Fox's Ainsley Earhardt tries to argue that the left is "shifting the narrative" by focusing on possible obstruction of justice

Fox's Ainsley Earhardt tries to argue that the left is "shifting the narrative" by focusing on possible obstruction of justice 

Ken Starr: Trump "may have come to the brink, but he didn't walk across that, as it were, red line. So he showed wisdom in the end."

Video ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

From the April 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends

Loading the player reg...

AINSLEY EARHARDT (CO-HOST): We heard Russia, Russia, Russia. Then we heard no collusion. And now we're hearing obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. The left is shifting the narrative yet again. Are you surprised? 

KEN STARR (FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL): Well, I'm not. I'm disappointed, but here's the bottom line: Not only was there no obstruction, there was cooperation. Did the president want to cooperate? No. Did he like Bob Mueller and the whole thing? He hated it. Well, guess what? Bill Clinton hated me and hated the investigation. Ulysses S. Grant fired the special counsel. Harry Truman's attorney general fired the special counsel. Famously, Richard Nixon fired the special counsel and the special prosecutor. You know there's a difference between having thoughts and this is another dimension that really did surprise me: how open and frank the conversations are with the president of the United States that then become disclosed and they're are now in the public domain. We used to call that executive privilege. Talk about cooperation: cooperation in all caps. Not a single, as far as we know, invocation of executive privilege when these were such private, confidential conversations that are now, obviously, embarrassing to the president and being seized upon for political purposes. But there was no obstruction here. The 10 obstructive acts just don't add up to being an obstruction of justice in the criminal sense.

BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): [Don] McGahn and Trump turned to a June 17, 2017, conversation when he went in front of the special counsel, over 30-plus hours. And he wanted to oust Mueller, according to special counsel report, McGahn responded to the president's request by calling his personal lawyer and chief of staff, driving to the White House, packing up his belongings, preparing to submit his letter of resignation. He did not want to be part of the firing of Robert Mueller. Also Reince Priebus also asked to. They didn't fire Robert Mueller. McGahn didn't quit at the time. He didn't resign. The president didn't follow up. When it came to firing Jeff Sessions, telling Jeff Sessions to resign. Corey Lewandowski never asked him to. So what does that mean from the legal sense? It happened but it was not executed. 

STARR: Exactly. The law cares about what is done, not what is thought and what is said. And so the president's instincts were very aggressive. He knows how to fire people and he fires people. But, guess what? He may have come to the brink, but he didn't walk across that, as it were, red line. So he showed wisdom in the end. Now, I wish the president didn't fulminate so much. He is sometimes his own worst enemy. But fulminating is not a crime and lashing out is not a crime. And so it's totally understandable. Let's put ourselves in his situation; we might have said some naughty words as well.

Previously

Fox contributor claims when Trump said he was "fucked" after special counsel appointment, he was talking about his agenda being slowed

Fox’s Dana Perino: President Trump “was actually quite cooperative” with the Special Counsel investigation

Brit Hume says media reporting on Mueller investigation was "dog doo" 

Posted In
The Presidency & White House
Network/Outlet
Fox News Channel
Person
Ainsley Earhardt
Show/Publication
FOX & Friends
We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.