This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," April 18, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham, this is "The Ingraham Angle." We have so much to get to and you're here with us for the hour and you don't want to miss one minute. I'm going to start this way.

Here are the people who are owed an apology from the Democrats, from the media and from the rabid never-Trumpers tonight. First, the President himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't need the Mueller report to know he's a traitor, I have TV.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's outright treason.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is nothing short of treasonous because it is a betrayal of the nation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump could be indicted and possibly face jail time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a potentially more dangerous situations than Watergate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: These destructive and defamatory allegations were based on erroneous reporting, anonymous sources, leaks and whispers, gossip. But now with the release of the Mueller report, we find that it was all false. The Trump family is also owed an apology.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERRY GEORGE, FMR NATIONAL ENQUIRER LA BUREAU CHIEF: When you get involved with you know, the actions of his children including his daughter and son in law, who were getting closer to criminal activity.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ivanka and Donald Junior are now fully implicated in the selling of American democracy for the Trump family game.

OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN, FMR DIR OF COMMS FOR WH OFFICE OF PUBLIC LIAISON: What you'll see is a man who wants to share the inner workings of the Trump crime family.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: None of it was true. Attorney General Barr certainly deserves an apology.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He won't get his reputation back. It's shot.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Attorney General of the United States of America has been corrupted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's lost the credibility of the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: All of them. No words for their calumny, their lies and their false accusations. Are they really paying enough to say that stuff guys? And to those who branded the prime time host on this network as state news for daring to tell the truth, not just our truth but the truth.

You owe us an apology.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fox news will be an incredible asset to the President. That echo chamber is going to announce this as a vindication.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We talk about this revolving door. There's also of course the echo chamber, right? We know Hannity and the President speak all the time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump sort of lives in an echo chamber. We know that he sort of obsessively watches cable news. He really focuses on what you know Fox news is saying.

JOE LOCKHART, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What has stayed steady for him it is his echo chamber of Fox news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: No wonder they were so angry today. It was sedition, treason, mal - Fox - finally the American people are owed an apology. Your precious tax dollars were spent and the country's focus diverted to investigate a President who is innocent from the outset.

Based on a dossier that was fake and that was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Other networks and print media journalists tricked viewers and readers into thinking their President was a Russian stooge, it was all false. This was pure and simple, an effort to undermine the results of the Presidential election and manipulate public opinion.

Every effort should be made to investigate the origins and motivations of this Mueller investigation. And in the coming hour, we will separate from you legal fact from fiction in the Mueller report. We'll unpack the political ramifications and tell you where we go from here.

And in just moments, we'll be joined by President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani. But first before we dive in, in our expert panel analysis, I want to give you my takeaways from the Mueller report and a few things that you need to keep in mind.

Number one, the President and his team, they went above and beyond in their transparency in dealing with the Special Counsel's office. This openness in and of itself cuts against any suggestions you might be hearing on the other cables about obstruction of justice.

My friends, if Trump wanted to obstruct justice, he wouldn't have waived executive privilege. Now if you don't know what that is, it's a doctrine which would have shielded much of the President's internal communications from investigators and from the public but he didn't do that.

In fact, I would argue, remember, I was a former criminal defense lawyer myself, clerk of the court. I would argue that the President's team may have went - have gone overboard in giving Mueller too much information. But anyway this demonstrates the President's supreme confidence in his own innocence from the very beginning.

He had nothing to hide and by the way, the transparency even extended to the release of the report itself. Remember, the American people are getting much more than is required by law. And Bill Barr, he didn't have to do the synopsis of the report, he didn't have to answer press questions this morning.

He didn't even have to release the report to the public or to Congress, his only obligation was to report his findings to Congress. That's it.

Number 2, the media coverage of this Russian collusion coordination conspiracy story was an epic failure from beginning to well, right about now. Now, remember the Trump Tower meeting in June of 2016.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The meeting at Trump Tower and all the lies to cover up that meeting, that to me is direct evidence.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.: All this talk about a second meeting is truly damning.

CARL BERNSTEIN, POLITICAL ANALYST: Trump Tower meeting which indeed was convened for the purpose of collusion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: All false. It turns out that Mueller found there was no evidence that President Trump had any advance knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting or was involved in it anyway. Now, they also did not find by the way, that Donald Trump junior or any participants in the meeting violated any law.

