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. anderson's next. feeng. thanks for joining us. tonight we know the president of the united states has no facts. no facts to back um his startling allegation that the former president of the united states, president obama, wiretapped him in trump tower during the campaign. keeping him honest, we know this tonight because bipartisan members of the senate intelligence committee say they've seen no evidence that barack obama ordered donald trump's phones tapped during the campaign. we know this because house speaker paul ryan also says he's seen no evidence. remember, the president asked congress to investigate and the house and senate intelligence committees have been doing that for the last dozen days. we know the president has no facts to back um his early morning saturday tweet storm

because in today's white house briefing press secretary sean spicer read a long list of media reports that he seemed to believe back um the president's claims. media reports. sean hannity, judge napolitano, "the new york times," the very paper the president of the united states has referred to as failing and fake. >> sean hannity said judge andrew napolitano made the following statement -- days after election, heat street reported. january 19th, the new york travel times reports -- >> we know the president has no facts because he was on fox news last night and finally explained where he got the alleged information that led him to sweet the substantiated allegations against the former president. watch. >> i've been reading about things. i read in i think it was january 20th "the new york times" article where they were talking about wiretapping. there was an article. i think they used that exact term. i read other things. i watched your friend bret baier the day previous where he was

talking about certain very complex sets of things happening and wiretapping. i said, wait a minute, there's a lot of wiretapping being talked about. i've been seeing a lot of things. >> the president on fox last night. he's been seeing a lot of thing, he says. he read a report in "the new york times." he heard bret baier say something. a lot of wiretapping being talked about. now we know. the thing is the report in "the new york times" the president seems to be talking about, it doesn't say anything about president obama ordering a wiretap. we've interviewed "the new york times" reporter who wrote the article and we're going to do it again tonight. in a minute, you can hear for yourself. as for bret baier, whose work i certainly respect, as for sean spicer's comments today, we believe the president is referring to bret's show on march 3rd. that show doesn't sitecyte any evidence of wiretapping. it references other unspecified reports, again, nothing about president obama wiretapping

president trump. before sending those tweet ace tacking the former president, the president could have picked up a phone, called the fbi, the cy, national intelligence, could have asked for the information. he didn't. there's also something else in that interview he's said before. in the world of television it's what we call a tease. listen. >> wiretap covers a lot of different things. i think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks. ? that's the tease. basically it's stay tuned, because there's something very interesting coming up up. the president has done this before notably as a citizen. >> right now i have some real doubts. i have people that have been studying it and they cannot believe what they're finding. >> you have people now down there searching i mean in hawaii? >> absolutely. and they cannot believe what they're finding. >> by the way, the payoff for that tease, that never came. in fact, there has never been any evidence at all that then citizen trump actually had people down in hawaii searching

for information. the time he claimed he did we actually did have people down in hawaii searching for information interviewing all the people somebody would interview for information and none of those people we interviewed ever reported being approached by anyone working for then citizen donald trump. well, it was quite a press conference today at the white house. jim acosta was in the thick of it. we'll talk to him in just a second. first, some of the exchange jim had with sean spicer. >> you were just quoting sean hannity there. the house and senate intelligence committees -- >> i also quoted -- you're going to cherry-pick -- >> you're citing sean hannity in a -- >> you also tend to overlook all the other sources. because i know you want to cherry-pick it. no, no, but you do. but where was your concern about "the new york times" reporter? you didn't seem to have a concern are with that. >> we have done plenty of reporting on all of this. >> you want to cherry-pick one piece of commentary. >> -- associates of the president to the russians, has all been looked at. >> how do you know all this? how do you seem to be such an expert in this?

>> i'm saying this has been looked at, sean. >> how do you know? hold on. i'm sorry. i'm afraid to -- can you tell me how you though that all of this has, quote, been looked at? >> you're asking me whether or not -- >> you made a statement, you said, quote, all of this has been looked out. >> other outlites have reported -- >> so when your outlet says it's all been looked at -- >> the president and -- the campaign it sounds like during the context of that investigation there might have been some intercepted communications, the house intelligence committee chairman did mention that and we have reported that, others have reported that on our air and various publications. but, sean, what you are refusing to answer, the question that you're refusing to answer is whether or not the president still -- >> i'm not re -- i said it to jonathan. >> you have a senate and house intelligence committee both leaders from both parties on both of those panels saying that they don't see any evidence of any wiretapping. how can the president go on and

