and you also don't see any questions from mueller to strzok, what peter strzok meant when he said there was no way that they would lead to donald trump be president. so if mueller did not have those questions for strzok, we will certainly have those questions for mueller. >> jason: you are exactly right, because at one point presented information by the inspector general mueller, where is the bias? he thought there was some line at some point, but all of the other examples are just as egregious if not even more egregious. now congressman turner, one of the big questions i think i hear a lot when i am out in the heartland talking to people is when did bob mueller know -- when did he actually find out and determine that there was no collusion? and why did he not inform at least the intelligence committee, if not the public? >> you know, jason, you are hot on the trail of this when you were chairman of the oversight committee. and it goes really to the beginning of this investigation. because all of those, brennan, comey, clapper, all testified, even at the inception of this, that they had

spend any time investigating crooked hillary clinton, lying and leaking james comey, lisa page and peter strzok, an di any mccabe and many others, including himself and andrew w.

if peter strzok had tweeted those things about hillary clinton instead of president trump. if they went to trump's -- my colleagues would have spent the last four months accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the trump campaign and we couldn't trust a single word of this report. they would still be accusing the president of conspiracy with russia. and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from colorado. >> director mueller, thank you for your service to our country. i'd like to talk to you about the evidence in your report showing the president directing his son and communications director to issue a false public statement in june of 2017 about a meeting between his campaign and russian individuals at trump tower in june of 2016. according to your report, mr. trump jr. was the only trump associate who participated in that meeting and who declined to be voluntarily interviewed by your office. is that correct? >> yes. >> did mr. trump jr. or his counsel ever communicate to your office any intent to invoke his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination? >>

your team also included peter strzok and lisa page, which have been discussed today. they had the lurid text openly mocked and hated donald trump and his supporters and vowed to take him out. mr. radcliff asked you earlier this morning, quote, can you give me an example, other than donald trump, where the justice department determined an investigative person was not exonerated because their innocence was not inclusively determined? unquote. you answered, i cannot. sir, that is unprecedented. the president believed from the very beginning that you and your special counsel team had seerz conflicts, and yet president trump cooperated fully with the investigation. he knew he had done nothing wrong and he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation and produce more than 1.4 million pages of information and allowed over 40 witnesses directly affiliated with the white house or his campaign. your report acknowledges on page 61, volume ii, that a volume of evidence exists of the president telling many people privately, quote, the president was concerned about

i heard peter strzok? >> the guy that said -- >> peter strzok worked for me for a period of time. so did the other guy. here's what i'm noticing. when people associated with trump you threw the book at them. when christopher steele lied, nothing. when glenn simpson met with russians, nothing. maybe the -- >> time of the gentlemanex >> mr. mueller, obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of an investigator's effort to find the truth, correct? >> it has three elements? >> true. >> first is an obstructive act. >> correct. >> that could include taking an action that would delay or interview with an ongoing investigation as set forth in volume 2 page 87 and 88 of your report, true? >> i'm sorry. could you repeat the question? >> an obstructive act could include taking an action that would delay or interfere with an ongoing investigation? >> that's true. >> your investigation determined that president trump took steps to terminate the special counsel, correct? >> correct. >> does ordering the head of a criminal investigation constitute an obstructive act? >> t

peter strzok and lisa page barry hurricane barry peter stroke strong peter strzok andrew >> that's allft. we will never be the hate trump media mob. don't let your heart be troubled. laurainlaura ingraham is next. have a good weekend. >> laura: i'm laura ingraham. this is special edition of the ingraham angle from washington. the so-called experts were wrong about trump's agenda from the start. and now the 2020 democrats have their own spin, what a shock. we set the record straight in a dynamite segment ahead with maria bartiromo. ken starr is here exclusively. he will share behind 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

