i need no excuse at all. don't forget you can watch "outfront" anytime, anywhere on cnn go. ac 360 starts now. >> thank you for joining us tonight. there's still no evidence for trump's latest unfounded claim that president obama wire tapped him. there is a firestorm raging over it in washington we'll bring you the latest on that in a moment. but first the genesis of the claim that prompted james comey to go so far as to ask the justice department to refute it over the weekend. think about that for a moment the nation's top lawman asking for a public denunciation of the sitting president of the united states. that's where we are tonight. let's take a moment to look at where we got here. saturday morning the president is at mar-a-lago according to t"the washington post" still steaming over jeff sessions recusing himself from any investigation involving russia and the justice department. at 6:35 a.m. he tweets, quote, terrible, just found out that president obama had my wires

tapped in trump tower just before the victory. nothing found. this is mccarthyism. then at 6:52, i bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that president obama was tapping my phones in october just prior to the election. then just after 7:00 a.m., how low has president obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process? this is nixon watergate, bad or sick guy. finally after accusing the 44th president of the united states of perhaps the worst crime wins sins watergate, he tweets again attacking arnold schwarzenegger and once again mentioning the ratings of the tv show the apprentice. demands a congressional investigati investigation. not into the ratings of the apprentice. that's public knowledge. now he must have had serious evidence to back up those charges. in fact, as president he could have called up the department of justice and found out if a fisa warrant for surveillance at trump tower had been requested.

he could have also decided the declassify any such request and made it public. there's no evidence he's done any of that. as for any evidence the president had before tweeting, keeping him honest tonight, we have yet to see it. his information appears to come from conservative radio hosts and websites and the base for their story as yet unverified reporting from the bbc the guardian and heat street on obama administration efforts last year to get court permission to monitor four trump team members suspected to have regular contact with russia. that reporting has so far not been matched by u.s. news organizations with prior good contacts in the swelgs community. now it's important to point out that none of these british outlets or the conservative outlets in the u.s. that are pushing this story reported that president obama either ordered or sought wiretaps on then mr. trump. that's what the president himself claims saturday morning. the white house has been playing catch-up on it ever since. earlier today sean spicer said, and i'm quoting, there has been enough reporting strongly

suggesting something occurred. now, just to be clear, that reporting may only consist of those several british outlets and administration spokespeople talking about either those unverified report ors simply the story itself, the story they gave oxygen to. here's another. >> look, i think there have been quite a few reports. i know that jonathan and others earlier in the program mentioned that it was all conservative media, but that's frankly not true. "the new york times," bbc. have also talked about and reported on the potential of this having had happen. >> that's deputy white house spokesperson sarah huckabee sanders. keeping her honest, the times did talk about the story but only in the context the president said it and that it was unproven. sanders was pressed on it again today. >> it's his information that president obama tapped his phone based solely on something he read in the media, yes or no? >> i haven't had the chance to have the conversation directly with the president. he's at a much higher classification than i am. so he may have access to

documents that i don't know about, but i do know that we take this very seriously and we think it should be thoroughly reviewed and investigated and we're asking congress to do their job. >> former intelligence officials have come forward to deny that there was wire tapping including james clapper that would have any knowledge of a request to wiretap trump or his campaign. this is not the first time that mr. trump has trafficked in claims or falsehoods, accusing president obama of not being born in the united states is one, saying the election was rigged and making claims about the size of his inaugural crowd not to mention the claim that 3 million or more undocumented immigrants voted illegally thus depriving him of a popular vote over hillary clinton. on that one he said he would launch an investigation into that whopper of a story. but we haven't heard about that in quite a while. jeff zeleny joins us from the north lawn. so what is the reaction been from the white house today? >> well, anderson, from the

president himself it's been utterly silent. this is the first weekday of his time here in office where he has not had a single public event. he did not have a photo op. he had no ability to appear in front of a camera or so reporters could ask him a question about this. but the white house is standing by him, defending him, but not talking as definitively as him. they're saying if this happened, this maybe happened. we should get to the bottom of this. but certainly not as definitive as his statement on saturday morning. but our sara murray caught up with sean spicer later today and she asked him about that congressional investigation. >> the president has made very clear that he wants the house and senate intelligence committees to look into anything in the 2016 election that may or may not have been proper wrap to wiretaps or surveillance. we hope that they do that. >> so this is now landing in the laps of the house and senate intelligence committees already looking into the whole russian situation here. but frankly, republicans as well

