well, for democrats, they are saying that calling on comey to be fired is nixonian. but remember they are propare compromised, too, because nobody was more outspoken against comey than the democrats. subpoenas have been issued to former associates of michael flynn in the investigation to russian meddling in the u.s. election. is that a sign that justice will be served? we have it all covered. let's begin with joe johns live at the white house. joe, what do we know? >> reporter: well, this is just unchartered territory not only for the white house, but also in many ways for capitol hill and the justice department. the white house today will have to continue to justify, to rationalize, to explain why the president fired the man leading the investigation into his campaign. president trump attributing his bombshell firing of fbi director

james comey to comey's handling of the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. a stunning reversal given trump's repeated praise of comey for how he managed that very investigation. >> it took guts for director comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where in he are trying to protect her from criminal prosecution. >> reporter: and just last week, the president tweeting that comey was the best thing that ever happened to clinton. the white house says the president acted on the recommendation of newly appointed deputy attorney general rod rosenstein who made the case for comey's firing in a letter to his boss attorney general jeff sessions. asserting that the way the director handled the conclusion of the e-mail investigation was wrong. as a result the fbi is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust. the attorney general pledged just two months ago that he would recuse himself from any

russia investigations after it was revealed he did not disclose contacts with a russian ambassador. despite that, sessions joining his new deputy in recommending that a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the fbi. despite this praise of comey six months earlier. >> director comey did the right thing when he found new evidence, he had no choice but to report to the american congress. >> reporter: president trump firing comey in a bizarre letter stating while i greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that i am not under investigation, i never the less concur with the judgment of the department of justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau. >> the president says in his letter that is from the president of the united states and director comey. are the are the preside >> reporter: and it's perplex g perplexing. >> it includes investigating the nature of any links between

individuals associated with the trump campaign and the russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and russia's efforts. >> reporter: sources tell cnn comey learned that he was fired through tv reports while he was addressing fbi employees in the los angeles office. he was not at fbi headquarters to receive the president's letter. the shocking announcement coming just hours after cnn reported exclusively that federal prosecutors had issued a number of subpoenas to associates of trump's former national security adviser michael flynn. democrats accusing the president of trying to derail the fbi's russia investigation. >> this has nothing to do with russia, it has everything to do with whether the current fbi director has the president's confidence. >> reporter: president trump and his advisers attacking democrats who previously criticized comey for announcing that he was reopening the clinton e-mail investigation 11 days before the

election. trump's seismic firing sparking comparisons to watergate. nixon quick to point out that nixon did not go as far as trump in firing his fbi director. and today there is also this, in the midst of all the controversy over russian interference in the last election and the firing of the man leading that federal investigation, the foreign minister of russia sergey lavrov expected to show up here at the white house for a meeting with the president. >> joe, thank you very much. let's bring in our panel to discuss this. we have jeffrey toobin all morning, and we have counterterrorism analyst philip mudd, national security correspondent david zhanger. and chris, you have a piece on on cnn.com, it says that this is president trump's most dangerous move yet. what do you mean?

>> well, i mean, this is certainly an unpredictable move and it caught everyone includin. the problem here is that you have someone firing someone investigating them. and the reason that comey was investigating trump or leading the investigation into the russian meddling in the election is because the attorney general jeff sessions didn't disclose meetings he had with the russian ambassador on two occasions during his confirmation heari hearings. there is a chilling aspect to it as it relates to federal bureaucracy. reasons feels flimsy. was there a review under way, was hrod rosenstein tasked with

that review? kellyanne conway's discussion last night doesn't make all that much sense. they have to understand that the timing of this makes it look extremely likely that it's tied to russia even if it's not. so this is a presidency that has been unpredictable and and i historic in a lot of ways and this feels like a ramping up of those two things. >> phil mudd, you worked at the fbi. and one of the headlines is that rod rosenstein has been on the job for two weeks and that they are saying he was tasked with doing this, but that this is about a lack of confidence within the ranks. the hidden headline seems to be in the second paragraph of the letter that the president put out, do you believe that there was a lack of confidence within the agency and do you believe that the director of the fbi would have one, let alone three conversations with a sitting president and that a sitting president would ask whether or not they were under

investigation and be told? >> no way. look, this is a painful day for america. this story is simple, it's not about confidence in the fbi, it's about politics over the rule of law. there are two investigations here. one of on yus i will the e-mail investigation into the rival of the president of the united states. the other the russia investigation. let's presume the department of justice brought charges against somebody in the clinton team or the former secretary of state herself. let's presume he was less promi prominence in his comments. the reason the letter was sent is the president doesn't like the direction of the investigations by the fbi. that is third world dictator ship. this is incredibly painful to see politics interfering with a law enforcement investigation. >> we will continue to hear throughout the program lawmakers calling now for an independent

