obstruction into a real obstruction of justice. our breaking news coverage is going to continue, i want everyone to know, we have a special town hall tonight, "white house in crisis" governor better thannie sanders and ohio governor john kasich. our continuing coverage with "a.c. 360." former acting attorney general sally yates is speaking out for the first time, her only television interview where she talks about james comey and the russian investigation. the fired fbi director james comey and the memo our sources say he wrote. president trump threatened comey with tapes, now comey is threatening with notes, stateme. sources tell us a memo that was penned in february, that the

president first asked everyone to leave the room and then the president asked director comey to drop the investigation against flip. this was the day after flynn himself had resigned. if true, this is a sign he had a presidential interference with the investigation whether members of his campaign team colluded with russian officials. and it comes a day after the news that president trump revealed classified information to the russian ambassador. >> according to sources speaking to myself and my colleague jake tapper, james comey the former fbi director wanted to document a specific conversation he had with the president in february are he alleged the presidnt asked him to end the probe into michael flip, and according to a

source i spoke with, he wanted to document the good and the bad, not only about that conversation but other conversations he had with the president. and this is a direct quote from this source, he said you realize something momentous happened and memories fade so he wanted to memorialize it at the earliest time. even though he liked to create paper trails through his year at the justice department and the fbi, it was not his practice to document conversations with senior officials unless it was significant. he documented in one memo, he included a description of the president talking to him about crowd size at the inauguration. the source i spoke to said comey did not do this with president obama in part because he had fewer one-on-one conversations with the president and the source said in comey's view, there was no need to document conversations with people who are truthful or situations that

are routine, it's when you have situations that are not routine and people who are not truthful. you write memos to file. there's been other occasions, just for con text, where comey could do this, but it was not done every day as the source said. now i told that conversation that conversation in february, comey was appalled when he explained that -- when the president apparently asked him to end the probe, apparently this was more flynn focused not about the overall russia investigation, but he thought it was important enough to document that conversation. >> this is according to a source close to comey who has a copy of the memo having been given it by former fbi director comey, as you know february 14, he was in the oval office, director comey meeting with president trump, and vice president pence, and

the president asked the vice president and the attorney general to leave, and this was one day avenue michael flynn resigned under a cloud of scandal. and after pence and sessions left the oval office, trump said to comey, i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, he went on to say that he didn't think flynn had done anything wrong. comey was of course concerned that the president was telling him to stop an investigation and this source tells me, quote, comey wrote a number of memos, a great many, if not all were about contacts with trump, particularly the ones that made him feel uneasy. the source did not know how many memos comey has written, but says there are more, anderson. >> and jake, for the people in congress, the white house who are asking why comey did not come forward with this memo earlier, have you heard anything about that? >> yeah, i went back after the white house started asking this question, trying to cast

aspersions on the legitimacy of this report and asking comey, if this was so horrible, why didn't he say something about it then. what the source close to comey said, was because it wasn't a very successful effort, and he thought he had pushed back on it. he thought living with this president meant standing up and pushing back. he knew more work was needed, he was very sensitive to how difficult this was going to be to work with this president. he also thought he could do it, end quote. and if i could just offer a note of analysis has somebody who has covered fbi director comey for several years now, and watched him emerge not only unscathed but the hero of some of the stories from washington whether in the bush years when he was deputy attorney general and he was involved in the controversy ore the firing of u.s. attorneys, or the torture memos, or the usa wiretap, comey keeps

detailed contemporaneous memos and note s all the time. he's known for doing this. he is somebody that has rather high regard about his own integrity and what he can accomplish. comey said i pushed back on it and we were moving on. that sounds like the james comey i have covered. >> i think it's a significant detail that the attorney general asked jeff sessions, his own attorney general jeff sessions to leave the room and for comey to stay behind, i guess so it would only be a one-on-one conversation. >> now there are questions as to whether there's tapes of those conversations, president trump referred to tapes in a tweet vaguely threatening saying that comey better hope there are no tapes of the conversations.