Instead the report said "the government does not have strong evidence of surreptitious behavior or efforts at concealment at the term of the June 9th meeting." Well, the story turned out to be a complete and total farce and dud. And then oh yes, by the way, Carter Page, he worked for the Trump campaign as a foreign policy adviser at least his name was on an advisory list for 8 months.

The FBI though got a FISA warrant to surveil Page citing that fake dossier funded by Trump's opponent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Carter Page was conspiring with Russia too in ways that were nefarious.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He should have been surveilled.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would not have been very difficult for the FBI to convince a judge that there was probable cause to believe that Carter Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: But in the end Mueller writes on page 95 that his team called did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Remember, there were four FISA warrants, all of them incomplete.

Another abuse of power by the Obama FBI and the rest of the deep state. Number 3, for all of that, all that we already talked about, the Mueller report is really kind of just an invitation, when you read it especially toward the end, for the House of representatives to run the ball to the impeachment goal line.

The resistant media and some left wing bibs are now hanging there impeachment hopes, now that no collusion, on the fact that Mueller did not specifically exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice.

Today they were grasping at more straws and making a lot of trump's reaction to the appointment of the Special Counsel when he said, Oh my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm f****.

The Press claims that's the reaction of a guilty man.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the end of my presidency. I'm f*****.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He slumped back in his chair according to the report and said oh my God, this is terrible, this is the end of my presidency. I'm f*****.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is laid out here, rats, crazy ****, I'm f*****. All this stuff in there, is that not enough?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: But when Trump said it was the end of my Presidency. It was because he believed he was a man unfairly accused and rightly, he was enraged over the fact that his entire agenda would be stymied and his presidency mired in years of investigation.

He understood that from the very beginning. I don't blame him for being that mad. It certainly isn't any evidence of an intent to obstruct anyone, who says differently should either have his law license revoked or frankly not be commenting on these matters on television, go do something else.

But the left is sitting and claiming that Mueller's findings convict Trump of obstruction even though Mueller stated that he could not draw such a conclusion. Here's what he says on Page 8 of volume 2, "Unlike cases in which is a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of the that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct, judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence."

And Barr and the legal team at DOJ did examine the totality of evidence and even used Mueller's legal framework to analyze his findings on obstruction. After two years and $30 million taxpayer money, the Democrats will not accept the Justice Department's findings, Barr's findings.

And they plan to relitigate the entire drama, one way or another, they're going to try to do it from now until 2020. But what they should be investigating is how this farce began and who was responsible. What their motives were? The surveillance of innocent Americans. The deception in the FISA court applications.

The illegal leaking of government documents and information. And the entire Mueller probe were never about holding a President accountable. The purpose was to destroyed Trump and his agenda in order to regain political power.

Here now to our legal power panel. Robert Ray, former Whitewater Independent Counsel; Sol Wisenberg, former Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel and Fox news contributor and John Yoo, Former Deputy Attorney General.

Robert, your take away tonight?

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I am not part of the echo chamber. I am not being paid for this appearance. I can tell you that Attorney General Barr's reputation is still intact and just as you suggested in the prior segment, he did what you would expect an Attorney General to do, notwithstanding democratic criticism of analyzing intent or some kind of an Oprah moment involving the President's conduct.

In fact, that's what you do when you're trying to figure out whether or not there is sufficient evidence to establish, whether or not obstruction of justice occurred and finally, the President should be provided with sufficient latitude to defend himself against efforts to try to undermine the legitimacy of the election and his presidency without having to also defend himself from unwarranted claims that he obstructed justice.

INGRAHAM: Sol, I want to go to you on that because in the report, Mueller states that well, yes, article 2 powers of the President, that gives him a huge berth, wide berth of fire people, hire people and so forth but he goes on to say, it doesn't mean you can't have corrupt motives and you can't carry out your duties corruptly.

Thus we go through all of these instances where you know, they lay out the facts of potentially obstructive conduct. What did you think of that part of the report?

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL & FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I was disappointed in it because they quoted some of the same cases that were floated in Norman Eisen's Brookings Institution report from a year ago, which was kind of a blueprint for the left. And really I think the Arthur Andersen case which we've discussed on the show number of times, supreme court case puts those into doubt.

These are cases that say, if you do - even if you do something that's legal on its face, it can be obstruction. And I believe that if all you're doing, if everything you're doing is within your power and is legal on its face and you're the President, if it's within your authority and not otherwise criminal, it cannot be obstruction.