prosecutor. we just heard angus king call for that. it's much harder than it sounds actually. the president would have some say in that. what is your reporting? >> well, what the president has clearly done here is take these previous calls for independent commissions, independent congressional committee or independent prosecutor and various members of congress or various parts of that spectrum, be and he's poured fuel all over that. until now, that has largely been simple li somethiy something de calling for. now several republicans, not a huge number as maggie mayber ha pointed out, but frankly, i suspect the calls will only increase because now you're in a position of the president selecting the next director of the fbi who will inherit this russia investigation. now, we know the president

values loyalty and certainly would suggest that something that bothered him about director comey was he was a pointed by president obama. even though he was of course had served in republican administrations. but i think what you will see is as soon as the president nominates a new director for the fbi, the question will come up can that director pick up this investigation with full, fair and detached investigative powers. and i think that will lead more people to call for commissions and special prosecutors. >> the more i think about it, the second paragraph, and put it up on the screen again, i think it tells people all they need to know is. the idea that the president of the united states is either with all due respect, he's either lying and this didn't happen and he's just saying it because people will think that he's doing this -- >> he's saying that he met with

him on three different occasions. and you've told me that i'm not under investigation. >> so now either this never happened/isn't true and that is very troubling, or it also true and if it is, isn't it proof positive that this investigation can't happen with this president because he will cross every line that we know in terms of separation of power? >> i think you summarized the bizarreness of that letter well. but i've known james comey since he was assistant u.s. attorney in manhattan. i've known him as the u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york in manhattan. i mean, this is someone who is steeped in the traditions of the justice department. i think he made some serious mistakes in the hillary clinton investigation. but the idea that he would sit

in the oval office and give the president a clean bill of health is just inconceivable to me. it's a violation of every procedure that is in place at the justice department. and as well this is an investigation in its early stages. he couldn't know enough to give president trump a clean bill of health. so i think there is no way is that letter is in any way accurate which is a chilling thought. >> scary. that is scary if that is true. >> that you have, a, the president firing head of the fbi with a letter that is at least misleading if not outright false. >> well, we might find out more because james comey was set to testify again on capitol hill in front of the senate intel committee tomorrow. no word on whether or not he will show up if they

persuade him to show up. >> he has a lot of free time now. >> senator king says the senate should hire him to run their investigation. >> so he has the answer to some of these things. >> which is -- you know, if jeff is right, remarkably blind on donald trump's part that you would release that letter given the fact that james comey is still around, right? jamescomey, you can ask him, hey, did you on these three occasions. if he says no well, president trump will say well, it's his word against mine, but still, i mean, again, when i saw that letter i saw it on twitter and i thought that it was -- it was a satirical account because of the a second paragraph. informing the fooiblg director w fbi director who watched it on television in a letter informing him that he had been fired the

second paragraph basically says, hey, by the way, thanks so much for those times when he said i'm great and i never did anything bad. that was great when you said three times i didn't do anything bad. oh, also, sorry, you're also fired. i mean, that is -- >> he said he was doing it because he had to agree with the finding of the department of justice, but our reporting is that he commission that had report. rosenstein has been there two week and it took 18 days for them to act on flynn. but within two weeks, they got this all together and all those memos and letters a er ters wer yesterday. >> and this all happened july 5, 2016, the not charging hillary clinton. >> so david zhanger, the president seems intent on putting this on the democrats as motivation. and to the just in the typical obama did it way that the white house keeps doing, but he said first last night when the first wave of coverage came chuck schumer stated i don't have

confidence in james comey. and he just tweeted again, democrats have said some of the worst things about james comey, but now they play so sad. president is a frequent watcher ever the show. if he is, i hope it also clear to him the level of the timing and appropriateness of this move has raised in light of that paragraph. the idea of him asking the director of the fbi whether or not he's under investigation, the idea that he would be told that information, and the idea david zhanger that he may lie about that ever having happened, what do you make of all that? >> well, there are several inconsistencies here. the first is that of course it was president trump and jeff sessions who praised mr. comey for what he did about the e-mail investigation at the time that he announced the reopening of