as democrats -- let's start with republicans -- simply also didn't know what the president was talking about. senator marco rubio, who is a member of that intelligence committee, says he has no idea what the president is talking about here. so the burden will be on this white house again to defend this. and even though the president was not asked about it today, you know, he will be in future, anderson. >> and when you said he had no opportunity to be in front of reporters. he signed an executive order today on the travel ban. >> right. >> which in the past he's always been very public about, he's had reporters in, even holding up the executive order. so they just chose not to have him in front of reporters today. >> exactly. they could have had multiple photo opportunities. they could have had him in various settings. i was very surprised he was signing that executive order essentially in private in the oval office. he did not have reporters in there or cameras in. and as you've said, on other executive orders he signs, he goes to great lengths to take pride in this. and this is something he believes in, of course, this

travel ban. he campaigned on this. but today he signed it in complete silence with the exception of a few aides. >> and jeff, there is more information coming out about fbi director james comey's reactions to the allegations. what are you hearing? >> he's incredulous about this, and that word is by design. pamela brown reported earlier today that the fbi director is simply furious by this. he thinks it makes the bureau look bad. he sent word over the weekend to get sort of out the fact that the fbi did not believe this. he was asking the justice department to push back on this as well. now, he has not made a public comment here about that, but he did send word through his advisers and he says he's incredulous about this. he's very sensitive to how the bureau looks at all of this. but sean spicer when asked if the president stood by his fbi director, he did not answer that question. of course, important to point out, the fbi director does not serve at the pleasure necessarily of the president. he's on a staggered term.

but the president has spoken out, of course, in favor of him before. so watch to see if the director goes public with his deep sense of dissatisfaction over this. >> jeff zeleny, thanks. now michael hayden form er nsa director. author of "playing to the edge." you obviously would know this subject better than just about anybody who served under multiple presidents, i should point out. is it possible for a president of the united states to direct the wiretapping of a presidential nominee? i mean, there are laws. >> it's not possible for the president of the united states to direct the wiretapping of any u.s. person. an american citizen anywhere in the world or anyone in the united states. back in the 1970s, what we did was to take that authority -- because of some of the abuses that existed at that time, took that authority away from the executive branch and planted it squarely in an article three

court, the intelligence surveillance act. so the only way anyone gets an authority to target an american's communication is to go to that court and get a warrant proving that the target is either, a, the agent of a foreign power or, b, involved in criminal activity. >> and that's done for the department of justice? >> it's done within the department of justice. in fact, the process is such that i suppose the president could get a window into it if he worked hard, but it's designed fundamentally to keep the political branches out of the process. >> but if the president had done that, the director of the fbi would certainly know -- i mean, they're the ones i assume would do the wiretal ipping? >> you have two baskets. you can do it as a foreign intelligence purpose or as a counterintelligence or law enforcement. >> so it might be nsa? >> it might be under jim clapper, the dni over here, or it might be under jim comey, the

director of fbi over here. >> that's why both clapper and comey have come out -- >> have come out. jim actually explicitly actually yesterday was given an opportunity to defer the question. he said no, i'll answer it. i'll deny it. now we've got reports indirectly that director comey is in the same position. >> and just to be clear, is it true that president trump could have called up the director of national intelligence or the director of the fbi to ask them about this, was a warrant sent to a fisa court? >> sure, look, there are probably sensitive tis here as to an ongoing investigation and how much you tell one of the political branches, the president, and frankly, we're off the map here. this has never happened before. but it's my expectation that a president could get, if he simply asked, sufficient information that would allow him to answer the kinds of questions that he raised in the tweets. >> and if a president wanted to declassify whatever was

presented to a fisa court, could he? >> he could. he is the declassification god. and anderson, he did. if this tap actually took place -- and we don't know that it did -- but if it did, in the act of tweeting, president trump declassified it. >> it is a classified -- the very application -- >> look, it is very sensitive classification system. so imagine we've got a shop fbi, nsa, maybe a hundred folks in it, and you do something under fisa? there might be only three or four folks in that large shop that are actually privy to that and the collection from the fisa authorization is kept segregated from all the other collections. >> so assuming -- it seems like the president did this based on what he read on brigeitbart or what he heard on conservative radio, but assuming he did have inside information, the fact that he then tweeted it out is actually revealing classified information? >> well, it's not if he tweets