continue to -- >> because you're mischaracterizing what chairman nunes said. he said, quote, it's possible hess following up on this. to suggest that, you're stating unequivocally -- >> you said if you take it literally -- >> we've cleared that up. the president has said clearly when he referred to wiretapping he was referring to surveillance. >> what that sounds like sha you and the president are saying we don't mean wiretapping anymore, that's not true anymore. so now we're going to -- >> no, that's not -- >> -- other forms of surveillance. what's it going to be next? >> jim, that's cute but at the end of the day, what the president had wiretapping in quotes, he was referring to broad surveillance. now you're basically going back. we talked about this several days ago. the bottom line is that the investigation by the house and the senate has not been provided all the information. when it does -- but where was -- hold on -- >> not evidence -- >> no, no. i think the president addressed that last night and said there's more to come. these are merely pointing out i

think there is widespread reporting throughout the 2016 investigation there was surveillance done on a variety of people that came up -- >> investigation whether there was -- >> i find it interesting that ow you -- >> his campaign -- >> that you -- >> of course they'll be looking at these various -- >> i get it. somehow you seem to believe you have all this information, you've been read in on all these things which i find interesting. >> i haven't been read in by fbi. >> coming to serious conclusions for a guy who has zero intelligent class -- well -- >> give me some credit. >> i'll give you some. >> a little intelligence, maybe. >> clearance. i wasn't done. clearance. maybe both. >> those two panels. those two panels have spoke within the fbi director and -- >> i understand that. >> told there's no evidence of this. >> i think this question has been asked and answered. >> president saying -- >> it's interest hough you jump to all these conclusions about what they have and what they don't have and you seem to know all the answers. at the end of the day there was clearly a ton of reporting -- hold on, jim. let me answer -- i think that

there's been a vast amount of reporting which i just detailed about activity that was going on in the 2016 election. there's no question that there was surveillance techniques used throughout this. i think by a variety of outlets that have reported this activity concluding. so -- and i think when you actually ask those two people whether or not -- as chairman nunes said yesterday, when you take it literally, wiretap, the president has been clear he didn't mean specifically wiretapping. he had it in quotes. i think to fall back on that is a false premise. that's not what he said. he was very clear about what when he talked about it yesterday. >> and jim acosta joins us now. why didn't you press sean spicer on those sources? >> well, because before i asked that question why are you quoting sean hannity, which is a bizarre question to ask during a briefing, by the way, sean spicer went through this long list of news articles and i guess posts on websites, obscure websites that would lead them to conclude that the president has some backing for his claim that

he was wiretapped by former president obama. but by the way, one of those articles and i think you just mentioned this, that the white house is relying upon, was written by "the new york times." the president has called time and again the failing "new york times." on the face of it right there, they're leaning on information that they've questioned as not reputable in the past. add to that during that long list of sources he also cited sawn hannity and something that was said on his show and something that judge andrew napolitano said, another fox news contributor. as you and i both know, those are not nonbiased sources of information. they tend to be sources of information that feed a lot of the president's conspiracy theories that we hear about all the time. >> we've interviewed the "new york times" reporter who wrote that article the white house is referencing and we're about to do it again and it doesn't say anything about president obama wiretapping. also what judge napolitano, andrew that poll ta toe was

talking about, the british intelligence service have said that's ridiculous. >> knocked that down. >> are you seeing the white house backing down from the president's original claim? i'm trying to remember any time that president trump as a citizen or as president has admitted he was wrong about anything. i think we've asked him that question as a candidate. are there things you've said which are wrong and i don't think he's ever admitted he's wrong. >> reporter: i don't think i've ever heard him admit he's wrong. that was one reason i pressed sean spicer on that in the briefing. they started with the original tweets from the president, that former president obama wiretapped him. when that claim proved to be baseless and false and proven wrong and said as much by members of his own members on capitol hill, they then expanded the definition of wiretapping and now it means all these different forms of surveillance. so the question becomes when that doesn't work anymore -- because keep in mind the senate intelligence committee statement said today surveillance, not

wiretapping, we did not find evidence of surveillance, so it seems to be knocking down the latest excuse from the white house and so instead of trying to find some kind of refuge in the form of an apology or a retraction or withdrawal of that statement, you have the president and his spokesman doubling down, anderson, and there was no sign of an apology coming but of course we know that because we've been covering donald trump for some time now. >> jim, stick around. i want to bring in perhaps the mostly widely mentioned "new york times" reporter of the night, matthew rosenberg. this reminds me of the scene in annie hall where woody allen gets annoyed and says i happen to have marcia mcclune right here. we're happy to have you here. what do you make of the white house citing your article as part of the evidence? bizarre a point. anybody can read the story and

