ken starr is here exclusively.d the scene real story about what happened during the jeffery epstein plea deal, he was there. what happens with this testimony being moved for bob mueller. and we address the stran

former independent interest counsel ken starr. also reaction from the expert panel which is right here, thank you all for being with us, special edition of hannity continues. - [narrator] the following is an urgent appeal from the international fellowship of christians and jews. - right now in the former soviet union, there are thousands of jewish holocaust survivors trapped in relentless poverty. there's no heat, no electricity, no running water, they're cold hungry and sick and they're suffering and dying needlessly. christians and jews together stand obedient to god to listen to his word. god gives us a special calling to help the orphan, the widow, the weakest, the survivors and he makes a promise that if we stand with them, so too will god stand with us. - [narrator] please open your heart and act now. you can save lives and honor god by helping elderly jews in dire need in the former soviet union. your gift today of just $25 will rush an emergency survival package to a person in desperate need of food, medicine, water and he

ken starr is here.let's take a look at some numbers: 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. >> -- over 12 years old that has input through multiple levels of th

including ken starr, the lawyer who had investigated bill clinton. what we found was that there were a lot of letters exchanged between two where they were trying to get acosta to knock two of his own prosecutors off the case as well as even say the case itself was overreaching. when that didn't work, they appealed to the criminal division at doj in washington. also to the child exploitation central and ultimately to the deputy attorney general's office one of their arguments was that this case was only a state case. it shouldn't happen. they suggested it was politically motivated because epstein had a close association with bill clinton. so that's one of the arguments they made. in the end, this was a case that resulted in no prosecution. so the deal even that they were arguing about did not result in federal charges. it was a nonprosecution agreement. the representative from the jag's office did respond to the lawyers saying they felt the prosecution was, quote, appropriate. >> when acosta, alex acosta was asked to look back on the handling of the

when the case was before alexacosta. >> i think they were bowled over frankly by the attorneys, ken starr these were big name towards. >> laura: i happen to know awful you. i have known you for some time, ken. that, that is just about the most high powered team i can think of. how did you get involved in the case initially? >> well, our firm was retained by jeffery epstein as part of the defense team. i was brought in specifically to argue the constitution federal points. the idea of anyone being bowled over is nonsense. nobody was bowled over. i was in the meetings. they listened respectfully. the push back was from the united states attorney office. at main justice when the matter was reviewed at our request i heard things such as you're making compelling arguments. we will defer to the u.s. attorney with the federal interest here. i firmly disagree with these accusations. >> laura: ken, what you're saying is acosta took the hard line in the case. >> correct. >> laura: you were there in the room. >> i was in the room. >> laura: he's now out of the cabinet because of the media setting up

it's a statute under which ken starr was appointed. >> that ken starr did what, i'm sorry? >> are you familiar with the independent counsel statute? >> are you talking about the one we're operating now or previous? >> under which ken starr was appointed. >> i'm not that familiar with that. >> the clinton administration allowed the independent counsel statute to expire after ken starr's investigation. the final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. even president clinton's a.g., janet reno, expressed concerns about the final report requirement. i'll quote a.g. reno. she said, on one hand, the american people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. on the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of american law enforcement. under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. we believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases, be made public only if there's an indictment and prosecution, n

the notion in 1998 we would have let ken starr say he would only come in for three hours.does bob mueller have to do to testify on something so critically important and the notion about limiting the testimony to the three hours is just wrong. i think secondly, this notion -- >> go back. why do you think it's just wrong? >> because i think that the committee needs much more time to examine a 400 plus page report that is incredibly detailed about the russian attack on the united states and obstruction of justice questions. i just think it's absurdly -- it's absurdly artificial but secondly, there is a bigger question. this notion mueller has he cannot commit on the question of obstruction of justice because the president doesn't have the right to defend himself, he pulled that out of thin air. there is no statute. there is no regulation. there is no principle that exists in the justice department. when ken starr gave us the report in 1998, he detailed over a dozen instances in which he thought the president violated criminal laws on obstruction of justice and perjury. and th