it -- >> he doesn't have to first declassify it? >> he doesn't because he is the president. and what he chooses to make public is public. i said earlier today it seemed like the president forgot for just a moment that he was the president and that he could actually get the answer to these questions by simply asking the questions. >> unless it wasn't really a serious question that he was asking. there's other theories -- >> sure. >> -- of possibilities. >> but it was a serious question and if this were a serious issue -- >> the president can pick up a phone and find out. >> he could have said to comey and the acting director of national intelligence, get on an airplane and get down here, i want to talk to you before dinner and i want answers, and they would have been there. >> cnn is reporting that comey asked the department of justice to formally address and denounce the allegations. you and director comey both served in the bush administration. do you feel he should come forward? again we're in uncharted waters. >> exactly right.

>> that would be a public rebuke of the president. >> it would be a very difficult decision for someone serving in the executive branch, all right? now, let's review history here. i have great admiration for director comey, but we have a history. we're on different sides of an issue in march of 2004 with regard to the president's terrorist surveillance program. and if you recall the history at that time, director comey went into president bush and said, if we did not stop this program, he would resign. so, you know, jim has taken some pretty hard stances in the past. >> earlier today the white house press secretary sean spicer said that he would not say if the president had confidence in comey. have you ever seen an administration so early on so at odds with the intelligence community? >> no. i mean, this is unprecedented. so just take what happened over the weekend. i would imagine that the people of leadership of nsa, the fbi,

the central intelligence agency, it's kind of gone to battle stations if for no other reason than to defend themselves against the implicit charge from the president that they were party to a felony in terms of collecting against a presidential candidate. >> is it dangerous undermining, do you believe, the intelligence community? >> look, these are good people. i know these people. they're going to go do their duty. they've worked for republicans, they've worked for democrats. they want to make american policy as wise as possible by making the president as wise as possible. and so they're going to press ahead. mike pompeo is going to work hard to represent them, to keep them focused on their mission, but anderson, they're human beings. they see what's going on. this cannot help but have an effect on the their morale, their spirit, their determination. >> just on a personal basis for you to dedicated your life to service and the u.s. intelligence community in a variety of capacities, to hear

the sitting president of the united states -- one thing for somebody campaigning to say something. sitting president of the united states to say, to raise questions about the intelligence community in this particular way? what does it -- >> so my first instinct is i want to get angry. i try to discipline myself not to do that, and i focus on this as a great sadness. this is a community that exists to serve the president of the united states, and he's done things over the past more than 45 days even as president-elect that seems to put him at odds with an intelligence community again that exists only to serve him. >> there is a lot of talk about the deep state and the idea -- not a lot of people have heard of before, but this idea that there is this, you know, this entity within the u.s. government particularly within the intelligence community and maybe it's because they're angry at the president or they're holdovers from a democratic administration, whatever it is, that there's this alternate state that is basically trying

to have a silent hidden coup against the president or subvert the president. >> i've heard that referred to turkey or moldova or russia, not to the american repeb lick. i kind of reject it. let me use the term, the permanent government. let me take my old agency, the cia and take a quick look at recent history. we've had three transitions since 2000 and the transition to president george w. bush, no one changed at cia. he kept george tenet on. eight years later, president obama became president. only one person changed at cia. me. in fact, president obama called my deputy steve capis to convince steve and the rest of the staff to stay on. then eight years later with president trump, two people changed at the cia. director pompeo and his deputy. the rest of the workforce,

anderson, are intelligence career professionals. they work for republicans, they work for democrats. they vote, they have views, but as professionals, they know what they have to do. >> i want to ask you, your book "playing to the edge," you raise the question about how to balance the security of the united states and the individual which is obviously a question that's been weighed for generations. it's certainly relevant when it comes to the administration's new travel ban. >> yeah. >> in the executive order. i am wondering what your thoughts are on that. because when president trump instituted this he said it's got to happen right away or we can't have a waiting period or the terrible people will flood in and it's these seven states and based on what the obama administration sought to do after there was an incident with two iraqi refugees and also the republican-controlled congress at the time did, and that's why it's these seven countries, and then once that didn't work out and you had secretary of state actually weigh in, director of

homeland security actually weigh in, iraq was taken off the list, totally makes sense to me from a strategic standpoint. >> the new executive order is a far better implementation of what is still fundamentally a flawed policy. >> flawed because it doesn't protect the u.s.? >> flawed because it's based on flawed assumptions. two are flawed. number one there was this near catastrophic threat to the united states from immigrants and particularly refugees. and frankly, i just don't think that's true. i think this was overhyped during the campaign. the other half is that we have an absolutely dysfunctional system for vetting who we allow into this country. i mean, the president has said we have no idea who these people are. actually, we do. we actually have a very strict vetting process. i would even call it from time to time extreme. >> even in a place, if they're coming from syria, where we're not -- we don't have connections with syrian intelligence? >> look, it's hard, all right?

