MELISSA FRANCIS (CO-HOST): Juan, this is what I'm confused about at this point, it's just very basic. How can there be obstruction of justice if there was no underlying crime? What justice was being obstructed if there was no collusion?

JUAN WILLIAMS (CO-HOST): You don't need an underlying crime for obstruction. I mean, you can go talk to even Rudy Giuliani, who was a very good prosecutor here in New York for a lot of the mafia criminal stuff. You don't need the underlying crime. If people lie, if they obstruct your effort of a legitimate criminal investigation, that's obstruction. 

FRANCIS:  But how can they obstruct investigation into something that didn't happen? I mean there is no evidence of collusion at all. 

WILLIAMS: No no, there's evidence --

FRANCIS: But there's no evidence of collusion.

WILLIAMS: -- Not sufficient evidence for an indictment is what Mueller said.

FRANCIS: No that's -- you're talking about obstruction, not collusion -- 

WILLIAMS: No, I was talking about collusion. 

FRANCIS: On collusion, he said no American anywhere in America colluded with the Russians at all. 

WILLIAMS: Correct. But what he is saying also -- and I think this is, you know, if you read the report, what you see is Russia clearly interfered in the 2016 election -- 

FRANCIS: Of course, yes. I read it, and I agree.

WILLIAMS: To the benefit of Donald Trump. And the Trump campaign was not, is what Mueller said, personally involved in encouraging or doing it. But they were welcoming to it and I think that's what you are seeing.

...

FRANCIS: Lisa, let me ask you, I mean, obstruction, if you don't leave the word hanging out there by itself, the whole phrase, “obstruction of justice.” What justice was obstructed? 

LISA BOOTHE (CO-HOST): There was none because Mueller repeatedly said in his report that there was no collusion. And to Katie's point, what a dumb argument for Democrats. “If we just had ten more hours with Don McGahn we would have gotten to the truth.” He already testified for over 30 hours. This is ridiculous, it's a sham, and I'm so tired of the Democrat talking point that this is about Russia and getting to the bottom of that because Democrats don't care about Russia. And it has been abundantly clear since President Obama laughed in the face of [Mitt] Romney when he brought up Russia during the 2012 election. When there was the hot mic moment of him telling then-president Medid -- Medvidev -- oh, I'm not going to say that right, [Dmitry] Medvedev, thank you, that he would have more flexibility on missile defense after the election. The Mueller report plainly states that Russia was trying to interfere since 2014. Obama did nothing about it. The report said Obama didn't do anything about it because he thought that Hillary Clinton would end up winning the election. Obama didn't do anything about it until President Trump won the election, then he ordered up the intel report, then he put sanctions on Russia, in my opinion, to tie President Trump's hands politically so Democrats don't care about Russia. This is about harming and tarring President Trump. Can we at least be honest about that?

FRANCIS: One place that I would challenge, Lisa, though, is that I think they care about Russia now.

BOOTHE: Well yeah, because [inaudible] President Trump.

FRANCIS: They care about Russia now because it cost them an election. Don't you think they care now? 

Previously:

Here's how Fox News is spinning the Mueller report

Fox's Geraldo Rivera: Mueller “twisted arms to get people in trouble” so “they had to snitch”

Fox guest Ken Starr questions whether full Mueller report can be “fair and balanced” because of Mueller's “choice of staff”