about president trump and his political direction. >> there was no collusion, and everybody, even my enemies, said there was no collusion. >> there needs to be some public telling of the truth here. >> the whole point is to have an independent investigation and follow the facts wherever they may lead. >> it divides the country. i think we have a very divided country because of that. >> he saw his role as protecting the fbi from the white house. >> mr. rosenstein understood the president is going to fire the fbi director before that memo was received. >> it was a counterintelligence investigation. it seems now to be the kremlin investigation. >> announcer: this "new day" with chris cuomo and allison. brooke baldwin is here instead. mr. trump denies that he asked james comey to drop the

investigation into michael flynn, raising the specter of will comey testify? there are some developments on that. we have them for you this morning. we're also hearing from a friend of the fired fbi director. he says comey was uncomfortable interacting with the president and disgusted by this. do you remember this? the president calling comey a star, saying he's more popular than i am, trying to give him a little smooch? what was this about from comey's perspective? >> we'll talk about the hug moment in the oval office. also the president is blasting the appointment of his special counsel on the russia investigation, saying it divides the country and arguing that he is the victim of a witch hunt as the president takes his first foreign trip in just a couple hours from now. we have you covered on "new day." let's go to joe johns live at the white house. good morning. >> good morning, brooke. it's really been a week of explosive developments for a white house embattled from the very beginning, and now the president for the first time

addressing questions about his interactions with the fired fbi director james comey, also telling journalists what he thinks about the russia investigation. >> i think it divides the country. i think we have a very divided country because of that and many other things. >> president trump slamming the appointment of a special counsel is bad for the country. >> i respect the move but the entire thing has been a witch hunt, and there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but i can always speak for myself and the russians, zero. >> reporter: the president clearly distancing himself from his own campaign. mr. trump also denying reports that he tried to interfere in the fbi's investigation into former national security adviser michael flynn. >> did you at any time urge former fbi director james comey in any way, shape or form to close or to back down the investigation into michael flynn? and also, auz los you look back

>> no. no. next question. >> but days after conflicting accounts of why he fired comey. >> i was going to fire comey. my decision. >> reporter: the president is now putting the blame back on a memo written by the deputy attorney general calling for comey's dismissal. >> director comey was very unpopular with most people and i also made a vegot a very, very recommendation, as you know, from the deputy attorney general. >> reporter: but rod rosenstein gave senators a very different story when he briefed them wednesday. >> he did acknowledge he knew comey would be removed prior to writing his memo. >> reporter: a friend of comey is breaking his silence in a new interview with pbs news hour about his conversations with the now fired fbi director. >> trump fired comey because the most dangerous thing in the world if you're donald trump is a person who tells the truth, is dogged, you can't control. >> benjamin wittes encountering

the day between the president and james comey at the inauguration reception. >> comey didn't want to go to that meeting. he didn't believe the president and the fbi director should have any show of relationship or warmth. >> wittes shows in detail why comey was reluctant to attend. he even tried to blend in with the curtains in the back of the room in the hopes he would not be spotted. >> trump circumstanscopes him o. he knew it was bad enough he was there, it was bad enough there would be a handshake, but there really wasn't going to be a hug. if you watch the video, he extends his hand. comey's arm is really long and he extends his hand kind of preemptively, and trump grabs the hand and kind of pulls him

into a hug, but the hug is entirely one-sided. comey was just completely disgusted -- >> disgusted? >> -- disgusted by the episode. he thought it was an attempt to c confound him in public. >> reporter: wittes said he talked to comey once as he tried to board a helicopter. >> the president just wanted to chitchat and he was bewildered by it and, again, thought it was quite inappropriate. he doesn't think the president and the fbi director should be chitchatting. he interpreted it as an effort to kind of be chummy and kind of bring comey into the fold. >> cnn's pam brown has reported that comey was so uncomfortable with these interactions that he