joining me now is ken starr, along with former u.s. attorney bret holman, and david sean. t to have all of you with us here. judge starr, let me start with you. i remember the comey testimony vividly because i right about it extensively in my book. and it strikes me that if there is an email that essentially, you know, loretta lynch, the attorney general, is saying, i'm not going to let the case go too far against hillary clinton, my goodness, doesn't that need to be declassified? >> yes, indeed, gregg, i think you and i and the american people are in agreement, we need more rather than less. and especially in light of the very serious questions about the integrity of the fbi's leadership, and even touching on the justice department. during that period in 2016, before the president was elected, we need declassification. happily, as you know, president trump has delegated that responsibility to the attorney general of the united states bill barr, who is very experienced. he will do a very professional job of protecting national security, sources, and methods. but also then g

. >> sean: joining us, former independent counsel, fox news contributor, ken starr.e independent counsel statute. mueller really doesn't have to. but here's the interesting thing.mu why do i think that republicans are going to want to know things like, oh, how did you have time for taxi medallions, fara violations, loan t applications, taxes, but didn't have time for hillary's russian, dirty dossier, that she bought and paid for, a lie that was the foundation to spy on the guy in the audience, carter page, and the entire trump campaign, trump transition, and trump presidency.. how did he miss that little, important item? >> well, you have laid out a lot of questions, and those are very legitimate questions.op this is going to be a great opportunity. the republicans are going to be on the spot, because they are being given, you put it well, a golden opportunity to get some questions answered that we all have. we haven't talked much this evening, thus far, very briefly about the report itself. i think the republicans will do well to drill into the report and to say suc

judge ken starr, bret, thank you, david, as always, appreciate it.up on on the "hannity" special, the left is showing shameless hypocrisy on the prices at our southern border. we will have the latest example. stick around. ♪ and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. >> america will never be a socialist country. ♪ >> gregg: welcome back to the special edition of "hannity," trump versus the resistance. political battle lines being drawn on the border after the radical democrats running in the 2020 primary proposed decriminalizing illegal order crossings. well, even president obama's dhs secretary is coming out saying, hey, that is o

we are back with ken starr, also our panel, and we have chris wallace, andy mccarthy, and former house oversight committee chairman and fox news contributor, trey gowdy. judge starr, let's start with you as we head to the house intelligence committee. the guess is that this will focus more on the russia interference part of this. what are your thoughts on the looking at where we've seen and what's ahead? >> i think when we go back and analyze all that bob mueller, in a very thorough investigation, we have to admit. very thorough, very conference of, and essentially unimpeded. some quibbling about that. but there was, in fact, no collusion. it just did not happen. again, when we go to the report itself and we see all these contraindications, that there was any collusion, when we go to the two indictments of the russian individuals and the russian organizations, when you read all that and think about the corporation, general flynn, who is now in a different situation, out of all that not a single suggestion of "collusion." and the report seemed to me, in book one, not only that you have

kennedy: even ken starr -- ken starr who did the same job, he didn't do a bang up job, he batched it but he said there no way he would have this that sort of single partisan crew working for him. >> i think -- >> whatever. >> true, fact aaron zebley represented clinton's person, weisman showing up at clinton's elect night matter of party. >> i heard chelsea clinton was one of researchers on robert mueller team. >> probably. >> here so. >> here -- wait. >> you are attackings prosecutor. kennedy: i can't hear what you are saying, you are both talking. >> really quick. >> you are not attacking evidence. >> im, the special count speciay 10-year-old knows that a special counsel condition can't -- can't indict, but they can prove a crime of committed, robert mueller could not do that because there was no crime. kennedy: do you know what we it today, i have been reobsessed with oj trial for years, we needed a johnny cochran the glove don't fit moment, we did not get that. >> yes, but there is -- donald trump hampered a federal investigation. >> he didn't. >> republicans still deny the -- ex

