation of an fec rule, and you're going to impeach the president of the united states on a contorted interpretation of an fec regulation? i don't think that rises to high crime and misdemeanor. >> this is why it's useful to hear what your defense is. part of your defense is the position that he can in the light of day get foreign help in the campaign, and you're saying that that shouldn't be illegal. that's your position. i want to ask you -- >> that's not what i said by the way, but go ahead. >> i want to ask about the lawyers. you're a lawyer for donald trump, correct? >> yes, in a private kpcapacity yes. >> is rudy giuliani a lawyer for donald trump right now? >> he is. >> and so when you see rudy giuliani go out there in this manner, he helping the president, in your view? >> i think he is. he is getting out there the facts that he knows more about than anyone else. rudy giuliani knows more about what's

the fbi was the antichrist and jim comey was antichrist and when the six months they were hailing bob mueller former director of the fbi as the second coming and so on and so forth. when we get into this environment we have these very, very heated political dynamics going on it's difficult for people to maintain any kind of political -- >> thank you all for being here. a special welcome to the folks joining us on c-span. we're looking forward to a spirited debate in our panel following opening remarks from secretary wilbur ross. i am pleased and privileged to introduce the 39th secretary of commerce wilbur ross

the u.s. >> yes, i was one of those people who is very happy that will asked this question at the bob mueller hearing, because there was a group of us watching who are watching this unfold and obviously had read the report. and while the media and anybody else was so focused on what the report said and what the details were, there was just painfully few people saying what did we learn and how are we putting forward bills that would keep us safe and 2020? it's important to realize we have come in less he will correct me as he should, , we he not passed any laws that make us safer in 2020. our election system, safer in 202020 then we were in 2016. a group of us came together, bipartisan, called together and started task force into, decide to do just that come to identify the legislation that would be needed to make us safer. we learned a lot of lessons, a lot of this is very difficult because of free speech issues. but what we could all agree on regardless of political affiliation is that foreigners should not play a role in our political process. and so while the content of messages and what o

country because of what we had at that point had already known the russians were trying to do and bob mueller in a hearing said -- i asked a question, you know, was this a one-time event, he said it's happening right now -- >> you're the only person who asked about that. >> well, look, again, you go back to -- i'm a trained case officer, that's what you do. how do you handle disinformation? handling this information overseas is easier because disinformation is a covert action. the cia cannot conduct covert action in the united states of america. so who is responsible for dealing with that? social media companies, you can look at the tactics, techniques and procedures that some people are using in order to do disinformation, to highlight people that are promoting disinformation, but do you want the federal government to tell the media that this is wrong or this is bad speech or this is disinformation. the media plays a role in it. we know how to deal with disinformation from an extremism information. but who's responsible for that. and, yes, we can defend digital infrastructure, right, and pri

barr's mischaracterization of bob mueller's work. and as you know and as you've said, right, once that lie is out there, it's really hard for the truth to catch up. and we saw that with the mueller report. people still don't understand what bob mueller found, and that's deeply disappointing. all that said, i also have confidence in john durham. i know john, i trust john, i like john, and i respect john. what i'm worried about is not john or his findings or his work, what i'm worried about as with the mueller report is the tendency for this attorney general to mischaracterize that work, and that's the danger. it's not what john is doing or what john might find. it's how john's work might be spun, and that's what's so disappointing to me, mike. >> you know, john meacham, i have been boringly predictable talking time and again how washington's institutions, america's institutions would check the worst autocratic instincts of donald trump. i must say, i've learned an awful lot over the past several years, and one of the things i've learne

i was involved with some of the meetings about bob mueller and the fbi director.er so i remember the meetings so one thing i heard over and over again during the fbi director is that he proved essentially the perfect candidate to be the fbi director. was it true then? if it was or wasn't how did the fbi get on this most dangerous of the rogue path? did it start before mueller? is it really comey obama problem? what happened? >> it started before muelle mueller, but then it escalated after. >> using any power they could because they are the good guys they have the white hats so they are truly the elites. >> i see it begun before mueller because right after he was appointed fbi director at the time of 9/11, he gets hauled in front of the fisa court and they confront him with evidence the fbi had four years had been presenting lies to the fisa court in warrant applications to spy. and mueller promised he would fix it and institute new rules and procedures. he actually did. but the fbi continued to violate those woods procedures particularly in this particular case in