that's why we only took into this country last year 10,000 syrian refugees. 85% of them were women and children. and the average vetting time for those human beings was 18 to 24 months. so what is it we're going to have coming out of the end of this relook that's going to make this any more thorough? >> and does it hurt -- >> by the way, if we do, good. >> does it hurt the u.s. in trying to work with muslim allies? >> so it would be bad enough with the human cost that it imposes on the weakest, the most fragile of the world's people, but it's beyond that. i think, anderson, and this is a little indirect but i think it's really important. it lives the narrative of our enemy, that enemy that isolated radical branch of islam tells the rest of islam they hate us, they all hate us. they don't want us. there's a war between

civilizations. and frankly, the second and third order of the executive order particularly the way it was wrote out in first place and the campaign rhetoric that was wrapped around it has us living the narrative of the part of islam that says this is a war between civilizations. that's a losing hand. >> general hayden, i appreciate talking to you. the book "playing to the edge, american intelligence in the age of terror," thanks again. will congress investigate, is there anything to investigate? reaction on capitol hill including comments john mccain just made. we have an exclusive interview with the washington state attorney general who successfully challenged the first one. we'll talk to him about the second one. why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex.

do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. the search for relief often leads... here... here... or here. today, there's another option. drug-free aleve direct therapy.

a tens device with high intensity power that uses technology once only available in doctors' offices. its wireless remote lets you control the intensity, and helps you get back to things like this... this... or this. and back to being yourself. aleve direct therapy. find yours in the pain relief aisle.

modeit's sold out.es a modernyou excited? don't fret, my friend. i masterpassed it! you can use it online and on your phone i masterpassed it. you got the tickets? onward! playing the hero: priceless masterpass, the secure way to pay from your bank don't just buy it. masterpass it.

he did not cite intelligence briefings or court filings or anything from the justice department or the fbi. he didn't cite anything. his spokespeople are citing british media reports and all have not been verified by other news outlets that have prior sources in the u.s. how are republicans responding at this point to the wiretapping claims? >> they don't really know how to react because they don't know if it's true or not. this includes even some of the republicans who are in a position to get some evidence to determine whether this is true. the intelligence committee. susan collins being one, others are concerned it could be a distraction like mike rounds of south dakota telling me today it could detract from the republican agenda. i talked to lindsey graham and john mccain about this. i asked lindsey graham this, is it a distraction.

this is what he said. >> it's not a distraction as much as it is unnerving. if it's true, it's earth shattering. >> and if it's not true? >> if it's not true we don't need to be passing it on. i don't know why the president believes this, the current president believes this about the former president, but i'm sure there's a reason and it's up to him to explain. but it really is up to congress. he's challenged the congress to investigate. >> well, i think that the president of the united states should provide any evidence that he might have that would corroborate a charge of this seriousness. it is a very serious charge and one that needs corroboration and congress continuing the investigation, first i believe the president should tell the american people what evidence he has that this kind of action was carried out by the previous president. >> should it be a special prosecutor at this point? >> i think we ought to know what the president's statement is as to what evidence he has that

would lead to his conclusion that his predecessor -- >> now, the chairman of the senate intelligence committee richard burr of north carolina said that he is looking into evidence and will take this investigation into where the evidence leads but not specifically looking into this issue. they will look into this issue of surveillance even if the top democratic on that committee says that these tweets by donald trump are outlandish and destructive. >> joining us now is obama white house communications director jen psaka, ryan hisso, and contributor at the hill, van jones is here. he has a town hall coming up here wednesday night. and republican strategist, a columnist for the washington examiner and the author of the selfie vote where millennials are leading america and how republicans can keep up.