this. we've all seen the tape of that. and if he was really concerned about his handling of the hillary case, that he would have dismissed director comey back in january or february on that basis. because let's face it, the facts have not changed about what he did in the hillary investigation in the interim months. the explanations have gone on, but the facts haven't changed any. and then the third part comes in what you suggest, let's set aside for a moment the somewhat bizarre wording in the letter which i'm having a hard time believing that white house counsel would let him write that way, but setting that aside, the russia investigation has proceeded since the president has taken office. and you have heard from mr. comey as recently as late march that it now involves questions of whether there was collusion with some of mr. trump's associates. and at that moment, whatever

previous reason you had makes it looks like interference in an ongoing investigation. and whether that is the rationale you used or not, that is clearly the perception. and for some reason the white house seems somewhat blind to the fact that the reaction would be the way you've heard it in the past 12 hours. >> all right. we're out of time. gentlemen, thank you very much for helping us try to sort through all of this this morning. >> we'll keep getting different takes on this because we need to test the reasoning for why this happened and when. coming up, white house counselor kellyanne conway is joining us. white house bringing out the big guns. we'll also talk to senators from both sides of the ifof the aisl. democrat richard plublumenthal republican lindsey graham. >> and president trump is set to meet with russia's top diplomat at the white house this morning.

any zell k any zell kozinski is live at the white house. and the timing is notable. >> reporter: it makes more sense now because we know both t tillerson and lavrov are both heading to alaska, but now we know that there will be this sitdown between lavrov and trump, might be a precursor to a trump/putin meeting this thisum. but a difficult backdrop to a bad relationship. remember the last time lavrov and tillerson sat down, it was in moscow and that was the aftermath of the horrible chemical attack in syria. tillerson said russia was either complicit or incompetent, russia called the subsequent air strikes an act of aggression. and they had this tense press conference where they had a striking difference of opinion is both on syria's role in that chemical attack as well as russia's role in the meddling of

the u.s. presidential election. now they will sit down and try to find common ground. it will go cuss on sefocus on s. and state department says tillerson will also bring up the fact that russia is still in ukraine, that this was never going to be an easy meeting, but that it will be blunt, broad and businesslike. chris. >> all right, michelle, thank you very much. coming up on "new day," condoleezza rice. what does she make of this situation. how important does she think it is. and what do we do now to ensure the administration of justice in this democracy. is a special prosecutor everybody possible. next. h, no bars. oh no, looks like somebody needs a new network. when i got this unlimited plan they told me they were all the same. they're not. verizon has the largest, most-reliable 4g lte network in america. it's basically made for places like this. honey, what if it was just us out here? right. so, i ordered you a car. thank you. you don't want to be out here at night

'cause of the, uh, coyotes. ok, thanks, bud. bye. be nice to have your car for some shelter. bye. when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited. just $45 per line for four lines. what makesheart healthysalad the becalifornia walnuts.r? the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts.

great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org. essential for him, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c,

or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". the shlike a bald penguin. how do i look?

[ laughing ] show me the billboard music awards. show me top artist. show me the top hot 100 artist. they give awards for being hot and 100 years old? we'll take 2! [ laughing ] xfinity x1 gives you exclusive access to the best of the billboard music awards just by using your voice. the billboard music awards. sunday, may 21st eight seven central only on abc. obviously we're staying with breaking news morning. president trump's firing of fbi director james comey. it raises serious questions about the administration of justice in this democracy. the timing, the rationale and the implications. why did the president fire the man leading an investigation into whether his campaign colluded with russia? what do we do now? let's bring

in someone with the gift of perspective, former secretary of state condoleezza rice, author of the new book "democracy stories from the long road to freedom." and we are apparently in a bend on that road right now. what is your take? >> we're certainly seeing that democracy is a bit messy and inefficient and the most important thing is that the confidence in institutions has to be there. and you're going to have people on in a little bit who are much better positioned to talk to the specifics of this case. senators graham and blumenthal for i have respect for both of them. but let me say that i do think we have the institutions and i'm confident that we have institutions to get through whatever it is we're going through right now. we have a congress that is a check on the executive, we have courts that are a check on the executive. and we have a breaks thpress.