see that's not what it said. this bizarre circular thing happening where the president cites a theory that he was wiretapped which two-pointed on kind of fringe right-wing media and after his tweet storm, info wars says it was "the new york times" that reported it, citing our story, and now a few weeks later the white house and the president are citing info wars. so they've got one kind of bizarre right wing theory to depend another bizarre right wing framed theory, both of which there's no evidence to support. >> just to be clear, there's nothing whatsoever in your reporting in "the new york times" that indicates president obama wiretapped or ordered wiretapping of then candidate trump, correct? >> nothing. i mean, if we knew that, that is a fantastic story. we would be rushing -- i would not be sitting here with you. i'd be home writing it or out reporting it. we said there were intercepted communications. we said they were russians talking to each other about

contacts with trump associates. we know that there were intercepts with say the russian ambassador, on the phone with michael flynn, the former national security adviser. and so flynn was picked up talking to the russian ambassador, who's under surveillance. but this is all routine work by intelligence agencies and fbi. this isn't, you know, they especially put the trump people under surveillance. we have no evidence that that happened. >> in fact, i just want to read the sentence in the article that you just talked about that i just think it's important to have the sentence. you wrote one official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretap communications had been provided to the white house. i know you can't obviously get into your sources for your reporting, but the wiretapping you reference, that's the russians communicating theoretically with other russians but in one case i guess with flynn. >> much of it. i need to be a little careful here partly because our visibility is limited, obviously. i don't have the security clearance and can't see things personally. you know, these intelligence reports then go to the white

house isn't that unusual either because in almost all of them the names are masked. so if there's an american named in this, it's almost always masked. it's only unmasked for context or if the president asked for it. we have no evidence that happened. this is intelligence agenciesing to their jobs and picking up things that were going on. >> you're also working for a news organization that the president of the united states has repeatedly referred to as failing or fake news. interesting that "the times" seem to be one of the, you know, main white house sources that they are pointing to to try to now buoy their defense. they believe it's fake news, it's odd they would now be kind of embracing your reporting or what they believe your reporting is, which it's not. >> it's kind of an honor i guess to be cited by the president but it's a complete misreading. and trump, he usually refers to us as failing, usually sees us as something is wrong with us. on occasion he once called us a national treasure. i think there's a bit of a

competing viewpoint within his own mind about who and what we are. >> we'll bring jim back in. the president is scheduled to hold a joint press conference tomorrow with german chancellor angela merkel. do you foresee wiretapping coming up, and any idea of how he might respond? >> i think it will be a critical moment for president trump in the early days of this administration. we saw in some of these joint news conferences with other foreign leaders that he preferred to call on conservative news outlets to basically fix the game in order to not get tough questions during some of these news conferences, and so the choice that is set before the president tomorrow is does he go down that road, does he decide to just stick with conservative news outlets because he knows they're not going to ask this question about wiretapping, or does he call on a cnn or "new york times" or associated press or one of the other broadcast networks or so on and is he going to ask this question and how does he answer? that will be a critical moment

for this president. we'll have to see if he chooses the road less traveled because he's certainly in a very difficult poxover his own making and i think the only way he can see his way out of it at this point is just to acknowledge the truth that the wiretapping claim that he tweeted about is just false and that he made a mistake. >> we'll see about that. jim acosta, thank you. matthew rosenberg, appreciate you being on again. up next, breaking news on the congressional side including the head of the house intelligence committee responding directly to one of the claims you heard sean spicer make. at the top of next hour, van jones, kareem abdul-jabbar and another town hall. with advil, you'll ask what twisted ankle? what muscle strain? advil makes pain a distant memory nothing works faster stronger or longer what pain? advil. 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. to take advantage of this offer on a volvo s90, visit your local dealer. e*trade's powerful trading tools, give you access to in-depth analysis, and a team of experienced traders ready to help if you need it. it's like having the power of a trading floor, wherever you are. it's your trade. e*trade i use what's already inside me

to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity.

stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.

