statement, that grand jury matters are typically secret. he says the white house quote favors anything that ends this fully. i would say on a fact check that s accurate. the grand jury matters are quite secret. although the witnesses and those who don t interact with them aren t under a gag order. look, this is a secret, the white house said we ll cooperate. thanks. i m sure you ll have more at 6:00 eastern. including the former whitewater prosecutor for the bill clinton case will join us and will be interesting to hear his view of it. always good to have you here. this brings the hour for a close for me. i ll see you back here tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. with stephanie ruhle. thank you for watching. deadline: white house with nicolle wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it s 4:00. we come on the air from breaking news from the wall street journal. bob mueller has impaneled a
big focus behind the scenes but this is a remind their this russia probe is not only not going away, but it continues to deepen, ali. thanks very much. i know you have a lot of work to do to get a little bit more on this story. i mean, i would expect that kristen and others are not remarkably successful in getting a lot of comment out of the white house because everything to do with this russia probe tends to be directed to outside counsel. who are not entirely forthcoming about the details to the media. but i guess i want to end on this point. your reporting on this sort of indicates it doesn t matter if people are not forth coming to the media on this issue because bob mueller s on the case and now there may be a grand jury. well, we care a great deal. anything that people say in public that includes references, coaching or guidance to others may ultimately be legally relevant. but it doesn t have the same automatic hook as the grand jury proceeding. we mentioned the white house,
murdered. police believed then and still believe now that it was a botched raesh. it remains unsolved to this day. 12 days after his murder in an incident that is still considered completely unrelated wikileaks released a batch of e-mails stolen from the dnc. now, conspiracy theories started to sprout up online. one popular and unsubstantiated theory is that rich was somehow involved in leaking those e-mails and the plat ended in his murder. u.s. intelligence immediately snisd that notion. enter a central character, a man i m going to speak to in just a few moments. he s a wealthy dallas based financial advisor. he s a fox news on air contributor and a donald trump supporter. he urged the murder victims family to higher a private investigator and offered to pick up the tab himself. fox news went on the air with a big break in the case, apparently thanks to that private investigator. another fox news alert. a huge bombshell in the murder
hypotheticals here, but the vast majority of people can be brought before a grand jury. in the case of history with bill clinton, they ultimately voluntarily agreed to provide the president s testimony. i m not saying we re anywhere near that, but you asked the question about the power, bob mueller felt that included getting the testimony of the president, and the president did appear. so this is very different than for example just an fbi interview. we heard about mike flynn, the former national security adviser appearing before the fbi. that would be traditional powers and the grand jury allows you to bring people in the setting under oath and allows you a lot of tools in gathering evidence. we knew there was a grand jury involved in the investigations into michael flynn and paul manafort. that s right. who does that play into this? would this be a different one or perhaps the same one? you re pointing to the important i distinction here. there s an important inquiry and one
appearance of pressure. nine the question becomes is that good enough to take follow up action. i mean, legally, i mean i don t know a prosecutor would ever want to bring a squishy case like this in which the language is so vague and ambiguous and elliptical. it has to be clear and unequivocal. you bring up a good point. a legal obstruction case is very different than articles of impeachment for obstruction, which you saw in the nixon case, the bill clinton case. that s a political judgment, not a legal one. jerry ford was asked, what is impeachment. he said it s whatever congress says it is at any given moment. neil: with the republicans with the majority in the house and the senate, they can control the temper of this. that assumes that the republicans are on the same