rehearsed what he would say with his team before meeting with the president. sources say the president's allies are now trying to convince him that he should stop complaining about the russia investigation while his advisers are looking for an outside legal team to represent the president through the special counsel's investigation. >> reporter: we've gotten multiple signals that the president is very close to naming a replacement for the fbi director, and the frontrunner, we're told, is former united states senator joe lieberman, though some democrats are suggesting they don't like the idea of putting a career politician in the job. the president leaves this afternoon for his nine-day international trip starting out in saudi arabia where this controversy is likely to follow him. chris and brooke? >> joe johns, appreciate the reporting and we will take on the question this morning of why democrats are moving so quickly against one of their own, former senator joe lieberman. we'll talk about that. let's bring in our political panel, cnn politics reporter and

editor at large, chris soliza, social editor and columnist for realpolitics.com, senioral li at jeffrey toobin. you called it. the president is staking his presidency on four words: no, no, next question. explain. >> well, you played it in the clip. he was asked directly did he at any point tell jim comey to either end or curb the investigation into michael flynn. those four words were his response. what does that mean? look, i don't know that donald trump put a tremendous amount of strategic thought into how he would respond to the question, but as a matter of fact, you now have what we would expect to hear james comey's side of the story, whether through congressional testimony, through the release of the memo or memos or both, and it's very likely that you're going to have the former fbi director, a very well

regarded person within the law enforcement community, say the president said, we should end or curb this investigation. you'll have the president saying, no, no, next question. now, if it's just a he said-he said, nothing else comes out. bob mueller's investigation produces nothing, the congressional investigation produces nothing, donald trump will survive politically. it will be james comey's word against him, impossible sort of to prove. if anything comes out that suggests that donald trump's absolute flat, 100%, no wiggle room denial is not entirely accurate, it begins to undermine his presidency, to be quite honest. it calls into question when he is telling the truth and when he is not. so i don't know that he knows that he's put a big gamble down yesterday in those four words, but i think he did. >> okay. so, "no, no, next question." big gamble from cilliza.

jeffrey toobin, what about you? still not listening to rod rosenstein blaming him. >> it's just peculiar. we've had several different explanations of why comey was fired. at first you had all these administration officials, including the vice president, saying it was completely due to the memo that rod rosenstein wrote. then president trump said, i was going to fire him, anyway, so all those explanations became irrelevant. then yesterday it seems like the memo was part of the explanation again. you know, if people care, they are likely to be confused. >> and it wasn't just that they were irrelevant, it exposed them as false, that it wasn't about the a.g.'s letter, it wasn't about what happened with the e-mail situation, and we learned that from the president's mouth, which is rare that he wanted to

upset the apple cart. a.b. stoddard, special counsel. for the first time we saw republicans and democrats saying, you know, this is a good move, this is the right guy, let's figure it out. now that they're figuring out what it means they're like, what about me, what about my say in the investigation? and they're dealing with that. the president saying it's a witch hunt, that this is a bad move, what has that done with his standing with the men and women of his party? >> that's the problem, is this week we saw a shift after the memo was reported. it's what seems like years ago in the republicans' posture in terms of defending donald trump. they ran for the hills. they didn't want to talk, and when they did, they said this is really of grave concern. we're going to have to find out what's in that memo, we're going to have to subpoena the memo, we're going to have to hear from former fbi director comey. so that was the break. that was the breaking point. it was after many other things, the firing of comey, the lester

holt interview where the president said, i did it all because of russia, and even the news he could have released shared sensitive information with russian officials in the oval office. that was the breaking point, was the idea that in the oval office he might have told comey, i hope that you will see clear to end this investigation into michael flynn. so now they have this reprieve where they have a special counsel and they have an excuse to say, i can't really talk about this, it's all in the hands of the special counsel. at the same time congress wants to assert themselves, they have their own investigations and their own probes going on that they started before this. they were all in the works and they want to continue. so there will be sort of a turf for going on about that. but in the end, i think it's better for republicans on capitol hill to try to proceed with whatever is left of an agenda, whatever is left of momentum that they have and there's very little left at this point. they're very frustrated and they're actually really angry because they're being told both