welcome back. more on the president's wiretapping case. the breaking news is in reaction to sean spicer suggesting that defari vip nunes still backs the white house despite the chairman's statements yesterday contradicting the president's wiretap claim. >> when nunes said it's very possible yesterday there was crickets from you guys. when he came out and said there was no connection to russia, crickets. when tom cotton said the same, you don't want to cover -- >> no evidence of wiretapping -- >> no, hold on. >> you've had the house and senate intelligence committee -- >> here's the direct quote. i think it's very possible, end of quote. >> joining us from capitol hill manu raju. you just caught up with congressman nunes. what did he say? >> he's not on the same page with the white house. what sean spicer was referring to there was comments that devin nunes made yesterday in a press conference saying it was

possible that incidentally during the broader surveillance that was taking place during the obama years perhaps some of donald trump's communications may have been swept up and that's something they'll look into. when i caught up with partly sunny skies pl nunes today i asked him specifically does that mean you've seen any evidence? he said no. and also said he does not believe president trump was wiretapped under the orders of barack obama. take a listen. you said yesterday i don't believe what the -- your words. >> yeah, i don't believe that the president ordered a fi cal wiretap of trump tower. >> and what do you make of the -- >> physical wiretap or other surveillance activities, which is the question. >> and today? >> we want to make sure no surveillance was used for political purposes. >> do you have any evidence anything picked up donald trump? >> other than general flynn, we don't. >> that's the first time we're

hearing are from devin nunes saying there's no evidence to suggest any incidental collection of communications from president trump. undercutting a key argument that sean spicer was making today nunes saying you take donald trump's tweets literally, no, he was not tapped. but perhaps broadly under this new definition of surveillance maybe. but we'll look into it. obviously no ed they're seeing or the senate intelligence committee is seeing. >> what are you learning about the latest response from james comey from the fbi? >> reporter: we're expecting him to speak publicly monday at a hearing that the house intelligence committee is having on the issue of russia meddling in campaign contacts that may have coccurred during campaign season with donald trump's campaign and any russian officials. i'm told by adam schiff that he expects james comey to publicly rebut trump's suggestion that he was wiretapped under the orders

of donald trump. i asked adam schiff that directly today and he said that's what he expects. schiff would be in a position to know. he has spoken multiple times with comey. they had a private briefing talking presumably about this topic as well. so we'll see if comey goes forward and goes public on monday night. but this is a question that will come up at this high-profile hearing and we'll see if comey expresses reservations or goes out and publicly rebuts donald trump the way that he's now expected to do so. >> monday. joining us is kirsten powers, kayleigh mcenany, van jones, busy tonight, messy truth town hall after this show. and jack kingston. keirsten, i'm not sure where to begin but that press conference today at the white house, the white house has gotten in deep on this and doesn't seem to be able to back out. >> they're in a situation because sean spicer has to defend donald trump because he doesn't want to back down from

this. what struck me the most was when he rolled out the evidence basically, right. and so donald trump tweeted i just found out -- then went on a ram page about how he was wiretapped. when most of us hear that, we think i just found out, someone came in and briefed you. if i said i just found out something and then you found out i just found out by reading the newspaper, everybody knows that. what it was he found out is he was watching fox news so he found out something from sean hannity and from andrew napolitano, that's embarrassing for the white house. this isn't how we think of the president making an accusation based on something like that. >> kayleigh, having believed that, p tt could call the director of national intelligence, the fbi, and find out was there a fisa court warrant, you know, issued?

seems like none of that was done. >> sean spicer said that because the media would go crazy because they're interfering in the intelligence community's activities. that's his reason or not. there are two important things we need to separate. one, devin nunes has said, democrats and republicans alike have said obama did not order a direct wiretapping of trump. doesn't seem like that happened based on all we know. that being said, there's another serious matter i think is what the tweet was getting at which is mike flynn's conversations were transcribed in the course of surveying a foreign diplomat. when you come across american citizens, stop unless you have a evidence of a crime. why didn't they stop? why were the conversations transcribed when an american citizen was involved? that incidental wiretapping, those questions aren't answered and that could validate what he was getting at.

>> in certain circumstances the name can be unredacted if they believe a crime perhaps has been committed. >> that's certainly true. but at the same time they still need some sort of evidence before they transcribe and disseminate around government mike flynn's conversation, was disseminated far and wide. why weren't the procedures followed? >> that is not what president trump was tweeting about at 6-something a.m. on a saturday morning. >> there are all kinds of things in our government that can be improved. frankly i was concerned under the obama administration that, you know, the intelligence community might have these super powers and that stuff, new tools. there is a way to have that conversation. you could say, listen, i am the president of the united states, i'm concerned about intelligence, i want to have -- tweeting out some completely made-up nonsense two weeks ago is not how you have a conversation about any of these issues. i think you need to talk about what's going on here. here's what's going on. two weeks ago the president gave