and also carl bernstein. the two main possibilities are basically president trump is either wrong about all of this or he's correct and there was a fisa court warrant in which case it means a judge was convinced that there was enough there there to actually issue a warrant which is not good news for the president. >> that's what's interesting about this. he's taken information that's been in the ether and turned it into in the partisan debate over this turned it into something that makes him look like the victim, right? so if indeed we give this some validity, if indeed the fbi went to the fisa court and convinced the fisa court that trump or someone else in trump tower was the agent of a foreign government, which is the standard you need to meet in order for us to conduct surveillance on someone on american soil, well, that's a big story, right? that means that trump or someone in his organization was acting as an agent of a foreign government or if it was a

non-fisa warrant, then he had to convince a court that there's probable cause of an underlying crime. either one of those sets of facts would be very troubling, right? >> right. and we should point out comey has said it didn't happen and clapper, who would have been involved in the intelligence side. >> and then the third possibility which is even more earth shattering is that barack obama somehow had the ability to conduct surveillance on someone in trump tower that was outside of all of the legal means. and i don't think anyone said that. >> carl bernstein, with the comparisons to watergate, but trump himself is making that comparison. is it apt? and the argument from other republicans saying this might be a distraction, democrats are saying and people that don't support president trump might be saying this is a distraction by the president to get people not talking about russia but in a way it continues the conversation about russia. >> i think there's a real suggestion that the latter is the case, that this is a diversion created by the president of the united states

to change the narrative and to make it seem that there is this deep state that we were talking about a few minutes ago on the air and that the deep state is responsible for trying to delegitimize donald trump as the president of the united states and that the obama white house and the president himself, barack obama, tried to wiretap him. the latter, of course, is absurd. and is outrageous. but is it possible that there is an intercept of some kind of some communication with trump tower by one of the u.s. intelligence agencies? it's certainly possible. but to accuse the president of the united states, your predecessor, of being bad and sick and saying nixon watergate is both outrageous and wrong and this is a diversion and it's intended to create a political narrative, an alternative narrative that gets the

supporters of donald trump incensed and making the conduct of the democrats somehow the issue in this as opposed to the russians and donald trump and the people around him. >> we're going to bring in the rest of the panel after a quick break. show you what the white house is saying about pruesident trump's confidence in james comey or what he's not saying. later house republicans release their plan to repeal and replace obamacare. afoot and light-hearted i take to the open road. healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine. all seems beautiful to me.

we're talking about the latest unfounded theory the president's promoting on twitter that president obama wiretapped his phones in trump tower in the weeks leading up to the election. there is zero evidence for this. multiple former officials are dismissing this as nonsense. james comey was, quote, incredulous about the allegation. sean spicer was asked whether he has the president's confidence. >> we've only heard unsubstantiated anonymous sources make those claim. i don't think director comey has commented on anything that he's allegedly said. i'm not going to comment on what people say he might have said.

i think the director is more than capable of speaking for himself. >> what about the presidency of the fbi director? >> i haven't asked him that yet. he's folksed on this effort to keep the country safe. >> back now with the panel. this whole notion -- i mean, donald trump, if he really wanted to get to the bottom of this, there doesn't need to be a congressional investigation because he could, as general hayden said earlier, he could pick up the phone and get the information himself. he could declassify it. >> i think he could very quickly. the intel committee is going to turn it around very quickly as well. >> in a phone call? pick up the phone? >> i think he could and i'm not going to put another conspiracy theory out there, but maybe he did -- maybe he did before he tweeted that and maybe there is something that he knows. nothing is impossible in this political environment. >> do you believe, though, at 6:20 in the morning in mar-a-lago? >> i listened to mark levin's

full statement on this and i think he was the guy that really kicked this thing off. >> reporter. >> he quoted mcclatchy, "washington post," "new york times," the guardian. he said they're all alluding to the law enforcement surveillance of trump at trump connections to russia. so i think under the idea of, you know, one side always uses anonymous sources -- >> but let's just zero in on that. because actually the reporting -- in order to do that, you would need a fisa court unless he's alleging this was some sort of secret -- >> but we do know -- >> and the only reporting on the fisa stuff -- >> there was an application for a fisa court in june and apparently in october. >> this is according to heat street which doesn't really have a firm track record with its sources. >> but remember "the new york times" january 19th had an article that said that there has been evidence intercepted, which

is a really strange word, interceptions on communications and transactions between the trump -- or the trump/russia connection in the campaign. where did that come from? >> i can tell you. intercepts on -- the theory is that intercepts on the russian ambassador would not be out of the realm of possibility. >> but flynn -- i would say yes, they were following the russian ambassador and that's how they found out about the flynn phone call. but this was a different -- this was about a computer that had a connection to a bank from the trump campaign. >> right, in trump tower. jen, would -- >> listen, i think there's a couple scenarios that we already talked about. either this is completely false or the just department and the fbi had enough information to get a warrant from a fisa court and they did that, and they had every authority to do that. >> or in criminal court. >> or a criminal court, you're right. two options you've already talked about in your show. the question is why on earth