But what's kind of interesting here is that Barr if I understand him correctly said, look, we don't agree with Bob Mueller's framework for what he thinks obstruction is but in making our determination Rod Rosenstein and myself of whether or not there was a criminal obstruction case, we bought his overall theory, we decided to accept his theory and look at the evidence and see as prosecutors whether under DOJ principles, we would have gone forward.

So I thought that was interesting.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, it certainly gave an enormous amount of again credit and deference to Mueller. Again, even though there was clearly a disagreement on the constitutional or statutory standard to examine obstruction. This is when I'm really glad I'm a lawyer by the way.

I and some others in the media by the way think that Mueller's decision not to conclude one way or another on obstruction is actually an invitation to Congress. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a sentence here that is all but an explicit invitation to Congress to impeach the President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: John, what's going on here. He's referencing the section on obstruction of justice and again, that standard of whether or not you can obstruct if there's no underlying crime and can the President obstruct if he has the right to fire and hire anyone he wants at any point of time?

JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes Laura, I think one, Mueller just concluded and we all recognize it that that there was absolutely no evidence of collusion so why doesn't Mueller just end right there?

Why does he keep going when he knows that Justice Department policy is to - that you cannot indict a sitting President so instead Mueller says well, there are other ways that the President might be brought to heel and then he drops his foot note and he says impeachment and then he says so we're going to keep going in the investigation, we're going to preserve the evidence, we're going to memorialize testimony in case someone else wants to take you - make use of it.

I think that's where Mueller went too far and all this discussion of obstruction. He wasn't really following Justice Department policy he was kind of putting things on a platter in the hopes that maybe Congress or maybe someone else would do something with it.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

RAY: May I just add?

INGRAHAM: Yes.

RAY: You know, I saw that from Toobin today on MSNBC and I believe both he and MSNBC have completely misread that sentence. That sentence that was in the Mueller report was not an invitation to Congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry. What he was saying was that Congress has the prerogative and the right to pass an obstruction statute that would also apply to the President of the United States.

That was the context in which that - so and I had to read it three times to make sure--

INGRAHAM: Okay.

RAY: - I wasn't missing it but that is a complete and misapprehension of what in fact Mueller said. I know it may appear that it says that.

INGRAHAM: It does. Yes.

RAY: But that's not what - that's not what - I don't believe, I mean read it again.

INGRAHAM: Okay.

RAY: I do not believe that that's what--

WISENBERG: How dare you, how dare you, how dare you?

INGRAHAM: Sol, what--

WISENBERG: How dare you criticize Jeff Toobin?

INGRAHAM: No, no, guys, let me say.

RAY: What was I thinking?

INGRAHAM: Yes, let me say all three of you because I know you're writing, you're all three, phenomenal writers and I'm going to say just as a writer myself, the writing in this report was - you could tell different people wrote different sections, it was not consistent, right?

But on that point Sol, Andy McCarthy, he said that the way Mueller handled the obstruction part basically appended the presumption of innocence. He said that earlier tonight on this network, he was - and he's - he was very disappointed in Mueller's handling of that.

The left is upset of Mueller for you know, for not finding collusion but McCarthy said this - basically this report is as John said should have ended when they realized there was no joint conspiracy or coordination between Russia and members of the Trump campaign.

Instead they went on to you know, down the yellow brick road to try to find the glory here.

WISENBERG: Well, I agree with what Andy said earlier, I respectfully disagree with what John just said because in a way, that's a catch 22 on if we say that you can't indict a sitting President then why are you allowed to investigate him at all?

So to me it was perfectly proper for Mueller assuming that he was properly chartered to look at any efforts to obstruct his investigation but I do have a problem when you say, we can't - we can't clear him, you know we can't say that he's innocent nor can we exonerate him, that's not the typical standard for the Department of Justice.

And so I was a little disappointed in that. I must say that the - while the President is completely exonerated on the collusion front and he's more or less exonerated legally, I believe on the obstruction front, really the obstruction sections of the report are very troubling.

The President engaged in very reprehensible conduct, repeatedly having his subordinates lie asking his subordinates to lie and he's very fortunate that for the most part, they refused to do so, it ended up really helping to save him I think.

INGRAHAM: But John, if that's the case and Mueller goes into great detail, tell Don McGahn, go tell this one, this one. Corey Lewandowski, go tell - then explain for our viewers very clearly, why there is no in your mind, obstruction here?

