Sep
03
Giuliani: Mueller had conflilcts of interest


>>Chris: KEVIN CORKE REPORTING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, THANKS FOR THAT. JOURNEYMAN, THE PRESIDENT’S READ THE MIKE LEE LAWYER, WELCOME BACK TO FOX HER SIDE AND HAPPY EASTER. IT’S BIGGER HAPPY EASTER, HAPPY PASSOVER AND GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.>>Chris: YOU WERE PLANNING WE WERE TOLD TO RELEASE A COUNTER REPORT TO THE MUELLER REPORT, ABOUT 45 PAGES. WHY HAVEN’T YOU DONE SO AND ARE YOU STILL PLANNING TO?>>NUMBER ONE WE HAVEN’T DONE SO BECAUSE WE PLAN TO DO IT IF WE NEEDED TO. SO FAR WE DON’T THINK WE NEED TO. THAT MAY BECOME NECESSARY. WHETHER THEY GO AHEAD WITH THE HEARINGS OR NOT. WHETHER OTHER ISSUES ARE RAISED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. THERE’S PROBABLY A POINT AT WHICH WE WILL USE IT. RIGHT NOW WE THINK THE PUBLIC DEBATE THIS PLAYING OUT ABOUT AS WELL AS WE CAN. WHY COMPUTED WITH — IT RAISES A LOT OF ISSUES THAT MAYBE WE DIDN’T HAVE TO RESPOND TO.>>Chris: YOU HAVE SAID THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO RELEASE THE COUNTER REPORT IT WAS GOING TO FOCUS ON OBSTRUCTION. HERE’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT WAS RELEASED.>>THEY’RE HAVING A GOOD DAY. I’M HAVING A GOOD DAY TOO. IT WAS CALLED NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION.>>Chris: BUT MAYER, THAT’S NOT TRUE. THE MUELLER REPORT MAKES A CLEAR, ESPECIALLY ON THE ISSUE OF COLLUSION — OBSTRUCTION RATHER THAT HE’S LEAVING IT TO CONGRESS. I DON’T WANT TO PICK UP ON THE REPORT. VOLUME TWO, PAGE EIGHT –>>Rudy: I AGREE WITH THAT.>>Chris: GOD, LET ME PUT THIS OUT HERE FIRST. THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS MAY APPLY THE OBSTRUCTION LAWS TO THE PRESIDENT’S CORRUPT EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF OFFICE ACCORDS WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE PRINCIPLE THAT NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW,” SO MUELLER INVITES CONGRESS TO LOOK INTO THIS AND THE PRESIDENT, IN TERMS OF CONGRESS, HASN’T BEEN EXONERATED AT ALL IN THE ISSUE OF THE OBSTRUCTION GRADE>>Rudy: HE WILL NEVER GET DONNA GRADY. ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT AFFECTS THAT REPORT AND MAKES IT A WARPED REPORT, PAGE TWO, THE STANDARD. YOU DO NOT APPLY A STANDARD OF EXONERATION TO ANYONE. WHETHER IT’S A PRESIDENT IN AN IMPEACHMENT — YOU CAN’T EXONERATE. EXONERATION MEANS PROVING A NEGATIVE. BUT THE LAW HAS RECOGNIZED –>>Chris: MORE THAN THAT. HE IS SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS A CASE AND EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD EXAMINE.>>Rudy: OKAY, BUT LET’S START WITH THIS. THE STANDARD HE USED, HIS CONCLUSION IS I CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION, BUT I CANNOT EXONERATE HIM.>>Chris: I UNDERSTAND RADIO THAT HE DOESN’T HAVE TO PROOF INNOCENT IS NOT GUILTY.>>Rudy: TOTALLY BIASED, WARPED VIEW OF A PROSECUTOR’S ROLE. IF PROSECUTORS IN AMERICA WERE ASKED TO EXONERATE YOU, AND ABOUT 90% OF THE CASES THEY WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO DO IT.>>Chris: RESPECTFULLY, BASICALLY WHAT HE’S SAYING IS I THINK IT SHOULD GO TO CONGRESS, THAT’S WHAT HE’S SAYING.>>Rudy: I KNOW HE DID. HERE’S THE DIFFERENT OPINION. NUMBER ONE, IF THEY’RE GOING TO REVIEW HIS REMOVAL POWER, WHETHER THEY DO IT AS AN ATTEMPT OR A REALITY, COMEY, MUELLER, WHATEVER. REAL QUESTION UNDER ARTICLE TWO WHETHER THEY CAN DO THAT. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES GIVES THE CONGRESS A ROLE IN APPOINTMENT, ADVISE AND CONSENT. DELIVERY DOESN’T GIVE THEM A ROLE IN REMOVAL BECAUSE THEY SAY GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. THEY SAY THAT WOULD BE TOO MUCH OF AN INTRUSION BECAUSE IF YOU — IT’S A FEAR IN EXCEPTING SOMEBODY, TAKING SOMEBODY, YOU CAN ALWAYS GO FIND SOMEONE ELSE BUT IF YOU INTERFERE IN REMOVAL YOU’RE GOING TO FORCE A PRESIDENT TO KEEP SOMEONE HE DOESN’T TRUST, DOESN’T LIKE.>>Chris: EXCUSE ME WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS DID THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCT JUSTICE OR NOT? LET ME JUST ASK THIS — I UNDERSTAND YOU’RE CHAMPING AT THE BIT. LET ME JUST ASK THE QUESTION. IN JUNE OF 2017, THE MUELLER REPORT SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT CALLED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON MCGANN TWICE ON THE SAME WEEKEND AND HE TOLD HIM, AND THIS WAS A QUOTE FROM HIM, “CALL ROD.” THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS OVERSEEING SPECIAL COUNSEL. CALL ROD, TELL ROD THAT MUELLER HAS CONFLICTS AND CAN’T BE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. MCGANN RECALLED THE PRESIDENT TELLING HIM MUELLER HAS TO GO. THE ONLY REASON THAT THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN IS BECAUSE MCGANN THREATENS TO RESIGN AND REFUSES TO CARRY OUT WHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE A SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE.>>Rudy: OKAY, NOW DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER? ‘S BILL YES.>>Rudy: AND YOU WILL LET ME GET IT?>>Chris: SURE.>>Rudy: NUMBER ONE, HAD HE DONE IT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THERE WERE VERY GOOD REASONS TO FIRE MUELLER. IN THE PRESIDENT HAS THE ABSOLUTE –>>Chris: WHAT WAS THE REASON TO FIRE MUELLER? HE’D ONLY BEEN ON THE JOB A MONTH.>>Rudy: MUELLER HIRED A STAFF IN WHICH HE HAD PEOPLE I WOULD FIND VERY QUESTIONABLE AS PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE INVESTIGATING DONALD TRUMP. HE HIRED THE CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION. ABSURD. HE HIRED SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN A VERY, VERY STRONG PARTISAN OF HILLARY CLINTON, THAT HER GOING AWAY PARTY, WHATEVER THAT WAS AND HAD A HISTORY OF ETHICAL MISCONDUCT — UNETHICAL. YOU ASKED A COMPLEX ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, I’VE GOT TO GIVE A COMPLEX ANSWER. FOR A LOT OF REASONS.>>Chris: I WOULD ASSUME WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS BIASED.>>Rudy: I KNOW YOU DON’T WANT A LONG ANSWER BUT IN FAIRNESS –>>Chris: WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THE INVESTIGATION WAS BIASED.>>Rudy: WHAT I’M SAYING IS YOU COULD PERCEIVE IT THAT WAY, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU A GOOD FAITH REASON TO FIRE HIM. AND ALSO HE DEMONSTRATED IN THE CASE OF COMEY THAT HE COULD FIRE SOMEONE AND NOT INTERFERE IN THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE IMMEDIATELY IT WAS TAKEN UP BY SOMEONE ELSE. HE TOLD OSTERHOLT THAT HE REALIZED –>>Chris: ARE NOT ASKING ABOUT COMEY, MUSCULAR MUELLER.>>Rudy: IMPORTING OUT WITH HIS PRIOR CONDUCT. HE REMOVED COMEY AND SAID THAT WILL LINK THE MOAT INVESTIGATION AND IF HE FIRED MUELLER HE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED SOMEONE ELSE CAME AND TOOK IT OVER. THE GUY HAD CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HE HIRED A HIGHLY PARTISAN BIASES –>>Chris: IT ALSO HAD COME UP. I UNDERSTAND YOU’RE TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE BUT BUT WE DO HAVE LIMITED TIME.