> peter strzok hated trump. didn't know that and the fact that-- it needs you perpetuated in justice. brian: 's comment, take your question. i don't know what that means. andrew mccarthy said we may never know the full story about peter strzok. he joins us next. he's happy not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ we carry flowers that signifyn why we want to end the disease. and we walk so that one day, there will be a white flower for alzheimer's first survivor. join the fight at alz.org/walk. most people think a button is just a button. ♪ that a speaker is just a speaker. ♪ or - that the journey can't be the destination. most people haven't driven a lincoln. discover the lincoln approach to craftsmanship at the lincoln summer invitation. right now, get 0% apr on all 2019 lincoln vehicles plus no payments for up to 90 days. only at your lincoln dealer. we like drip coffee, layovers- plus no payments for up to 90 days. -and waiting on hold. what w

>> sure, there's a quote attributed to peter strzok.his concern that there is "no big they're there in the trump campaign investigation. did he or anyone else who worked on the fbi's investigation tell you that around 10 months into the investigation the fbi still had no case for collusion? >> no. charles: well republican congressman crawford warned the members of the house intelligence committee grilling robert mueller today now he joins us live from capitol hill. let's look at how that went down representative thanks for joining us. your first question out of the gate was peter strzok and it feels like maybe you're trying to get a timeline here of when they knew maybe there was why perhaps they continued to spend millions of dollars of times square money to go down this hole. >> well it's a good question. you heard the answer and it really asks another question, why are we spending north of $30 million to do something that we had an answer to already, and you know that's just not, it just doesn't seem prudent. charles: well, sir, also

>> once we found that peter strzok was author of -- >> did you ever -- >> may i finish? >> you are not answering my question. did you order an investigation into deletion and reformatting of their government phones? >> no, there was an ig investigation ongoing. >> listen, regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn't find evidence of any agreement, and i'm quoting you, among the trump campaign officials and any russian-linked individuals to interfere with our u.s. election. correct? >> correct. >> so you also note in the report that an element of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt state of mind, correct? >> corrupt intent, correct. >> right. and if somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from russia to effect the election and they see the big justice department with people that hate that person coming after them and then a special counsel appointed who hires dozen or more people that hate that person, and he knows he's innocent, he's not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done. what he's doing is not obstructing justice, h

>> peter strzok hated trump. you didn't know that before he was made part of your team, is that what you're saying? >> i did not know that. >> all right. when did you -- >> and when i did find out i acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere. >> there is some discussion about how swift that was. when did you learn about the ongoing affair he was having with lisa page? >> about the same time i learned about strzok. >> did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of their government phones? >> once we found that peter strzok was author of -- >> did you ever -- you're not answering my question. did you order an investigation into the deletion and reformatting of their government phones? >> no, there was an i.g. investigation ongoing. >> regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn't find evidence of any agreement -- i'm quoting you -- among the trump campaign officials and russian officials for the u.s. election, correct? >> correct. >> you also note in the report that an eleme

judge jeanine: jim comey, peter strzok, fusion gps, hillary clinton all off limits.ut the report barely mentions them. folks, you and i know more about this report than he did. the man wasn't familiar with fusion gps, of his own ties to russia which hillary clinton and the dnc laundered money through to give to a foreign agent. how is it possible to look at russian interest fears which was mueller's charge if you failed to look at the steel dossier and the role of it and the corrupt players in the fbi and the doj. the man haded temerity to say the dossier was out of his pursue. >> it's outside my purview. with regard to the steele -- that's beyond my purview. as i said before, i'll say again, it's not my purview. judge jeanine: he said things were beyond his purview more than 10 times and he could not or would not discuss topics about a hundred times. he said he didn't know if christopher steele lied. and the origins of the dossier, the russian investigation and the whole campaign. how could he say it's beyond his purview? it's in the report. why was his whole team c

peter strzok said it best. two years ago, there is no there there. so how come we had an investigation if there is no there there? unless they were people, for criminal reasons, meaning to oust him from office or prevent him from being president, that were pushing it. when mueller said today, it was beyond his purview to investigate the people who were trying to prevent drum from being elected and were trying te take them out of office, i thought he was appointed to investigate interference with the 2016 election. he said beyond his purview 16 times. i counted them. the onlyd thing in his purview was framing president trump. that was it. not a page, not hillary, who paid 1.1 million to russians, ad ukrainians, they are not foreigners? that is not a crime? a big one? >> bob mueller's biggest problem was today, and my view, defending the interests of all. that report, i said it many times, it is nothing that you can defend because it is in calm principle. first of all, the exoneration language. prosecutors don't impress or exonerate. the legal standard