by pollsters and donors that this is just hitting the skids. but i really think that picking a big fight with mueller at this point over who can come up and testify is probably a mistake. everybody has to proceed with their probes and carry on, but the business is lejs lagislatin they have to remember that. >> let's talk about the now fired fbi director james comey and how he's feeling and how he felt during his brief time in the trump administration. we now have a window into his perspective because of his friend, benjamin wittes, who talked to "pbs news hour" and particularly talked about how james comey was feeling uncomfortable about the president trying to have more of a comfy, cozy relationship that comey wanted nothing to do with. here's a piece of this interview where he talks about the now infamous hug moment in the oval office. >> if you watch the video, he extends his hand, and comey's harmz a arms are really long, and he extends his hand confined of

preemptively, and trump grabs the hand and kind of pulls him into a hug. but the hug is entirely one-sided so the guy is shaking hands. comey is completely disgusted -- >> disgusted? >> -- disgusted by the episode. he thought it was an attempt to compromise him in public. >> huggate. >> chris cuomo asked for it. we have the reach -- >> this is a credibility contest, and i think it's very interesting the focus was on the hug and not the smooch, cilliza. we're italians, we're okay with that. >> that's trvery true. i've seen your gifts on twitter, you have way too much time on your hands. >> i do, and i've spent time analyzing this, to be honest. he also does a pursed lips thing at the beginning before he calls him over. that's beside the point. two things here. one, benjamin wittes is not

talking before he talks to james comey, right? i don't thinkfr freelancing. i'm sure he checked with him. as you pointed out, brooke, there is a long history of weird handshakes in donald trump. shinzo abe in japan, strange. neil gorsuch when he announces neil gorsuch. yes, donald trump views all of these things -- always remember, what has donald trump spent his years in the run for the presidency being? reality shows, right? he's always staging his moves as power moves. so i think the calling over of comey, the sort of blessing of him, the like, hey, this guy, i can say that i'm famous and he's more famous, all that sort of stuff is very trumpian, it's very reality tv star, it's made

for television moments, and he does tait a lot. for a guy like comey, when you're 6'8", you don't blend into the curtains anywhere. >> he should have just not gone. that is an area of deliberate examination here. we're hearing from comey's side and it's strange to believe he doesn't have any influence out of this message about the memo that came out, and this guy wittes doing this interview and writing this piece. he should probably come out and testify, we'll see what happens with that. the big question for him, maybe, is if you worried so much, if you were disgusted, why didn't you tell anybody? wittes, his friend, gave an answer to that question. let's play it. >> i'm certain that he wouldn't quit if he thought the fbi needed somebody there to protect it institutionally. >> other than quitting, what's

your read on this component? >> i think what's interesting about this is that there are things being leaked to tell the comey side of the story. benjamin wittes, chris is right, obviously didn't come out and fly solo on this and talk about comey's inner thoughts. comey wants to tell his story. as we talked about before, if rob mueller said he's a witness and i don't want him to testify in congress in an open setting and confusing the news with his story, then comey will not get his chance and we'll probably be seeing more of these leaks. the interesting thing about your question, chris, about why comey decided not to report this, why he didn't go ahead and alert his superiors, he felt that there was, according to wittes, a need in the fbi for him to stay and protect the entirety of his investigation. that might be influence coming down from sessions, the head of the fbi, or -- excuse me, the attorney general. at that point even if he wasn't confirmed, he had been nominated. he knew he was a close associate and friend and campaign

supporter of trump's. but it is really strange to me still why he didn't go to the chairman of the house intelligence committee and the chairman of the senate intelligence committee and bring it to their attention. that's the one thing i think we would all like to hear answered and we don't know if we'll get the chance because we don't know if mueller is going to stop him from testifying. >> he said he had it managed, he was the protector between the white house and the fbi and he felt he had the situation under control. this is all according to wittes in his absolutely fascinating interview. we're talking to the guy who interviewed him coming up in the next hour. >> and a quick button that toobin made, who would he have gone to? appreciated, thank you to all of you. >> i didn't even have to talk. i like that. coming up on "new day," we

have congressman john duffy and elijah cummings, also senators angus king and richard blumenthal and former attorney alberto gonzalez, all joining us live. republicans, are they on the same page as president trump? you're talking about the agenda, you're talking about the special investigation. the president says it divided the country but it seems lawmakers believe the opposite, that it's the first time they've agreed on something in this administration. we have republicans and democrats in congress, ahead.