so let's be great that the founding fathers gave us institutions to navigate whatever storms. i don't know the specifics of what happened here. i ccan tell you that i know jim comey and i want to say to him thanks for your service. he is an honorable person. i can't speak to what mistakes he may have made or may not have made. but i just want to honor his service. >> one of the things that people will be concerned about here is there independent administration of justice? if the president can get rid of somebody who is effectively investigating him, his team, his people, it winds up becoming somewhat inconsequential. how do you haven a effect about difference check? >> this investigation will go on and because we have so many centers of powerabout difference check? >> this investigation will go on and because we have so many centers of power including in the congress on both sides of

the aisle, because we have an independent breaks and independent judiciary, the investigation will go on. whatever happened in the president's decision to remove his fbi director. and by the way of course he has the right to remove an fbi director because the fbi director serves at the pleasure of the president. but what i would like to say as an american and to americans is i'm actually very confident that whatever happened heerd we have institutions that will make sure that we get to the bottom of what happened. and we have multiple investigations going on. it's a little dizzying sometimes to enkeven keep track. >> and why the confidence? it's good that you're confident. we need it. but why the confidence? if we know that the situation doesn't make sense, and this one paragraph in the letter alone from the president saying by the way thank you director comey for telling me three times that i'm not under investigation, can you

believe that a conversation like that would ever happen between a sitting director of the fbi and a president of the united states? it breaches so many different notions of proper protocol. >> i have no idea, but you asked why am i confident. and i'm confident because we have the system of distributive power and we're seeing it right here. we're seeing that when you have senators graham and blumenthal on, they are going to represent directly the american people through the congress. by the way, article 1 of our constitution. and they are going to decide along with the american people what course should be taken here. i've also seen america go through a lot, maybe that is the possibility of perspective, you know, i lived through the '60s. i lived through the '70s. i've lived through a number of issues that were raised during our administrations. and i think we always get to the bottom of it and that's what we'll do this time. >> one of the things that is being talked about is a special prosecutor.

you remember that statute born out of the watergate era, retired in '99. and then the politicians didn't like it. do you think that we have the kind of potential consensus bipartisan consensus in this country right now for legislation like that to pass? >> well, i worry about our bipartisan consensus on a host of issues. and so i don't know if we do. special prosecutors bring certain benefit, but they also bring a lot of swirling and i think most americans would like to get to the bottom of this and let the government get on with its business. i am hopeful for the senate intelligence committee's work because it looks to me that that is a truly bipartisan effort. i think a lot of people have confidence in the leadership and the ranking of that committee. and so on the russia portion of this, i'm very hopeful that the intelligence committee can handle it and we'll see what else has to be done. >> the concern is they don't

have subpoena power, right? not the same way that the fbi does and you said, well, this investigation will go on. that depends who is running the agency. >> but i suspect that if very senior senators say that they are not gettings cooperation that they need, that you're going to be able to take the next step. the thing that we have going for us is nobody will be ofafraid t speak because the congress, senators, are elected separately from the president. that is the nature of our system. and i think the administration is going to be well served by being as candid as possible with the american people. i think that is warranted and desired and needed here. but no one should -- we should all try not to jump to conclusions about what happened. there is a tendency when something happens that everybody swarms around it and immediately we all have an opinion of what must have happened. i lived inside of washington for a number of years.

and very often what seems to be true isn't true. and so first reports are almost always not correct. so i would just caution everybody to step back, let our institutions work. i'm very grateful to people like senators granl oig a s graham a and others who are speaking out now. i have confidence that we'll get to the bottom of whatever happened and that we will also by the way get on with the business of the american people. the president is apparently meeting with sergey lavrov today. >> yes, i wanted to make that segue about that tha segue. thank you going it for me. the president apparently will goth mego meet with him himself, whether in addition to or instead of secretary tillerson. probably they will both be there. how important is that meeting, what do you think the proper tone and topics are that need to be on the table? >> well, clearly the relationship with the russians is not in good shape.

and not because of anything the united states has done, but because of russian policy. i think they will probably talk about syria. we need a cease-fire in syria. we need one that is reliable. so that that war can end. it's 7 million displaced people. i would suspect that this is about saying to the russians assad has now used chemical weapons, are you really sure that you want to bank your reputation and your policy on bashar al assad who has engaged in criminal acts of war. >> if the answer is yes, what do you do? >> i think putin may be convincible at some point that a quagmire in syria is not in russia's interests. he went there to establish certain things. russian influence in the region, that is done. secure russia's bases in the region, that is done. make sure assad wouldn't be overthrown and they believed chaos would ensue, that is done. but now we are unfortunately going to need the russians to get to a solution.

