Giuliani: Trump's reimbursement of payment violates no law

This is a rush transcript from "Justice with Judge Jeanine," May 5, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JEANINE PIRRO, HOST: Hello, and welcome to "Justice." I'm Jeanine Pirro. Thanks for being with us tonight.

Rudy Giuliani, the attorney for President Trump in the Mueller investigation and the Stormy Daniels case. Rudy is standing by live for an exclusive interview on "Justice."

I have a lot of questions for him in just a moment, but first my opening statement.

If you ever doubted that the mission of special counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation is to secure the scalp of a sitting president, then listen up. For the first time, real evidence not of Russia collusion, but of the Mueller team's all-out war on our president was played out in a Federal courthouse in Virginia.

The judge, United States District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III took no prisoners in addressing the motivation and the intent as well as the underlying authority of the so-called special counsel.

Judge Ellis, a well-respected jurist has handled some of the highest profile national security cases in this country. His politics had never been questioned.

He was born in Bogota, Colombia, served in the United States Navy and graduated both Princeton and Harvard. The colloquy between this respected judge and prosecutor, Andrew Weissman whose ethics and integrity had been repeatedly attacked by Federal courts for years was astonishing even to a veteran of the courtroom like myself.

You will recall that Manafort stands accused by team Mueller in two separate indictments of money laundering, bank fraud and lobbying crimes when he worked for the Ukrainian, not Russian government.

Judge Ellis, no friend of Manafort threatened that Manafort was faced with a real possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison. He told Manafort that given his financial means, as well as his international connections, that he pose a substantial a flight risk from justice.

But, yesterday as Manafort's team sought dismissal of Mueller's indictment based on lack of jurisdiction, the court did a 180 accusing the prosecutors of not only trying to take down the president, but of trying to wield unfettered power.

Now you may recall that in was in May of 2017 that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who signed an order to appointing Mueller special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters. Ironically, in the order, Mueller is authorized to conduct an investigation generated by director of the FBI, James Comey's House Intelligence Committee testimony.

Isn't it curious that it was Rod Rosenstein who wrote the 2017 memo saying that Jim Comey should be fired, saying, "The FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage affecting the entire Department of Justice." Rosenstein adding, he doesn't understand Comey's refusal to accept the nearly almost universal judgment that he made serious mistakes in the handling of the collusion - or in conclusion of Clinton's email investigation. That Comey was, according to Rosenstein, a textbook example of what prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

He adds, "The prosecutors from different eras and both political parties agree that Comey violated the rules and regulations, as well as the traditions of the FBI ending," ending with recommendation that ,"The FBI is unlikely to regain public confidence and Congressional trust unless Comey is gone."

And yet, in the most of blatant display of public corruption and personal cover your own butt, Rosenstein appoints both Comey and his friend, Mueller to begin an investigation generated from the disrespected tainted testimony of the same man that he wanted fired.

But it gets worse, the so-called Russia collusion investigation is then secretly expanded by Rosenstein months later.

So, why is this important? Because Rosenstein is adding more authority than we knew he initially gave. So, why does Rosenstein even have so much power? He has irrefutable power, more than the president himself some would say, because he convinced a dithering, unsure, insecure, uncertain spineless, timid attorney general just appointed by the president to back off and renege on his duty to run the Department of Justice.

Lo and behold, Rosenstein who has his own bias against Trump having just a day earlier then rejected by Trump to run the FBI, his interests though is far beyond that job. His interest is to protect this handling of the case, ultimately permitting Hillary Clinton to get approval to sell 20% of America's uranium to Russia interest.

So, enter Judge Ellis, a take no prisoner judge who has seen it all. He tells Rosenstein's henchmen, "Do you even have the power to indict Manafort? Aren't you overstepping your authority to investigate Russia collusion during the 2016 presidential election when you indict Manafort for actions 11 years prior to the election? What does 2005 have to do with the 2016 elections or the 2017 firing of James Comey?"

And in their inimitable way, the arrogant, almighty Mueller team responds in an open courtroom to a Federal judge, "We have additional powers. We cannot disclose them in this courtroom because of an ongoing investigation and because it will affect national security." The judge suggests Mueller's people are lying about the investigation and seeking the unfettered power to unseat our president, simply using Manafort to sing against Donald Trump; "Come on, man, you don't care about Manafort, you really care about what information Manafort can give you to lead to Mr. Trump and an impeachment."