comey says he hopes there are tapes of the conversations, the only reason he wrote these memos is to provide corroboration on something he didn't think he would be able to corroborate. but he wants to testify at an open hearing on capitol hill, and if there are tapes, release them, says a source close to james comey. >> what's the white house saying about all this? >> i'm picking up on some anxiety over here at the white house, even some gloominess in response to this comey news, but the official line, the bottom line coming from this white house is that they are pushing back on the memo that the president had any kind of conversation with jim comey amend said to stop the investigation of the former national security advisor michael flynn. here's the official statement that the white house put out earlier this evening, we can expand on it. it says the president while the president has repeatedly expressed his views that general flynn is a decent man who protected and served our

country, the president has never asked mr. comb yay or anyone else to end any investigation including any investigation on general flynn. the president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies and all investigations. this is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation. it is now really a he said-he said, and as jake were saying, if there's tapes, it may corroborate one side of the conversation or other, but the white house is definitely saying tonight what james comey is saying in that memo is just not true. >> that's an official statement from the white house, why should anybody believe them? given that other official statements from this white house have then been contradicted by the president of the united states in a tweet storm early in the morning the next day, or hours later even at times. so how do we know that the president himself isn't going to come out with something else

completely different tomorrow morning? >> reporter: anderson, that is the danger zone that this white house is in right now, that is the danger zone these people who speak for the president, people like sean spicer, sarah huckabee, and this white house and other administrations disguise statements they don't want a attached to an individual person. but no doubt, the president could easily as he did last week with the firing of james comey, completely undercut his own team with statements tomorrow, for example, whether in an interview or on twitter as you said. but i did talk to one senior white house official who said earlier this evening, anderson, no, this did not happen, a conversation, quote, of that nature did not happen. but anderson, i have to tell you, i did talk to another source, another top white house official earlier this evening, this is a person who was readily

available for spin. and in the words of this official, this is what this person said to me. i just don't know on this one. i just don't know on this one. this person sounded gloomy, deje dejected. i think there's a sense inside this white house, it may not be shared by everybody, because there is a sense of defiance among some of president trump's inner circle. >> but if this meeting only occurred between the president and mr. comey, all these officials who are defending him, or the unnamed one, they'r only going by what the president of the united states has told them and given his track record of what he has said to his own people, that's not always reliable. let's bring in our political correspondents. jeff toobin, is this obstruction

of justice, if it's true? >> if it's true. let's set the scene, february 14, everybody knows there's a pending fbi investigation of michael flynn, of the trump campaign. so there is a pending investigation. donald trump tells his attorney general and his vice president to leave the room, suggesting that he wants to say something that he doesn't want overheard. at that point, he says to director comey, please let it go. end the investigation. that, if it is true, if it's bourne out by records, tapes, that to me is the definition of obstruction of justice. president nixon, said to hal

halderman, tell them to stop. if this did happen, it is obstruction of justice and it's a threat to his presidency. >> is your former student right? >> i respectfully disagree. what he says is perfectly reasonable. but we have separation of powers, the president is in charge of the entire executive branch. historically, the president has always told the fbi and the justice department who to investigate, who not to investigate. now i agree with you, if it ever came out that the president did what nixon did, and that is told his assistant to create a fake story, tell the cia to say this is a national security issue, we can't have any further investigation, that comes much closer to an obstruction of

justice. but for a president and tone is everything, that's why the memo has to be seen and that's why if there are tapes we should hear them. if the president politely suggests to the director of the fbi, he's a good guy, flynn, i would appreciate if you let him off the hook, i fired him, that doesn't become -- >> but the president himself is a subject or part of this investigation, it's okay for him to say -- >> and we should also point out the president also had had dinner with james comey, previously and supposedly had asked comb you if he was the subject. >> look, this is a closed question. but when it's the president of the united states, and we have separation of powers, the courts are going to resolve these issues in favor of the president if what he did was lawful. if he destroyed tapes, if he refused to comply with a subpoena, that's one thing, but

there's going to be, we're going to see, there's going to be erring on the side of presidential power and presidential authority. and my take is that i don't think the white house is stupid enough to create a credibility contest with comey, because comey's telling the truth here, there's no doubt about that. but if there's no tapes, the president can dwould not have cd this credibility dispute. >> i was in the nixon administration as you know, and after watching the clinton impeachment, i thought i would never see another one. but i think we're in impeachment territory. obstruction of justice was the number one charge against bill clinton, that led to his indictment in the house, and he won in the senate.