a speech that was well received by many including myself, quite famously, and the next day, rather than getting his wonderful high praise, people start talking about the fact that jeff sessions had committed an act of treason, that the top come had committed a crime and donald trump, by all reports, started going off on people, screaming and yelling, and guess what? he tweeted out nonsense to change the subject. we're not sitting here talking about the fact that the top cop committed an act of perjury. we're talking about ftotal nonsense. trump is winning againwy doing nutty stuff and having us chase the rabbit around the barn. there is no way in the world you can spin or polish that tweet. you can't do it. in fact, i don't think trump is that man, talking about jeff sessions. >> congressman kingston, van is saying this is a machiavellian way to turn the attention awayer or go down the rabbit hole, but you can't ignore the president

of the united states when he's making allegations against the former president of the united states, allegations which are incredibly serious. >> i don't think you can ignore it if. you listen to what sean said today he said one of the things that bothered the white house is on his way out the door president obama apparently opened up the surveillance or the investigation into 16 other agencies who had not been involved in it and thus spreading the information, continuing surveillance, continuing whatever investigation level there was, and improving the likelihood of this laebs. i think that is something that the white house is very concerned about. one thing i also want to mention, if nunes and other republicans come out and say there was no evidence to wiretapping in two or three weeks, whatever it is, when they come out and say there's no evidence of collusion, i hope that the democrats equally embrace their statements at that time as they have today. >> quick break and we'll continue this conversation. more to talk about in the hour ahead including what paul ryan said about the lack of evidence for the wiretapping claim and

whether he thinks president trump should apologize to the american people. 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.

except when it comes to retirement. at fidelity, you get a retirement score in just 60 seconds. and we'll help you make decisions for your plan... to keep you on track. it's your retirement. know where you stand. it can seem like triggers. pop up everywhere. luckily there's powerful, 24-hour, non-drowsy claritin. it provides relief of symptoms that can be triggered by over 200 different allergens. live claritin clear.

as we've been reporting, the

unfounded wiretap allegation took some interesting turns today. began with bipartisan members of the senate intelligence committee saying they've seep no evidence that president obama ordered president trump's phones tapped during the campaign. came out at a perez briefing where sean spicer gave a long and winding and contradictory defense saying president trump stand by the claim. paul ryan and others have been briefed. here's what he told wolf blitzer a short time ago. >> we have not seen any evidence that there was a wiretap or a fisa court order against trump tower or somebody in trump tower. >> so should the president of the united states, do you believe, apologize to former president obama and apologize to the american people for making such an assertion? >> i'm going to leave it to him to make his decisions. >> you still personally trust president trump? >> yes. >> back now with the panel. i was trying to remember an incident where the president or donald trump as a citizen really has apologized.

we asked him about that during the campaign and he couldn't -- if memory serves me correct, he couldn't come up. kayleigh, do you think he should? >> he should clarify, especially if it's not direct evidence of obama tapping trump. and i agree with van, twitter was not a place to raise this. i fully think there was something suspicious going on, maybe not orchestrated by president obama, people within, that's not hard to believe based on the felonious leaks we've seen. so i do think there was something strange going on. i think they'll provide some sort of evidence of surveillance. whether it was ordered by the commander in chief, that's a far stretch. this is why twitter doesn't limit itself to making these allegations. if there's no evidence i think he should clarify like the democratic senator who tweeted she never met with the russians, i had no room in my office. >> congressman kingston, the current president of the united states calling the former president of the united states a bad or sick guy, i think was the terminology. should he apologize? >> i think his words may have

gotten ahead of himself in terms of wiretapping versus surveillance. and maybe we will know something as he said last night to tucker carlson in the next couple of weeks. there will be more stuff coming out. >> that is sort of his poker tell. he often uses that phraseology of, you know, something big is coming or just wait or, you know, i'm finding out some amazing things. >> he's a hollywood guy and there's that teaser element to him. it seems to always be out there. >> right. >> but i'm going to quote paul ryan, i'm going to let him make his decisions on terms of apologizing or taking it back. but i do think if we listen, part of what sean was saying is surveillance, wiretapping, almost synonymous in the usage, that would not be accept to believe many people, but i do remember you asked about him apologizing, during the campaign early august right afl kellyanne conway took over the campaign he did apologize in sort to the kahn family and other people for

offending -- >> i think his phraseology was not an apology, it was more like i said something or -- i regret -- yeah. frankly unlikely there will be -- >> unlikely but i think the answer is yes, he should apologize. i don't think there's any question. i don't know how you guys can even say that. i mean obviously if he accused president obama of doing something that he didn't to and called him sick, he should apologize. i don't even understand how this is eve an debate. >> some waiting for lois lerner to apologize holding up the tax returns or how the -- >> that's like -- >> this is the problem we have is that there should be a standard and if anybody should meet that standard it should be the president of the united states and he shouldn't meet the standard if, you know, joe meets his and -- if skippy meets hers. that's a conversation i have with my kids. i'm not going to do it until he does it. part of i think what's going on here, the damage is not visible yet, it's like termtermites.

