- Well, welcome, folks, tothis edition of The 700 Club.

I've got some real good news,

if you can let me start theprogram with that good news.

Last week I had my 89th

- 89th birthday.- birthday.

And so there were some peoplewho put up a challenge.

They said we wanna putup a challenge of $89,000

to build water wells, 'cause it coincided

with National Water Day andWorldwide Water or whatever.

Well, I'm pleased to reportthat against that challenge

you raised $368,000.

- [Terry] (chuckling)That'll build some wells.

- [Pat] Oversubscribed it

four to one.(people clapping)

- [Terry] (clapping) Amen.

- Isn't that great?(people clapping)

So we'll drill a lot of wells.

And there's some high-tech wells

that have solar-powered motors.

And there's a whole lot of stuff in there.

But thank you very much,and we just are very pleased

at that response, and thatmade it a super happy birthday.

And a lot of people aregonna have clean water

all around the world because of it.

Well, the report is out,

no collusion after 22 months,

2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses.

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller

has cleared the president of any collusion

with Russia and finds noobstruction of justice.

Well, our WashingtonCorrespondent Amber Strong

is gonna give us a full report now.

(dramatic whoosh)

- No collusion, the two words echoing

through Washington Sunday,

but as with most things herein DC, division is growing.

- No collusion, no obstruction.

- [Amber] The presidentexpressing exoneration Sunday

celebrating the newswith, what else, a tweet.

But Democrats, led by HouseJudiciary Chair Jerry Nadler,

aren't convinced and wantAttorney General Barr

to testify before Congress.

- Attorney General Barr,who auditioned for his role

with an open memorandum suggesting

that the obstructioninvestigation was unconscionable,

made a decision about thatevidence in under 48 hours.

- [Amber] Barr's principal conclusions

of Mueller's report arebroken into two questions.

Did the Trump campaign collude

with the Russians duringthe 2016 election?

And two, did the presidentcommit obstruction of justice?

When it comes to collusion, Barr states,

The Special Counsel's investigation

did not find the Trump campaign

or anyone associated withit conspired or coordinated

with Russia in its effortsto influence the election.

On the issue of obstruction he writes,

The Special Counsel states

that while this report does not conclude

that the president committed a crime,

it also does not exonerate him.

But Barr and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein

come to their own conclusion

that the evidence developed

during the Special Counsel's investigation

is not sufficient to establish

that the president committed

an obstruction-of-justice offense.

The overall investigation is the result

of 22 months of work by19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents,

and includes 2,800 subpoenas,500 search warrants,

13 requests to foreign governments,

and 500 witness interviews.

Still, Democrats say they're concerned

about Barr's partiality

and vow to continueinvestigations into the president.

Republicans say it's all anelaborate plan for impeachment.

- If anyone thinks that theMueller Report being concluded

is the end of the Democrats' attempt

to take down President Trump,

they haven't been payingattention the last two years.

- A point of unity here in Washington,

politicians on both sides of the aisle

say they want the full report released.

William Barr says he wants that too,

but is working with a Special Counsel

on how much of it can be released.

No time table on whenthat's going to happen.

Amber Strong, CBN News, in Washington.

- Well, Jay Sekulow is on the president's,

he's the key member of thepresident's legal team.

And Jay joins us.

Jay, is the president relieved?

Is he happy, is joy inthe White House today?

- There's a happy spirit inthe White House last night,

and including today as well.

And the president, of course,is glad that this is over.

And as he said from theoutset, there was no collusion

and no obstruction, andthat is now the conclusion

of this two-year investigation.

And of course, as one ofthe chief lawyers involved

in this case, I will tell you that, Pat,

I have appreciated theprayers of a lot of people

that are watching thisbroadcast right now.

And our legal team did a phenomenal job.

God was gracious.

And a lot of students fromRegent University Law School,

that became lawyers inthe last, say, 10 years,

got to work on this case, sothat was pretty historic too.

- Well, let me ask you aboutthe origin of all this stuff.

There's a fellow namedChristopher Steele, a Brit,

a questionable gumshoe type.

And there was that Fusion GPS dossier.

How did all this thing start?

Can you tell us

about the origin of--- Yeah, so yeah, I can now.

So there's thiscounterintelligence investigation

that starts, called Crossfire Hurricane.

And that investigation is, in large part,

based on FISA warrants

and the Christopher Steele dossier,

which also led to someof these FISA warrants.

We now know, and asJames Comey himself said,

they were unverified and salacious.

It was funded by Fusion GPS,

and that created a veryserious issue legally

and politically, frankly, iswhat ended up happening there.

The end result of all of this was the fact

that you have a developmentthat took place.

And under the law, both under the law

involving this collusionconspiracy theory and obstruction,

the fact was there wasno evidence of either.