i am benedict arnold, the infamous traitor. and i know a thing or two about trading. so i trade with e*trade, where true traders trade on a trademarked trade platform that has all the... get off the computer traitor! i won't. (cannon sound) on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident.

switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. at crowne plaza we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. 'a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly.

all right. if there is one objective truth, it's that we have not seen the left and right agree on much. however, this appointment of a special counsel started to bring both sides together, and especially putting the ex-fbi chief robert mueller in charge of the investigation. but the president has decided to go the opposite direction, to call it a hoax, a witch hunt, to denigrate those who believe this was a good idea, and in effect, the man who will be heading the investigation as well. let's discuss with republican

congressman shawn duffy from wisconsin. congressman, always a pleasure to have you on the show. >> it's good to be here. thanks for having me on. >> special counsel, good move? >> i didn't approve of it. i think with a house senate and fbi investigation, it wasn't needed. but now that it's there, i'll support it. it doesn't make any sense to push back on a special investigation. >> bob mueller, right choice? >> listen, i don't know him well. i came in after his tenure, but from all i've heard, he's a stand-up, good guy, and we'll do our investigation. i don't know much about him as a newer congressman. >> why support something you think is a bad idea? >> i can't roll it back. >> that doesn't mean you have to support it. you can say, i think this was a good idea. it's still a bad idea. >> i'll shrug my shoulders, chris, but listen. do i think the fbi can do this investigation? based on all your reporting, no matter what was happening on the outside, it seems pretty clear that the fbi is pretty intent on getting the facts and getting

those facts out. and so what now, three investigations aren't enough, we want four investigations, do we want five? how many investigations are appropriate to look at this information about russia? i don't think it's necessary. >> i think that the motivation for rosenstein was to have one that people can trust, that he can trust, that seems to have integrity and seems to have some arm's length after what seemed to be pretty clear indications for the president of the united states he wanted to influence this investigation. >> but i want to take a pause on that. on the influence of the investigation as cnn, a news network, what information do we have about this memo, about this influence? all you have is a phone call to the fbi -- i'm sorry, to the "new york times," an undisclosed person, an undisclosed memo. we should be able -- as two attorneys, we should be able to evaluate the credibility of the person who makes a statement to

the "new york times." we should be able to look at the full context of the memo. we have none of that information, chris, and to jump to conclusions about influencing, that's a far reach. you and i wouldn't convict anyone on that evidence. we wouldn't even charge anyone with that evidence. we would go, hold on a second, i have to see this stuff. i want to talk to the person who read it. we haven't seen any of that. that's what concerns me on that front. i have all the faith in the fbi. i do think there is great people in that organization. they look for the truth, they don't look for politics. i think they could have done the investigation. but again, there is no win in trying to resist what is inevitable with mr. mueller. if it's going to happen, i think he'll do a good job. >> you make a lot of points that deserve consideration, counsel. first of all, i hope you have the same perspective on members of your own party you says there is no collusion because we are naive at best to think we know.

we don't know what the fbi has in the hands of bob mueller, and to suggest this relatively early with the fbi, they look at things for years, and the fact the proof is out there, that's equally deceptive, don't you think? >> again, i'm not buying into the fact that there was any collusion between president trump and russia. >> how do you know there was none, how do you know there was? you can't know. you don't know the proof. >> chris, i agree with you, but you don't know that, either. the cable news networks are a flame of running stories about collusion between trump and russia, and you don't know and i don't know that. >> but it's equally wrong. if you don't like that some media -- you're not talking about us because i don't front-run it. if you don't like that people are artificially saying there was collusion, to say artificially there was no collusion is equally wrong, right? you're not being better in that sli solution, it's a manifestation of the same problem. >> what i think is happening,