would there be an investigation? what are we even talking about here? the proposal to do that by the trump team seems to be another in a pattern of calling for an internal or external investigation to move the focus away from the larger issue at hand, which is their connections to russia. >> i do keep coming back to the ease with which the president could just pick up a phone and find out this information if he wanted to. >> yes. he could do that with ease. i do think that we'll get more information on this as the days go by. i don't think the timeline is necessarily suggestive of their being no information. to congressman kingston's point that "new york times" article the headline was actually wiretap data used in inquiry of trump aides. now i agree with you that perhaps it's not wiretapping of trump directly, perhaps it was tapping a russian official and pursuant to that there were intercepted communications, but it's still an extraordinary concept that even if it was

pursuant to a criminal investigation, as jen suggests, that you would have a sitting democratic administration -- >> but we know this by now, the president could know this by now by picking up the phone if he really believed this and if he's really that mad about this, he can find out the information. he's the most powerful guy in the united states, in the world. >> he might have that information, though. and i know that his white house counsel has been working to try to figure out this information, get it out there. >> but if he had that information, why is he saying that it's president obama who did this personally and why is he calling for a congressional investigation to find out? >> he may be sending a signal that i think some on capitol hill heard. >> ask questions later. >> obvious things. the guy that worked in the white house, as did you, this is weird. this is bizarre. this is not how it's done. usually when you have a president, the words that come out of the president's mouth for the staff are precious.

you go through incredible amounts of work vetting back and forth, can he say this, can he say that, take that comma out. i was literally in meetings arguing about commas and semicolons because when the president says it, the whole world will take it seriously. if it's true, maybe you're right, maybe it is true. maybe he knows. this is the worst possible way to go about exposing possibly the biggest crime committed by any president. you don't tweet it out in the morning. and we got to stop pretending this sort of stuff is normal. this is not normal. >> this is the same president who has also suggested the largest voter fraud in the history of this country and called for an investigation, but that was a couple weeks ago and -- >> what? >> maybe an investigation -- >> what donald trump benefits from is the fact that a lot of americans, if you ask them, who do you trust more, donald trump or the media?

most donald trump voters, a surprising swath of the american public says i would trust donald trump if something he said directly contradicted something that the media said. the media is also not a monolith. what's sort of bizarre about this is in this case it's the president trusting the media, if you count sort of breitbart or mark levin and the media over his own government. so the reason this can exist is because you have this scrambling of who feels they can trust whom whether its it's the government or the -- >> it's even more than that. it's the stories that breitbart and levin are relying on are from the bbc, the guardian, heat street. >> "the new york times." >> so there were some credible reports that there was a fisa warrant, right? >> the credible reports weren't about president obama ordering it. >> absolutely. >> by the way, mark levin and breitbart were not saying that president obama ordered this. the president has made that. >> remember this when we talk about bizarroland, here we have all democrats throughout the

fruited plain yesterday embracing james clapper because he said he would have known about it and it did not happen. this is the same guy that three years ago they wanted to convict of purerjury because the federa government was not collecting information on citizens and then james snowden came out. >> the nixon/watergate. the great thing that happened in watergate was na the heroes of watergate were republicans. they were republicans in the senate who unanimously voted to create a select committee to investigate the presidential campaign activities of 1972. and we see nothing similar from the republicans in this, which is to say the creation of a nonpartisan investigation, a bipartisan investigation, a select committee of the senate of the united states or a special prosecutor that gets to the bottom of this including president trump's allegations about his predecessor, that's what's needed here is a fair,

impartial, none non or bipartisan. >> there wasn't a crime. there was a break-in with the -- >> jack, that has -- there has been, as we know, an election in the united states with 16 or 17 intelligence agencies of the united states have said was altered or attempted to be altered by a hostile foreign power. if that's not enough reason to have a select -- let me finish, jack. >> we have to take a break. carl, finish your thought. >> if that's not enough reason for a select committee of the senate of the united states to go go ahead, there does not need to be -- there does not need to be a crime, jack. there have been numerous select investigations. you should know this as a legislator. >> break into a computer doesn't have to be a break into an office anymore.