>> that ken starr did whether or not? i'm sorry. >> are you familiar with the independent counsel statute. >> are you talking t one we're operating under now or previous. >> under which ken starr was appointed. >> i am not that familiar with that but i'll be happy to ask your question. >> allowed it to expire after ken starr's investigation. the final requirement was the reason the statute was allowed to expire. seen the ag janet reno expressed concerns about the final report requirement. i'll quote ag reno. she said, on one hand the american people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. on the other hand, the report requirements cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of american law enforcement. under our system, we presume innocence, and we value privacy. we believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases, be made public only if therendictment and prosecution, not any lengthy and detailed report filed after dec

ken starr brought that story to life. the capacity to do the same if he desires to, but it's not clear what his interests are. >> john, after your experience with watergate, what are the key questions that you think democrats should be asking? >> well, i think the democrats are going to try and bring it to life. they'll ask questions like, do you think it was left to the congress to decide whether or not he obstructed justice? do you in fact think the president did obstruct justice? but in the lead-in, somebody said why read the book when you can watch the movie, the answer is because this is not theatrics, this is not a show. i agree with michael to some extent. i think he'll stay totally within the four corners of the report. i think it would be inappropriate if he didn't. i think it's dangerous for a prosecutor to start talking about what their thoughts were, what they might have done, what they might not have done. if they do that, they have to talk about people who were not charged. that not only goes against departm

, 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 mandat

. >> ken starr, as well. >> dershowitz -- >> so let's listen to one more piece. this is a bit astounding. here is mr. patterson about the idea that people might not have been able to tell that this guy was into children. take a listen. >> we can make 25-year-olds look 15. we can make 15-year-olds look 25. so you might go to a party and at the end of it, you go boy, those girls seemed to be kind of young. and certainly trump. i think he's a careful guy. i think he's always tried not to break the law. he pushes it to the edge -- >> well, he missed. >> well, i know him reasonably well. i just don't think he would be stupid about stuff like this. >> mya. >> he's always tried not to break the law. >> breathe, breathe, breathe. >> i'm trying, david. i'm trying. >> so i think we have a long pattern of allegation around donald trump potentially breaking the law, including tax evasion with his father's real estate money, right? from early on. in the beginning -- >> hundreds of millions. >> hundreds of mlgs. it's one of the reasons why we're seeing him fight on his tax ret

>> the one with ken starr was appointed? >> i'm not sure. >> the clinton administration allowed it to expire after ken starr's investigation. the final report was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. even president clinton's ag expressed concerns. i'll quote ag reno. she said on one hand the american people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation. on the other hand the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of american law enforcement. under our system we presume innocence and value privacy. we believe information obtained during a criminal investigation should in most cases be made public only if there's an indictment and prosecution, not any lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute. the final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target's dirty laundry. it creates another incentive for an independent counsel to ov overinvestigaove overinvestigate in order to avoid criticism. mr. mueller, those are

ken starr telling me over the weekend what to expect.ho do you think wins that back and for the battle? >> well the republicans should win it if they're effective in cross-examination. and their real weaknesses in the second part of the analysis, especially in light of the fact that i believe that bob mueller, who is a good honorable, guy, taking the law of obstruction of justice, to well, shall i say into frontiers. he is taking it into outer space. neil: into outer space. liberty file host, "fox nation," judge andrew napolitano. anything sorted out? >> ken starr in 20 years, a great judge, a great prosecutor. a friend. i love him. i disagree with him on the outer space. bob mueller made the same argument about obstruction towards president trump that ken starr made towards president nixon. one does not have to committed underlying crime for one to interfere with the investigation. if that were the case, richard nixon would have been one of the watergate burglars himself in order for him to be prosecuted for interfering with the investi

