♪ HOWARD: "THE NEW YORK TIMES" BOMBSHELL EXPLODED ACROSS ALL THE CABLE NEWS NETWORKS. FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS WERE SERVING SEARCH WARRANTS ON RUDY GIULIANI AT HIS MANHATTAN HOME AND OFFICE IN A CRIMINAL PROBE OF HIS DEALINGS WITH UKRAINE. BUT WHAT THE TIMES HAS NOW RETRACTED AA LONG WITH NBC AND THE WASHINGTON POST IS THE ALLEGATION THAT THE FBI BRIEFS THE FORMER MAYOR ON A RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OPERATION. EARLIER THE ONE-TIME FEDERAL PROSECUTOR DENOUNCED THE SEARCH WARRANTS. >> DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE IS EXCULPATORY. IT PROVES THAT THE PRESIDENT AND I AND ALL OF US ARE INNOCENT. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE COMMITTING -- IT'S LIKE PROJECTION. THEY'RE COMMITTING THE CRIMES. >> AS BOPPINGERS AS IT WAS -- BANKERS AS IT WAS, IT ALSO MAKES A TAD FOR SENSE FROM GIULIANI'S PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE THE DESPERATE LAWYER KNEW WITH HIS PRIZED CLIENT OUT OF THE WHO WHE HOUSE, HE WOULD LOSE UP HIS BULLETPROOF VEST. >> NOW PROSECUTORS WANT TO LOCK UP AN ICON FOR A TECHNICALITY? DID RUDY GIULIANI HURT ANYBODY? NO. HOWARD: JOINING US NOW, GUY BENSON, HOST OF DAILY SHOW AND PODCAST FOR FOX NEWS RADIO AND LIZ CLAMAN, HOST OF "THE CLAMAN COUNTDOWN" ON FOX BUSINESS WEEKDAYS AT THREE EASTERN. GUY, "THE WASHINGTON POST" WAS THE FIRST TO RETRACT THIS ALLEGATION THAT THE FBI HAD WARNED RUDY GIULIANI THAT HE WAS THE TARGET OF A RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOE BIDEN. THIS CAME AFTER HE DENIED IT. WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON ALL THREE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS FOR CORRECTING SUCH A MAJOR ACCUSATION? >> WELL, IT'S A CREDIBILITY HIT AGAIN. AND, LOOK, IF RUDY DID SOMETHING WRONG OR ILLEGAL, LET'S LET THIS PROCESS PLAY OUT, BUT THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE ASSOCIATES OF DONALD TRUMP IN THE HEADLINES, IN THE NEWS ABOUT SOME APPARENT OR ALLEGED MALFEASANCE INVOLVING RUSSIA OR UKRAINE, AND YOU WOULD THINK BASED ON HUGE MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PAST ON THIS FRONT, NEWS ORGANIZATIONS WOULD BE ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE AND CAREFUL ON THESE QUESTIONS AND ON THESE MATTERS. AND YET THIS IS A HUGE, GLARING MISTAKE THAT HAD TO BE CORRECTED BY THESE THREE ORGANIZATIONS. AND, HOWIE, HERE'S A LINE THAT STANDS OUT TO ME FROM THE NBC CORRECTION. QUOTE: THE REPORT WAS BASED ON A SOURCE -- A, NOT SOURCES, A SOURCE -- FAMILIAR WITH THE MATTER. AND THEN WAS CONTRADICTED BY A SECOND SOURCE. OFTEN TO GO TO PRINT YOU NEED AT LEAST TWO CORROBORATING SOURCES. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WENT WITH ONE PERSON WHO WAS SUPPOSEDLY FAMILIAR WITH THE MATTER. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAMILIAR THIS PERSON COULD HAVE BEEN -- HOWARD: YEAH, THAT'S THE POINT. >> -- THEY GOT THE WRONG INFORMATION FROM THEM, AND MY QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DO YOU BURN A SOURCE AND EXPOSE WHO THEY ARE? IF THEY GIVE YOU WRONG INFORMATION AND YOU BROADCAST OR PUBLISH THAT INFORMATION ABOUT A PUBLIC FIGURE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS EMBARRASSING RETRACTION PROCESS, WHY PROTECT THAT SOURCE? HOWARD: YEAH. LIZ, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" AT FIRST STEALTH EDITED ITS STORY BY MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE ACCUSATION, AND THEN AFTER "THE WASHINGTON POST" IT RAN AN ACTUAL CORRECTION. RUDY GIULIANI IS CALLING ON ALL THREE ORGANIZATIONS TO REVEAL THEIR SOURCE. WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT ABOUT IN THIS. >> WELL, THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. [LAUGHTER] THE MEDIA DEFINITELY, AT LEAST THE THREE -- THE NEW "THE NEW YK TIMES," WASHINGTON POST PICKED IT UP AND, OF COURSE, NBC NEWS -- THEY DO HAVE EGG ON THEIR FACE ABOUT THIS. I WOULD GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR ISSUING CORRECTIONS. I WOULDN'T EXACTLY SAY IT WAS AN OUTRIGHT RETRACTION THE, IT WAS A CORRECTION