there is a conclusion of collusion. we don't know if there was collusion. >> why would you know? >> here's why i think i would know. washington is leaking like a sieve. there is no secret. president trump can't have a conversation with the president of mexico without it being leaked. there can't be a conversation with a foreign diplomat without that conversation being leaked. there are no secrets. whether it's the conversations that flynn had, that information was unmasked and leaked. leaks everywhere. if there was information about donald trump colluding with the russians, i have every confidence that would have been leaked to the press and you would be able to run with that story because everything has been leaked. there are no secrets, no private conversations. that's why i have some pause -- >> you can have pause. there is every reason for pause because it's an unknown. i'm just saying it's such a

gross assumption you're making. because it didn't leak, we should assume it's not true. however, when information does leak you question it because it was leaked. don't you see the politics at play in that? >> take a step back. you have no evidence of there was collusion or there wasn't collusion. there is no evidence to either of our sides. >> that's not accurate. we don't know. what i'm saying is i don't know what they have. you're saying, yeah, but it would have leaked and it hasn't leaked, so there must be none. >> that's what you're saying. so there is no public information right now about collusion between donald trump and the russians, right? we agree on that point? >> i say that's a fair statement. some people argue otherwise, but i take your point. >> what is the evidence? i haven't seen any evidence to that fact between trump and russia. >> you know the old notion from barry scheck when it came to evidence. absence of evidence means no

absence? the point being, just because we don't know doesn't mean you should assume the negative. it doesn't exist because i don't know about it yet. isn't an investigation about not speculating? you make thguys make that pointe time. >> if a viewer is a consumer of news, i think you've made the point that i don't know. i think if i listen to different panels on different networks, the drumbeat is there must be something there, there's got to be evidence, there is collusion. why are people talking about impeachment? i've heard the impeachment story for days, chris. it's because there would have been evidence then of collusion between president trump and the russians. and you just pointed out and agree with me that we haven't seen any evidence thus far publicly to that fact. so why is there a drumbeat of impeachment? >> politics. and what i'm saying is it's equally egregious to assume -- i'm saying it's equally

egregious. you're feeding the opposite narrative which i'm saying is symptomatic of the same problem. saying there should be impeachment when you don't know the proof is the same as saying there's never anything wrong because there isn't proof. >> i don't want to ping-pong with you, but i want to be clear on one point. if there is evidence, i would love to come back and talk about that evidence. i think the news media is jumping the gun and talking about collusion when we don't have any evidence -- it could be there -- but no public evidence exists to that point right now, and i think that point should readily be made not only by all politicians and all news outlets. it doesn't exist. it could come. >> don't say it doesn't exist. just say we don't know, and would you agree that calling it a witch hunt and a hoax at this point is also wrong? >> you're splicing my words in that there is no public evidence today. there could be private evidence,

there is no public evidence. you don't have any and i don't have any. that's the point i'm making. >> i've never heard you make that point about any other investigation. if an investigation is ongoing, you don't question what you know or don't know because it hasn't concluded. it hasn't been revealed. that's the whole point of the investigation is to find out. why would you jump the process of political advantage in either way? >> why would you jump the conversation -- >> i'm not. you are and i'm not. you're saying there is no poiro of collusion so there must be none. >> i'm saying i don't think there's any collusion based on what i've seen. >> what's the difference? there is no collusion, i don't think there is any collusion. neither one is based on any evidence. >> we'll move on from this point. your network is running the stories nonstop and you don't have any evidence and i don't have any evidence at this point. we're running stories about it. >> i don't know what they have, and that's why calling it a witch hunt or egregious is the

same thing as saying it's a home run for impeachment. >> we'll agree to have semantic conversations here. >> i don't think it's semantic. i respect your opinion on this. i'm just saying there are calls on both sides. that's all. you're always welcome here. >> you make me sweat, man. nice talking to you. >> i'm sweating, too, but you didn't get under my skin. >> two lawyers in a great conversation and that's bwhat yu get. thank you very much. deputy attorney rod rosenstein briefed senators yesterday after over the comey firing. what did he say that has u.s. senators buzzing this morning? we'll talk to senator angus king next. ...if these are your wingtips... ...if this is your gourmet latte... then these are your vans.