from a lay point of view, it looks like he was trying to impede the investigation, he was using hiss power to do that and when james comey didn't go loochk along with him, he was. his boy, he fired him. from my point of view, this is of enormous consequence for his presidency. i think if you look at the three bombshells that we have had, the comey firing last week, then the sharing of this highly classified conversation with the russians of all people. and now trump asking comey to drop the case, we have a presidency that's starting to fall apart. >> what have you been hearing? >> i've been talking to sources close to him both yesterday and today. these are people who were friends of donald trump's and who told me that they have effectively given up on him, this is a president who believes he is under siege and has no trust in anybody anymore.

but i spoke with one source this evening who made the point that comey did exactly as he should have done. this source who understands legal issues said to me, comey was in the middle of an investigation, he was under no obligation to go to congress, because the minute he informed any oversight committee, it was going to be leaked. that he memorialized his conversation, that he shared it with his team and he went on with his investigation, which after all, he considered to be quite important. he believes the only weakness here for comey, if this story is true, is his response to donald trump. because instead of saying, you know, mr. president, i have to leave the room right now, that's completely inappropriate, and you shouldn't have said to me, he in effect said, well, i agree with you that flynn is kind of a nice guy. so that's the only kind of weak part in what comey did.

but otherwise, he says, look, comey did exactly the right thing and that the president now ought to be afraid that there may be some tapes. >> phil, you worked at the fbi as well as the cia. why didn't director comey release this right away, why didn't he go public right away, could you also make the argument from the fbi standpoint that this was an ongoing criminal investigation, and if you have the president of the united states trying to interfere in that investigation, isn't that inherently part of the investigation? if a potential suspect in an investigation, the guy who ran the campaign you're investigating is telling you to lay off, doesn't that then become part of the fbi investigation? >> anderson, i think the story is even simpler, i have heard the conversation about why jim comey didn't speak. let's remember, the fbi director

is unique in washington, d.c., that's a 10-year term. he goes in there thinking he's got three years left on his term. so for anybody who says he should have discussed this with congress when he was still the fbi director, as soon as he makes that comment, his conversation with the president is over, the likely hood that the investigation continues under his leadership over and i think he cements disaster. he could not imagine three weeks ago that he would be out as fbi director, i think he was just trying to protect the integrity of the fbi's ability to run the investigation. >> this is equally or maybe even principally a legal question as much as -- until this point, the republican voices who have been openly critical of the president

have been very limited in number, principally the mccains, the grahams and some house members in some competitive districts. but spending the last couple of hours talking to democrats and republicans in the house and the senate, and hearing from the republicans a level of concern i never heard before. a lot of this is in private, a big difference between going public and being private. i'm just going to share one expression, one republican lawmaker said to me, when the news broke, among his republican colleagues, the reaction was wide eyed and wtf. real concern about what to do next. a handful of republicans have already called for an independent prosecutor. that's a step. but do you have a critical mass developing among republicans and i think that's the real question going forward. >> i think it's much better to keep this going forward not to muddy the water with legal

questions. is this an impeachable offense, it doesn't have to be a technical crime, if a president commits an act which would be a crime when committed by someone else, then the house can consider that as impeachable. and remember there's no review of what's impeachable. there's no judicial review, that's separation of powers as well as the president's ability to control the fbi a separation of powers. >> as you well know, allan, your good friend larry tribe is part of an effort now to start building a case for -- >> we're on emails back and forth. >> i'm sure you are. but based on the idea if the democrats were to take back the house in 2018, a democratic majority could then bring charges against president donald trump. but there are serious people who

