'I wouldn't cooperate with Adam Schiff': Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, responds to whistleblower complaint on "This Week."
14:37 | 09/29/19

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:

{{nextVideo.title}}

{{nextVideo.description}}

Skip to this video now

Now Playing:

{{currentVideo.title}}

Comments
Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for 'I wouldn't cooperate with Adam Schiff': Giuliani
move forward. Tom Bossert, thank you very much. We're joined now with mayor Giuliani. The president's personal lawyer. Thank you for joining us here this morning. You heard Tom Bossert. He said if you keep pushing this conspiracy theory to the president, you're going to bring him down. What do you say to that? With all due respect to Tom, he doesn't know what he's talking about that I invented this. He said it was debunked. You're talking about the crowd strike thing? Yes. That's not the only thing he's asking about. What he's focusing on -- Let's focus on that question first. Do you accept it's debunked. Did you ever hear me talking about it? I never pedalled it. Tom doesn't know what's he's talking about. I never engaged in a theory that the Ukrainians did the hacking. When it was presented to me I understood the Ukrainians didn't do the hacking. Why does the president keep repeating it? Let's get on to the point -- This was in the -- I agree with Bossert on one thing. It's clear there's no evidence the Ukrainians didn't do it. I never pursued the Ukrainians. It's a red herring. What the president is talking about is, however, there is a load of evidence that the Ukrainians created false information, that they were asked by the Obama white house to do it in January of 2016, information he's never bothered to go read. There's affidavits that have been out there for five months that none of you have listened to about how there's a Ukrainian court finding that a particular individual illegally gave the Clinton campaign information. No one bothered to investigate that. Nobody cared about that. It's a court opinion in the Ukraine. The Ukrainians came to me. I didn't go to them. The Ukrainian came to me. When did they first come to you? November of 2016 they first came to me and said "We have shocking evidence that the collusion that they claim happened in Russia happened in the Ukraine with Hillary Clinton." George theros was behind it. His company was funding it. Do you accept that's not It is true. I can prove it. There's affidavits that prove they were conspiring with the Ukrainians. There's a specific person in the DNC who was credited with giving this information. There are five Ukrainians under oath saying it online. If you had any regard for equal justice under the law, you would be looking for those. Let me ask the following question to anybody at home. If I change the names of Joe Biden and hunter Biden to Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr., $8 million from Ukraine while under an investigation, $1.5 million while negotiating with China. Would I be sitting -- Sir, the $1.5 million is simply not true. George, let me finish. The $1.5 million is not true. It is true. It is not true. How do you know? Have you seen the documents? We saw -- the fund you're talking about was set up hunter Biden wasn't an investor until 2017. There's no evidence they've got 1.5 billion dollars. There's evidence they got $1 billion from China 12 days after they returned from a trip to China. There's evidence another $500 million went in and there are three. Rosemont Seneca and the stepson of the secretary of state. The second partner is the bank of China. The third partner is a company called Thornton group. Have you ever talked to Chinese nationals about investigating hunter Biden and Joe Biden? Let me try to finish the sentence until you figure out what I might have done wrong in revealing this evidence that you're telling me isn't true which I've seen. The principals -- Others have counter evidence. I'm responding with the counter evidence. Let's investigate it. Maybe I'm wrong. Have you asked the Chinese to investigate that? Can I finish? Answer the question. What I would have asked them to investigate if I did. $1.5 million was established called Bo high harvest, rosemont Seneca, some crazy name like the partners were Joe Biden's son, John Kerry's stepson bank of China and the Thornton group. That was owned by Whitey bulger's nephew. You can ok at it. Investigate it. Did hunter Biden -- Did I ever ask the Chinese government? No. If I did that, you could say I was investigating Joe Biden. I'm not investigating Joe Biden. I fell upon Joe Biden in investigating with how the Ukrainians were conspiring with Hillary Clinton to turnover dirty information including something for which a Ukrainian was convicted. I have a solid basis for doing it. I support everything I say with affidavits. I have an affidavit here that's been online for six months that nobody bothered to read from the gentleman who was fired, the so-called corrupt prosecutor. The Biden people say he wasn't investigating hunter Biden at the time. He says under oath he was. I know he says -- We don't even know him. He must not be telling the We know vice president Biden was part of a government-wide effort to push the prosecutor -- If the name here was Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. And it said that the president of the Ukraine asked me to resign due to pressure from the U.S. Presidential administration. The truth is I was forced out because I was leading a wide-range corruption probe into barisma holdings and Joe Biden's son. That's under oath by the prosecutors handling the case who they say is corrupt. A lot of -- It's not just they who said it. The European union said he was corrupt. The entire U.S. Administration. They all say it. Anybody prove it? That's why he was removed from office. No it wasn't. He resigned because the president forced him to resign. Then just in case we want to deal with corruption, I have another affidavit from another Ukrainian prosecutor. He says the day after Biden strong-armed the president, they show up in the prosecutor's office and give an apology for dissemination of false information. You know what the apology is for? For having gotten out the story this guy was corrupt. If you met this guy, he's not good at corruption because he's very poor. Unlike the prosecutor who tanked the case on Biden who is driving a Bentley. You've got those charges out there. No, I haven't. You have. You just raised those affidavits. Can I make a slight contrast with the so-called whistle-blower? The whistle-blower says I don't have any direct knowledge, I just heard things. Up until two weeks before he did that that wouldn't have been a complaint. It would have been dismissed. Those are from -- he heard things from white house officials and everything he said about the phone call tracks the transcript that was