and he leaked the story to her the night before. she wrote a lot of stuff. and i have a text message showing rod saying i need to sue fox 5 because they misquoted me. so now fox 5 misquoted rod wheeler. and then you got to bring in this lawyer womened wigdoor who sues fox for anything, he s been on your channel many times. the combination of rod wheeler being broke, lying and wigdoor putting a case together against fox, now you have a lawsuit that you re quoting that s full of nonsense. you know, ed, why are you getting critical questioning here? because it matters. why does it matter? of course it matters. in part because fox news has come under the microscope for its journalism in part but there s a bigger reason i think. it has nothing to do with politics or the media. you went to the rich family. they were in grieving. they were hurting. they had the worst kind of scenario. they lost a loved one and didn t know what happened.
doonld trump junior i m sure in consultation with his lawyer. then came the washington post reporting that the president didn t have nothing to do with it. he had everything to do with it. actually dictating language confronted with this revelation, press secretary sara sanders admitted the president did have a hand in that statement after all. take a listen. like the statement that don junior issued is true, there s no inaccuracy in the statement. the president weighed in as any father would based on the limited information that he had. different story. what are the implications? joiningno join us now robert ray and cn contributor john dean, former nixon white house counsel and the author of conservatives without conscience. counselor dean, let s start with you. what do you believe the implications of this changing story is it by the white house on a narrative level and any legal implications to the
president s potential involvement? well, politically it, puts it to his lawyer very quickly and makes a liar out of his lawyer. on the broader scale, i looked at the lift of impeachments and i found na false statements have always played a role, while they may not be criminal acts in themself, indeed they do show a state of mind and every impeachment proceeding in modern times from nixon through clinton we see them played out. all right. so let s, robert, you play the role of the proverbial bucket of cold water on this. do you think these woes qualify as false statements for the purpose of legal analysis? not in a criminal context. first of all, false statements to the media don t give rise to a criminal proceeding, only to statements made to government officials. it s a pr problem. it s political problem.