The Mueller team then refuses to show their authority. Judge Ellis demands to see the Rosenstein secret memo, un-redacted of course. The one that House Republicans have sought for months, saying that information from 2015 is not within the scope of that investigation.

We don't want anyone with unfettered powers, said the judge, making fun of and paraphrasing the prosecutors, the court sums up the Mueller team argument, "We said this is what the investigation is about, but we are not bound by what we said and we were lying anyway."

By saying their authority is not judicially enforceable, the Mueller team is basically telling a United States federal judge that their authority cannot be challenged through the courts

It's time to end the Mueller-Comey-Rosenstein cabal once and for all.

And that's my open. Tell me what you think on my Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, #judgejeanine.

And joining me now, attorney for President Trump and former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, thanks so much, Mr. Mayor for being on "Justice."

RUDOLPH GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Judge, always a pleasure to be with you.

PIRRO: Thank you. I want to get to some of the confusion regarding what happened over the last couple of days.

GIULIANI: Sure.

PIRRO: But first, I would like to get your reaction to my opening statement, specifically, these special prosecutors refusing to hand over the authority for their expanded investigation. What say you?

GIULIANI: Well, we have not been able to get that from them either, and of course, they developed that whole Cohen investigation and gave it away. I think the judge was rightfully confused about why did they give away Cohen, but not Manafort.

So, I don't know, maybe they think Manafort is somebody they can flip faster. The fact is, this plays into what my client, the president of the United States has been saying for quite some time. The judge, in substance said, this is a witch hunt with a tremendous amount of government misconduct attached to it.

And you're quite correct, Attorney General Sessions should step up and dismiss this entire investigation.

PIRRO: Well, you know, but what we have got is an attorney general who doesn't seem to be able to step up too much, but that's opinion and I am not even going to ask you at this point what you think. My concern is, when these prosecutors go before a Federal judge in a Federal district courthouse and basically say, we can't tell you, when the judge is the one deciding the propriety of that case and handling the case, where are we in terms of justice in this country and the power of the courts over unfettered power of the Special Counsel?

GIULIANI: Well, it kind of gives the American people a glimpse of what we have to deal with day in and day out, with the abuses, not so much of Bob Mueller, but of the people that work for him. I mean, they are way over the top.

When you look at questions they propound - what do you think? What do you feel? It's like, come on in and commit perjury.

There is no evidence of collusion with the Russians. Gone. There is no evidence of obstruction of justice. Everything the president did, he has perfect authority to do under Article 2.

They want him to do a Martha Stewart for them, and I am sorry, people, he's not going to do that.

PIRRO: Martha Stewart - Clemens, yes, lying - but before that, I would like to talk about what happened this week. There has been a lot of discussion about what you said on this network regarding payments from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels, what the president knew or didn't know; what he paid or did not pay. Can you please clear his up for us?

GIULIANI: Sure, the end result is real simple and that's what we are interested in. The president of the United States did not in any way violate the campaign finance law.

Every campaign finance expert - Republican and Democrat - will tell you, that if it was for another purpose other than just campaigns and even if it was for campaign purposes, if it was to save his family, to save embarrassment, it's not a campaign donation.

And second, even if it was a campaign donation, the president reimbursed it fully with a payment of $35,000.00 a month that paid for that and other expenses. No need to go beyond that. Case over. That case should be dismissed by the Southern District of New York, at least with regard to President Trump.

PIRRO: Okay, did you misspeak or did people not interpret what you were saying. Were you talking about the facts or were you talking about the law, Mr. Mayor?

GIULIANI: I am talking about the law and the conclusion. The facts, I'm still learning. This is you know, 1.2 million documents. I have been in the case for two weeks, virtually one day in comparison to other people. So, I am not an expert on the facts yet. I am getting there.

But I am an expert on the law, and particularly the campaign finance law, I have lived under it running for president. And the fact is, there is no way that there was campaign finance violation or any kind nor was it a loan. It was an expenditure, and this expenditure would have been made whether he was running for president or he wasn't running for president and we can show that from the history of these two gentlemen.