>>Rudy: I’M TRYING TO TELL YOU THERE’S AN ALTERNATIVE EXPO NATION.>>Chris: THERE’S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION WHICH MUELLER MAKES AND HIS ACCLAMATION IS THAT TWO DAYS EARLIER — THE REPORT HAS COME OUT IN THE PAPER THAT NOW MUELLER IS INVESTIGATING HIM FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS INVESTIGATION, FOR THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY IS A TARGET OF THE INVESTIGATION.>>Rudy: CHRIS, WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS YOU’RE TAKING THE MUELLER REPORT, WHICH IS A PROSECUTOR’S VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED. YOU’RE GIVING IT FULL CREDIT, AND YOU’RE NOT GIVING ME A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN THE OUTSIDE. IT’S VERY, VERY STRONG AND WAS LEFT OUT BY THE PROSECUTOR. I THINK THAT’S UNFAIR IN THE CASE OF THIS MAGNITUDE. NOT TO TELL THE OTHER SIDE.>>Chris: I’M ASKING ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE.>>Rudy: YOU’RE NOT GIVING A CHANCE TO ANSWER.>>Chris: WE DON’T NEED TO TALK ABOUT JAMES COMEY.>>Rudy: IT’S TWO OR THREE PAGES OF LIES AND DISTORTION. IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE. FOR EXAMPLE –>>Chris: YOU THINK THAT’S WHAT THE REPORT IS? CALUMNY, LIES AND EXPANSION DORMANT DISTORTION?>>Rudy: HALF OF IT’S NOT TRUE. SPIRIT I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT MICHAEL COHEN. I WAS ASKING ABOUT MCGANN. LISTEN TO THIS.>>Rudy: I THINK THIS IS A PRODUCT OF NOT TELLING THE FULL STORY. THAT’S NOT MCGANN’S FAULT. YOU READ THAT, MCGANN GAVE THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THAT CONVERSATION. THE FIRST VERSION OF THAT CONVERSATION IS THE PRESIDENT USED THE WORD FIRE AND HE TOLD THE PRESIDENT I’M GOING TO RESIGN DIRECTLY. HE THEN RECANTS THAT AND SAYS NO FIRE, NO STATEMENT THAT I WAS GOING TO RESIGN AND THEN HE COMES UP WITH THAT PERSON AND THEN A THIRD VERSION WHICH IS EVEN SOFTER WHICH SAYS SOMETHING LIKE HE SHOULD BE FIRED. OR HE HAS CONFLICTS, HE CAN’T BE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.>>Chris: AND THAT MUELLER HAS TO GO.>>Rudy: IS A VERY COMPLEX SET OF FACTS. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE PRESIDENT SAYS I DIDN’T SAY TO FIRE HIM. I DIDN’T WANT HIM TO GO, I WANT AT THE CONFLICTS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. BUT THE PRESIDENT’S VERSION. YOU GOT TO PICK ONE VERSION OF THE OTHER.>>Chris: MAY I?>>Rudy: SINCE YOU CAN’T PROVE IT, THERE’S NO OBSTRUCTION. AND FINALLY, IF HE HAD FIRED HIM THERE WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN AN OBSTRUCTION SO LONG AS HE WAS REPLACED BY SOMEBODY, WHICH HE WOULD HAVE BEEN, AND THERE WERE GOOD REASONS, ARGUABLE REASONS.>>Chris: HERE’S THE QUESTION –>>Rudy: IF THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS AN INNOCENT MAN BEING CHARGED WITH SOMETHING HE DIDN’T DO. YOU HAVE TO GRANT THAT NOW WHEN THEY SAY NO PROOF OF UNDERLYING CRIME. YOU’VE GOT TO GRANT THAT AS A LEGAL AND FACTUAL MATTER.>>Chris: NO, I DON’T. I DON’T.>>Rudy: WAIT A SECOND. THESE THINGS ARE BEING DONE BY AN INNOCENT MAN.>>Chris: THIS IS CALLED AN INTERVIEW. IT’S NOT YOUR CLOSING ARGUMENT. YOU GOT TO GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY –>>Rudy: AND HER TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT.>>Chris: I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I’M HERE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS.>>Chris: ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS HAS BEEN THAT THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAN’T HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME. THAT’S WHAT YOU SAY. YOU SAY THAT HE WAS BEING FRAMED AND HE WAS FIGHTING BACK. LET’S LOOK AT WHAT YOU SAID, SIR. PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.>>IT’S KIND OF RIDICULOUS TO GO AFTER A MAN FOR OBSTRUCTION WHEN HE WAS FALSELY ACCUSED, HE WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF. HIS INTENT IN EACH ONE OF THESE SITUATIONS, ALL TEN OF THEM, IS EASILY EXPLAINED AS AN INTENT TO NOT GET FRAMED.>>Chris: THAT’S WHAT YOU JUST SAID.>>Rudy: I SET UP A COUPLE DAYS AGO.>>Chris: OKAY, I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT’S THE POINT YOU’RE MAKING, AGAIN. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL — I’M NOT ARGUING THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS RIGHT OR WRONG, I’M SIMPLY PRESENTING ARGUMENTS TO TRY TO GET YOU TO RESPOND TO IT. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAYS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS NOT TRUE. VOLUME TWO, PAGE 157. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAN BE MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO PROTECT NONCRIMINAL PERSONAL INTERESTS TO PROTECT AGAINST INVESTIGATIONS FOR UNDERLYING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FALLS INTO A GRAY AREA, OR TO AVOID PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT. MUELLER SAYS THE INJURY TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS JUST AS GREAT. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER THERE WAS AN UNDERLYING CRIME. IT STILL OBSTRUCTION.>>Rudy: ONE DID MUELLER BECOME GOD? HE SAYS THE INJURY TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS STILL AS GREAT — THERE WAS NO INJURY, BY THE WAY. WERE TALKING ABOUT IT IN CODE CRIME. SOMETHING THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION. NOTHING WAS DENIED. NOBODY CRUSHED CELL PHONES LIKE HILLARY DID. NOBODY DELETED 33,000 EMAILS LIKE HILLARY’S PEOPLE DID, AND NOBODY BLEACHED A SERVER LIKE HILLARY DID. THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION — THEY DON’T POINT TO A SINGLE OBSTRUCTION AND INVESTIGATION. THE ONE FROM DAY ONE TODAY AN END THEY GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.>>Chris: THAT’S NOT TRUE.>>Rudy: THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO TESTIMONY, NO PROSECUTORS.>>Chris: THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID. YOU SAID THEY GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.>>Rudy: THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THAT.>>Chris: THAT’S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.>>Rudy: NOW WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE PERCEPTION OF INNOCENCE, WHERE GOING TO THROW IT OUT –>>Chris: I’M SIMPLY SAYING YOU SAID THEY GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.>>Rudy: THEY WERE GOING TO TRAP HIM INTO PERJURY LIKE THEY DID WITH FLYNN. IF YOU THINK I’M A FULL? I WOULD HAVE BEEN DISBARRED IF I LET HIM TESTIFY. THERE WERE SO MANY INDICATIONS IF THEY WANTED TO TRAP HIM INTO PERJURY BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE A CASE THAT THEY WERE NOT IN GOOD FAITH. HERE’S WHAT THEY DID TO FLYNN. THEY CALLED FLYNN INCOME OF THE GO TO HIS OFFENSE, TELL ME DOES NEED A LAWYER –>>Chris: I GOT A MINUTE LEFT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TRUMP.