all of these things are undermining basic trust and correct. guess what, tomorrow always comes. there will be a moment where this man has to stand in front of the country and say we have to go to war or we have a serious threat. you're going to have a lot of people saying should i take this literally or seriously? people will be debating whether or not the president of the united states is serious when he's talking about something that could be of life and death. so right now this is all fun and games, we can all joke around, but termites are eating through the fundamental structure of our country and it's dangerous. >> interesting the president is constantly staying, jon stewart pointed to this out and others, constantly saying believe me, believe me. at a certain point the president of the united states shouldn't need to say that phrase, like you should just believe what he's saying. >> did ask for two weeks and doj asked him for one more week. if he does come up with something because there was a suspicious headline, wiretap

data used in investigation of trump associates, that was a "new york times" head line of scrimmage on january 19th. if in two weeks -- >> we've had that report on multiple times who keeps pointing out the article was not talking about president obama wiretapping, it was about russian surveillance. >> but in the course they might have picked up on an american citizen. there could be something that comes out in two weeks and if there is we're having a different conversation. >> but if there's not -- >> -- doesn't trust the obama administration because of the irs bullying -- >> tweeted and alleged and now that's a change. if you're the president of the united states, you make one allegation and then it starts to fall apart and then you start to move the goal post, that's lucy with the football. >> then his flawed spes fisz ti, if that's the case. if something nefarious comes out, he wasn't specific enough. >> i've been trying to follow your argument. but because there were leaks that somehow we're supposed to think something happened? people leaked all through the

obama administration. >> and the bush administration. >> that doesn't -- whether you think it's right or wrong, it's not something that specifically happened to him pap lot of the leaks were happening frankly i think because the intelligence community is so concerned about what they believe was going on. so i think that -- i can't quite follow the lonlic of it. >> what is wrong is spying and. >>ing on american citizen without a reason. >> who was spied on? >> mike flynn. >> he was not. >> i want to know why his conversation was transcribed. >> "the new york times" reporter has been on here saying this was not -- this was collective -- >> what crime was mike flynn committing when -- >> he was talking to somebody else. >> what was the crime? [ talking over each other ] >> it seems they were surveilling the russian ambassador. >> when you stumble upon an american citizen conversation, you stop unless there's evidence of a crime. >> what crime? >> we don't know. >> the only crime we can be sure

of is the felons who have leaked information. that is a felony. >> we know the russians hacked into the election which is -- >> nothing of collusion. that's one of the things comey will say next week and one of the things sean spicer talked about today. so frustrating to him, whenever somebody says there's no evidence of collusion, crickcri, to quote -- >> clapper said when he left he saw no evidence of collusion. important point. democrats are out on a very thin, you know, shaky limb and we'll see what happens when the evidence -- >> i will say this. all of us remember when conservatives were patriotic and concerned about foreign governments attacking us in in different ways and that would have been an outrage to them. interesting to hear such little concerns from the republicans about the fact our election was attacked by a foreign power.

i want them to get back to their job of defending the country because it's weird how little you care about that. coming up, the white house is promising to appeal soon after two federal judges blocked the latest travel ban. and van is heading downstairs getting ready for his town hall. where's the car? it'll be here in three...uh, four minutes. are you kidding me? no, looks like he took a wrong turn. don't worry, this guy's got like a four-star rating, we're good. his name is randy. that's like one of the most trustworthy names! ordering a getaway car with an app? are you randy? that's me! awesome! surprising. what's not surprising? how much money erin saved by switching to geico. everybody comfortable with the air temp? i could go a little cooler. ok. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. i wanti did my ancestrydna and where i came from. and i couldn't wait to get my pie chart. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american. i had no idea.

just to know this is what i'm made of, this is where my ancestors came from. and i absolutely want to know more about my native american heritage. it's opened up a whole new world for me. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. bring you more ways to helps reduce calories from sugar. with more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all, smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels, and signs reminding everyone to think balance before choosing their beverages. we know you care about reducing the sugar in your family's diet, and we're working to support your efforts. more beverage choices. smaller portions. less sugar. balanceus.org.

