Barr declines to testify before Dem-led House panel

Channel: Fox Business
Published: 11 hours ago

Description
Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer gives his take on Attorney General William Barr’s testimony on Capitol Hill and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report. The House Judiciary Committee is meeting for the Mueller report hearing despite Barr's absence. Watch live here: https:...



Transcript
Sorry, democrats, you blew it the partisan nonsense about the molar report. It'S just not working and now attorney general william bar has decided to skip tomorrow's testimony in front of the house judiciary committee and can you blame him? Will democrats double down in subpoena the nation's top law man? I think they will barr testified today in front of the senate judiciary committee democrats ha ...
e claimed to one answers as to why barr chose not to charge the president with obstruction and the ag asked and then answered the questions. Many of us have been wondering watch. How did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colludingwith the russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a russian agent, and the evidence now is that was without a basis and two years of His administration have been dominated by the allegations that have now been proven false, and you know to listen to some of the rhetoric. You would think that the muller report had found the opposite. Well, democrats responded with a bunch of predictable grandstanding as they always do during these things. Oh, let's start with hawaii's mazie hirono, shall we nazy c'mon girl? Mr. barr, now the american people know that you are no different from rudy giuliani or kellyanne conway or any of the other people who sacrificed their oncedecent reputation for the grifter and liar who sits in the oval office. Yes, she called the president a grifter and a liar in order to smear the ag, and then we have minnesota senator amy klobuchar, who brought up michael cohen for some reason and then got shut down by the aj watch. The report found that michael cohen's testimony to the house before it that the president repeatedly implied that cohen's family members had committed crimes. Do you consider that evidence to be an attempt to convince a witness to change testimony? No, i don't think that that could could pass muster. Those public statements he was making all right bart did have some senators in his corneralso predictably, including south carolina's judiciary, chairman lindsey.

Graham, do you expect to change your mind about the bottom line? Conclusions of the moller report: no, do you know bob muller? Yes, you trust him. Yes, how long have you known him? Thirty years roughly, you think he at the time he needed. Yes, you think you had the money needed. Yes, you think he had the resources needed. Yes, do you think he did a thorough job? Yes, so did the attorney general make his case, and is he right to skip tomorrow's testimony joining me tonight? Former white house press secretary in america, first action-packed senior advisor sean spicer, is back welcome back sean good evening kennedy thanksfor. Having me mixed reviews for the attorney general. He definitely tousled with some of the senators on the senate judiciary committee and he you know, kamala harris gave him a tough time and he did stumble there. I thought it was odd when he talked about the moller report being his baby. Was there anything here that was problematic for you? No, not really. I think he was calm, cool and collective. He really walked through the legal reaction to this, if you will, in other words, he broke down in each question, why the rhetoric didn't make sense from a legal basis and that's what this was, and i think we've lost perspective as to what this wasabout a special Counsel was appointed by the department of justice to look into this matter that special counsel reports to the attorney general during attorney general sessions. Tenure reported the deputy attorney general, but this report was always intended for the attorney general.

The attorney general went a big step further by not only releasing it to congress but to the american people, and i think that what he did today was explain. The process explain the conclusions and i think the other thing that's interesting is - and you alluded to this - is that we've lost focus on the fact that none of the democrats were actually in no way contesting the underlying fact that there was no collusionin fact to hear The democrats today collusion they kept saying collusion, is not even a legal term. Why are we talking about it? I'M thinking to myself wait a second. I i heard that for about seven months non-stop and now suddenly the democrats have pivot to well. It'S never been about collusion and i think they've lost focus on what they're actually fighting for now. Talking about a bunch of process questions. Why did you write a four-page memo? The way you did were you concerned that this reaction, as opposed to because there were a lot of questions about that summary, which i guess really is in a summary depending on who you ask and the attorneygeneral said this - was such a pressing matter because of the Public interest in the case and for the amount of time that it had gone on and the fact that it's centered around the president and took so much energy from his administration. Therefore, he felt obligated to put something out. Do you think in hindsight that he shouldn't have released that four-page document to members of congress and to the public? No, i think you do the right thing and here's why he made it very clear that they expected to get a redacted version from the special counsel that they would have been able to turn around to much quicker. That wasn't the case, and so whatthe attorney general said today is much like you would release a verdict summary right after a trial and then the transcript of that trial comes out days later. He was trying to make sure that the american people in congress understood the bottom line and again getting back to what i said a moment ago. The bottom line was always was there collusion with the russians or any other entity that sought to undermine the integrity of our elections and the attorney general's summary or whatever we're calling it now came out and made it clear that no there wasn't, and that was what The main thrust of the special counsels investigation was about and here's the further pointagain.

This is why this is such a silly conversation that the democrats were having today, which is within days after that summary, the entire four hundred-plus page report came out, meaning if you didn't agree with the summary well now, you've got it all out there in a searchable Way that you can look up read it yourself come to your own conclusions. I still think their issue is with special counsel and robert mulder's office in the investigation and and clearly the issue they have. There was that the president wasn't charged with anything and they're making the case at the office of legal counsel, basically informed them that you can't charge a sitting president and if that'sreally, the case and and moeller was so invested in the fact that the president had broken The law that he could have pushed that issue by charging him forcing it through the court system. So we could finally have a definitive legal answer on that most important question, because if the president is so powerful that he can't be charged and he can essentially fire anyone, then that's a problem. That'S above the pay grade of the attorney general and the presidency. Well, the other thing is the the special counsel could have just said it he could have said. Well, i don't believe that the president could be charged. I do believe that there's a violation in oneof these ten instances that i've laid out that i believe that was obstruction. He didn't do that he could have. You would have given a clearer bottom line, but instead, i think intentionally created this fuzziness. That'S open for interpretation by both sides to benefit each side politically and i think in a sense, given the amount of time and the amount of resources and the amount of money. I think that's cowardly well, but but here's the other thing the democrats put all of their stock in muller right.

So they said he is this man above reproach highest integrity professionals. The very same thing, great fine, but my point is - is that when he didn't reach theconclusions that they assumed he would now they have a problem but muller in any way shape or form could have done this and think about this. This is the other thing. Every single thing about this report and its handling and it's the way it's been handled over the past few years - has leaked out in some way shape or form, including the letter, including the fact that there was dissatisfaction on everything. There was a lot of potential counsel that that was not leaked out, and people on both sides were surprised that robert muller was running that kind of ship. The only other fair enough whose acted with leaks is the first lady but fair enough. Butmy point in this is to say that if there was some a sense among the team that the president had violated the law in any way in terms of a strap obstruction that would be getting out, his team would make sure that that got out. And it hasn't and that's because everybody puts stock in the fact that there was this underlying sense of collusion or illegality of some sort, and we have now. We have these terms that are meaningless. Conspiracy collusion, exoneration they're, all things that now really don't mean anything, and i think that the the chaotic environment benefits the most partisan among us. It was very good to see you friday night sean spicerthank, you so much.


Watch Next

Loading...