>>Rudy: HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTOR.>>Chris: I UNDERSTAND IT.>>Rudy: THEY CREATED AS FLYNN’S CRYING. THEY HAVE THE ANSWER THAT IF THEY ASK HIM.>>Chris: WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT FLYNN.>>Rudy: YOU ARE ASKING WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT NOT GO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM AND LET THEM TRY TO TRAP AND INTO PERJURY? BECAUSE HE HAD GOOD LAWYERS AND HE’S NOT A FOOL. IF THEY WERE FAIR PEOPLE I WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN A MINUTE.>>Chris: OKAY.>>Rudy: WHAT THEY DID TO FLYNN SAID TO ME THEY’RE GOING TO TRY TO DO TO MY CLIENT.>>Chris: HERE’S THE FINAL QUESTION.>>Rudy: YOU’RE TREATING HIS PEOPLE AS IF THEY’RE FAIR. THEY’RE NOT. IT BEGINS WITH HE’S GOT TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. THEN WE ARE THROWING OUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. HOW MANY MORE MANAGEMENT WOULD WOULD LIKE TO THROW OUT?>>Chris: YOU SAY THAT THEY GAVE — YOU GAVE, THE PRESIDENT GAVE THEM EVERYTHING THEY WANTED. I UNDERSTAND YOU’RE SAYING THEY DIDN’T HAVE A RIGHT TO TESTIMONY. IT WAS LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT’S TESTIMONY.>>Rudy: BY THE WAY –>>Chris: A NO, SIR. AT LEAST 37 TIMES HE SAID IN WRITTEN ANSWERS HE DID NOT RECALL.>>Rudy: OH, MY GOODNESS.>>Chris: YOU SAY OH, MY GOODNESS — ONE HILLARY CLINTON DID THAT DURING HER INVESTIGATION. ABOUT THE REPORT, HERE’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID, TAKE A LOOK.>>WHEN SHE WAS INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI SHE CLAIMS SHE COULDN’T REMEMBER IMPORTANT EVENTS 39 TIMES. SO SHE REALLY DIDN’T REMEMBER, THAT’S A PROBLEM. AND IF SHE DID REMEMBER, THAT’S A PROBLEM.>>Chris: YOU’VE GOT 30 SECONDS. WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM FOR LOW CLINTON BUT IT ISN’T FOR DONALD TRUMP?>>Rudy: BECAUSE HILLARY CLINTON WAS GUILTY OF THE UNDERLYING CRIMES. SHE DID CRUSH THE CELL PHONES –>>Chris: WHO MADE YOU GOD, AS YOU SAID ABOUT MUELLER?>>Rudy: ARE NOT GOT ABOUT MUELLER.>>Chris: WHO MADE MUELLER GOD, NOW YOU’RE DECLARING WHETHER SHE WAS GUILTY OR NOT.>>Rudy: I’M SAYING THERE’S A DIFFERENCE — I’M JUST SAYING THERE’S A DIFFERENCE — I’M NOT SAYING SHE’S GUILTY. THE DIFFERENCES THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT YOU ACTUALLY OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. SHE DENIED THE INVESTIGATORS THE INFORMATION. NOTHING WAS DENIED TO THEM. BY THE WAY, IN THE REPORT THEY SAY THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO QUESTION HIM BECAUSE THEY HAD THE ANSWERS TO ALL THE QUESTIONS. WRITE IN THE REPORT.>>Chris: THEY ALSO SEE THE ANSWERS WERE INADEQUATE AND THEY ALSO SAID THAT TO GO THROUGH A SUBPOENA WAS GOING TO TAKE A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME.>>Rudy: IF MY CLIENT HAS AN UNCLEAR RECOLLECTION, I’M NOT GOING TO GO STRETCH OUT FOR THE PROSECUTOR SO THE PROSECUTOR CAN MAIL THEM –>>Chris: MAYOR GIULIANI –>>Rudy: LIKE THE ONE AFTER THAT GREAT GENERAL AND RUIN HIS LIFE AND BANKRUPTED HIM. THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEM SELVES.>>Chris: MAYOR JULIE ARTICLE THANK YOU, THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR HOLIDAY WEEKEND WITH US.