Mr. Cohen has probably been the worst treated, and Mr. Manafort in this case. The rage on their house, Comey got really offended when I said it was storm trooper tactics. I think the judge basically said that maybe a little more eloquently than I did, but after all, I am a litigator in there fighting for my client, and some of the people around it.

PIRRO: You know, when we talk about what happened, as you described as storm troopers, I mean, going into someone's house at 5:00 in the morning or you know, going into someone's hotel room, pulling a phone out of his hand as they did with Michael Cohen. I mean, when you juxtapose that against that against the so-called investigation of Hillary Clinton where she was basically given a warning, she deletes, she bleached - yes...

GIULIANI: Nice, nice, nice. Poor little Hillary, we have got to be nice to her. We have to - no under oath. We will take that now. No under oath, no Q and A, just notes. FBI 302s.

PIRRO: Right.

GIULIANI: And how about the report written by that phony Jim Comey before he even interviews her? What the hell was the interview for, Judge?

PIRRO: You know what, I am going to ask you, you ran a prosecutor's office, I ran a prosecutor's office, and - but I mean, you're Federal, I mean, you are renowned for what you did in the Southern District of New York.

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: I hired that clown.

PIRRO: I know you hired them, and I wish I had more time to talk about that, but you know, you and I both understand that there are certain things that are done and certain things that are not done, and when you decide that you are going to break into someone's home or you're going to invade the attorney-client privilege, they have to be extreme circumstances.

This investigation went from Russia collusion...

GIULIANI: Gone.

PIRRO: To obstruction.

GIULIANI: Gone.

PIRRO: Gone, the president's Article 2. It makes it clear, the president- okay, now, who is chasing you know, porn stars? I mean, why are we even going in this direction? And why are we not ending this because there is no evidence that's been unearthed, unless I am missing something regarding any of that stuff.

GIULIANI: Yes, yes. You are not missing anything. We are not missing anything. We have turned over the documents after all, and I am in the process of getting through about a third of them so far. There is no evidence of any of the things you are talking about.

The only evidence there is - the only crimes committed here have been committed by the government, which is why the judge, Judge Ellis is so outraged.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't dismiss this case the way the case of Senator Stevens was dismissed, unfortunately after the man died.

PIRRO: Right, right and that is part of the frustration we have here. But if a judge appears to be saying like, give me the reason for your - the basis for your jurisdiction, how it is that you go into a grand jury and get an indictment? If there is no power that is connected to the 2016 election or the firing of James Comey, then how can they possibly have the authority to indict Manafort? Why wouldn't Ellis dismiss this indictment?

GIULIANI: Now, I don't know what the - some of the things, they won't share it with us either over at the White House counsel's office. I don't know what their authority was, but the judge has every right to see it, after all, this was not statutory authority.

A US attorney like I was, has the statutory authority recommended indictment.

PIRRO: Right, right.

GIULIANI: So, you've got to get it from Rosenstein, well, they have a right to see it, and the judge also has a right to determine, they went beyond that even if Rosenstein attempted to give it to them.

He also has a right to determine that by government misconduct, they have fatally tainted this case, and I believe in my heart that the Supreme Court will decide that. So, I think Judge Ellis probably is tough enough and strong enough to decide that himself.

PIRRO: All right, Rudy Giuliani, thank you so much for being with us tonight.

GIULIANI: And you've got Victoria Toensing, she'll take you through the Presidential immunity better than I can.

PIRRO: She certainly knows her stuff, Mr. Mayor, thank you - and counsel to the President. Take care.

GIULIANI: Thank you.

PIRRO: All right, Congressman Ron DeSantis still on deck tonight, but next, I want to get more to the heart of the legal issues surrounding the Mueller investigation and the president.

As the mayor said, Victoria Toensing, standing by with inside information you need to hear. "Justice," back in a moment.

Welcome back to "Justice." A federal judge makes headlines by suggesting Robert Mueller has overstepped his authority in the Paul Manafort investigation, and maybe out to get the president. Where have you heard that one before?

Joining me now, Victoria Toensing. She is one of the founding partners of diGenova & Toensing law firm. Victoria, thanks for being here. I might also add that you were deputy attorney general and assistant United States attorney and you are married now to the United States attorney Joe diGenova.

VICTORIA TOENSING, FOUNDING PARTNERS, DIGENOVA & TOENSING LAW FIRM: And we were all -- Rudy and Joe and I were all in the department at the same time, so we go back, I mean, a few decades.