vans for professionals. strictly professionals. best commercial van residual value according to alg and starting at just $25,995. mercedes-benz. vans. born to run.

i count on my dell small for tech advice. with one phone call, i get products that suit my needs and i get back to business. ♪ ♪

i respect the move but the entire thing has been a witch hunt and there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign. but i can always speak for myself and the russians, zero. >> president trump making strong statements following the appointment of a special

counsel. will the white house cooperate with the russia investigation? joining us live this morning is senator angus king. he is on the senate intelligence committee which has its own probe into russian election meddling. senator, nice to see you. good morning. >> good morning, brooke. >> i know you were listening in on the lively conversation my colleague here had with congressman sean duffy. coming out of that and knowing what the president said, calling the russian investigation a witch hunt, telling anchors he believes it will hurt the country. how do you see it? >> well, you got to back up and say, you know, how did we get here? we had an unprecedented attack on american democracy by a foreign government that was sophisticated, directed from the very top, that reached all the way from state registration, voter registration roles through hacking, releasing of documents,

people purposely planting false stories in the news. this was an attack on our democracy and that's the reality. and we've got to look into it. you can call it a witch hunt, i call it my duty. i didn't go to congress to be reading intelligence cables and poring over history of who talked to who when, but we can't turn a blind eye to what happened, and we've got to get to the bottom of the facts. and i think that's what this is all about. it's not a witch hunt. i can tell you right now i am not going to participate in a witch hunt, and if the facts demonstrate what president trump said, that there was no collusion, no interaction between his campaign and the russians during the period of the summer of 2016, i'll sign the report. but right now we don't know that, and we have a duty to dig into it. >> we don't know that, and the back and forth over is there evidence or even a shred of evidence so far on collusion, you heard the president say

there was no collusion between my campaign and the russians, i can speak for them, he said. then why fight the idea, senator? why do you think the president is fighting the idea of having this independent counsel come in to investigate? >> well, he shouldn't be. if he's as innocent and clean as he says he is, he ought to be falling all over himself to cooperate in the investigation to get everything out and to clear the air. it clearly is dividing the country. i agree on that, and i hear from my republican friends and they say, oh, it's a witch hunt and there's nothing there, and other people say, no, it's really serious and we need to pursue it. but he could help and, you know, firing the head of the fbi and putting forth several varying examine changing justifications for it in the middle of an investigation doesn't fill you with confidence about whether the white house is going to cooperate. they could cooperate and be much more forthcoming and clear the

air much sooner if they choose to do so. >> you were in the meeting, senator king, in the closed door meeting with deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. what was your biggest takeaway? >> there were two things that jumped out at me and i think most people in the room. number one, in his opening statement, he said, i knew on may 8 that the president was going to fire jim comey and then i went back and wrote my memo. the reason that was surprising was, if you go back to president trump's letter to comey, he said, i'm firing you because i have the recommendation of the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, and that's why i'm firing you. and that was the line for 24 hours. vice president pence went to capitol hill, said it was all about the memo and lack of confidence, and it turned out that just wasn't true by the president's own words. so that was number one. i was sort of surprised he said, yeah, i knew he was going to be fired and then i wrote the memo later. the second part that was surprising was he refused to

answer any questions about the memo, who helped draft it, who reviewed it, who suggested it, and his reason was that the firing and the memo and all of those circumstances might be part of robert mueller's investigation. which i did not -- i hadn't thought of it that way before, but he probably refused to answer 15 questions during that session based upon, i can't answer that because it may be part of the fbi investigation. by the way, i heard the wonderful exchange. it reminded me of moot court between congressman duffy and chris. >> the ping-pong? >> i think one thing needs to be clarified. >> yes, sir. >> the mueller investigation is not a new investigation. it is -- he will lead the current fbi investigation. >> okay. finally, on this notion that it could be former senator, once

democrat joe lieberman as the president's pick for the fbi director, do you like him? would you like that pick? >> i like joe lieberman, i don't like the pick. i don't think it should be a politician. we've got a former congressman, now head of the cia, a former senator now director of national intelligence. i voted for both of them, but i just don't think it ought to be a politician. never had a politician head of the fbi. i don't care whether it's hamilton, jefferson or lincoln or lieberman. i just don't think that's the right pick at this moment given all of the events that are swirling around the fbi. i think it ought to be a career prosecutor, law enforcement person, and i know joe lieberman was attorney general some years ago, but it's nothing against joe lieberman, but i just don't think that's the right way to go. >> okay. senator angus king, always a pleasure. thank you very much for the time. have a great friday. >> thank you, brooke.