i realize that ah, that $100k is notwell, a 103fortune. yeah, 103. well, let me ask you guys. how long did it take you two to save that? a long time. then it's a fortune. well, i'm sure you talk to people all the time who think $100k is just pocket change. right now we're just talking to you. i told you we had a fortune. yes, you did. getting closer to your investment goals starts with a conversation. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today.

president trump's travel ban was set to be in effect by now but was blocked by two federal judges, one in hawaii, one in maryland. last night in nashville, he called it overreach and the justice department is exploring all options. jessica schneider, the trump administration took great pains to rewrite this executive order, both judgments who halted it are saying it's the president's own campaign statements in part that gave them pause. >> a majority of both of thee opinions, they painstaking det the comments the president and his team made specifically referring to a muslim ban. both judges cited his interview on cnn with you where he said i

think islam hates us and referred to a press release from the trump campaign team calling for a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the u.s. the court said those statements coupled with steven miller's tv appearance when they were rewriting this order saying the new order would have the same basic policies of the old, that all made it clear the intent all along the judges said was to ban muslims from entering the u.s. the m.d.ed in judge used a great quote saying, "the world is not made brand-new every morning and reasonable observers have reasonable memories." simply put, the administration can try to rewrite this, but even on their second try people would remember their words. >> jessica, thanks very much. jessica, i understand there was something new about ruling in washington also. >> just in the past minute or two, i just got an alert actually. the judge out in seattle, it was the same judge that initially

put a halt to president trump's first executive order, there's a lot of legal wranglings out in washington still, but there was a minor ruling that the trump administration might be able to claim some victory about. the judge out there has just refused to grant the state of washington's request to enforce that preliminary injunction that extended to the first travel ban. the judge there refused to extend that preliminary injunction to this current travel ban. so they still have more legal fight out there in washington. this was just one part of it. so it's a little bit of a victory for the trump administration, but who knows how else this judge will rule. >> with me the washington state attorney general bob ferguson who successfully challenged the first travel ban. and brian frosh and jeffrey toobin. what do you make of what jessica just reported about the preliminary ruling from the judge in washington? >> that was a decision that

judge robart made yesterday in oral ruling. if i'm understanding her correctly he simply put that in writing. that goes to we had two arguments. our first argument was the original injunction that judge robart in seattle applied to the first executive order should still apply to the second executive order. he denied that. we still have our main argument that of course like hawaii and maryland the new executive order should also be under an injunction and will be continuing our process with that claim. >> attorney general, both rulings last night, including one from your state of maryland, krilted the president's statements from the campaign trail about a muslim ban, one of the interviews i did with him at mar-a-lago. but campaign statements are often different from subsequent policy. why is it prudent to apply what the president said last year to this executive order? why isn't the executive order judged on its own? >> well, you know, no judge as the judge in maryland said is born yesterday.

you look at it in context. president trump promise ld a travel ban, a muslim ban, while he was campaigning, said he was going to implement it after he was elected. rudy giuliani said president trump came to him, said i want to do a muslim ban, make it legal for me. the judges understand that. they're supposed to take it in context. and they did. it's a muslim ban, a violation of the first amendment, prefers one religion and disfavors another. it's a classic constitution nal violation. >> attorney general ferguson, to that point, the executive order does not have any language in it that refers to trying to ban muslims or keep them out of the country. i know the six countries are muslim majority countries. how on paper is that a muslim ban? >> yeah. so a document, a piece of legislation or in this case an executive order, can buy on its face, on the words of a document, seem to be benign. but when you look behind the motivation for that legislation and that executive order, courts

are allowed to look at motivation because it could have an anti-constitutional effect in the motivation behind it. that's what we're getting to. the statements behind it are what's causing concern from med ral judge after federal judge. six have looked at this and reached the identical conclusion. :i don't know. i have to say i spent the day with these two rules, they are both 43 pages long and focus so heavily on what donald trump said in the campaign. in all of american legal history, as far as i can tell, there has never been a court ruling that declared a president of a president unconstitutional based on something he said in the campaign. it never happened before because that's not how courts usually deal with questions like this