PIRRO: Okay, let me ask you this, one of the things the left has been going ballistic about since Rudy made his appearance on this network is, you know, did Rudy Giuliani, counsel to this president by discussing Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, did he in essence waive the attorney- client privilege and therefore, can Rudy be subpoenaed to talk about what he spoke to the president about?

TOENSING: This just drives me nuts. Number one, I don't know where these journalists get their so-called experts. The privilege belongs to the president of the United States. His lawyer cannot waive it for him. Nobody else can waive it for him. So, they get all confused about waiving the attorney-client privilege.

PIRRO: So, the waiver can only happen as a result of the client and not the attorney?

TOENSING: That's right. Well, but this is - you know, this is what happens. The media -- anything the president does or anyone connected with the president - I know, Joe and I know, we've been there - they start figuring out some way to criticize him.

All this angst about whether the privilege was waived, what did they think?
Mueller is going to put Rudy in the grand jury and say, "Okay, so tell me what you've learned the last two weeks?"

PIRRO: You know what, based on what I have been seeing, I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't have time to go there. Listen, the question now as a result of Judge Ellis in that district court in Virginia basically saying, you know, you are just getting Manafort, you know, to flip, and you're trying to pull him by his short hairs and all that other stuff, is it legitimate for prosecutors to do that?

TOENSING: Well, if you know what the crime is, I did that when I had drug kingpins and we had all the evidence that there was a crime and this guy was doing it and he was using low-level people to get to the drug kingpin.

But here, we don't have a crime here. We have no idea what the crime is because no one will tell us.

And here is the danger with Manafort telling him he might spend the rest of his life in prison. My client, if Scooter Libby had the same situation when the same people - Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald - who is now a lawyer, went to Scooter Libby's lawyers and said, "If you give us something about Vice President Cheney, this will all go away and you won't be indicted."

Well, Scooter Libby is a strong man and an honest man, but not everybody is that strong when they are looking at spending the rest of their time in prison then they can do what Alan Dershowitz talks about, composing rather than singing what the facts are. It's very, very dangerous in this situation.

PIRRO: Let me ask you, let's get right to the central issue here, can the President even be indicted?

TOENSING: He cannot under two separate opinions, one in 1973 after Nixon - written by a Republican Justice Department, and in 2000, written by a Democratic Justice Department - the president cannot be indicted. It is based on separation of powers, constitutional grounds like you're not going to have the President go in and report to a lower court, but also on policy grounds.

The opinion said, the president is busy. You cannot take a criminal process and even an indictment. You cannot take a criminal process to the point where the President becomes incapacitated to run the Presidency.

So, if he cannot be indicted, Judge, Your Honor, to what purpose does Mueller want to interrogate, to question the President. What will he do with it?

PIRRO: Victoria, we went through this with Bill Clinton. Now, I remember this from Bill Clinton where all that thing - he can be sued civilly, but wait a minute, he can be sued civilly, but he cannot be indicted. We already went through this. Why is everybody acting like this is a territory that we are not familiar with?

TOENSING: Clinton did do a grand jury. Remember, he testified in front of the grand jury sort of where he lied, but that was under the independent counsel statute.

PIRRO: Right and that's...

TOENSING: This is now not the independent counsel statute.

PIRRO: Exactly.

TOENSING: Who knew what creature that was, nobody could figure that out.

PIRRO: Can the president be subpoenaed?

TOENSING: Well, not for these questions that they have, and I can get into that. I don't know if we have the time because these are questions...

PIRRO: We have 10 seconds.

TOENSING: The 40-some, violate not only Article 2 of the Constitution, but executive privilege and settled case law. So, these questions are phooey - a good legal term.

PIRRO: All right. That's what I like, a real legal term. Victoria Toensing. Thanks for being with us tonight.

And a busy night, and we haven't even heard from the panel yet. Katrina Pierson from the Trump 2020 campaign, and former Obama campaign adviser, David Tafuri, ready to duke it out over Mueller, the DOJ and more. "Justice" rolls on in a moment.

MARIANNE RAFFERTY, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Live from "America's News Headquarters," I am Marianne Rafferty. President Trump pushing the benefits for the tax reform plan in Cleveland, Ohio today at a business round table event.