it's the statute under which ken starr was appointed. >> that ken starr did what? i'm sorry. >> are you familiar with the independent counsel statute? >> are you talking about the one we're operating under now or previous? >> no, under which ken starr was appointed. >> i'm not but i'd be happy to take your question. >> well, it was allowed to expire after ken starr's investigation. the final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. even president clinton's a.g. janet reno expressed concerns about the final report requirement. and i'll quote a.g. reno. she said, on one hand the american people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. on the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of american law enforcement. under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. we believe that information should in most cases be made public if there's an indictment or prosecution, not any lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision

ken starr did what? i am sorry. i disagree with that. can you repeat the question.hat went a little fast for me where are you reading from? >> i'm reading from my question. >> could you repeat it? >> okay. jesse: two points made crystal clear early on, no collusion and his investigation was never obstructed. the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired with the mution government in its election interference activities. >> at any time during your investigation was it curtailed or stopped or hindered? >> no. jesse: congressman matt gaetz of florida and louie gohmert join me now. it's clear mueller had no control over the investigation. he was asleep at the wheel and it was run by clinton lawyers. donald trump was framed by team clinton on investigated by team clinton and donald trump won and came out on top which just go to show how crooked and ineffectual hillary clinton actually is, congressman gohmert. >> you put it so articulately. people should understand, he didn't have control. but he could have had control if he wanted it. h

the statute under which ken starr was appointed. >> that ken starr did what? >> are you familiar tw the independent counsel standard? >> under which ken starr was appointed. >> i'm not that familiar with it. >> the clinton administration allowed that statute to expire off the starr investigation. it was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. even president clinton's a.g. janet reno expressed concerns about the final report requirement and i'll quote a.g. reno. she said on one hand the american people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. on the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of american law enforcement. under our system we presume innocence and value privacy. we believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should in most cases be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not any lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute. the final report provides a forum

joining me now are two people who worked on the independent counsel of ken starr and saul weisberg. joining me is kevin braga to assistant fbi director for intelligence by mueller and caucus chair mark meadows. can come ken, what was mueller biggest screwup today? >> total lack of preparation or at least the inability for whatever reason to communicate, to show a masterly or mastery o basic knowledge of the report. i was stunned and then i was shocked by bob's inability to focus, to show that he understood the questions, the constant pleas workweek the question. sometimes you do that as a witness to stall and gather you thoughts, but it seemed to be genuine. what was that question? he was in a state of befuddlement which became my thinking embarrassing. i would say early on i was so glad to see that the issue of exoneration and the idea of a prosecutor taking it on himself for now we know the team taking it on them seems, taking it on themselves to say this report does not exonerate the president . we have been saying this for several months now. totally inappropriate, totally improp

. >> let's go to ken starr, who's also standing by. ken, as you have watched this first chapter of the afternoon, house intelligence committee, what stands out? >> one of the thins has not been talked about is separation of powers and the power of the president. so much that is, in fact, in the entire report, almost 450 pages, is a statement after statement after statement that the president was exercising his authority or at least he was moving in the direction of exercising his authority. and one of the great, i think, tragedies of this entire episode is that so much of the confidentiality, which is very important to the ordinarily operations of the presidency, have been revealed through the investigation. bob mueller chose to make these highly confidential conversations fully public. so i think there's a real unfortunate, i hope not long lasting erosion in the authority of the president to be able to count on being able to speak his mind, including, frankly, exercising his first amendment rights. to me, the most important thing that