are talking in these terms now. >> lawrence, how does the justice department factor into all of this? the attorney general has recused himself from anything to do with the russian investigation. and the comey firing, they both answer to the president. it seems fairly complicated. >> i don't know what allen is talking about when he says not to muddy the water with legalities here, that's the crux of the issue. considering the fact that the fbi does not disclose the existence of an investigation, so it's not halted or impeded in the fashion that it is. but remember, you've got andy mccabe, who's the head of the fbi now, saying that there was no effort to obstruct the investigation, you have to balance that, against the fact that you had the attorney general asked to leave the room. perhaps trump knew and was aware to re -- i have asked you now not to be a part of a krves that

you can not be a part of. that tells you one of two thing that, the fbi knows that as an investigativive agency that a sure fire way to derail their investigation is to make it public. and number two, if sessions was not a part of that conversation, it talks about the motive that was involved in firing perhaps jim comey later on and more importantly about the motive of having that particular conversation. >> we're going to take a quick break, dana bash has reporting on how some white house allies appear to have trouble over all of this. and my conversation with sally yates with her take for the first time ever on the firing of fbi director comey. do you think the truth on the firing of director comey is known yet? >> i don't think the complete truth is known yet.

. coming up tonight, my exclusive interview with former acting attorney general sally yates in her first interview since being fired by president trump. back to our lead story, a quote from david gergen, i think we are in impeachment territory. this amid reports of breaking news that fbi director comey kept a memo detailing a request by the president to end the investigation into michael flynn. dana bash, you spoke to a source, a fan of the president, what did they tell you? >> first of all, this source i told you about, speaking with a legal of gravity and concern that i have not heard in the four-plus months that the president has been in office,

about the severity of this allegation and that james comey has this memo that he no doubtedly will give congress at some point and testify about at some point probably in the near future that suggests that the president was effectively trying to impede the investigation that was under way. there have been lots of questions, some of which have been coming from sources in and around the trump administration i've been talking to about whether james comey did the right thing in holding on to this and not immediately getting in the car and driving up pennsylvania avenue to congress and saying, this is a problem. and that is a question that we even heard from lindsay graham, somebody who has been critical of the president. but others, i'm hearing very similar things to what gloria reported before the break, that james comey followed procedure, he memorialized the

conversation, did it contemporaneously and held on to it and if he had done anything different, he would have impeded the investigation. but what i will tell you, as i'm communicating with republicans who are talking about the gravity of this, right now, these are very private conversations, it seems as though the question is s should there be a special prosecutor. for better or worse for the trump administration. if any should be, but which one is -- which one republicans and the white house are going to have to deal with. that legal of conversation with quite different than just a few hours ago. >> is it even possible to gauge the full impact of this yet. i mean we're still in the early hours.

>> let's just start with what we know, which is that the trump presidency is off the rail now, and there's not a clear path to get it back on track, so you look to the hill and i think you see three buckets of republicans right now, there is sort of the die hard republicans who are with him no matter what, who think we in the media are making too much of this and we're out to get him. and i think there's 36% to 39% of americans who support president trump and have that attitude too. and really tough districts, those are folks that normally you hear leadership say they go got to do what they got to do with their own politics, if they need to separate from trump, there is leadership and the chairman of committees, and that is right now where i am looking most intently to see if there are any cracks there, and this is the second night in a row

that we have heard from paul ryan issue a statement yesterday about the report of sharing intelligence with the russians and then tonight on this report about the comey memo and there is zero embrace of the trump white house, and instead adjust we need to see the facts. and paul ryan went on to say we need to see the facts and it is totally appropriate for the house oversight committee to start gathering evidence. and now we see a may 24th deadline to collect all the memorandum, everything that comey left behind documents any conversations with the white house, now you really start seeing that leadership, chairman area of the republican party starting to approach this differently than we have seen to date. >> you look at that picture on capitol hill right now, a beautiful picture, it looks calm of washington, d.c. right now is

anything but calm and certainly in the white house right now, you imagine what that must be like. just to determine the nec steps, obviously comey's going to testify, i would assume, he says he wants to testify openly in open hearings, he probably wants to bring all the information forward that he has. >> i think there is no question that if these tapes exist, the first question, any congressional committee should ask, and i'm sure they will ask, is in a letter to the white house counsel, do tapes exist? i mean the president has hinted at it, but then he sort of backed off on it. that is question one, but there is no question that former director comey will be testifying about this, and he will be testifying with his memos, in front of him. and so tonight is not the beginning of the end, it's the end of the beginning, i mean, this story can only get fuller