. >> according to inspector general's report attorney number two was let go and we know peter strzok was let go, correct? >> yes. there may have been other persons on other issues either transferred or fired. >> peter strzok testified before there committee on jewel 12th, 2018, he was fired because you were concerned about preserving the appearance of independence. do you agree with this testimony. >> say that again, if you could. >> he said he was fired at pay becau you were worried about -- concerned about preserving the appearance of independence with the special counsel's investigation. statement?ee with that >> the statement was by whom? >> peter strzok at this hearing. >> i am unfamiliar with that. >> did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence. >> he was transferred as a result of instances involving texts. >> do you agree that your office did not only have an obligation to operate with independence but operate with the appearance of independence as well. >> absolutely. we strove to do that over the two years. part of that was making certain

trish: right. >> peter strzok and lisa page. >> emails and texts that were blatantly anti-trump.: the man seated next to mueller today. why do you think he had him there. and him of all people who defended the aide to hillary clinton when he got rid of her server. wiped her server clean? >> i think they needed somebody there. when you look at what came out of the mueller hearings. the one morning had the most of to learn from the mueller hearings appeared to be bob mueller because he wasn't familiar with a lot of what was going on. trish: what was that about? >> clear bob mueller wasn't deeply involved in that. he's a deeply respected man and when it comes to this actual report, it's the persons on the committee that put it together, much of which had a lot of bias. i think the other gentleman is there to answer the real questions or at least let bob mueller know what's in the report that needs to be answered. trish: isn't that crazy? you are using him as a figurehead? he's a puppet on a string? does it look like he's in charge because he has a respected reputation? >> people thr

>> sure, there's a quote attributed to peter strzok. there's no big there there in the investigation. did he or anyone else tell you that around ten months into the investigation the fbi still had no case for collusion? >> no. >> is the inspector general report that the text messages from peter strzok and lisa paige's office were not retained after they left the special counsel's office. >> well, i -- i don't -- depends on what you're talking about. investigation into those peter strzok went on for a period of time. and i am not certain what it encompasses. it may well have e encompassed what you're averting to. >> did you ask the department to investigate the origin of the trump/russia investigation? >> i'm not going to get into that. it goes to internal deliberations. >> so, the circumstances surrounding the origin of the investigation have yet to be vetted yet. i'm glad attorney general barr and dunham are looking into that. i would like to yield the balance of my time to ranking member nunez. >> thank you, gentleman for yielding. mr

>> how did you do the investigation in the first place when your lead agent, peter strzok, did the originalgation and concluded there was no evidence of collusion? he texted to his girlfriend, there's no there there. he did not tell you there is no there there? he told his girlfriend but not you? why, because you don't show up at the office because you are behind an iron curtain? i saw the guy one time. in a year and a half. i heard him speak for an hour and a half one time. i called him "the wizard of oz" because he was behind the curtain. "we are going to take it to bob." bob is in charge, pal. when i was the u.s. attorney, i was in charge, i was in charge of the commission case, i was in charge of the case -- i was in charge, not a bunch of assistance. sure, they helped a lot. but i was not behind some iron curtain or some curtain. he will be out of the curtain and we will find out answers and let's see if bob can answer the them. >> sean: i think he is going to have a tough time wednesday. it's not going to go the way the media thinks. mr. mayor, good to see you. >> i doubt it. it will

maria: right. >> what did you do what did you do you describe the conversation with peter strzok whenay inspector general did you go them up. >> what do you think was the insurance policies that peter strzok was telling girlfriend lisa page about chris you have written all about this. >> exactly, peter strzok is saying right now that always maintained that mueller never mention anything about text messages when he was released from the team. which is kind of dubious in and of itself seems like that is the main reason for having released him, and he is also the person who kicked off the investigation, to look into the president, but i agree, with everyone here on panel that we are probably not going to be able to hear anything about origins, one thing might be able to hear i am doubtful of that that mueller proves of attorney general investigations into the origins of this investigation, he thinks that is warranted, but i still think we are not getting much out of it both, the democratic party trying to push that robert mueller reading children's stories in news five hours or reading t