. >> sean: remember back -- we had the independent counsel statute, ken starr. nadler didn't want that which as a matter of law had to be made public. the special counsel where people like nadler wanted to change, the attorney general was the one who would get the report, didn't want to release any of it.rn as we know, attorney general barr did.wo more importantly, we got to see the full thing except for several partial sentences, and now mueller is testifying, and everything they use do not, now they want, and now they do not want it. >> it's worth noting that the democrats are very focused on these allegations of obstruction of justice and the mueller report is two volumes and it's that second volume on obstruction that virtually hasll no redactions, yet they continue to seek witness testimony about the underlying evidence.he >> sean: well said, they got to see the entire document themselves, unredacted completely, in spite of what they've been saying, some of them publicly. great work, as always. catherine herridge in washington. while house democrats waste y

among the others in his orbit as well, prince andrew and attorneys alan dershowitz and ken starr who helped get him that deal back in 2008. >> erica hill, thank you so much. >>> we have former federal prosecutor and cnn legal analyst laura coates to help us wade through some of this stuff now. so this case is being handled by the sdny, the southern district of new york. the public corruption unit. but in this press conference we were told by officials there not to read too much into that. what do you think? >> it's hard not to. normally the public corruption unit is in charge of handling people that are elected officials, people in positions of power, not hedge fund people and billionaires. unlike what happened in florida where they gave immunity to people who were aquaintances or associates in some form or fashion, it's a whole different ball game in new york. different jurisdiction, different prerogative and discretion to be used so they may be looking at people that may be accomplices and perhaps they fall under the category of public corruption. >> i want to ask you about two thi

if you were you remember the last time we had a special counsel, ken starr held two or three press conferences in his driveway every week. he kept people informed, for whatever that's worth. so there is a lot of drama surrounding both what's in the report, how he came to it and all of that. you know, again, just keeping to the confines of the report, he can talk to them for three, four with five days. and still have stuff to talk about. >> he's only got three hours. he's only got three hours with the judiciary which starts. and then less with intel. so they have to really use their time well. and what will you be looking for and how quickly will we know how annoyed robert mueller is to be there? >> i think we already know how annoyed he is to be there. first of all, it's significant. i think he asked to be subpoenaed. i think it's significant that he asked for that letter. he wants some guardrails on it. also he added in an aide, the amount of a legal counsel to be with him. i think there will be no surprises. he's going to stay within those boundaries. but if they question him the right way a

giuliani or ken starr. thosewere good guys in days, because somebody has got to bring this back together and this on not able to do her own. there were a series of about a the cambodians were applying for refugee status. success was refugee coordinator in bangkok, sent my old deputy down to supervise all this. mack, who unfortunately died a few months back, claimed he lost pounds in his four months down there, just trying to watch this process and make sure it on track. among other things, doris said what would be self-evident. we don't think the reviewing officer in a case ought to be the same officer who rejected a case. common sense. any trick in the book that they could come up with was applied by i.n.s. sign oft's a leadership, starting with president carter, right on down jim,gh the senior ranks, doris. they just didn't give up. normally you'd just simply have from thisaway problem, move on to something else. was trench warfare, watershed moment that led to not just one decision, but including a natio

he was allowed to testify for over 30 hours, and independent counsel, former independent counsel ken starr called this administrations cooperation unprecedented. and it was. the president expressed frustration about to the ongoing witch hunt that he was found innocent of for a fourth time? yes, he did. i don't blame him. did he complain about the time the administration was forced to dedicate to an absolute conspiracy theory, a hoax and lies? yes, i think any normal person would feel that way. but he never fired robert mueller or acting ag rosenstein, he assisted in the investigation, and ask those around him to is cyst in the investigation. anyway they could. and general barr, the attorney general rod rosenstein, the office of legal counsel, they looked at it, they decided pretty much in minutes no obstruction of justice either. robert mueller himself admitted, no obstruction charges or recommended by his office of special counsel, because it was not sufficient evidence of obstruction, just because you cannot examine right does not mean that there are examples of obstruction. as a regards

yet he walked away and really gave a sweet heart deal in negotiations by the way with ken starr who was the lawyer who recruited him to come to kirkland and ellis when acosta was working as an attorney in private practice, so just a lot of strange-looking things went on in this case. >> is there ever any kind of time limit put on an investigation like this? >> absolutely not. there are a lot of things like that that could make the situation strong. we could go on and on for hours. there does exist a statute of limitations for certain crimes but in this instance, the investigation had reached kind of one of the apexes which he had been charged. once that happens and one victim turns into two and 12 turns into 24, you have to collect the evidence, do a full and thorough investigation and see where it goes and puts you. i can not imagine a judge in the world with these serious facts would not have allowed you to fully and thoroughly investigate the case and take us to his logical conclusion. >> julie, secretary acosta put a lot of blame on the career prosecutors in his office for decisions