and i think that is probably on the table. i hope one other thing is on the table. the north korea issue is really serious. we have a reckless perhaps slightly unhinged leader in north korea with nuclear weapons and delivery capability that is getting closer to being able to reach the united states. no american president can stand for that. but i'd say to lavrov if he can reach alaska, he can reach you. don't you want to talk about north korea and what we can do together to deal with kim jong-un. >> what do you want people to take from the book "democracy stories from the long road to freedom". >> i started this book four years ago and i had no idea that he would put it into the an environment that we've had. >> fortuitous. >> in some ways. i would say democracies take time to build. it takes time for people to build kcconfidence in institutions. it takes just a moment for it to bring down and for those institutions to be gone around or to be -- to lose their

relevance. as americans, let's not let that happen to ourselves and by the way, our institutions are robust and we'll get through this. but also let's stand for those who don't have the benefits of the liberties that we enjoy. we were given a tremendous gift in these institutions. everybody needs to respect them. >> madame secretary, thank you so much for joining us. appreciate it. so how does the white house explain director comey's fire something we will ask the president's o e's counselor kel con way next. ng did it take youo to save that? a long time. then it's a fortune. i told you we had a fortune. get closer to your investment goals with a conversation.

iwithout writing a single word. this mother's day create a gift from the heart that could only come from the pandora boutique at jared. a world of pandora... including exclusive pieces designed just for jared. ready to be mixed, matched and stacked with help from jared's own pandora expert. the one gift that speaks volumes, you'll both treasure forever. that's why he went to jared. what if we could bring you by having better values? at blue apron, we work directly with more than a hundred family farms. so instead of spending on costly middlemen and supermarkets, we can invest in the things that matter most: making farmland healthier. cutting down on food waste. and bringing you higher quality, fresher ingredients for less than you pay at the store. because food is better when you start from scratch. get $30 off at blueapron.com/cook

prtesident trump sounding of on his decision to fire james comey. "comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in washington republican and testimony alike. when things calm down, they will be thanking me. they are not thanking him right now certainly on the democrats side. let's get the word from the white house. we are kellyanne conway counselor to president donald trump. one of the headlines of reaction to deal with first off, thank you for join be thiing us, from

foer former bush 41 cited in the memo, he calls the reasoning in the memo that this is about how comey handled the clinton investigation a sham. what do you make of that? >> that is his opinion. but the president took the advice of the deputy attorney general who oversees the director of the fbi, brought those concerns to the attorney general who brought them to the president. and they made a decision to remove him. the president has made clear it will act like a leader, he will make decisive resolute actions when he's faced with evidence. and in this case jim comey had lost the confidence of the people on the fbi, on both sides of the partisan aisles. you've had democrats on your program many times calling in to question the credibility of jim comey, you had chuck schumer, nancy pelosi in november, nancy pelosi said on cnn i don't think he's in the right job. chuck schumer said i don't have plight faith and confidence in his credibility. and yet now they want him to be

a martyr. this is the action that a president takes when he is told by the deputy attorney general who has only been on the job for 14 days, so he took a new assessment, a new look at everything, and he has made very clear that there is low morale at the fbi. almost everyone agrees the direct tour made serious mistakes, one of the few issues that unites people of diverse per spespective hes. they call into question that he had a press conference, that he is sun planti supplanting his o are. so any number of issues that brought the president to this decision. >> we will note and put to the side that nobody praised would james comey did to hillary clinton during the campaign and after more than the president himself. he's likely to change his mind, that is his right. but in terms of the timing, so rushed, rosenstein on the job just two weeks. the memos, the letters from

yesterday all dated yesterday. reporting that the president put jeff sessions who should have nothing to do with anything related to the russian investigations on the case to find reasons to fire comey, all this happening just as the rush are sh russian investigation is heating up, it seems very connected. your take. >> there is so many conjecture there. let's me unpack them one at a time. first you're talk about president trump on the campaign with respect to jim comey. he's the president. and he is faced with new evidence about the way people at the fbi and people from both sides of the aisle and elsewhere feel about director comey. you have to have confidence in the img partipartiality and nonpoliticization of the bureau and mr. rosenstein apparently concluded that is not the case can and put forward his recommendations to the president. and you had hillary clinton attacking jim comey last week.