>> chris? so as the russian investigations heat up, the head of the house oversight committee is stepping down. why? and who will take the place of republican jason chaffetz. we're going to talk to the ranking democrat and committee elijah cummings what his stepping down means, what the investigation means and the new credibility question for the vice president, next. er lexus lc 500 or the multistage hybrid lc 500h. experience amazing.

whimper yap yap yap yip is your dog trying to tell you something? allergic itch in dogs is a medical condition that's more common and treatable than you think. that's why there's prescription apoquel: the revolutionary medicine that's giving millions of dogs the relief they deserve. apoquel goes to the source of the itch to provide relief in as little as 4 hours. woof and apoquel is safe without many of the side effects associated with the use of steroids. apoquel is for the control of itch associated with allergic dermatitis and the control of atopic dermatitis in dogs. do not use apoquel in dogs less than 12 months old or those with serious infections. apoquel may increase the chance of developing serious infections and may cause existing parasitic skin infestations or pre-existing cancers to worsen. do not use in breeding, pregnant, or lactating dogs. most common side effects are vomiting and diarrhea. don't wait. ask your veterinarian

about apoquel today. apoquel. it's itch relief worth barking about. bark

>> > a police officer saw this three-year-old boy for one minute right before this boy

disappeared, but a police officer saved this child's life. we have this reunion in "beyond the call of duty." >> had police officer robert balmer arrived later, the outcome could have been tragic. he was responding to a robbery call. what he found was a three-year-old autistic boy who desperately needed help. >> i look and see a small child about 100 yards away. >> did you see any adults nearby? what were you looking for? >> no adults. i glanced at him and he looked like my own son. i went around the block but lost sight of him. that bothered me. >> following his gut, bolmer gets out of the police car. >> i see him basically dying right there in the pond. >> he breaks into a sprint. elijah is wallowing face down in the water. >> he was struggling, and i could see his face in the water,

and i could see that he was g p gasping for air. >> reporter: without breaking his stride, he jumps in to save elijah who immediately lets out a cry. nearly 7 feet tall, bolmer is standing waist deep in the water as he calls dispatch for an ambulance. >> i have a kid who fell in the boy to a good samaritan. meanwhile, elijah's father is frantically looking for his son. jacob handby had given elijah chocolate milk and put on his favorite tv show. he even checked to make sure the doors were locked. >> he said, i went to the bathroom, and when i came out, i looked for him in the bedroom, didn't see him there. he looked in the opposite direction and realized the back door was standing open. >> reporter: his parents didn't figure out their young boy had figured out how to undo the locks. and because he was wearing socks, he made no noise when he slipped out. father and son were reunited at

the ambulance when officers heard him yelling for elijah. thankfully, elijah is okay. what do you think would have happened if officer bolmer wouldn't have spotted elijah in the park. >> i fear i would have lost a child that day. >> he would have drowned. i would say 30 seconds to a minute, but if i wasn't there, he would have drowned. >> reporter: but thanks to his training as a police officer and his instincts as a parent, that wasn't the case. >> whee! >> reporter: stephanie elam, cnn, topeka, kansas. >> great sorry, well told. special counsel robert mueller beginning his look into russian ties into the 2016 election. remember, this is not a new investigation but he does have to get up to speed about what the case file has in it now. but what does it mean for congressional investigations? we have new reporting and a key guest, a ranking member of the house oversight committee, next. you know who likes to be

in control? this guy. check it out! self-appendectomy! oh, that's really attached. that's why i rent from national. where i get the control to choose any car in the aisle i want, not some car they choose for me. which makes me one smooth operator. ah! still a little tender. (vo) go national. go like a pro. this i can do, easily. i try hard to get a great shape. benefiber® healthy shape is

a clear, taste-free, 100% natural daily fiber... that's clinically proven to help me feel fuller longer. benefiber® healthy shape. this i can do!