and more complicated. >> as john mccain kept saying, this is a centipede with a lot of shoes on. >> there's one very lucky thing for donald trump, and that is it took yesterday's news off the front page, and what happened yesterday is so much more important than what we learned today. what happened yesterday, the idea that sources and methods involving the most sensitive information was put at risk and that everybody who flies may be at greater risk because of what the president did. and that israeli intelligence, they may have planted somebody within isis, you know how hard that is to do, may have had his cover blown, that story should not be taken off the front page, yes, focus on this, this is important, but don't let that story get burr ried. >> i think that's absolutely right, and as the president goes to israel, it's going to be a major, major story in the next few days.

what the fbi is overseeing is whether there was possible collusion between the russians and the trump associates, right? >> correct. >> do these conversations that comey had with the president, does that expand the investigation or is that a separate issue that's going to be considered by congress? in other words, are there legal inch indicati implications? >> the guy who's running the investigation, is told hey, back off the investigation, that becomes part of the investigation, doesn't it? >> there's a legal question that's never been fully resolved about whether a president could be indicted as opposed to being impeached, but it is certainly true that you can't -- that an investigation of the president is different from an investigation of just anyone else. but it can be part of the same investigation. i mean during the watergate

investigation, there was a trial of the watergate conspirators and the president, richard nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial. so he was certainly part of that investigation. >> i have had many clients who have done something -- and then they do something that maybe constitutes a cover-up. and of course an attorney as jeffrey was, would introduce that evidence as consciousness of guilt. >> does the president of the united states need to consult an attorney right now. >> he does. he does, he should get a private attorney, he should get somebody who understands and the first thing that that lawyer has to tell him to do is -- >> did you pick up the phone. >> zip it. he has to stop tweeting and stop talking and stop making arguments that he thinks will help them in a defense in the end they made. >> how can the president of the

united states stop talking? >> about these issues. >> it's part of the job of being a public figure. >> coming up, reaction from where it matters most about whether the president should face consequences. and at the top of the hour, stay tuned for my interview with acting attorney general sally yates. >> do you think general flynn should have been fired? >> i think the russians had real leverage. he also had lied to the vice president of the united states. whether he's fired or not, is a decision for the president of the united states to make, but it doesn't seriem like that's a person who should be sitting in the national security advisor position. ♪ ♪ i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be

calling me an energy farmer. ♪ energy lives here. will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.

the president of the united states told -- russian officials including one known as a spy by u.s. intelligence officials. two major reports and neither is the breaking news tonight. all of it being ellipsed by this. sources say that the president asked james comey, the then director of the fbi to end his investigation into national security advisor michael flynn who had just resigned. on the senator floor, chuck schumer put it this way, this country is being tested in unprecedented ways. what are you hearing from lawmakers, most particularly probably republican ones. >> very little. house lawmakers just came back tonight from an 11-day recess. they have been out of town for most of these bombshell developments over the course of the last week and a half. and as they were walking on to the house floor, even the most

talkative of members, not talking, not responding at all. this is a shift, usually house republicans have been pretty steadfast in supporting the president. that changed tonight. i texted one member who's been rely bly -- i asked him if he thought this was a game changing moment for the conference, for republican support. he said we'll see, it's too early to tell. david made a very good point. everybody has eyes on right now senior members of the republican party, the chairman, the leadership, what they'll have to say, and we got a break from the norm, jason chaffets just sent a memo to the fbi requesting any notes, recordings or memos that

summarize conversations between jim comey and the president. he needs that by may 24. and he also stated that he's willing to subpoena any documents he doesn't get. so you're already seeing top republicans zeroing in on this and other republicans squared to death right now. >> and what are lawmakers saying is the next step? >> former fbi director coming in and testifying the crucial, from house republican leadership to democrats across the board saying that testimony is crucial going forward, you also have the house oversight committee asking for documents, and also any recordings to come through, anything you get out of that are important next steps, but it's really important to note, the frustration i'm hearing behind the scenings right now, anderson is palpable. i talked to one republican senator before this news even broke, and asked, how do you characterize what's going on in the trump white house, he gave a very, very diplomatic answer at the white house last night.