YOO: The key part of obstruction which Mueller could not nail down was, did the President when he exercised constitutional prerogatives, which on their face are within the President's power, did he have some kind of corrupt motive.

It's not Justice Department policy that you can indict a sitting President so this is actually where Mueller went too far. If you actually read to the end of the report, he has this lengthy section at the end that actually seizes power from the Attorney General and tries to say, I'm going to interpret the President's constitutional powers in a way the Justice Department never has before which is to subject the President to claims of obstruction.

And I'm going to be able to show even though the President is using his constitutional authority to remove law enforcement officers which no one disputes, rests within the President's Article 2 powers, I could still make a crime out of it if he has the wrong state of mind.

I think Mueller went way - I have a great deal of respect for him but I think he went way too far or his team went way too far and actually took away part of Attorney General Barr's prerogatives and the long history and tradition of Justice Department practice and opinion.

INGRAHAM: All right Robert, I have to ask you, there's - if I had to do two hours with all three of you. Robert, do you agree with the underlying decision making of the Trump legal team to waive all these instances of executive privilege.

I mean, I was actually stunned that there is like no deliberate process privilege, no executive privilege, they just waved it all and for someone who cares about you know, Article 2 powers here, I don't know.

I don't know if I would have - I would have done what they did here. It's great for transparency but it's not like they got any credit for being transparent from you know the critics out there.

RAY: Well, that's a fair point but I think it's somewhat of a compromise. They also though on the other hand, the President accepted the advice of his personal counsel not to provide testimony under oath and agree to submit to an interview which I think was a wise decision to have made now that I see what is in the report.

And I think I agree also generally with the thought that you know, when you've got someone as Special Counsel with that kind of power, issuing a report after the end of all this in which he basically says I can't exclude the possibility that the President may have had corrupt intent to obstruct the justice and therefore I'm not going to exonerate him. Doesn't that sound awful lot like a Comeyisk type statement to be making?

And is it appropriate for that kind of a statement to be rendered to the American people? It is not the Department of Exoneration, it is not the Department of a Clean Bill of Health, it is not the Department of Condemnation, it's the Department of Justice, you make a binary choice about whether or not there is sufficient evidence to believe that if a case were submitted to a jury, that a jury would be able to convict on that evidence.

INGRAHAM: Yes, it sounds like a political statement.

RAY: That's all prosecutors do and - and you know, to John Yoo's point, that's all prosecutors should be doing-

INGRAHAM: All right, guys--

RAY: - under longstanding Department of Justice policy.

INGRAHAM: I think off all three of you and I are in agreement on that. Panel, thank you so much. Fantastic analysis. Now Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry, standing by with breaking new reaction from the 2020 democratic hopefuls. Ed.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Laura, good to see you. As you've been talking about, remember how Democrats sort of shifted from collusion to obstruction. Then in recent days it's been a charge of cover up by Attorney General William Barr over redactions that now seems like a silly argument since he didn't redact as much as they expected.

Now when they can't prove any of those three, you have Beto O'Rourke declaring tonight even if there's no collusion, it might have been cooperation with Russians. Then there's Eric Swalwell who's running for President despite the fact that he like Adam Schiff has been claiming for the better part of two years there was evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia.

One might think that the Robert Mueller's findings of no collusion might lead to some self- reflection, maybe some apologies but no, Swalwell is actually doubling down in going after William Barr tonight, charging it's all his fault and it's Barr who should step aside, not Swalwell or Schiff.

Swalwell tweeting that he wants people to sign a petition online calling on, "AG Barr must resign. You can represent the people or you can represent the President, you can't do both."

A common theme as Senator Kirsten Gillibrand also running said that Barr's press conference was a farce and an embarrassing display of what she called, propaganda on behalf of President Trump.

Senator Elizabeth Warren added, "It's a disgrace to see an Attorney General acting as if he's the personal attorney and published for the President of United States."

Senator Kamala Harris chiming in, "Barr as acting more like Trump's defense attorney than the nation's Attorney General. His press conference was a stunt filled with political spin and propaganda."

So you see a theme there, Swalwell and O'Rourke by the way, both went on camera tonight to say this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Because Attorney General Barr wants to represent Donald Trump, I think he should resign.

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If you do not have collusion, then there might very well have been cooperation or there was certainly the Trump campaign benefiting from and calling for the release of information bu WikiLeaks and by extension, the Russian government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Meanwhile a dramatic shift among top Democrats on Capitol Hill. Steny Hoyer, number 2 in the House declaring based on what's in this report, he says pursuing impeachment is not worthwhile. Telling CNN, this will be decided instead in the 2020 election.