And as the attorney general said,

there was no evidence to bringforward an obstruction case.

Bob Mueller called itdifficult facts and law,

and you don't bring cases whenyou've got difficult facts

and difficult law.

- Well, the president canfire an attorney general,

and he certainly can discusscases with his subordinates.

How can that be obstruction?

- Well, the Department ofJustice said it can't be.

And you can't have obstruction by tweet.

So whatever theory may have been proposed,

and I'm kind of speculating on this

as it was reviewed,

so when you saw in the letterwas, where the line that says,

we don't conclude thepresident committed a crime.

We don't exonerate him either,there's two points on that.

Well, prosecutors' jobsaren't to exonerate.

They either prosecuteor decline to prosecute.

Here they couldn't make a determination

whether there was a violation, so they,

pursuant to, basically, theDepartment of Justice's policy,

took it to the Office of Legal Counsel.

That's the office that would look

at the theory they'reproposing, looking at the facts,

and determine if therewas a legal violation.

And the OLC, in conjunction

with the Deputy AttorneyGeneral Rod Rosenstein

and the attorney general,determined there was not.

In fact, if you read thatprovision of the order,

it says, In catalogingthe president's actions,

many of which took place in public view,

the report identifies noaction that, in our judgment,

constitutes obstructive conduct,

that had a nexus to a pendingcontemplative proceeding

and were done with corrupt intent,

each of which, underdepartment's principles,

a federal prosecutionguiding charging decisions

would need to be provenbeyond a reasonable doubt

to establish an obstructionof justice case.

And again, they reported no actions

that would reach that level.

So it was a sweepingvictory all the way around

on this issue, and Ithink this is a good day

for the United States.

- Jay, one thing, point,

it looked like it was a perjury trap,

that if the president had gone on,

there's almost no way thatyou can avoid perjury,

and you and Rudy kept himfrom going on to that trap.

How did you get it done?

- Well, look the presidentwanted to be fully transparent

and fully cooperative, and he was.

I mean, 1.4 million pagesof documents were sent over

to the Special Counsel.

Dozens and dozens of witness interviews

by White House officials forhundreds of hours took place.

And we provided responses in writing.

So I actually think what happened here

was a request for aninterview with the president,

which they made, we didnot think was appropriate

under the law.

In other words, the lawthat establishes the basis

upon which you would havethe right to, basically,

interview the president,

which would requireunder the Espy standard,

that you couldn't get this information

from anyplace else, thatthey could never meet it.

And that's ultimately why I do not think

they sought a subpoena.

- Let me ask you about whatthese congressmen are doing.

It's my understandingthat they have to be,

it has to be pursuant tosome legislative initiative

to go through all thesesubpoenas and so forth.

Am I correct in that,

or can they just go ona fishing expedition?

- No, you're 100% correct.

So there has to be, what's called,

a legitimate legislative purpose for them

to move forward with a hearing.

So you got judiciary and House intel,

and they've got oversight.

And the question you have to ask here,

first question you have to ask is

what is the appropriatelegislative purpose

for these inquiries?

And that is issue number one.

And here's another thing thatI think is very important

for the American people to understand.

This went on for twoyears with the auspices

of a Special Counsel.

And as I said, theyissued 2,800 subpoenas.

They executed 500 search warrants, 500.

They obtained more than 230 orders

for communication records,

issued almost 50 ordersauthorizing the use

of pen registers, and that'show you track phone numbers

going back and forth,

13 requests of foreigngovernments for evidence,

and interviewed, Pat,approximately 500 witnesses,

and came to the conclusion,no obstruction, no collusion.

So what is it exactly the House is doing?

- Are you guys going to- It's politics.

- go after the Democratson declaratory judgment

to say that they need to shut them down?

Or are you gonna just let--

- The way it works is thatthe White House counsel

is initially responsiveto document requests

that come in to the WhiteHouse in official capacity,

whether it's to witnessesor to the White House

or to a department.

Our job will be requeststhat come to either us,

as lawyers, or come to clients,

or our client the president,

and we are going to respond accordingly.

I will tell you that.

We will respond accordingly,

and we will respond appropriately.

But this is a little bitin the land of the absurd,

that after this report you would see

at this particular time, in my view,

with all that information I just gave you

about the scope and natureand depth of this report,

that they would allow this to continue

in the House and Senate.

They should be legislating,not investigating.

- Are you gonna get any rest

now that this thing's over (laughs)?

It's just too much.- Well,

the week is early (laughs).

Look, as you know, Pat, andI've appreciated your call.

You've been calling and checking on me,

and I appreciated that.

Look, this has been atremendous, for a lawyer

to handle a case likethis at the highest levels

representing a presidentof the United States,

is not a higher honor.

It was exhilarating.