and then he leaned over, it's crazy, every day is crazy, that's what you're hearing on capitol hill, republicans who have been steadfast reporters of the president, acknowledge this is a very serious problem. they thought control of washington would help them secure, real questions right now if anything as all can get done. >> joining us now senator richard blumenthal. first just to get your reaction to the news of president trump asking detector comey to end the investigation into flynn? >> what we're seeing, anderson, is an obstruction of justice case unfolding in real time. and i am still state your full named that more of my republican colleagues are not standing strong and speaking out, but i think they are shaken and almost shell shocked by this news as i was because as stunning as the developments of recent days have

been, this one really is a bombshell that tops it off. >> do you think they're looking out for their own interests, they want this president to succeed, to have their agenda be able to move forward, is it just a question of partisanship here? >> more than partisanship, i think they're sensing the moral ground shifting, as well as seismically, the political dynamic changing and clearly this direction or request, however you interpret it by the president of the united states, to the director of the fbi, that he in effect end the investigation, adds another piece of evidence to an unfolding case. it's more than just a conclusive piece of evidence, it's very telling, but much more evidence will be forthcoming in the tapes and the transcripts, and other documents and that's why a subpoena and an independent

special prosecutor is necessary right away to make sure that evidence is secured and produced. that the evidence in fact is preserved. we don't know what may happen to it. subpoenas are necessary to make sure that there is no destruction or hiding of evidence. >> you mentioned tapes, i just want to be clear, you don't know for a fact there are tapes, the president did sort of mention tapes in a veiled threat or maybe not so veiled tweet against director comey, but it's not clear whether or not there are actually tapes, correct. >> very good point and the reason for subpoenas is not only to obtain evidence that you know exists, it's also to find out what evidence there is because the fact that the president has him appimplied there are tapes, there has to be some authoritative court that says to produce all of the following,

all documents, all memo, and my hope is that jim comey, jeff sessions, rod rosenstein, doug mcgahn will come before the judiciary committee under oath in open session to give their account and an explanation to the american people. >> is time the essence for that we will see director comey testifying? >> soon, my hope would be within days, not weeks, because this kind of constitutional crisis really demands the truth. a >> what is the constitutional crisis? >> the constitutional crisis is the pitting of one branch against another. and we have congress issuing subpoenas against the president, which was the case in the nixon watergate years, that went to the supreme court.

now the evidence needs to be followed wherever it will go, and so far what we have ask pieces of evidence. which may be the american public. at the end of the day, or the folks who make decisions about whether to prosecute flynn, carter page, roger stone, paul manafort, trump associates who were involved in possibly colluding with the russians, and there's a common thread here, the russians were involved in meddling in our elections, the russians were potentially aided and abetted by those trump associates, that trump ties to the russians were at issue in the investigation, which the president wanted to stop. so there is a threat of evidence here that has to be pursued. >> senator blumenthal, i appreciate you time on this very busy evening. >> back to my panel, jeff lord,

if this reporting is true, and right now it seems like it will boil down to what the president claims he said, although we haven't hard him tweet yet, and who knows what he will tweet tomorrow morning and what jim comey believes the president said and wrote down in notes. if the story is accurate as reported -- >> if the story is accurate, it will be a big deal. the question is it accurate? the two quotes from that memo, the president, he is a good guy, i hope you can let this go. comey replies, i agree, he is a good guy. the narrative seems to be that the president overstepped, that the president is doing this. there is no narrative here that james comey was bargaining to keep his job. i don't know that he was. but does that indicate that? >> that's not the whole thing, jeff, you didn't read the whole quote, though. >> i copied it from the "new york times." >> he says let it go a couple of

times. >> that is not richard nixon saying to eliot richardson you do this and you're fwooired. fired. >> it does -- i mean you can interpret it in the most benign way, which is, yeah, he is a nice guy, i hope you can let it go. do you think he's singing "let it go?" >> we're in thigh-tech lynching mode here. >> this the president of the united states in the oval office excusing the attorney general. >> did he say go do this? >> excusing his vice president and talking to the director of the fbi. >> did he instruct him to do it. >> he did not instruct him to do it and that's a big deal. >> if the president comes in and appointments at people, and say gosh i hope you can find it in