you know, when ken starr interviewed bill clinton in 1998 and got testimony he drew blood from the president. i don't mean that figuratively. i mean he literally rolled up his sleeve and they drew blood to conduct biologic testing. there is precedent for a president giving testimony in front of a grand jury like this and i'm very sorry bob mueller's team gave up on that. >> frank, last question. do you share jeremy's passion on this and were they outplayed by jay sekulow and rudy giuliani? >> i'm struggling with the time constraint factor. i see it as artificial. and i think there's more to the story that we know. i'm not saying that somebody pressured mueller to close the thing, but i think he may have taken the weight of the world on and told his team we can't have america continue to suffer like this, we've got end this thing and we're not going to get much out of it because remember, we can't ultimately prosecute this president. i share jeremy's concern and i wish the subpoena had been issued. but understand, we'd still be in this for a long, long haul. >> hey, gentlemen, thank you to bo

alan dershowitz and ken starr appear to have done a pretty good job for their client in this case. julie brown, thanks for being with me tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> i want to turn to a former federal prosecutor who has extensive experience prosecuting sex crimes. also senator claire mccaskill, former democratic senator from missouri, now an msnbc political analyst. and senator, let me start with you. you were in the senate when acosta was brought before the senate. you were one of eight democrats to vote yes along with 52 republicans. there was some concern at the time about this case, but it wasn't front and center. what's your feeling now watching all this develop? >> well, it's one i'd like to take back. i'm embarrassed about that vote. there is subcontext. the guy who had been nominated before him was from st. louis. >> and accused of spousal abuse. >> and a crusader against roe v. wade. >> yes. >> and against the minimum wage and against working people. so when a nominee came along that the firefighters union support and the labor union supported. >> right. >> i th

think about recent history, republicans welcomed it, that same kind of grand jury material when ken starr handed over not only a report but all of his grand jury material, no redactions, no delays that time, so now you have house democrats insisting they need the same type of material for their work as a coequal branch of government and this is not a theoretical debate. this is the basis of the hardball of holding mr. barr in contempt, and for the legal case. democrats pressing they must get the material so they can properly carry out their investigations of the president and his campaign. >> you also described in your report that the then trump campaign chairman paul manafort shared with a russian operative, kilimnik, the campaign strategy for winning democratic votes in mid western states, an internal polling data of the campaign, isn't that correct? >> correct. >> did your investigation determine who requested the polling data to be shared with kilimnik? >> i would direct you to the report. what we have in the report with regard to that particular issue. >> we don't have the redacted v

. >> big distinction he was not an independent counsel like ken starr and unfortunately for robert mueller and his team, that meant they could be fired at any time and there was the president of the united states in effect publicly threatening to do that. then there comes a day in don mcgahn testimony where they discover the president has already a couple of times ordered robert mueller to be fired and one of the questions i was wondering about which no one got to yesterday but further investigation it will come out, was robert mueller or anyone in the mueller team concerned, concerned about the possibility of being fired by the president and if they were concerned did that affect the speed of their investigation? did that in effect speed them up? might that explain why robert mueller felt there was in effect a time limit with the threat of being fired by the president? >> i suppose that's possible and there was, remember, a brand-new attorney general coming online. >> yes. >> and worked for that attorney general as you point out so the attorney general was confirmed i believe in early mar