It was challenging.

It was allowing me to use all the skills

that I was trained to use.

And I told my colleagues the other day,

we were all trained for these moments,

and let's remember that.

That's what we were trained to do.

And it was by God's grace thatwe saw a great conclusion.

And I thank our legal team.

And there will be more work to do,

but hopefully it will notbe at quite the intensity

of, let's say, the last two years.

- Congratulations, God bless you.

- Thanks, Pat,

appreciate it.- Jay Sekulow,

who is president's counsel,

he and Rudy Giuliani together,

the chief counsels in this entire matter.

He is, of course, the chief counsel

of the American Center of Law and Justice,

and he's been a dearfriend for many years.

We now have CBN ChiefPolitical Analyst David Brody

is joining with us.

And David, politically, this is a huge win

for the president.

What do you think it'sgonna mean for 2020?

- Oh, there's so much to unpack here, Pat.

First of all, I think it's pretty clear

the media has taken a huge hit here.

As a matter of fact,if journalism had flags

in their newsroom, they'd beflying at half-staff today.

A lot of mourning around the country

(chuckling) within mainstreammedia circles, for sure.

Look, as for 2020,Democrats have a choice.

When do they wanna stop digging the grave?

I mean, really, it's that simple.

Do they wanna spend theirtime, their platform,

their energy, their focus,their power in the House

on the 2020 agenda andtry to beat Donald Trump

at the ballot box?

Or do they wanna go downthe investigative road?

Look, this is a SpecialCounsel that has done its work.

Robert Mueller is now done.

But there's a new SpecialCounsel in town, Pat.

It's Adam Schiff, the HouseIntelligence Committee chairman,

Elijah Cummings as well, andother chairmen in the House,

and Jerrold Nadler

of the House Judiciary Committee chairman.

That's the new SpecialCounsel in Washington now.

They're informal, if you will.

I'll put them in air quotes.

But they have to decide, andI think it's pretty clear

that they've already decided,we're gonna go down this road

and try and get Donald Trumpany way, any form, any fashion.

And if they do that,they've sucked the oxygen

from the 2020 race, and itbecomes all sorts of problems

down the road for Democrats.

- Don't they see that theAmerican people are sick of this,

that the American peoplewant the president

to do his job, and theywant America to go forward?

This is not in supportof the United States.

This is in support oftheir political agenda,

don't you think?

- For sure, Pat, that'sa really great point.

Look, the American people are not stupid.

They may not be asinformed as they need to be

as a voting electorate,but they're not stupid

when it comes to being street smart.

They understand the deal here.

Look, the no collusion, nocollusion, no collusion,

it's what Trump had beensaying for all of this time.

That was the big enchilada.

And the big enchiladabecame nada, nothing.

It's over, and folks realize that.

So all of this other stuff,

all of these extra investigations,

look, if Robert Mueller, thenon-partisan guy, supposedly,

some people would arguewith that, obviously,

but look, if he's the non-partisan guy,

and 500 witnesses, 2,800 subpoenas,

he couldn't find anything,

do the American people really think

that the Democrats are gonnabe fair in this process?

Well, of course not.

Look, I think the Democrats

have a major credibility problem here.

You had, for two yearsthey were talking about

that this is gonna becollusion, and it wasn't.

And let's go back to Brett Kavanaugh.

They were playing politicalgames there as well,

and they took a major black eye on that.

You put those two things together,

and you have a credibilitynarrative with the Democrats

that could really,really hurt them in 2020.

- Lindsey Graham was saying

I think there should be a Special Counsel

to investigate the Justice Department

and those who were engagingin all this spy stuff

against the president.

What do you think?

- Well, I think they'regonna go down that road.

I mean, Donald Trump wantsto go down that road.

Lindsey Graham, who's the chair

of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

seems to wanna do that as well.

As a matter of fact, JamesComey tweeted yesterday,

the former FBI director, hetweeted, so many questions,

is what he put.

And Lindsey Graham tweeted back,

Jim, you're absolutely right.

I'll see you here infront of my committee.

They're gonna go down this road for sure.

I think there is apotential problem, though,

for this president andfor the Republican Party.

Look, they've won.

Do your 24-hour victory lap.

But if you're gonnacontinue down this road,

and I understand theywanna have investigations,

and that makes sense.

But at the same time, maybeit might be a good idea,

they have to think about this,

it's something they'llhave to contemplate,

if they just wanna kindamove on, take the victory,

take the W, if you will,and then play for 2020,

rather than continue torelitigate some of this

and keep it in the news.

- I noticed Marco Rubio was saying

that the Green New Deal won'treally help the rising waters,

that he's got a proposalfor a government study

that'll really do some goodhelping the coastal areas.

And the Green New Deal cansink the ship, don't you think?