>> jack, it's time to get off the talking points and get real about learning what happened. that's what republicans ought to be concerned about. >> we've got to take a quick break. coming up, we'll have more on this. also travel ban take two. president trump signs a revised version of his travel ban. we'll look at what's different and what has stayed the same and we'll speak with the attorney general from washington who got the first version of the travel ban blocked. announcer: get on your feet for the nastiest bull in the state of texas. ♪ ♪ of your brain can make it hard to lose weight?

contrave is an fda-approved weight-loss medicine that may help adults who are overweight or struggle with obesity lose weight and keep it off. contrave is believed to work on two areas of the brain: your hunger center... (woman) i'm so hungry. (avo) to reduce hunger. and your reward system... (woman) ice cream. french fries. (avo) to help control cravings. across three long-term studies, contrave patients lost approximately 2-4x more weight than with diet and exercise alone. contrave is not for everyone. one ingredient in contrave may increase suicidal thoughts or actions in some children, teens, and young adults within the first few months. other serious side effects include seizures, increase in blood pressure or heart rate, liver damage, manic episodes, glaucoma and allergic reactions. do not take with opioids. reduce hunger, help control cravings. contrave. the #1 prescribed weight-loss brand. go to contrave.com.

it is take two for the travel ban. president trump signed a revised version of his executive order temporarily preventing travel from now six majority muslim countries. iraq is off the list this time. some changes. people have already have a green card or visa can still travel here. officials can allow others in on a case by case basis. syrian refugees are no longer banned indefinitely. and new language that seems to allow preferential treatment to christians. joining us is former together bob ferguson who successfully challenged the first version of the ban. what is your reaction to this?

because it seems that this executive order is designed to address many of the issues which you raised successfully in court in washington. >> yeah, good evening, anderson. thanks for having me on again. yeah, the bottom line really from our perspective is that on many of the key aspects of our litigation that we brought over a month ago, that this is essentially capitulation by president trump and his administration. you listed a number of the parts of this original executive order that have now been eliminated. i think it's fair to say that on many key provisions they've essentially conceded they can no longer defend that in court. >> you see this as capitulation by the president? >> yeah. i mean, hey, they said, for example, does not apply to green card holders. that's about 3,000 people in the united states. does not apply to those who had visas already from the affected countries. that's tense of thousands of individuals in addition. does not apply to syria on a major basis. these are major concessions by

president trump. and despite his tweet a few weeks ago saying, see you in court, his attorneys have done everything they can before the ninth circuit and the trial court to avoid seeing us in court. they filed motion after motion seeking delays in proceedings. there's no question in my mind that the president realized that the original executive order was indefensivable frankly four federal judges agreed with that. >> the fact that this was delayed even after the president made his remarks to both houses of congress, it was supposed to be rolled out the next day. the reporting is that it got pushed back in order to allow the white house to kind of bask in the glow of the positive reception his talks gave. does that point to some inaccuracies when the trump administration early on in your opinion was saying this has to be done immediately because otherwise bad people are going to rush in under the current system? >> yeah, you know, anderson, i hope that those reports that the president delayed this because he wanted to bask in the glow of

his address to congress is not true because, you're right, the president had said this was all about national security, it can't wait another day. i hope those reports are not true. he also mentioned when he signed the original executive this new executive order, of course, does not go into effect until next thursday. so it has with a ten day cushion before it goes into effect. that original order was illegal and unconstitutional. >> attorney general ferguson, i'll let your reaction stand. i want to play what secretary kelly had to say about the new travel ban. >> clearly the courts have decided that they are in a position to understand the threat against the united states better than people like me or the intelligence agencies, so at this point in time, with a

30-day delay, generally speaking because of the court action, we wanted to roll this out in a way that we did not have the opportunity to do the first time around. >> what's your reaction to that? >> well, i guess i'm confused by that. they had the opportunity originally, to have a thoughtful, intrernal conversation and consult with the right stakeholders to put together a travel ban that at least had some depth and thought to it. it was really keystone cops in the roll out of that original order, and showing the chaos at airports is strong evidence of that. there's very little that can be said about that original executive order that can be complementary of the president. if you look at a governor or a mayor of even a small city would be embarrassed by the way that executive order was rolled out.