we all know she lost the election because of hillary clinton, but we'll put that aside. this whole idea that especially on your network you always want to talk about russia, russia, russia. the idea that the fbi has one thing going on and it's the russian investigation and the idea that this is somehow jim comey attorney at law, one person in charge of it, is really irresponsible to not report to your viewers that many people are involved in all of these veszinvestigations. i'm told the acting fbi director, mr. mccain oig, he is very familiar with the investigations going on there, the bureau is a big place. susan collins had it right last night when she said the director was fired, not the entire fbi. there are many capable men and women there. mccabe's wife ran for political office as a democrat. the idea that we don't have other respected men and women who are not seen as part is an or not seen as impaired or

impartial -- or not seen as partial and politicized is wrorng. it's a huge place and there are many people involved. and as recently as yesterday, he had a prominent democrat saying he sees no evidence of russian collusion. where is that in the reporting? >> say that again. what happened yesterday? >> you've got democrats saying that they don't see any evidence of russia collusion. >> i get the talking point, but let's being very -- >> it's not a talking point. it's a seven month distraction. >> that's what you want it to be. i get that. >> no, you want to be real. >> what i want is the truth. that's all we should all want here. and the idea that you -- >> well, here is the truth. >>-of the fruit of the investigation these many months this this is naive and deceptive. people around these recents will tell you they take time. on the senate and house side say they take time. >> so that will go viral.

>> what james clapper said when he said he had seen no collusion proof, that is accurate. but he also said it's because he didn't know anything about the investigation. comey had been quiet about it. he wasn't privy to the record. he doesn't know the facts. see, that is very different. you don't like that part because you wants a the president says for this to be a hoax. i get it. and that is why comey being ousted just when that is heating up, not back when he started his tenure, he didn't need anybody to tell him that comey had been divisive. >> chris, do you want me to answer task the questions? because you're giving all the answers. >> i have to check what you're saying. >> no, you're -- >> you're creating an image that doesn't reveal itself in fact. >> let me know when i can answer. >> knock yourself out. >> well, i'll knock this out of the park by telling you that i'm sure it will go viral now that you used the words my eefr and decent tifr, people think you use those words about me,

although you were talking about a state of mind -- >> i'm talking about the nard tifr o narrative out of the white house. >> the new thing is to try to go viral. but those of us who do want the truth, the idea that you think this was about with russia and not about an fbi director who just yesterday forced his bureau to correct sworn testimony to the senate judiciary committee where you said i-- >> so jipresident trump was so upset that he fired him? >> no, president trump wants an fbi director who is impartial, who is not politicized and who has the confidence and the trust of people in the bureau of republicans and democrats on capitol hill, of the attorney general, of the overcease- --

>> why didn't he do it in january? >> why is the timing up to you? if he had done it in january, would you have ran the assign chiron for three months that he did it because he has something to hide. >> no, that looks more likely now. backing th back then it would h been -- >> media don't like surprises. they don't like being caught flat footed and i don't know people are so surprised when donald trump who is not part of the swamp who is a nonpoll tishlg shan, who has made -- >> not part of the swamp. >> taken decisive actions his entire life, he comes to washington, does the same and people express shock and awe. >> but it's context. it took 18 days to get the rid of flynn when you had sally yates show prove that he could becompromised but the president let him go to meetings and they gets done in under two week and a paragraph where the president

if it's true admits that he asked the director of the fbi whether or not he was directly under investigation. >> it doesn't say that. >> oh, yes, it does. >> it says while i appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that i'm not under investigation. where are is it that the president asked him that? >> how did he find out? >> chris, i'm not going to reveal to you conversations between the president of the united states and the director of the fbi. >> it is so wrong that that communication happened. i don't know that it's false. i don't know that the president didn't ask him. >> then you shouldn't have are said it. you stated it as a fact. you're 00 a news reporter, not an opinion journalist. >> some huhow you communicated the president, right? >> i'm sorry, where is this in the letter? >> look at the second paragraph. put up the second paragraph. >> while i greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that i am not under investigation, i never the less concur with the judgment of

the department of justice that you are no longer able to effectively lead the bureau. where does this say that the president asked fbi director comey -- >> it does not say that he expressly ask kd hed him. i'm asking how can it be possible that the president of the united states would allow communications between him and the fbi director about whether are or not he's under investigation, it is unethical, it is arguably illegal for that to have happened once let alone three times and a lot of people who know james comey can't believe it would have ever happened. how do you explain it? >> those same people who can't believe that he held a press conference last year and then two days later went -- >> that the president applauded. >> because of what he did. he went and he held-hfr he swore undid he oath, he said no, she didn't have one device, she had 13. and you know, none of us want to -- >> now he has no confidence for the same exact reason -- >> talk about being be caught flat footed andmbarrassed. but this is simple.