I mean, it looks like that the young woman

is taking all the old menonto the boat with her,

(laughing) and it maybe a cruise to nowhere.

- Yeah, well, the young woman, AOC,

is now she's being called,

because no one wants to sayAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez,

so we just call her AOC.

It saves a breath, and it saves syllables.

But yes, for sure, shehas this Green New Deal,

as you know, Pat, and it's radical.

And look, that's not justconservatives saying that.

That's even some moderatesin the Democrat Party.

They're very concernedabout where this is going.

Donald Trump made fun of it the other day

in his two-hour CPAC speech

talking about that theonly way were gonna be able

to watch television in the future,

according to the Green New Deal,

is if the wind blows the right way.

I mean, who in the worldknows what's gonna happen?

Of course, the pie-in-the-sky scenario,

and I'm not making thisup, this is their document,

they'd love to see, they,the progressives, AOC,

the Green Deal, they wouldlove to see a nation,

an America, without airplanes.

Of course, the DemocratSenator from Hawaii

said, well, how am I gonna get home?

So look, I mean, it's awhole big kit and caboodle

of socialism that theDemocrats are gonna have

to really come to reckon with here.

So you've got no collusion.

You've got that problem for the Democrats.

You've got the socialism problem.

And we haven't even gottento late-term abortion.

That's the trifecta, Pat.

- Would you like to predict theoutcome of the 2020 election

against some namelessDemocrat with the president?

- Well, Pat, thank you so much

for giving me that opportunity,

but no, I'd rather not.(Pat laughing)

What we've learned inWashington and in politics

and in this town,specifically, it can change

from day to day.

I will say this, though,it is gonna all matter

about who that candidateis on the Democrat side.

Look, if it's a Joe Biden,

you got the blue-collar Democrats in play.

If it's someone on avery progressive scale,

then they're gonna have to do their job,

the Democrats, to get outminorities and suburban women.

But look, I think this Muellerreport and no collusion

is gonna hurt Democrats at the ballot box

because moderates andindependents in the middle

will see this and say, hm, you know what?

Trump was right all along.

The media has down DonaldTrump a huge wonderful service.

They have given hisfake-news mantra credibility

and no collusion, thisreport, is the cherry

on top of the fake-news sunday.

- (laughs) David, thank you.

We look forward to having you.

I wanna thank you again, brother.

David Brody,- Thank you, Pat.

our political correspondentdoing a superb job, as always.

Well, in other news,the latest rocket attack

on Israel could lead toa major confrontation

between Israel and Hamas,because that rocket hit

near Tel Aviv, and it came from Gaza.

Efrem Graham has that.

(dramatic whoosh)

- Well, Pat, Israeli PrimeMinister Benjamin Netanyahu

is cutting short histrip to the United States

after a Hamas rocketstruck a house just north,

as you said, of Tel Aviv.

The rocket slammed intothe home just before dawn

wounding seven Israelis,including children.

Israel is mobilizing its defense forces

and calling up reserves

as Netanyahu promises a strong response.

- [Translator] This was a vicious attack

on the state of Israel.

We react with might.

In the light of this security event,

I've decided to cutshort my visit in the US.

- The early return meansNetanyahu will not be addressing

the pro-Israel AIPACconference in Washington.

Some good news, though,for the Jewish state

coming out of AIPAC Sunday,

leaders from Romania andHonduras announce those nations

are moving their embassies to Jerusalem

following the United States's lead, Pat.

- Thanks, Efrem.

Well, (exhales abruptly)

that's why we need apresident to pay attention

to what's going on in the world,

because the hot spots are developing.

It looks like we wiped outthe last vestiges of ISIS.

But nevertheless, they will regroup,

so we need to stay strong inthe Middle East with forces.

We cannot pull everybodyout, and that's true.

The challenges are enormous.

And down in Venezuela, I readtoday, and it's not confirmed,

but it's one of those Drudge Report things

that there may be someRussian troops coming

into Venezuela to bolster Maduro.

Of course, that, we're talkingabout the Monroe Doctrine,

that's pretty serious stuff.

Well, we'll see what's happening.

We don't have anymore on that right now,

but keep your eyes openfor what's going on.

It's an amazing world, butI would hate to see war.

But that territory in Gaza

should never have been given back.

It was one of those things.

It was a mistake.

The Jewish settlers were there.

They had a presence, a superb presence.

They would have maintainedlaw and order in that region.

Then they pulled out,and there was a vacuum.

And so instead of apeaceful transition, Hamas,

which is a radical group,was the controlling factor

of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza.

Now they're firing rocketsinto Northern Israel,

and Israel is gonna retaliate.

They always do, andit'll go back and forth.

War in the Middle East, I hate to see it,

but it looks like it's coming.