Now that's a sign that democratic leaders may be concerned about political blowback from impeachment and are also under pressure to get some things done beyond just investigating the President. Laura.

INGRAHAM: Ed, phenomenal run down for us. Thanks so much and Trump's legal team called Mueller's report a total victory for the President but the report left the door open as we've been talking about for Congress to continue investigating Trump why not, keep it going.

And House Intel chair Adam Schiff says, well, he's considering it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: If the Special Counsel as he made clear, had found evidence exonerating the President, he would have said so. He did not he left that issue to the Congress of the United States and we will need to consider it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Joining me now President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. All right, Rudy. Will the President cooperate? Will he march up to Capitol Hill and sit down and answer Adam Schiff's question?

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTORNEY: For the fourth investigation when the standard of proof is you have to exonerate yourself, that guy's a lawyer? When did the standards of proof become we got to exonerate him, I got to prove it negative.

And that actually is page 2 of the Special Counsel's report has we couldn't exonerate. Well, okay, you're not supposed to exonerate him, you're supposed to tell us, did he do anything wrong and he didn't do anything wrong.

So no, I don't - I mean this - this is not my province, these committees, it's really more for the White House counsel but my personal view is I wouldn't cooperate with any of them and they're totally legitimate.

INGRAHAM: Now something was your province. On page 13 of the report, the Mueller team said that you guys, there was no in-person interview but you did submit written answers to questions on some Russia related matters and other things but you didn't submit answers to questions about obstruction and on the transition what happened during the transition. Why?

GIULIANI: What we did actually was broken down by time. We submitted answers to questions before he was elected President of United States. No executive privilege, no Presidential privilege.

We did not answer questions after the date that he was elected President of United States.

INGRAHAM: But so you did invoke executive privilege.

GIULIANI: No, we didn't, we just - we just said we're not going to answer it, take us to court, see what happens and I think we would have beaten him. You know why? And they - it's right in that report. They had all the answers. So why would they take - why do they want to question him? To trap him into perjury like they did to General Flynn. Unfortunately, General Flynn didn't have a lawyer.

INGRAHAM: He agreed to be questioned by the FBI, by Yates.

GIULIANI: Because they misled him, they misled him, and they had to the answer to the question in his briefcase.

INGRAHAM: They had the transcript of his call with Kislyak.

GIULIANI: Right there. And they asked him the question. He said I don't remember it. And they never showed him the transcript and said does that refresh your recollection?

INGRAHAM: Mueller's reputation after this report has been --

GIULIANI: I think the thing that hurts it the most, I think the people he hired -- I will never understand how you hire a completely partisan, biased staff of people, one of whom was the counsel to the Clinton Foundation to investigate President Trump. If I was investigating Hillary Clinton, and I hired the head of the Trump Foundation, I think we'd be in a lot of trouble.

INGRAHAM: You are a former U.S. attorney. Saying we are not exonerating on account, is that what the -- we just had three former whitewater lawyers and Justice Department officials on.

GIULIANI: I don't understand where they come up with their standard of proof. Exonerate? Prosecutors exonerate? That would be ridiculous. It turns the whole burden of proof, 2,000 years of Roman, English, American law.

INGRAHAM: All right, on this Holy Thursday, mayor, stand by. When we come back, Rudy tells us what one thing Mueller and his team wrote that has the most incensed. See if it's the same thing that incenses me. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC ANCHOR: In heft and meaning this report I'm holding aloft may make Rudy Giuliani regret that he has been bragging on his own response for all these many weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I love it when he says, holding it aloft. Back with me now is President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Your response to Williams?

GIULIANI: I was bragging? I don't even understand what he was saying. Bragging on my response? Oh, well. I think the report really displays the fact that this is over. And I think the reaction --

INGRAHAM: It's not over. They are going to use this. They're going to try to run on this for 2020.

GIULIANI: It's over but they just don't know it yet.

INGRAHAM: Former deputy director of the FBI tonight on another network said that Mueller lays out obstructive activity, the 10 points telling McCabe to go and tell Sessions this --

GIULIANI: You can look at it that way.

INGRAHAM: Corey Lewandowski, go say this, and basically his staff said, no we're not going to say any of this, or they just didn't say it.