The president touched on a number of other topics as well from immigration and border security to the simmering trade dispute with china. He also announced that a date and location has been set for his upcoming meeting with North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, but he didn't share any detail.

Five miners are missing in Poland after a quake hit near a coal mine in the southern part of that country. Four people were able to leave the mine when the quake hit and two others were rescued, but the remaining five could be half a mile underground.

Dozens of rescuers are on the scene, but rubble-filled tunnels and dangerous methane levels are delaying rescue efforts.

I'm Marianne Rafferty. Now back to "Justice with Judge Jeanine."

PIRRO: Welcome back to "Justice." It's been a busy week of developments in the Mueller probe. Let's bring in our panel, Katrina Pierson from the Trump 2020 re-election campaign, and former Obama campaign foreign policy adviser, David Tafuri. All right, thanks being on, both of you. Now...

KATRINA LANETTE PIERSON, AMERICAN TEA PARTY ACTIVIST: Thank you.

PIRRO: What we have got now is a Federal judge who is saying to the Mueller team, "Hey, guys, I want to know what this expanded order is that you have that allows you to indict a guy for something not connected to Russia collusion, not connected to the 2016 campaign and not connected to the firing of James Comey," and these lawyers say, "We don't think so." Is that right, David?

DAVID TAFURI, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, this is really interesting exchange that the judge had and I am glad that the judge is reviewing this. But remember that Rosenstein who was Trump's pick for Deputy Attorney General gave this referral to Special Counsel Mueller.

So, Mueller is just proceeding as he was authorized to do by the Deputy Attorney General.

PIRRO: But the question - you're not answering my question. The question is, was he authorized to go back to crimes that involve 2005 and the Ukrainian government as opposed to the Russian government?

TAFURI: Well, Rosenstein approved of Mueller going forward with this indictment against Manafort, so the answer is yes. Also, notably, the judge never doubted the evidence that Manafort has committed crimes, serious crimes of bank fraud and others...

PIRRO: What makes you say that? What makes you say the judge never doubted the evidence. The judge is at the jurisdiction level, like I don't know if you have the power to indict this guy, what makes you say he thinks the facts are cool?

TAFURI: Because he's not talking about dismissing this for lack of evidence and he's not talking the indictment being improper.

(CROSSTALK)

TAFURI: He's just arguing about the jurisdiction, that's all. That's my point.

PIRRO: Okay, good, I am not saying that the facts are clear. Go ahead, Katrina?

PIERSON: Well, look, the facts are the facts, Judge, and Paul Manafort was raided back in July 2017, and Rosenstein didn't expand the scope until a month later. So, the judge is absolutely right to question whether or not that this fell within the scope of the Special Counsel, and look, it's a great day in America.

PIRRO: So what you're saying is...

PIERSON: We are not even...

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO: What you're saying Katrina is that Rosenstein backtracked and filled in, indicted a guy and then decided what he was going to do was give himself the authority to indict him a month later? Is that what you are saying?

PIERSON: Well, I think that's what the judge was essentially saying. He called them - he said, they were lying about the intent here, and he basically just stated the obvious, Judge. The judge knows what everybody else knows, including Democrats and that that this Manafort case has nothing to do with Paul Manafort. It has nothing to do with the 2016 campaign and it has nothing to do with Russia collusion.

This is simply a bunch of rogue agents who have installed this admitted insurance policy to subvert the duly elected president of the United States, Donald J. Trump; otherwise, this is called a silent coup, and to use the president's terms, this is nothing but a witch hunt.

PIRRO: Okay, but David, to respond to that, do you think that irrespective of the jurisdiction, that the evidence is there to convict?

TAFURI: I think the evidence, if you read the indictment, is overwhelming. I am sure you've read the indictment, Judge Jeanine. There is substantial evidence of bank fraud by Manafort going back many years. He had sketchy contacts with pro-Russian officials in Ukraine. He was undermining US policy, undermining Ukrainian policy and receiving tons of money illegally and hiding that money in offshore bank accounts. He also had foreign...

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO: Well, congratulations...

TAFURI: Agent representation -- registration act violations. So, there is substantial significant crimes that he is accused of.

PIRRO: You're right, but do you understand, David - David, listen to me, I want you to listen to me...

TAFURI: I will.