>> peter strzok hated trump. you didn't know that before he was made part of your team. >> no, i did not know that. >> all right. and actually, when i did find out i acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere. >> well, there's some discussion about how swift that was. when did you learn of the ongoing affair he was having with lisa page? >> about the same time. >> did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of their government phones? >> once we found peter strzok was author of -- >> did you ever order -- >> may i finish? >> you're not answering my question. did you order an investigation into the deletion and reformatting of their government phones? >> no. there was an ig investigation on going. >> listen. regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn't find evidence of any agreement, and i'm quoting you, among the trump campaign officials russian linked individuals to interfere with our election, correct? >> correct. >> you also note in the report that an element of any of

how did he handle peter strzok before he fired him and did he use that everyday as part of what he didmentioned the page, excuse me, the steel dossier 12 times. you know, what's the process you went through in verifying that? they will try to take apart how this got started in the first place. i think that some of them will get sidetracked in saying, you know, this was a partisan thing. i think they would be better to focus on that because there is questions there to be answered. >> wouldn't it be a better idea to embrace part of the mueller report? wouldn't you say you had an unlimited budget, you issued thousands of document requests. >> doug collins, the ranking member said publicly first that mueller should testify. the ranking member on the committee called for mueller to testify to do -- >> so what -- >> the point is director mueller, you had an unlimited budget and had out of every fbi agent you wanted and after two years you found absolutely no evidence that the president colluded in a conspiratorial way with the russian government. >> that's a very good question. >> but you sa

gohmert, congressman louie gohmert from today with regard to the relationship between comey and peter strzokause this goes to the issue of the origins of the investigation and what kind of shape that's out of the story is in. let's watch. >> you and james comey have been good friends and were good friends for many years, correct? >> business associates. if we both started off in the justice department. >> you were good friends. you can work together and not be friends but you and comey were friends. >> we were friends. >> peter strzok hated trump. >> okay. >> you didn't know that before he was made part of your team, is that what you're saying? >> i did not know that. >> all right -- >> when i did find out, i acted swiftly to have him reassigned. >> there's some discussion about how swift that was. >> martha: without a nap before we go? >> i think they are not anymore entitled to the benefit of every doubt than what the democrats are willing to accord to the president. this has to be investigated. it's part of the fact-finding process to determine how it was that they acquired the evidence a

and the other ones they're going ask absolutely about peter strzok and lisa page. suspect they're also going to try and press mueller based on what we've been told on how much of the report he personally wrote, and they're going to try to pin a lot of the report on andrew weissmann. >> tell me about him. >> andrew weissmann, the reason they like talking about him is because he was in hillary clinton's victory party in 2016. so he is someone that they like to paint as a democrat. >> but she didn't win in 2016. >> well, they still had a party. >> that's irrelevant. so he's one of the, quote, 18 democrats that -- >> 17 angry democrats. >> and also looking to avoid the comeyification of his testimony. what he says to your point about staying in the four corners of what he has already pointed out, he doesn't want this to be politicized which is kind of laughable at this point, but he is an honorable man in that regard. he will not i think take lightly to them coming after the institution of the fbi,ably be a part of this as well when they go at strzok and others. but i

watch. >> peter strzok hated trump. you didn't know that before he was made part of your team. >> i did not know that. >> all right. >> actually, when i did find out, i acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere. >> well, there is some discussion about how swift that was prewhen did you learn about the ongoing affair he was having with lisa page? speak out about the same time. >> he's not currently acting in order to see that justice is done. what he's doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice, and the fact that you ran it out for two years means that you perpetuated injustice. >> >> harris: talk to me, tom. what was happening there? >> tom: i was interested in several things. one, that mueller engaged on the question of whether he knew there was someone on his team who harbored this deep bias. number two, mueller, for all the talk in the report -- and i think he sincerely believes about preserving the in periods of impropriety -- he seemed a little oblivious to the fact hed this guy, and lisa page, o