your heart to let this go, jeff, i hope you can find it in your heart to back me up on everything i have to say. >> i get the option to do it or not, right? >> paul? >> in february, the president meets privately, we now know with the fbi director, hugely inappropriate. i'll leave that to the attorneys. >> this is after the president has asked the fbi director for a pledge of loyalty. >> pledge of loyalty. >> and he denies it. >> until he tweets about it tomorrow. >> there was a pledge, a request of loyalty. the second thing he says, this is a good guy, i hope you can let this go. then on march 10, comey testifies, confirming that trump's campaign is under fbi investigation and in fact flynn is as well. there's much testimony by comey

on flynn. so that tells the president that he's not backing down. may 9, comey is fired. >> we should also point out, and we're going to hear from sally yates tonight. sally yates had informed the office of legal counsel, that flynn had been interviewed by the fbi in the white house and she gave the indication that the interview didn't go so well, that legal counsel asked for details, she would. give details, but the implication is it didn't go very well. but the legal counsel takes it to the president. and the president that night asks comey for loyalty. >> he's so loyal to general flynn. >> that's not why. come on, all roads lead to russia. and i said that, be very careful who you hire, mr. president, be more careful who you fire, because this guy know where is all the bodies are buried.

>> there was nothing illegal that flynn did, it was just him lying to the vice president. yates said that there is some illegality in the underlying behavior of general flynn. >> whether or not there was any there, there, there now is potential obstruction of justice, and i think it's going to be very interesting to watch, how republicans react to this. if they start jumping off. i can just say, my sense is, they are who we think they are. for conservatives like me, who are concerned about temperment and experience and character, this is the worry. the one worry was that hillary would win. this is the old potential worry. >> i want to play something the active fbi director said in testimony last week when he was asked about comey's files after he was fired. let's listen.

>> who was in charge of securing his files and devices when that information came down that he had been fired? >> that's our responsibility, ma'am. >> are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way that we can maintain whatever information or evidence he has in connection with the investigation in. >> yes, ma'am, i am. >> it's interesting, because also just from some of our reporters reporting, they have talked to people who have a copy of at least one of the memos. >> yeah. jason chaffetz said he is ready to subpoena that memo if they don't hand it over. hopefully, they will do that. they should subpoena -- congressman schiff said this, they need to subpoena the tapes if they exist. they need to find out if -- it's probably unlikely there was someone in the room taking notes. if there was anybody there, they need to confirm the attorney general and vice-president pence were asked to leave. there are different things they have to look at. i want to say on the coverup

worse than the crime thing, there's really no need for a coverup unless something happened. even for people who wanted to give donald trump the benefit of the doubt on the russia situation, the last couple days really should give them pause. he is frantically trying to stop this investigation. he is not looking out for general flynn. as paul said, he doesn't do that for other people. >> don't you think -- >> let me finish. unless that impacts him somehow. then the fact that he fired the fbi director, this is somebody who is panicking, i think. >> you could see trump doing this sort of thing because he is an ego maniac, because he is thin skinned and because he doesn't have the experience to understand the repercussions. maybe i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. >> you make it sound like -- >> i think he is a child. that's the point. >> all right. everyone, we have more coming up on tonight's breaking news to tell you about. my exclusive interview with

sally yates. her take on the firing of fbi director james comey, the first time she talked about that. her own firing, much more after the break. the president said before he fired director comey, he said when i decided to just do it, i said to myself, this russia thing with trump and russia is an excuse by the democrats for having lost an election they should have won. in your view, was russia the reason the russia investigation in the region that director comey was fired? >> i can't speak to that. that's one of the important questions we need answers to. together always was, and always will be, a better way. ♪

there are the wildcats 'til we die weekenders. the watch me let if fly. this i gotta try weekenders. then we've got the bendy... ... spendy weekenders. the tranquility awaits. hanging with our mates weekenders and the it's been quite a day... ...so glad we got away weekenders. whatever kind of weekender you are, there's a hilton for you. book your weekend break direct at hilton.com and join the weekenders.