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance.

call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

agree? >> so do you believe that the appointment of the special counsel was warranted and a good move? >> i feel like it was a very good move, and i think it came at the right time. somebody asked me to describe what is going on in washington with regard to the investigations, and i can only say it is a mess. you've got the attorney general, who has recused himself, so he can't do so much or he shouldn't be doing so much with regard to this investigation. we've got rosenstein, who i know because he was the u.s. attorney in baltimore for over ten years, a man i have a lot of respect

for, but he has been coming under severe criticism. and then you have got comey and trump. they are arguing over what happened at certain crucial moments during the last year or two. so we've got a real -- just a lot of potential conflicts. but i think the best thing that happened, chris, was to have something like mueller to come in, who i also know, who has a stellar reputation for no nonsense to come in and say let's get this investigation done. but basically you have to keep in mind there are three investigations. one, you've got the investigation as to what happened with regard to russia interfering with our elections. two, you have got the investigation as to whether or not there was any kind of

collusion with the trump administration, the campaign or president trump. and, three, you have a question of whether there is some type of coverup. so there is a lot going on here. >> what do you think of the idea that mueller may say -- mueller say say, listen, i need to focus this. i need to have the full attention of assets. stand down on these other investigations. let me do my job. would you respect that request? >> definitely. i would respect it, but i don't think that that's the way it's going to go down. i think mueller is looking at it from this point. i can't speak for him, but i'm guessing. i think he'll bring us all together, the various committees that have jurisdiction in the house and the senate, at least the ranking members and the chairman and try to work out something. and there will be certain types of evidence he will say, okay,

you will have access to. he may say the enemy eye will get some evidence. i think they will back up and let the fbi -- people need to understand. when you are dealing with the f,i, this is a whole another ball game. people can lie and lie and lie to each other, but if an fbi agent walks into your office and asks you some questions, that's the time when the lie -- if it stays a lie, that is an offense which would be charged with. so we have a whole other ball game. >> the vice president of the united states said he didn't know about flynn until he learned about it from news reports. is it true on november 18th you sent a letter addressed to the

vice president asking questions about flynn's status as a for the record lobbyist and what it meant in terms of your appointment and your concerns thereof. >> yes. we sent a very detailed letter talking about flynn's involvement with the turkish government, that he was being paid to do work with regard to turkey. we also mentioned that he had, in 2015, that he had attended this dinner that you see on your clips all the time where he's sitting beside putin and then he got paid for that. and we basically were asking the head of transition why in the hell are we messing around with this guy. >> do you think pence is telling the truth when he says he only learned about flynn from news reports? >> it is either he's not telling the truth or he was running a sloppy shop because we have a receipt, chris, that says they

received the letter. now, i know things get mixed up in the mail. i got that. but when you tell somebody -- you send the letter and it says the person that you are allowing to advise a campaign on security matters, that is getting access to briefings and the same guy who eventually, by the way, became security advisor, the number one guy, gave all of our secrets, somebody should be jumping up and down saying, wait a minute, this is 17 or 20 red lights. chris, this is not rocket scientist stuff. i look at the way they beat up on hillary clinton for the possibility that something might have been -- some classified documents may have gotten into somebody's hands. but this you got the guy. you got the guy who is sitting

there getting briefings. i was trying to figure out, do you know this. >> right. we put up the return receipt requesting there, the e-mail the showed you got confirmation that the letter was received. whether it was read, whether it was believed, those are the questions that would have to come from the vp and his staff. but the idea they never heard about flynn is somewhat refuted by your letter of november 18th. another question, is it true the white house is still saying they're not going to turn over documents that are relevant to the flynn assignment process as nsa to your committee? >> we haven't gotten the documents yet. we haven't gotten the documents we want. and it is very important right now, chris, particularly after these allegations that flynn informed the white house he was under investigation before he got his assignment. and by the way, going back to the receipt you have. >> ye