revealed. No, it doesn't. You know what he's wrong about? He says my meeting was a direct result of the phone call. No, it wasn't. The meeting was set up three days before the phone call. It wasn't a direct result of the phone call. He said he heard from numerous military people that I attempted to contact two individuals. Andre Bolden and a fellow named coninov. Simple fact is I never did. Total lie. I never would have contacted Andre Bolden because I would have been told by good authority he was corrupt. He said five other things that were totally false. This is what the investigation bore out. I'm not saying he was false. I'm saying he could have heard it wrong. George, that's why it's hearsay. It's unreliable. That's what the investigation will -- Unlike him -- please can I just make your point? You've been making your points. No, I haven't. These are individuals -- From people implicated. Isn't that how we prosecute crimes. How about if -- I'll tell you over the next week four others will come out. They'll all be investigated. George, they won't be. They've been online for six months. The Washington press will not accept the fact that Joe Biden may have done something like this. If these were so serious -- If this were Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. I wouldn't have to do this. I'm defending my client. Mr. Mayor -- This is not about getting Joe Biden in trouble. It's about proving that Donald Trump was framed by the If these charges are so serious why have they not been picked up by the president's FBI director and the president's attorney general William Barr? That's a good question. Why haven't they been? I don't know if they haven't been. Isn't that the place -- One of the ways this came to me is that four different Ukrainian prosecutors -- you can dismiss them all. I can't if they're willing to swear under oath. Tell me they tried to get it to the FBI and justice department for an entire year. The president picked the head of the FBI and the president picked the head of the justice department. If there's serious -- William Barr wasn't there. He's there now. I'm not telling you whether they are or aren't investigating. I got this a long time ago. I got this in November of 2018. Very serious concerns at that time by the Ukrainian prosecutors about the FBI. I decided to go another way. Also because if I went to the FBI or justice department -- You've never done that. I'm not saying I did or didn't. What's the answer? Did you or didn't you? I've never initiated going to them for a simple reason. Schiff would claim I was exercising my influence to get it investigated. Here's what I did. I put it online. I announced it. I went every place and said I have this evidence. I waited for them to come get it on their own. I didn't get a charge that I was trying to force an investigation that they didn't want to do. If you just bother to Google -- I made it easy to make this case. Mr. Mayor, I've gone through this. Have you read -- I've read affidavits on both sides. I've seen there's no credible allegation of wrong doing against Joe Biden. Why is this less credible than the whistle-blower? This is direct knowledge and the whistle-blower is hearsay. Why is this statement not credible when he went under oath? Why is this statement not -- You have to ask that to the Ukrainian authorities and our justice department who is not prosecuting. I have to move on. Who says our justice department isn't prosecuting? You believe they are? I don't know. If they're not -- It would be surprising if they are. Are you going to cooperate -- George, is it possible -- I'm being respectful here. Is it possible for you to ever treat a charge against a Democrat in the same way you treat a charge against a Republican. Are you telling me if there was a sworn affidavit and the names were Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr., you, your network, the entire Washington -- wherever they are -- I wouldn't have to be sitting here. Are you telling me if there was evidence that Barack Obama was calling up the Russians saying I wanted you to investigate Donald Trump -- He didn't do that. I know he didn't. Trump didn't do that. He called them up and said I want you to investigate these charges of corruption. If he hadn't asked them to investigate Biden, he would have violated article II, section 3 of the constitution. If Obama called Biden in in 2015 and said hunter has a -- if Obama had called him in like a president who understood article II, section 3 and called him in and said Joe, what the heck are you doing with your son who just got tossed out of the military where I had to pull strings to get him in, your son is working for the biggest crook in Ukraine and we're trying to fix corruption in Ukraine and you got him working for Nikola who stole $5 billion. Mr. Mayor, you made your case. Did Obama do that? Are you -- Did Obama do that? Are you going to cooperate with the intelligence house committee? That is a question that has a lot of implications to it. Believe it or not I'm an attorney. Everything I did was to defend my client. I'm proud of what I did. I'm proud of having uncovered what will be a pay for play scheme like the Clinton foundation. Will you cooperate? We'll look at the China -- You keep on throwing out the charges -- And the two other places -- Will you -- The two other places that hunter Biden went. Will you cooperate with the house intelligence committee? I wouldn't cooperate with Adam Schiff. I think he should be removed. If they remove Adam Schiff and put a neutral person in, a democratic who hasn't expressed an opinion -- if I had a judge in the case and announced he was going to impeach, if he did a false episode, wouldn't I move to recuse that judge? That's your answer. You're not going to cooperate. I didn't say that. I said I would considerate it. You said you're not going to do it. I have to be guided by my I'm a lawyer. It's his privilege, not mine. If he wants me to testify, I'll testify. Even though I think Adam Schiff is an illegitimate chairman. He has already pre judged the case. If we want fairness, we have to put someone in charge of the committee that has an open mind, not somebody who wants to hang the president who says I have evidence of collusion. Adam, where's the evidence? Ask him to produce the evidence. He's coming up -- Are you going to interrupt him as often as you did me? I gave you plenty of chances to make your case. Let's see how the interview goes. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Coming up Adam Schiff will

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"duration":"14:37","description":"Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, responds to whistleblower complaint on \"This Week.\"","mediaType":"default","section":"ABCNews/ThisWeek","id":"65935190","title":"'I wouldn't cooperate with Adam Schiff': Giuliani","url":"/ThisWeek/video/cooperate-adam-schiff-giuliani-65935190"}