>> once we found that peter strzok was -- may ini fi? >> well, you did not answer my question. did you order an investigation in decliniciletion of reformatt their phones? >> regardless of collusion or conspiracy, youot did n find evidence of any agreement among the trump campaign officials, or collusion, correct? >> correct. >> yotedn the report that an element of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt state of mind? >> corrupt intent. >> right. if somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from russia to affect the election and they see the big justice departmentit wath thatpl person coming after them and a special counsel appointed who hires dozens or more people that hate that person, and he knows he's innocent. he's not corruptly acting in order to see the justices done. what he's doing is not obstruction justice. he's pursuing justice and the fact that you ran it out two yearsea m you perpetuated injusti injustice. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i take your. question >> the gentleman from florida. >> director mueller i would like to get

there is a quote attributed to peter strzok. he texted about his concern that there is, quote, no big "there" there in the trump campaign investigation. did he or anyone else who worked on the fbi's investigation tell you that around ten months into the investigation that the fbi still had no case for collusion? >> no. >> is the inspector general report correct that the text messages from pete are strustrz phones were are not retained after they left the special counsel's office? >> well, i -- i don't -- it depends on what you are talking about. the investigation in to those -- peter strzok went on for a period of time. and i'm not certain what it encompasses. it may well encompass what you are -- >> did you authorize the department to authorize your office to investigate the origin of the trump russia investigation? >> i'm not going to get in to that. it goes to internal deliberations. >> so the circumstances surrounding the origin of the investigation have yet to be fully vetted then. i'm certainly glad that attorney general b

let me ask you, when did you first load of peter strzok's animus toward donald trump? d>> in the summer of 2017. >> he did not know before he was hired? >> i am sorry? >> you did not know before he was hired for your team? >> know what? >> peter strzok hated trump. you did not know that before he was made part of your team? >> i did not know that. >> all right. when did you first learn -- >> what i did find out i acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere. >> there is some discretion about how swift that was. when did you learn of the ongoing affair he was having with lisa paige? >> about the same time i learned about peter strzok. >> did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of the government phones? >> once we found that peter strzok was author of -- >> you're not answer my question. did you order an investigation into deletion and reformatting of their government phones? >> no, there was a ig investigating ongoing. >> regarding collusion or conspiracy, he did not find evidence of any agreement. i'm according you. among the

mueller, you sat across a desk from peter strzok and you fired him because of his bias text.et, number one, you never asked him if that bias infected his decisions and contaminated special counsel investigation, and you let him walk out of that office with his cell phone, you done confiscate it and preserve that evidence as a result, it was wiped clean. is that one of the questions he should be asked. >> he will be asked questions about assembly of his team, at inception and just number of people who left his team under a cloud of bias, not just strzok, there were attorneys as well, who had been sends messages like viva la resis stance. they went to work for robert mueller, they were involved in the decisions of this investigations, i believe that the bias of this team is reason why there was so much focus on the president, his campaign and almost no focus on the extensive contacts between dnc vendors and russians who are trying to destabilize your democracy by lying about donald trump and his campaign. gregg: you know. it was no wonder that it was a partisan panel, because,

peter strzok hated trump. you didn't know that before he was made part of your team?> you weren't interested in whether the russians were interfering with christopher steele and whether steele was lying. but you say nothing about this in your report. you can charge people around the president with false statements. but the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can't charge him. i think that's amazing. >> the special counsel answering but in more cases dodging and stumbling over questions about the russian witch hunt and his report. >> can you repeat that, ma'am. can you repeat last part of that question in i am not familiar with that. ken starr did what? i am sorry. i disagree with that. can you repeat the question. that 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 electio