you're trying to make it very complex. this is a president who saw that the fbi director had lost the public confidence, the confidence of republicans and democrats, i mean, pull out their tweets. watch their interviews on cnn are. they had big problems with comey when it was expedient for them. now they express shock be and disappointment. >> you accuse the democrats of only having problems with comey. >> no, i didn't say that. >> when the president has a clear record of applauding what he did can with respect to hillary clinton and only now with his -- >> are you going back to the campaign again? can you please explain -- >> he talked about it last week. >> this is very simple. >> it should be about leaks and there was push back from comey that it's not about leaks and now he's out of a job. >> are no rk no, you're connect that aren't provable and things that have been reported in one or two places that haven't been

verified because that's what you do. but there is very simple. >> you know that is unfair. but please continue. >> the fbi director reports to the deputy attorney general. the deputy attorney general was confirmed 14 days ago, 94-6 by the united states senate. i would say that is a pretty good indication that -- >> that rosenstein had respect. >> mr. rosenstein served under president obama as the u.s. attorney in maryland. this man last been in this particular line of work for decades. everybody respects him as far as i can see. he wrote on what i consider to be the most robust cholk full two pages in a very long time on this subject. he listed outline by line paragraph by paragraph the growing erosion of trust in this man as director of fbi. since you're going book to the campaign which i'm happy to go down memory laney time, we tried to telling you every day no texas is not turning blue, but

he's now the president and with a new attorney general and most importantly the new deputy attorney general who oversees the director of the fbi, he came to the connecticut collusillusi quote, had impaired the fooiblg's rfooiblbi's reputation and credibility, that he should not hold a press conference, that he was doing things that are textbook examples of what federal prosecutors should never do. >> who told rosenstein to do the report? >> rosenstein is the deputy hillary clinton -- >> i know he is. >> you can ask him. i assume that he put together the report on his own. >> he wubts wiasn't urged by je sessions? >> now you're insulting him, too. >> making it personal only reveals weak withneness in a po. >> we are very emboldened. >> i'm not making it personal.

who asked him do the report? >> you'd have to ask rod rosenstein that question. but one presumes that he wrote the report on his own. he's fully capable. this guy just you confirmed 94-6 by the full body of the senate, he served under president obama, u.s. attorney in maryland, has been in this line of work for so he comes into office, knows the inspector general. he's reviewing the exact same thing. yeah, we have it here. >> the story, quote, restoring public confidence in the fbi. that's what the report is called. >> that's a great title. it will probably be the same one the inspector general is doing. why wouldn't you wait to see what the inspector general said before moving? you said yourself the guy has only been on the job two weeks. why so quick? >> he's capable of creating the report. >> i'm asking questions. it is not an insult. it is an insight. why would he do it so quickly.

>> no, it's not. it is an allegation. it is not an insight at all. >> it took him two weeks, all right? why move on it so quickly? why do it now? >> okay. let me ask you the question. why not? is it too quick for people? >> because you're being investigated by the fbi, and that is what is in the air. that's what's getting energy and you have let everybody know you think it is a hoax and that you don't like that it is happening. we don't know who is being looked at and who is not being looked at except for this one paragraph of this letter that has some of the most inappropriate contact between the director of the fbi and the sitting president that we have ever heard of. that's the only indication we have that the president himself is somehow involved in the investigation. which may yield nothing, by the way, down the road. it should be able to play out without interference. but we don't know. >> all right. so -- >> all we know -- that's your answer? why not? >> i'm not under investigation.

i don't know what the "you" is. >> the staff, the campaign is under investigation? >> who? name them. because your network keeps referring to them. >> we know obviously flynn is in there. we know carter page is in there. we know there has been the subject of different meetings with different administration officials. >> you realize the fbi is a big place, right? and the acting director one assumes woup dominion over this investigation right now. >> we do not know that it has gone nowhere. that's not what james comey said on the hill last week. >> yesterday they had to correct his sworn testimony. he gave a complete lie about abedin's e-mail. hundreds of thousands of them turns out there were two instances. >> yeah, got it wrong. >> and that's the person you wanted to continue to lead the fbi, right, chris? >> look, you could think that comey wasn't doing the right

job. it still calls into question how this was done. you can believe both things at once, that he wasn't getting things done. but it still raises questions about the timing. >> i need to show respect that's not being shown in most places today to the deputy attorney general, who is beyond reproach, is seen as a nonpartisan figure, who was confirmed 94-6 which is no small feet two short weeks ago. i am going to show him the deference and respect. actually read the two page report if they are interested in knowing what led the deputy attorney general to write an article called, quote, restoring confidence in the fbi. he handed this to his boss who handed it to the president of the united states who took action immediately. >> why take the action immediately? you don't have anybody lined up to replace him. >> you don't know that. you don't know that. >> that's the reporting is that you have mckab in there right