GIULIANI: That's because of their warped point of view. The fact is the actions of an innocent man are totally different from the actions of a guilty man.

So if I'm a bank robber and I robbed a bank, and I tell you to say we had dinner the night the bank was robbed, I'm asking you to lie. But if I'm an innocent man and we had dinner, and you're my alibi witness, but the honest one, and I'm asking you to testify for me, I'm even pushing you to do it, I'm even begging you to do it, well, I'm just seeking justice.

INGRAHAM: But did the president tell anyone to live?

GIULIANI: No, absolutely not. But they interpret things as lies.

INGRAHAM: That's not what Mueller said.

GIULIANI: If he says about Manafort, I really appreciate the fact that the man is telling the truth. He is telling the truth. They want him to say, they want Manafort to say that the president knew about involvement with Russia in the election. He didn't, Manafort doesn't know that, they are trying to get Manafort to a lie. You've had Jerome Corsi on your show, I think, haven't you?

INGRAHAM: Yes.

GIULIANI: And Jerome Corsi actually sent us, I think, the documents that demonstrate they were trying to get him to lie.

INGRAHAM: What incenses you the most about this report? What in this report, even tough --

GIULIANI: The complete deception of trying to present the facts from Cohen as if they are true. Michael Cohen isn't capable of telling the truth.

INGRAHAM: Michael Cohen, the president's --

GIULIANI: I can tell you that any of the things I have personal knowledge about in that report from Cohen are complete lies. And to take him and to put him there as if we are going to take his credibility over the credibility of the president of United States is totally warped. At least you've got to put out in that report the issues about his credibility, so people are warned that he lied three years ago months ago in front of Cummings when he didn't seek a job with the administration, he didn't seek a pardon. He sought a pardon with me. I will testify against him at his perjury trial, and I'll call Cuomo to testify because Cuomo knows that he was seeking a job, and he has him on tape. I'd love to prosecute that case. I could be a disk jockey.

INGRAHAM: Why was McGahn threatened to quit? McGahn, the White House Counsel's Office, and it came out that he was threatening to quit.

GIULIANI: No, no. Actually, at one point he said he told the president he was going to quit. He actually had to amend that to say no, I didn't tell the president that, I told somebody else. The whole circumstances of what happened there are very, very foggy.

INGRAHAM: He recounted in detail to the Special Counsel.

GIULIANI: He was also wrong after two very, very important things. The president never said "fire." He had to admit that the president never said "fire," which is a pretty darn -- "fire him," and the president I guess had a reputation for fire from the old "Apprentice."

INGRAHAM: Put pressure on Sessions.

GIULIANI: He never said that.

And the reality is, again, if you are an innocent man, who is being framed, which is what was happening here, and you say, please help me?

INGRAHAM: He was frustrated.

GIULIANI: I think that's the point.

INGRAHAM: The president wanted his agenda. He wanted to push his own agenda. He knew the agenda would be stymied. He still got a lot done.

GIULIANI: But I think that whole conversation with McGahn, if you look at different versions that McGahn had, about three of them, I don't think that conversation is accurate at all, and I just had a big fight with somebody about it.

INGRAHAM: Anderson Cooper, by the way, I want to play this for you. Anderson Cooper tonight had White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley on, and he pressed on this issue whether the president lied. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Did the president live?

HOGAN GIDLEY, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: They have to put up or shut up here, Anderson.

COOPER: Did the president lie? Did the president lie?

GIDLEY: No, I'm not aware of him lying.

COOPER: You're not aware of the president of the United States lying? I feel bad that you're scared to say that your boss lied.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GIULIANI: What did he say?

INGRAHAM: He says he feels bad for Hogan or anyone who says they won't say if their boss lied, or he's telling other people to lie, I guess.

GIULIANI: He works for Zucker, that guy. Does his boss ever lie? The president didn't lie. This is total nonsense. And that's what we are doing now, we're talking about did your boss lie? It's like five-year- olds. You know what happened today? They didn't get anything in this report. This report has nothing to do -- it's all the same garbage we've been talking about for about a year. I read through it, finish it at 4:00 in the morning. And when I finished, I said to my co-counsel, you find anything new here? Maybe a little detail here, a little detail there. Every incident, we know about.