PIRRO: Bob Mueller is nothing more than a lawyer who has got access to a grand jury because he has the authority to investigate Russian collusion. He doesn't have access to a grand jury because he doesn't like Donald Trump. Where is the Russia collusion?

TAFURI: He has - he is investigating the Russian interference in our election and related crimes. Now, Manafort may very well have been involved in collusion, and we know from this indictment, he has substantial contacts with sketchy pro-Russian officials in Ukraine and with Russian officials.

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO: What is a sketchy person? In order to paint sketchy - because they say he is, but they don't indict him for being sketchy?

TAFURI: He is sketchy because they wired $13 million secretly off the books and he put it in off-shore accounts.

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO: Then you know what? You indict Carter Page...

TAFURI: You don't think that's sketchy?

PIRRO: The guy is walking around free right now. Go ahead, Katrina.

TAFURI: He is sketchy, too. And he probably will be indicted as well.

PIERSON: This is absolutely malicious prosecution of the political opposition. These are people who do not like President Trump, and they are trying to take down everyone around him hoping they catch him in the cross fires.

The good news is, unfortunately for the left, is that, yes, you may be able to destroy a man's character, hurt his family and even take away his livelihood in the court of public opinion, but in fact, when you try to take away a man's freedom in this country, you have a right to due process, and this judge is getting to the bottom of it.

PIRRO: Well, you know what, we will see what this judge does. What do you think the judge is going to do, David? Quickly. I have 10 seconds with you.

TAFURI: I think the judge in the DC action is going to let it go forward. That's Judge Amy Berman-Jackson. The judge in the Virginia action, I am not sure. I think it will go forward. I think Manafort will be prosecuted in DC and possibly in Virginia, and Manafort's Deputy Gates, Rick Gates has already pled guilty.

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO: Okay, Katrina, your 10 seconds. Your 10 seconds are up - Katrina?

PIERSON: I think it could go either way. I think the judge is waiting to see what is actually in the scope of the investigation. He is going to make his decision, but right now, it sounds very flimsy.

PIRRO: All right, we'll see. David Tafuri and Katrina Pierson, thanks so much.

TAFURI: Thanks, Judge.

PIRRO: And keeping the heat on the Justice Department, Congressman Ron DeSantis joins me live next to explain what Congress is doing now that the DOJ has ignored its subpoena several weeks since then. Anyway, new details straight ahead.

Welcome back to "Justice." As we speak tonight, Congress is waiting for deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to turn over documents related to the Trump investigation. Joining me now, one of the men on the front lines of this battle, Florida Congressman Ron DeSantis. All right, good evening, Congressman.

I want to start - I want to make clear that there is a bunch of committees. You've got the Nunes House Intelligence Committee. That's the one that Nunes and Gowdy are on. What we now know, and tell me if I am wrong, is that this intel investigation by the FBI and Strzok was started without any real intel, is that right or wrong.

REP. RON DESANTIS, R-FLORIDA: Yes, so they have got access to the two pages. Now, I haven't read it, but the intel folks have and basically you had this Papadopoulos tip from him popping off at a bar. There was no credible intelligence on that two-page document. And of course, this is Peter Strzok, the infamous FBI agent who said that we can't afford the risk of a Trump presidency and needed an insurance policy. He is the one that opened it based off the thinnest of reasons.

PIRRO: Okay, so then, let's move to the House Judiciary that you are on, and you have been asking for about 1.2 million documents for what? A year now?

DESANTIS: Right.

PIRRO: And every time you get close, Rod Rosenstein runs to the White House or he runs - you know, to make sure that people's names are redacted, including Andrew McCabe who is now fired, gone. How many of those 1.2 million documents do you think you have got?

DESANTIS: I think, it's - it may have been a quarter of them between an agreement between the relevant chairman and Rosenstein, so I don't know that we've received all of those yet, just that small batch.

PIRRO: On the quarter that you're referencing.

DESANTIS: Yes, there's a lot of them that are still out there and then, Judge...

PIRRO: Do you want to tell me why your committee is so impotent?

DESANTIS: Well, I think what you have to do is when you set a deadline, the next day you need to set a contempt hearing for Rosenstein, and then, if he doesn't turn over what you want, you hold him in contempt and then if he remains...

PIRRO: You're not - not you, but that's not being done. So, who should do it?