and i just think as this moves through the appeal process, the attorneys general are going to have a hard time persuading judges that, you know, we have to look at what candidates say in their debates and fundraisers and thousands and thousands of words they say. >> yeah. >> i just -- it seems very puzzling. >> jeff, i know you got questions for the attorneys general. >> i just -- i mean, am i wrong about that? has this ever happened before that a judge has said because of a campaign promise, an action by a president is unconstitutional? >> attorney general ferguson? >> sure. so it may be an unusual situation and that's due in part, what the president said and his advisors have said as my colleague brian pointed out have been breathtaking and they are what's unprecedented is the president of the united states as a candidate saying i'm going to create a muslim ban. the courts are allowed to look at the motivation behind a

document and keep in mind, what the courts have done is said this cannot go into effect while we proceed on the merits of claims to say this is unconstitutional. we'll be asking for additional documents and taking more depositions but the courts look at the harm done to people in my state and brian's state, the harm is so great, that they won't allow it to go forward while we proceed. >> why is a statement by steven miller, who is like this 31-year-old punk in the white house, why is that more important constitutionally than what the attorney general says, what the secretary of homeland security says, what the secretary of state says? all of whom have endorsed this and said this is a valuable tool for national security. >> well, actually -- >> go ahead. >> -- there is very little evidence it does impact national security. the department of homeland security said it doesn't. and as bob said, it's not just

rare but unprecedented a president of the united states doing, saying something illegal and unconstitutional and that's what happened here. i don't see how the courts can possibly ignore it. >> but you -- your opinion about what's in the interest of national security and some judge sitting in a room with four law clerks is of more value of national security than the attorney general, secretary of homeland security? they say it helps national security. why are they wrong and you're right? >> the department of homeland securities says the opposite. they say it doesn't help national security in the government in bob's case in washington came in with three examples of instances in which somebody in one of the countries had done something wrong in the united states, two of them were from iraq, not one of the banned countries and the other was somebody who came here as a toddler. >> yeah. attorney general bob ferguson, brian frost, we have to end it there. appreciate your time. jeff toobin. not just unfounded claims

president obama wiretapped now president trump. sean spicer says mr. ocho boll obama got a british intelligence agency to do the dirty work for him and that british agency are doing something they rarely do. they are publicly responding to what the white house said. that's coming up next. times and bad... good ...at t. rowe price... ...we've helped our investors stay confident for over 75 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. 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 don't just buy it. masterpass it.

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. [ om[ sniffs ]c ] little girl: daddy! trapped by your unrelenting nasal allergies? [ meow ] [ sneezes ] try clarispray clarispray provides unsurpassed relief. it's 24 hour, non-drowsy and prescription strength. free yourself with clarispray, from the makers of claritin.

more breaking news, british intelligence is responding to an acquisition one of the agencies spied on president trump. it's coming from the white house. press secretary release was filtered through him as he read out multiple reports today. it came from a fox news legal

analyst. hear is sean spicer today. >> last on fox news on march 14th, judge napolitano, three intelligence sources informed fox news president obama went outside the chain of command, he didn't use the nsa, cia, fbi and he didn't use the department of justice. he used gchq. that's the initials for the british intelligence spying agency. by having two people said president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate trump's conversations involving president elect trump, he's able to get it and there is no american fingerprints on this. >> that british intelligence agency just responded. what are they saying? >> well, i got to tell ya, i speak to british intelligence fairly often. they are very loathe to make public comments but in this case they were very happy to go public and these are the words they used. they said this report is nonsense, utterly ridiculous and should be ignored from the gchq.

it was a remarkable moment because you have the fbi director, attorney general and leaders of the senate intelligence committees, house speaker, republicans rejecting the narrative. sean spicer there resorting to news reports, somewhat incredibly of that particular one that the british knocking down immediately. >> jim, what are you hearing from the intelligence community here? how are they reacting to the president sticking to the wiretapping claims? >> i think the word is mess moorized, confused. there is no evidence of it. they can't say that. many of them can't say that in public but that's okay because you're hearing it in public from many politicians and others. some appointed by president trump. many republicans briefed on the intelligence to say there is no evidence. so behind closed doors, the people producing the intelligence behind those statements, they just don't know what the president is trying to accomplish with this. and it does raise hard questions again because it's another case

of the president to some degree undermining the intelligence community because in public, he's saying that what they are saying isn't true. >> and monday we expect comey to testify and talk publicly about this now. >> that's right. we do. listen, comey is tight lipped as you know but on this issue, there is expectation that will make some public comments saying there is no evidence of these wiretap climbs by the president. >> all right. jim shoe toutto, thanks very mu "the messy truth" starts now. [ applause ] welcome to "the messy truth." i'm van jones. now look, today was a cry sea day even by trump's crazy standards. okay? we had sean spicer in the briefing in a scene that really just cou