i went to bob mueller's swearing in in rose garden. i remember looking for candidates, the one thing you heard over and over again about bob mueller, the bush administration, during his time when he's fbi director, perfect candidate to be the fbi direct director. if it was or wasn't true, when did the fbi get on this most dangerous of rogue paths, did it stuart with mueller, did it start before mueller, is it a really comey-obama problem, what happened inside the fbi? >> it started before mueller but then it escalated using any power. >> they have the white hat and they can do these things, they are truly, you know, elites that can break the rules in the interest of the country. >> the reason i say it began before mueller is because right after mueller was appointed fbi director around the time of 9/11, he gets hauled in front of the fisa court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court. the secrete star chamber court and they confront him with evidence that the fbi had presented lies for years in applications to spy and mueller prom

. >> and bob mueller was completely complicit in it and he acted precisely that way to assist the democrats>> if bill barr hadn't become attorney general that investigation would still be going on. lou: bill barr is the attorney general. we can say thank god and we appreciate it. lou: up next, president trump responding to joe biden's call for the president's impeachment. joe biden. what is going on. we take it up with the "daily caller's" christopher bedford after the break. [ applause ] thank you. it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ president trump: biden is dropping like a rock. i don't think he's going to make it. he's been caught red-handed. here is a man on tape saying exactly what he's going to do in terms of corruption and he gets away with it. if that ever happened to a republican they would be getting the electric chair right now. lou: his comments cam a few hours after biden joined the radical dimms calling for the impeachment

he's tried to revisit the play book he used against bob mueller, against mueller's prosecutors, he used against christopher steel to attack the backgrounds, the connections, the relationships of a single person not recognizing that the issues are so much bigger than a single person. i think what we're seeing are those others who were as michael schmidt alluded to, much more directly involved in these matters. coming forward to say, this is not about a single person. we witnessed this, it sounds like in some cases, firsthand. and we will help dispel the notion that this can be personified. because frankly, it can't be personified. this is about in some cases, what we cherish most as a country that donald trump has decided to subordinate to his own personal and political prerogatives. >> hal rains, "new york times," more great reporting tonight. advancing the story. and then we see the congress then taking sometimes what we've discovered in newspaper reports, advancing that. have you seen this kind of rhythm before unfold in these kinds of stories? >> yes. they're echos of watergate and t

counsel because he was angry with the president and emotional in an act of retaliation he appointed bob mueller because one guy got angry and he knew what he had done was wrong. the day of the appointment is confronted in his office what he had done. his abuse of power and violation of regulations. peak hours behind his desk and plovers am i going to get fired? that tells you he knew what he had done was wrong. >> if he had gotten fired earlier we could have avoided the drama. go back to the whole idea of donald trump pre- presidency. his relationship with russia. i still have flashbacks into the run above the republican nomination there was always intrigue about donald trump made by russia or bailed out by russia so where does this come from quick. >> it originally began with hillary clinton early 2016 she began to pepper her speeches with references to trump and putin that trump could be a kremlin marionette. >>host: did she believe that or that it was politics quick. >> did she get it from cia director john brennan? who was already beginning to investigate and any potential ties with russia

and you had 18 people that hated donald trump, and you had bob mueller, that hated donald trump, and in the end, they could never find one damn thing -- i could find it on you -- they could not find one thing about donald trump having to do with collusion. this is after two years and spending $42 million. and i have been looking at the long and hard for a long period of time. how it started, why it started -- it should never happen to another president, ever, but i have been talking about it from the standpoint of gritty and major lawsuit, and i have been talking about it for a long time. investigating the corruption and what they do, they destroyed many people feared they can down to washington to do a great job, and they left home -- they left washington dark. they were dark. they came down here -- i stayed bright eyed and bushy tailed. they wanted to do a great job for the people. they wanted to do a great job -- we won the election. and then they get served with subpoenas. all these subpoenas. now look at nancy pelosi. nancy pelosi hands out subpoenas, you know, she has to approv