tonight as we continue to report on the memo that our sources say james comey wrote about president trump asking him to end the investigation into general michael flynn, we're bringing you my interview with his fired former boss, sally yates was the acting attorney general, the nation's top law enforcement official for two moments in this administration and perhaps for the history books. first, when she warned that for the first time ever that a sitting white house national security adviser was vulnerable to russian blackmail. when she refused to enforce the president's travel ban which could end up before the supreme court. she was fired as acting attorney general for that and now for the first time in her only interview since the firing, she's speaking out. white house has gone after her,

calling her a partisan. she says tonight she wants to set the record straight. we begin the interview with her thoughts on the firing of fbi director james comey. what do you think when you heard that director comey had been fired? >> i think this is a really troubling situation. i think there are serious questions about both the timing and the motivation of the president's actions. >> james comey reported directly to you when you were deputy attorney general. >> that's right. >> what was he like? as you know, the president called him a showboat, a grand stander. >> jim is obviously a very qualified and experienced guy. he had held my position before, deputy attorney general. he had been a united states attorney in the southern district of new york and ausa as well. we had a common background. i found him to be a straight shooter and candid. >> did he strike you as a showboater or grandstander? >> no. i think jim would speak his mind. some might call that showboating, but jim would speak his mind. >> did the multiple reasons that

white house gave for firing director comey, did they make sense to you? >> you know, i don't want to -- since i'm not at doj anymore, i don't want to go much more into it other than that. you know, the explanations seem to change on what is almost an hourly basis right now. so it seems to me there's only one truth and we ought to get to that. >> the idea of a director of the fbi being asked for some sort of a loyalty pledge. the white house says president trump did not ask him for loyalty. there are reports that that was asked at that dinner. is that appropriate? >> no, not to him individually. our loyalty at the department of justice should be to the people of the united states and to the law and the constitution. no one and nothing else. >> why is that? why isn't loyalty to the president something that should be pledged? >> because our oath is to uphold the constitution and the law. and that means we have to be

able to call it like we see it. >> if you were as a -- when you were in the department of justice, if somebody had asked you to pledge loyalty to them, what would you have said? >> i wouldn't have done it. >> it's inappropriate? >> it's inappropriate. >> the president said, when i decided to just do it, i said to myself, i said, this russia thing is a made up story. it's an excuse for having lost an election they should have won. if your view, was russia the reason the russia investigation the reason that director comey was fired? >> i can't speak to that. that's one of those important questions that we all need answers to. >> do you believe that the firing of director comey will have an impact on the russia investigation? >> i worked with the men and women of the justice department and the fbi for over 27 years now. i know that they are really committed to finding the truth, whatever that truth is. this is certainly a troubling situation. it can have a chilling affect. they should be able do their

jobs without fear, without any kind of fear at all. >> do you affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> this is the first time sally yates is speaking out publically since she was called to testify last week in front of a senate subcommittee investigating russia. she told them that she went to the white house to give them an extraordinary warning. it was less than a week after president trump was inaugurated and the warning was about his national security adviser michael flynn. when were you first made aware that general flynn was lying about his interactions with the russian ambassador? >> let me say -- this may seem artificial to folks. i can't really talk about what general flynn's underlying conduct was. because that's based on classified information. >> can you say when you were made aware about an issue with his underlying conduct? >> it was in the early part of january where we first got some indication about what he had been involved in.

and then sort of the middle part of january when there were false statements that started coming out of the white house based on misrepresentations he had made to people there. >> she's talking about false statements made by sean spicer and vice-president mike pence. statements like the one the vice-president made to cbs news on january 15, when he was asked if michael flynn had ever discussed sanctions with the russian ambassador. >> what i can confirm having spoken to him about it is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the united states took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions. >> we were concerned about the underlying conduct in and of itself, even before there were misrepresentations about it. then there were misrepresent takss coming out of the white house again where they were saying it was based specifically on what general flynn had told tem. and they were getting more and more specific. it b