>> sure, there's a quote attributed to peter strzok. there's no big there there in the investigation. did he or anyone else tell you that around ten months into the investigation the fbi still had no case for collusion? >> no. >> is the inspector general report that the text messages from peter strzok and lisa paige's office were not retained after they left the special counsel's office. >> well, i -- i don't -- depends on what you're talking about. investigation into those peter strzok went on for a period of time. and i am not certain what it encompasses. it may well have e encompassed what you're averting to. >> did you ask the department to investigate the origin of the trump/russia investigation? >> i'm not going to get into that. it goes to internal deliberations. >> so, the circumstances surrounding the origin of the investigation have yet to be vetted yet. i'm glad attorney general barr and dunham are looking into that. i would like to yield the balance of my time to ranking member nunez. >> thank you, gentleman for yielding. mr

you can't make up for the fact that mueller had to fire peter strzok and lisa page. false information that created this whole thing. he did not make that public. kennedy: and allowed of that to be destroyd. >> right. and last person ever to be interviewed related to collusion, had been done, we were months before the election, nothing came out to tell people that -- yeah there is no collusion. kennedy: do you think that for special counsel will answer, that jim jordan brought that up, others said, if you had this information and you knew before midterms why not release it then. john brennan said that the crescendo would be mueller frog marching president trump's children into federal custody. >> sometimes you don't into a ask a question as a lawyer because you don't know the answer, in this case, jim jordan and others, they ask because there is no answer. there no good reason. not to have looked into the actual collusion by the democratic national committee, when a british operative they paid to create a false narrative. kennedy: so many questions, i know comey tries

include the part where trump tells his attorney don mcgann to go testify or if they include the peter strzok't think there's any there there. here's another doozy they should've included, when his girlfriend the fbi lawyer tells a congressional committee as he's appointed that this case could still be literally nothing. we have been o spying on the presidential campaign, i wonder if it could be literally nothing is in the actual comic book, just checking with the writers, i would love to know. >> and i suspect not. >> if i'm a betting man, you're right. >> tucker: he is coming before the congress, he will be asked questions, what should he be asked? >> the first question that has to be asked is when did you find out that collusion was the biggest political hoax in american history? my research for some of the material i was putting together for a project i'm working on indicates that it's probably no later than july of 2017. he's appointed in may of 2017 because that's when the inspector general exposes his team to the infamous texts about the smelly walmart people and how trump -- we need t

are you looking at the peter strzok, andrew mccabe potentially facing prosecution? who else?ou see them either gone quiet or trying to rehab rehabilitate th interviews or tweets or op eds, understand the idea of what mr. horowitz is doing and the fisa issues we have and they also understand a that mr. durham is someone who doesn't play around and he's going to look to protect the integrity of the system. i think anybody who did something they need to be concerned. maria: meanwhile, the president and house speaker nancy pelosi spoke out after the hearing yesterday. listen to this. got to get your reaction. >> this whole thing has been honestly it's been collusion. it's been collusion with the media. it's been collusion with other countries. this has been a disaster for the democrats and i think we're going to win bigger than ever. nothing was done wrong. this was all a big hoax. >> we want to have the strongest possible case to make a decision as to what path we will go down. but if it comes to a point where the cone of silence and the obstruction of justice and the coverup in

special counsel about whether his team was biased as well as anti-trump texts accepts by fbi agent peter strzoky lisa page. >> we have a lot of questions about how robert mueller's team was assembled. >> reporter: and they plan to raise questions about why the investigation started in the first place. >> basic questions, you have to understand where it started. >> reporter: but mueller has already indicated that he won't go beyond the four corners of his report. >> he will be impeccably prepared. he knows his stuff. >> reporter: and some democrats are trying to lower expectations including jim hines who told me he doesn't expect much news out of this hearing because of the expectation that the special counsel will simply stick to the report and other democrats are saying that it could drive more people toward the impeachment camp because of the special counsel even delivering the details from the report, people hearing it for the first time, their views could change about opening up an impeachment inquiry. so the question is whether someone like nancy pelosi, where she will come down. she has p