now. the president has met with him, but the reporting is you don't know anybody. >> why wouldn't that make the press happy? his wife ran for office as a democrat. it's not personal -- >> when are you going to announce the new director? >> that's up to the president of the united states. >> but does he have somebody? chris, i'm not going to answer that question because the president of the united states confers with his team and it is up to him to find the timing. it's inappropriate. he'll do it when he wants to, just like he fired fbi director comey when he was faced with evidence that was unignorable now. read this report. >> i've read it. it's two pages. it mostly says people in there didn't like him. >> you don't want a quote from it. no. you don't want to quote from it. i don't see the word russia in there anywhere. >> i'm sure it isn't.

>> could it be that the reason that he wrote the report has nothing to do with that? it has to do with, quote, i cannot defend the director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of secretary clinton's e-mails. well, i meant him no disrespect in mispronouncing his name. i think you meant him some disrespect in questioning his credibility. >> the administration of justice matters. >> the fbi answers to the deputy attorney general. he got in there, did his own independent analysis. he has written it for everyone to see. gave the recommendations to the president of the united states who took decisiveness. this is an easy one. >> kellyanne conway, it is not always easy, but it is a great benefit to have you on making the case for the white house. thank you for doing it. >> all right. let's get reaction to kelly an con way and the white house's

response with richard bloomen that will. what is your answer to what you have heard the president say this morning in tweets and kellyanne conway. you democrats should be thanking him. you didn't like how comey handled the clinton investigation. he had to go. >> i disagree with james comey in some of his decisions. but i never advocated he will fired, particularly before an inspector general was looking at those actions. rod rosen stein in effect preempted that ongoing internal investigation, fired him using a pretense that is laughable, the decisions on the clinton e-mail some ten months ago. and what we have now is really a looming constitutional crisis that is deadly serious because there is an investigation ongoing and cnn reported

subpoenas issued from the eastern district of virginia into flynn associates. and ultimately there may be subs to the president of the united states just as occurred in 1973 precipitating united states versus nixon and a similar firing of a special prosecutor. so what's needed now is, in fact, an independent counsel and special prosecutor. >> let's talk about that senator. are you saying that you have lost faith in the fbi's ability to investigate this now? >> no. just the opposite. i have very strong confidence in the fbi. and i believe that the fbi needs a leader, not just a director of the fbi, but a prosecutor who will ultimately make decisions about whether to bring charges. remember that the fbi doesn't bring charges. it is the prosecutor who does. and what we need is an independent, impartial prosecutor.

i have been urging for months now, since the beginning of february, and that is the prosecutor that is provided for under existing regulations in the department of justice. i voted against rod rosen stein. i was one of those six because he refused to commit to me that he would appoint a special prosecutor, his only course now, and you can hear the reasons why in this conversation that has just occurred with kellyanne conway, that he needs to reaffirm and redeem the independence of the department of justice. i have confidence in the fbi, if it is given that kind of leader. >> look, i don't want to get too far into the legal weeds here, but a special prosecutor post is over. it expired. what they came up during water gate has expired. and congress didn't renew it. so if you're calling for a special counselor, that would be under the purview of rod rosen

stein and the president. that person could still be fired by the president. so how does that help? >> it is a great question and there is no perfect solution here. there are two possible avenues of really making sure that the prosecutor is independent. number one, rod rosen stein can appoint someone and say in effect this person is going to run this investigation. i will delegate completely and solely. i will not interfere in any way. and i will make sure that the president of the united states cannot interfere or cover up because what's really happening here, even though he's called a decisive and strong leader, he may be just decisive and strong to protect himself. the second way to proceed is for that law to be renewed. it did expire in 1999 and the law could be passed again, and i will be introducing legislation to establish an independent counsel if the deputy attorney

general fails to do the right thing and appoint a special prosecutor. >> senator, i don't have to tell you, there are five congressional investigations into this, whether or not the trump team had ties to russia. you sit on one of those committees. so what's the point? i mean, what is the point of having all of these congressional committees if you are basically saying they're toothless and that the only way to proceed here is by changing the law somehow. and you would have to have the president sign off on that and creating a new special prosecutor or having rod rosen stein who you don't have faith in, you didn't vote for appoint somebody. >> first and your question is very well taken. the congressional committee can hold hearing, produce reports and possibly write new legislation. but they cannot bring criminal charges. and what i hear from people around connecticut is they want the truth uncovered and they want accountability. they want people who broke