>> jeff, do you think the white house has covered themselves legally speaking? >> i think they've come a lot closer. i think this is much more likely to be upheld by the courts. basically, the first executive order was seen as a muslim ban, as a form of religious discrimination. they have taken out the religious content, the special preference for christians and explained that it's not muslim countries that we are objecting to immigrants from, it's countries where there is no functioning government or a terrorist-supporting government that we, we don't want to trust. so those get the order out of the realm of unconstitutional discrimination, and. president has a lot of power here when it comes to immigration, and i think he exercised it fairly. >> the administration that denied that there was no problem with the first rollout says now

it should go swimmingly. >> we believe the first order is constitutional, but we made this change, i think that's just politics, but they got real lawyers involved. >> and homeland security involved which is why iraq is now off the list. do you anticipate taking new legal action? >> what we will do is what we did about five weeks ago when the first order came out, we'll talk to our clients and colleges and universities. we're already reaching out to businesses that supported us on the first executive order and what we'll do is find out what harm is coming to washingtonians and the state of washington as the result of this revised executive order. we'll take a look at that, and have a thoughtful conversation about whether or not it makes sense for us to proceed with litigation in light of this new, revised executive order. it does, as jeff said, apply to a much smaller group of

individuals, but we still want to make sure we're doing our homework on determining what harm exists with the new executive order and what makes the most sense, and i anticipate making that decision sometime this week. >> you said what harm exists, that does presuppose that there is harm being done. >> we'll see, we'll talk to our clients and find out, do we have students that have been accepted to our universities who wish to travel here but are prohibited because of the order. we have to be careful about this. i don't take suing the presidential administration lightly. i think the reason we've been successful in washington state with those litigations is that we do take a thoughtful approach on this. >> attorney general ferguson, appreciate your time. more breaking news. house republicans have revealed their plan to repeal and replace obamacare. [bullfighting music]

[burke] billy-goat ruffians. seen it. covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ say goodbye to extra taxes and fees on your wireless bill and hello to t-mobile one. right now, get 2 lines of unlimited data for $100 bucks taxes and fees included. 2 lines, $100 dollars. all in, all unlimited. switch today. then you're a couple. think of all you'll share... like snoring. does your bed do that? the dual adjustability of a sleep number bed allows you each to choose the firmness and comfort you want. so every couple can get the best sleep ever. does your bed do that? only at a sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $899. and right now save $400 on our most popular mattresses. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

on your phone and online.s a modern way to pay. so you don't miss his first birthday. tickets, i need to see your tickets sir. i masterpassed it. feeling like father of the year: priceless masterpass, the secure way to pay from your bank don't just buy it. masterpass it. more breaking news on capitol hill. house republicans have released their new plan on repealing and replacing obamacare. house just introduced the bill to repeal and replace obamacare, time to end this nightmare, it says. can you tell us what is what is actually in this new bill? >> reporter: the individual mandate and the employer mandate will both be repealed.

here's what's staying. two very popular provisions, the ability for children to stay on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26, the ability to ban any disputes for preexisting conditions so long as that coverage is continuous. how subsidies would be replaced would be refundable tax credits. this is an issue republicans have had a major problem with. republicans trying to cap them based on income. the other big issue here is medicaid. obviously, anderson, a number of states took the medicaid expaengs that was offered in obamacare, including the number of red states. those would allowed to grow until january 1st, 2020. the spigot wouldn't immediately be shut off. those states that did not take the expansion would also get money as well, so they wouldn't be punished. so trying to split the difference there as they try and

reach out to as many different constituencies as possible. they know they have a tough road ahead. >> democrats saying this will not come near as covering as many people as obamacare does. >> reporter: what we haven't seen yet is the congressional budget office score. it gives a tally of how much it will cost and how many people will be covered. they've been trading proposals back and forth with the cbo over the past couple weeks. the reality is this, they're going to come far short of the coverage numbers that obamacare provide th provides. when you talk to republicans, they acknowledge this was probably going to happen. but we're talking about millions of people. and if you talk about a potent political issue, this will absolutely be one of them. much more ahead in this hour of 360. does president trump have the evidence to back up his claim that president obama tapped his phones during the presidential campaign. if he can't prove it, what will the fallout be?

...we've helped our investors stay confident for over 75 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. safety doesn't come in a box. it's not a banner that goes on a wall. it's not something you do now and then. or when it's convenient. it's using state-of-the-art simulators to better prepare for any situation. it's giving offshore teams onshore support. and it's empowering anyone to stop a job if something doesn't seem right. at bp, safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.