INGRAHAM: Where do people go to get their reputations back, people like Sam Clovis? People who were on the lower -- or Carter Page --

GIULIANI: Or General Glynn, who was trapped. OK. He says he lied. I'm not sure he did. They also had his son jammed up. He was dealing with people who were scoundrels who trapped him, completely trapped him. They should be ashamed of themselves what they did to a general, a decent man. And whether he --

INGRAHAM: Whether he remembered the sanctions conversation or not, he was well within his right to talk about sanctions, so I don't know why he would not have told the truth about it.

GIULIANI: I don't know why either.

INGRAHAM: He had every right to talk about sanctions or not at that point.

GIULIANI: He just invited them over. It's the second day in being in the White House after the inauguration.

INGRAHAM: No counsel present. Here's a clue, if the FBI comes over and says we want to interview you. The answer is no.

GIULIANI: How about this from McCabe. General, it's not a big deal. You're darn right it's a big deal. We are coming over to trap you into perjury. We've got the document. We're hiding it. We are hoping you're going to say that you didn't remember, or you didn't say it. Then we can jam you up in perjury.

INGRAHAM: They were hiding the ball on that. And McGahn, McGahn got gummed up on that.

GIULIANI: And now it is necessary to have the same amount of attention to figure out how did this all start, who made it up, where did it come from. I happened to think this is a planned --

INGRAHAM: Did Huma Abedin get immunity, do you think, Cheryl Mills, any of these people, did they get immunity deals? And what did they give to get these immunity deals. I want those reports. I want that information.

GIULIANI: How about the guy who hammered, who hammered --

INGRAHAM: Is that transparency? You guys were unbelievably transparent with this investigation.

GIULIANI: Also, how do you do an obstruction case when there is no underlying crime. That means you're not trying to cover up a crime.

INGRAHAM: Mueller has his theory.

GIULIANI: And you gave everything that they wanted to them, and --

INGRAHAM: They're mad because they didn't get their interview --

GIULIANI: You don't have to give them an interview. You don't have to give them an interview.

INGRAHAM: So they didn't get their interview, so they couldn't show whatever intent they thought they were going to show. And if they had the guts and they had the confidence in their position, they would've taken you all to court. If they had so much confidence that Trump obstructed justice, they would've taken you to court and run it all the way to Supreme Court. They didn't have the guts to do that.

GIULIANI: And the only reason we would have a concern about testifying is not the truth. It's because they are sneaky and they trap people into perjury.

INGRAHAM: Rudy, thank you for being here.

GIULIANI: And they are unethical. And we can talk about that at some other point.

INGRAHAM: Thank you for coming on tonight, we really appreciate it.

GIULIANI: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: And ahead, we are going to call out some of the biggest lies in the Russian collusion delusion. Don't miss it.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The other thing in this report is it really corroborated a lot of the good journalism that was done. He went after all of us every single day, The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, really? Lie number one. Mueller had evidence that Michael Cohen was in Prague during the 2016 presidential election. The truth, according to Mueller, Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations. Lie number two, the Buzzfeed bombshell that claimed Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress. Mueller says, quote, "The president did not direct him to provide false testimony." And number three, Carter Page was conspiring and collaborating with the Russian government. Mueller says, quote, "The investigation did not establishment that Page coordinated with the Russian government." And that's just three.

Joining me now, Dan Bongino, Fox News contributor, host of the "Dan Bongino Podcast," Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, Dave Bossie, the deputy campaign manager for Trump in 2016, somehow avoided being mentioned in the Mueller. How did you manage to pull that off?

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: Dave, I want to start with you. You worked on this campaign. Is this vindication for you and your colleagues, and is there any possible, little window that they could slide through all the way to impeachment?

DAVID BOSSIE, FORMER TRUMP DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER: This is total vindication for the president of the United States. When he was a candidate, he was maligned during the transition as president-elect, he was maligned, and in the White House he was unfairly. This delusion of collusion has been going on for now almost three years, and it is outrageous. And all of you folks that worked on this campaign, whether it was myself, or Corey Lewandowski, or any of the other folks that worked on this campaign, we are maligned and really badmouthed and dragged through the mud. And so I'm glad --

INGRAHAM: Welcome to politics. Everybody is maligned. Look at what they are saying about me tonight. I am just, like, ask me if I care.

BOSSIE: None of us care. But these lies that the Democrats have been saying, these lies that the Democrats have been talking about and spouting, it's out of control.

INGRAHAM: It's out of control. It moves, Matt, into an effort to undermine this presidency. And he was right. Trump had such good instincts.

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIR, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Good instincts, yes.