with high-profile attorneys ken starr and alan dershowitz representing epstein back then, acosta cutlea deal on lesser state charges which sent epstein to county jail for little more than a year and required he register as a sex offender. the sentencing so lax, though, epstein was allowed to continue working while serving time. >> i really don't know too much about it. i know he's done a great job as labor secretary. that seems like a long time ago but he's done a fantastic job as labor secretary. >> reporter: the handling of the case being done by the justice department after republican senator ben sasse sent a letter to the doj questioning why the agreement brokered with epstein was "a sweetheart deal." in court epstein's attorneys argued today's indictment is a do-over for the florida case but the u.s. attorney said the agreement made in florida has no bearing on the new charges. >> that agreement only binds by its terms, only binds the southern district of florida. the southern district of new york is not bound by that agreement and is not a signatory to that agreement. >> report

the rules that we operated under and then the rules that ken starr operated under were very differenter -- >> you were in a much more powerful position. >> we had much more independence and we had the protection of the attorney general as opposed to the president having the protection of the attorney general. and he's supposed to represent, the attorney general, the united states of america, not the united states president. so that's what i would say. and i would say that what i'm frustrated about is that what we need are fact witnesses. we don't need summary witnesses. we need to hear the actual witnesses who were told to do things that are obstruction. it's much more powerful to hear don mcgahn say the president ordered me to do this, to have lewandowski say the president ordered me to do this. that's what americans need to hear. and that might move the needle a little bit in terms of who's supporting impeachment and who's not supporting impeachment. >> ron klain, in the press conference that nancy pelosi did after all of this she sounded warmer toward impeachment than she ever has

when that failed, epstein legal team brought in ken starr, the lawyer who prosecuted or went after bill clinton in the whitewater investigation and monica lewinsky and had him apeep to the department of justice in washington and reached out to the criminal division and the child exploitation division and the deputy attorney general and in one claim they said the prosecution of epstein was politically motivated because of his, quote, close personal association with former president bill clinton. now the deputy attorney general office, one of the assistants there had responded saying that the prosecution was, quote, appropriate. now remember, this prosecution wasn't even one that was ever really supposed to be made public. it involved no jail time, and no actual federal charges. >> interesting. because when alex acosta, the labor secretary, was asked today to look back at his handling of the case, and i want to be reseiss, he didn't appear to accept direct responsibility. in fact he repeatedly pointed to others. >> right. he pointed to both the state prosecutors on the case and then he ev

advocate quite literally, the attorneys, the actual devil's advocates, the advocates for epstein were ken starr, jay leftowich and jay dershowitz and high powered people doing all sorts of things to intimidate everyone involved and i'm not saying within the legal system and i'm sure on the stand try to destroy every one of the victims. is there not a case to be made by somebody like acosta that, look, these girls were, as we know, incredibly vulnerable, a lot of them a step away from homelessness, according to the "miami herald" report, and that it was a mismatch and that most important was getting them in jail and as a registered sex offender and that was the decision he made and maybe it doesn't stand up to scrutiny today but at the time he was trying to do the right thing. is that possible? >> yeah. look, you have him in jail but he was able to go to work every day and continue racking up millions and millions of dollars. but, again, yes, he's entitled to lodge a defense and it would have been in their right to attack the credibility of witnesses. that is what works in the system. but these

with the rich and powerful, donald trump, bill clinton, and his two high-profile defense attorneys ken starr and alan. he quoted trump saying this, he's a lot of fun to be with. it is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as i do and many of them are on the younger side. that same woman who accused prince andrew also claimed in that court filing from 2014 that epstein required her to have sexual relations with allen while a himinor in florida. >> she said i had sex with her on jeffrey epstein's airplanes. the flight manifest will prove i was never on an airplane with her. i never met this woman. i never touched her. i was never massaged by her. >> reporter: federal investigators identified 36 girls and still building their case when in 2008, epstein made a sweet heart deal. this non-prosecution agreement allowed him to plead guilty to a lesser charge, just two prostitution charges in a state court and register as a sex offender. he would serve 13 months in county jail. the deal granted immunity to any potential co-conspirators. none of them were identified leaving many to wonder if