AT LEAST ON "THE WASHINGTON POST" PAGE. MY MORNING HARD COPY OF "THE NEW YORK TIMES" DID NOT HAVE THE ARTICLE AT ALL, HOWIE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SAYS. BUT DEPENDING -- YOU KNOW, I'M IN JERSEY. WHO KNOWS HOW EARLY I GET THAT. BUT THE FACT IS, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THE MEDIA POUNCED ON THIS STORY, IT SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE TO ANYBODY. THE LEGITIMACY OF IT IS SUCH THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THE FEDS GOING INTO A JUDGE AND SAYING WE NEED A WARRANT TO GO IN AND SEIZE ELECTRONICS OF ANYBODY, LET ALONE A LAWYER WHO IS USUALLY PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE'S SOME TYPE OF LEGIT9 MASSEY TO THAT. -- LEGITIMACY. THERE'S SOME DIDN'T JOE BIDEN GET CRITICIZED FOR SAYING THAT DEREK CHAUVIN WAS GUILTY? WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT DOJ'S INVESTIGATING RUDY GIULIANI FOR. WE HAVE A LOT OF LEAKS ABOUT IT. >> CORRECT. AND, BY THE WAY, JUST TO LIZ'S POINT, MY COMMENT IN USING THE WORD RETRACTION WAS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CLAIM -- HOWARD: YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT. >> -- THEY PUT THAT IN A RETRACTION. BUT I WOULD SAY TO YOUR QUESTION, HOWIE, ON THIS WE DON'T KNOW IS THE KEY AND OPERATIVE PHRASE. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE DETAILS ARE, THE INTERNAL INTRICACIES OF THE CASE AGAINST RUDY. IS IT A FAIR THING TO GO AFTER HIM, ARE THEY TARGETING ONE SIDE VERSUS ANOTHER IN I BELIEVE THIS INVESTIGATION STARTED DURING THE BILL BARR TENURE AT DOJ, SO THAT'S ONE PIECE OF COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE TO MAYBE POINT THE FINGER THAT THIS IS POLITICAL. I JUST DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE IN TOO MUCH CONJECTURE ABOUT HOW STRONG THE CASE IS HERE AGAINST RUDY AND WHETHER HE'S CULPABLE AND IF THIS IS FAIR OR NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW NEARLY ENOUGH INFORMATION YET. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT MORE PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA WOULD TAKE THAT APPROACH AS OPPOSED TO IMMEDIATELY JUMPING TO THE FOREGONE CONCLUSION WHICH HAS NOT SERVED THEM WELL ON THIS ISSUE SET IN THE PAST. HOWARD: YEAH. THIS WAS AT THE HEART OF THE FIRST TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. HAVING TO DO WITH RUDY'S ROLE IN PERSUADING DONALD TRUMP TO REMOVE TO UKRAINE. LOOK, I USED TO COVER RUDY GIULIANI WHEN HE WAS U.S. ATTORNEY IN MANHATTAN, LIZ, AND HE KNOWS BECAUSE HE WENT AFTER OF THE MOB AND WALL STREET AND A LOT OF -- APPROVED A LOT OF SEARCH WARRANTS, I'M SURE, THAT YOU CAN'T GET A FEDERAL JUDGE TO APPROVE A SEARCH WARRANT UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW THERE'S A LIKELIHOOD THAT THE PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIME. SO I DON'T WANT TO MINIMIZE ANY OF THIS, BUT E WHEN YOU GET A MAJOR PART OF THE STORY WRONG, IT DOES CLOUD THE WHOLE SITUATION. >> YOU KNOW, IN THIS CASE AND ALL OF THESE BIG TYPES OF STORIES, THE MEDIA CLIMB ALL OVER ANOTHER. WE USED TO JOKE IN THE NEWS, FIRST AT SIX, CORRECT AT ELEVEN. [LAUGHTER] THAT'S NOT OKAY WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH ALLEGATIONS OF SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES HERE OF WHETHER YOU TOOK SOME TYPE OF MONEY OR EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN HOBBYIST OR SOME SORT OF -- LOBBYIST OR SOME SORT OF SITUATION WHICH IS AT LEAST WHAT WE CAN KIND OF CONJURE UP ABOUT THE CENTER OF THIS CASE. I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, HOWIE, THAT THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SITUATION, AND YOU CAN'T RUSH TO JUDGMENT WITHOUT MAKING SURE THAT YOU HAVE ALL OF YOUR DUCKS IN A ROW. AND I AM SURE IT'S NOT A GREAT DAY AROUND THE NEWSROOMS OF SOME OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS. HOWARD: YEAH. RIGHT. >> THAT SAID, THEY DO GET CREDIT FOR QUICKLY RETRACTING ALL OF THIS WITHIN 24 HOURS. HOWARD: THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY PEOPLE SEE THE