INGRAHAM: In December of 2016, what was he telling? I was looking at all the notes. The people were taking all these notes about his investigation. He said I'm worried that this is going to undermine my agenda. And they're trying to delegitimize my presidency. I just won the election. He was right about that.

SCHLAPP: He was right. And the whole thing, and Byron York had great conversations with one of Trump's lawyers, John Dowd, about the fact that even Mueller understood that the president was in a bad political position and he had to defend himself, and the president didn't take any privileges, he put everything forward, never stopped anybody from talking to him.

INGRAHAM: Transparent. Yes, Bossie thinks you should have done executive privilege. I kind of agree with Bossie on that. But Dan, I've got to ask you. We only played three of the lies. You have been coming on this show, and Hannity, we were documenting lie after lie after lie, and we were called state media for it. We were right and they were wrong. What other lies were told?

DAN BONGINO, FORMER NYPD OFFICER: Remember the Deutsche Bank case? Deutsche Bank, they are looking into Donald Trump's records. False. Remember the WikiLeaks Don Jr. story? False. Remember the Mike Flynn was instructed as a candidate to contact the Russians? False. Laura, the list goes on and on and on. But you know what's ironic, they got all those collusion stories wrong which erred on the side of making Donald Trump look bad. A story, as a matter of fact, the story of the century that's going to make the Obama administration look bad, the media is entirely incurious about the use of a human intelligence asset -- think about that -- to target members of the Donald Trump campaign. Entirely, completely, uncurious about the whole episode. It's unbelievable.

INGRAHAM: When we come back, we're going to talk about what's next. And will we ever find out the report -- what was in the report about Hillary's destruction of documents? Emails and her whole team. We'll get into that and a lot more. Lightning round, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Back with me now, Dan Bongino, Matt Schlapp, Dave Bossie. Lightning round. So are Dems going to have the guts, the stomach to move forward on impeachment after all this? Quick around the table, Bossie?

BOSSIE: No, I think they are going to figure out that they are overreaching, and I think they are going to figure that out quick.

INGRAHAM: Schlapp?

SCHLAPP: Schiff and Steny Hoyer have already come out and said no, but AOC and her ilk, they're going to push this hard.

INGRAHAM: Bongino?

BONGINO: No. They've staked their entire professional reputations on it, which they didn't have much to begin with anyways. So no, they won't move on, no chance.

INGRAHAM: Number two, will we ever see, speaking of desire, guys, for transparency, will we ever see the underlying documents related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation? Bossie?

BOSSIE: I hope Barr is empaneling a grand jury to investigate the investigators, and that will be part of it.

SCHLAPP: Lightning, yes. We are going to see it.

INGRAHAM: This like the McLaughlin Group. Yes, one answer. Bongino, will we ever see these underlying documents? We've got transparency from the Trump team, millions of pages of documents, all these people interviewed, White House counsel interviewed, and we still don't really know, do we, what happened with Comey and the edits and why he came out and did the press conference. Your answer?

BONGINO: I think we will, because, remember, the I.G. concluded that they could not determine there wasn't political bias in this switch from the Clinton investigation to the Trump team, contrary to what the media tells you.

INGRAHAM: And Bossie, how did you stay out of the report?

(LAUGHTER)

BOSSIE: You know what, when you don't do anything wrong, which we didn't, it's easy to stay out of it.

SCHLAPP: That's not true. That's not true with these.

INGRAHAM: Come on! Everybody is doing that search function on the computer today. Wait, Bossie is not in there, darn!

BOSSIE: I didn't get questioned by Mueller.

INGRAHAM: It was always like why did Lewandowski always get the short end of the stick. Why is it, Corey, you do it. No, just teasing.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: Great panel, thank you so much. Have a wonderful Easter. But when we come back, my final thoughts on this entire charade. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: OK, remember this tweet sent out a couple of weeks ago by former FBI Director Jim Comey? "So many questions," in the redwoods. Now tonight, this is a new tweet. "So many answers." It says, pine needles? He loves the wilderness. Maybe he should stay there. He is a crying in the wilderness, vox clamantis in deserto.

My friends, this has been a ridiculous two years for this country, and this president has still gotten so much accomplished. Imagine what he could've gotten accomplished if this hadn't been an albatross around his neck.

That's all the time we have tonight. My podcast dissected this entire report. Got to podcastone.com and listen. You'll love it. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team have unbelievable analysis next right here. Shannon.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.