DESANTIS: You need to do it. I mean, and the dangers is...

PIRRO: Why can't you do it? You do it.

DESANTIS: I support doing it, Judge. I am not a chairman, so I can't call that myself.

PIRRO: Therein lies the rub.

DESANTIS: But I am advocating for doing it and I am supporting people, you know, like Chairman Meadows, Subcommittee Chairman Meadows is pushing as well. We need to have consequences because otherwise, what they are going to do is they are going to trickle some out, they are going stone wall, and then trickle some out and they are not actually going to do it.

And another part of this are the redactions that they are doing. A lot of these redactions are not really done to protect our national security.

PIRRO: Oh, that's a bunch of hogwash, you and I know it.

DESANTIS: They are more being done to protect different bureaucrats in the FBI.

PIRRO: They tried it with a federal judge, Ron, and the Federal judge said, "Don't laugh at me, guys. You can't expect me to believe you have jurisdiction when you don't have proof of it. You go into a grand jury, you indict someone for something they did 11 years ago when you're investigating something that happened a year and a half ago." But this guy, Rosenstein is running amuck. Who controls him?

DESANTIS: Well, I mean, ultimately, you know, I think Sessions should be in charge, Judge. If you look at the questions that they are trying to ask the President, very few of them have anything to do with the campaign. A lot of it was transition stuff, in the early months of the Trump presidency. There is no reason Sessions should be recused.

If anything, Rosenstein should be recused, because he is the one that wrote the memo saying you should fire Comey.

PIRRO: You know what I think of Sessions, this guy doesn't have the chutzpah or whatever you want to call it to get rid of Rosenstein, but here is the thing, Mark Meadows - he was on my show a few weeks ago.

He started talking about, "We're going to impeach Rosenstein unless we get this stuff." The next day, the Department of Justice calls and says, "We're going to start moving this along. We've got a new process." Well, you know what, you guys are having the wool pulled over your eyes. You ought to just impeach the guy and get it over with.

You've got a federal judge frustrated. The American public is frustrated. You're frustrated, and this guy is laughing at all of us because he's scared the hell out of Jeff Sessions, who decided to recuse himself, he still doesn't know why.

DESANTIS: And Rosenstein has bungled this from the start. He shouldn't have appointed Mueller, then we he did, he has let Mueller basically run wild. He has not imposed any discipline on this at all, and he seems to think that he is superior to Congress and even the President.

PIRRO: He is, isn't he?

DESANTIS: That this arbitrary decision with the Justice Department...

PIRRO: He is superior to Congress and everyone else.

DESANTIS: He considers that to be the rule of law...

PIRRO: Because no one is taking him to the...

DESANTIS: That's not the rule of law.

PIRRO: Did you hear what I said?

DESANTIS: I didn't.

PIRRO: I said, he is superior to Congress and everyone else because he's not listening to anyone.

DESANTIS: Right, no, exactly. And that's why the accountability that you talked about with Meadows, with holding him in contempt, if you're not willing to do it, then he's going to keep doing what he has been doing. So, let's bring accountability to him. I think what will happen, is I think you get the documents very quickly.

PIRRO: Appreciate everything you do, Congressman. Talk to your Chair.

DESANTIS: I will. I will. I will tell him the Judge said, we need to end this now. We need the documents.

PIRRO: Yes. And I'll see you in Israel next week.

DESANTIS: Absolutely. Looking forward to it.

PIRRO: All right, and Snoop Dogg makes it on to the list of this week's outrageous comments. Candace Owens joins me live, next.

Snoop Dogg adding his two cents on Kanye West, controversial week. Taking to Instagram to post an edited photo of West saying that "He's all white now."

In the photo, West's skin appears to be significantly lightened and that's just one of the most outrageous things I have seen this week.

And here with more, Communications Director for Turning Point USA, Candace Owens. What a delight to have you on "Justice."

CANDACE OWENS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TURNING POINT USA: I'm so excited.

PIRRO: All right, we're excited to have you. Let's talk about this whole thing about the new Kanye is white. What is that about?

OWENS: Let's think about this. Let's do the inverse here. Obama becomes President, Taylor Swift tweets out her support of him and then all of a sudden, a bunch of other white artists begin showing her face painted black. What would everybody be saying about that?

PIRRO: Racist.

OWENS: They would be calling it racist, because it is racist. And Snoop Dogg is not excluded from being called racist because he's black. This is a racist act.

PIRRO: Okay, and he's basically calling him an Uncle Tom.

OWENS: Correct. Uncle Tom.

PIRRO: And at the end, I mean, does he join the whole other part - everyone - it's McCarthyism, isn't it?

OWENS: Right. Honestly, it's disgusting behavior. And I say this all the time, the most of racist things that's ever been said about me on my journey toward conservatism are sent to me by other black people, not white liberals, not white conservatives, other black people who refuse to allow you to think differently than what they have identified as the proper monolith.

PIRRO: You know that is very interesting. That's a very interesting thought because I mean, someone who was white doesn't say, "You can't think this way because you're white." I mean, do they? Is that the group think? Or is the group think just in certain communities?

OWENS: It's the group think in certain communities. I mean, it's just the black people that are voting for the Democratic Party 93%, you know, so that's the problem. It's that they don't understand that they are not thinking differently.

And when somebody dares to think differently, this is how they react. It's vicious and it's ugly. And I am really upset with what Snoop Dogg did here. It's disgusting behavior.

PIRRO: Well, you know, it's invoking a certain fear that if you don't join what everyone else is saying, it doesn't give you the ability to think for yourself.

In any event, I want to go on to a Detroit radio station boycotting Kanye West music. Take a listen to this.

(VIDEO CLIP STARTS)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As of this moment, we will #mutekanye on "The Morning Bounce" and we will not play any of Kanye West's music. We are banning Kanye West's music from this radio station.

(VIDEO CLIP ENDS)

PIRRO: Okay, now, that is a decent-size radio station banning Kanye West music because Kanye West tweeted that he likes Trump.

OWENS: Yes, and like I always say, challenge yourself to consider the inverse. Challenge yourself to consider if they banned Taylor Swift's music because she supports Obama. It's saddening and it's disheartening to me that this is the reaction that he's getting from people that once loved him because he doesn't think the way that they want him to think.

His mind is not his own. This is why I call this ideological slavery because that's exactly what it is. You're only - they only enjoy you to the extent that you celebrate their own ideas.

PIRRO: Interesting. I want to jump now because we don't have that much time. There is a mural of Trump on a Chula Vista school wall that sparks controversy. Do we have a photo of that? Okay, I guess it's so bad we are not going to show it.

All right, so this is outside a school with an image showing an attack on the President of the United States.

OWENS: You know, it's unacceptable, but I don't blame the student, I don't blame the parents, I don't blame the artists. I blame the media. I blame the celebrities for making people think this is acceptable behavior.

Every award show we watch, they are mocking the president. We have songs that are coming out that are mocking the president. We have Snoop Dogg releasing albums that show the president dead, where he is pretending to shoot the president. What do you expect the response to be? When they are watching people that they idolize see that this sort of behavior is okay. Of course, it's going to start to take place in a more molecular level, and that's exactly what is happening here.

PIRRO: You know, it reminds me of when, you know, they were taking a knee in the football - that whole thing going on, and kids at schools, high schools, younger, they are taking the knee, too. They kind of follow what they think is being taught to them or what is being imposed on them.

OWENS: Monkey see, monkey do is exactly what this is and it's sad, and it's dangerous because the slope is very slippery. Let's see if they get another president that is a Democrat, you can't then say that this behavior is unacceptable down the line.

PIRRO: You are an amazing young woman. Candace Owens...

OWENS: Thank you so much.

PIRRO: Thanks so much for being with us. And we will be right back in a moment.

Finally tonight, don't forget to friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter and on Instagram @judgejeanine, and remember, you never have to miss "Justice." If you can't watch, just set your DVR.

Plus, get ready, my new book "Liars, Leakers and Liberals: The Case against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy" comes out in June, but you can preorder it now on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Thanks for watching and a very important programming note, you may have heard me speak with Congressman deSantis about it, when you tune in next Saturday night, you'll be seeing a very special "Justice." I'll be hosting from Jerusalem ahead of the embassy opening there with plans to interview Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. You don't want to miss this special show.

I'm Judge Jeanine Pirro advocating for truth, justice and the American way. "The Greg Gutfeld Show" is coming up. I'll see you next Saturday night from Jerusalem.

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.