loyalty. repeatedly asking him to drop the investigation. >> now, president trump's attorney sees things differently. he sees the president feels quote totally vindicated by the comey testimony. there are many big questions. do the president's actions amount to the obstruction of justice and who do you believe? comey or trump? we have a lot to cover. let's start with jessica schneider on capitol hill. set the scene. >> reporter: alisyn, the testimony made more interesting by the opening statements by the senate intelligence committee. a seven-page document that goes into detail of the comey's five of nine interactions with president trump. interactions that comey said he was compelled to write down. something he never did with president obama. concerning, awkward, inappropria inappropriate. these are the words fired fbi director james comey says he

describes with the interactions with president trump. chronicling the efforts to encourage the fbi to drop the michael flynn investigation and clear his own name. after an oval office meeting on february 14th, comey describes the president clearing the room. telling advisers he wanted to speak to me alone before turning to flynn whom he fired the previous day. stressing flynn did nothing wrong with contacts with russia although he misled the vice president. i hope you can see clear to gle this go. the president denying this exchange took place. three months later. >> did you encourage james comey to close or back down the investigation into michael flynn and also as you look back -- >> no, no. next question. >> reporter: comey does not say whether he believes this was an attempt to obstruct justice, but does say the request concerned him given the fbi role as the

independent agency. after that meeting, comey writes that attorney general sessions. although he did not tell his boss that the president approached the fbi potential investigation of general flynn. two weeks earlier on january 27th, the president summoned comey to the white house asking if he wanted to stay on as the director. moments later, the president told him i want loyalty. i expect loyalty. comey said i did not move or change my facial expression in the awkward silence. you will always get honesty from me after the issue came up again. to which the president responded that's what i want. honest loyalty. >> we had a nice dinner. at that time he told me you were not under investigation. >> reporter: comey corroborating the claim that comey assured him three times he was not under fbi investigation.

describing three separate occasio occasions. the first during a meeting at trump tower on january 6th where he briefed trump about the investigations about the then president-elect and russia. the dossier came up in the phone call which trump lamented the cloud was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. he said he had not been involved with russia or involved with hookers in russia. always an sessumed he was recor in russia. during that call, comey says president trump pressured him to say he was not under investigation. he said we need to get that fact out. in that final conversation, the president again emphasizing loyalty because i have been loyal to you. we had that thing you know. that comment sure to be a big

talking point today. james comey will say he did not know what the president meant when the president said we had that thing you know. james comey will also talk about his reluctance to tell the public the president was not under investigation. james comey saying in the opening statement if he were to say that, it would create a duty to correct if the circumstances change. chris. >> all right. jessica, james comey released his opening comments to the senate committee. the president apparently likes what he has read. the president's attorney says trump feels completely and totally vindicated and ready to move forward with his agenda. cnn's joe johns live at the white house with more. it tees up the question. will today signal the end of the speculation or just the beginning? >> reporter: it sure does, chris. the white house will be watching. sara sanders, the press secretary, pointing out the

timing of the comey prepared remarks after the intelligence chief on capitol hill. they are monitoring closely. mark kasowitz put out a statement last night. it says in part, the president is pleased mr. comey has publicly confirmed his private reports that the president was not under investigation in any russian probe. the president feels completely and totally vindicated. he is ready to move forward. the committee firing up the message machine in assistance of the president. they put out among other things a list of talking points last night. saying in part, the president knew firing james comey would be detrimental to the presidency. he did it any way. for the good of the country. using the rnc is a good idea for the president because they have surrogates all over the country.

also it lends itself to frame this as political as opposed to a legal issue. the president today will speak around 12:30 at the faith and freedom coalition road to majority conference. reporters may get a chance to throw a question to the president at the infrastructure conference with mayors and governors. chris and alisyn. >> thank you, joe. we have laura coats and david gregory and phil mudd and national security analyst david sanger. david gregory. let's read for people who may not have had an opportunity to read james comey prepared statement. we were reminded this is a sworn statement. it serves as a sworn statement. this is james comey talking about michael flynn. he says that the president then said i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go. to letting flynn go.

he is a good guy. i hope you can let this go. i reply he is a good guy. i did not say i would let this go. it is fascinating. all of these are fascinating to read, david, particularly we see president trump's dedication to michael flynn who had lied to the vice president. >> that's right. in this particular case, donald trump is contradicted by his own words. he denied ever having that conversation with jim comey. he made that assertion in a press conference. the high stakes of the hearing are underlined by the question of who do you believe? do you believe the president or do you believe the fired fbi director? the man fired in the middle of the probe of the white house connections with russia. that becomes important. we read from jim comey's description of the meeting with the president which are highly inappropriate to act this way.

inappropriate is one thing. was it actually illegal? will jim comey say today what he thought those comments meant? did he think it was obstruction of justice? did he think it was potentially illegal tampering with the investigation or will he offer the facts and not offer opinion? the big question is a political one today. there is a legal one. the political one is to what extent will this testimony further erode confidence and trust in the president and his team? the president may feel vindicated by the fact he was told he wasn't investigated. it shows he is thinking about himself. there is a larger investigation that could potentially implicate those around him and cause further political damage and loss of trust in his administration. i think all of that's on tap today. >> interesting. heading into it, this notion of it being a credibility contest. the latest polls have both of the guys unbelievable. comey at 55%.

the president much higher than that. shows what a deficit of credibility we have. phil mudd. answer the main question for us here. on that statement alone, if it is true and believed, he said i hope you can find your way to stop this flynn thing. does that rise to the level of any illegality? >> it does not. what did the russians do in the electoral process and were the officials in the white house involved? comey talks about the president. he doesn't talk about the people we have talked about. paul mondanafort. the second question is whether the president is obstructing the investigation. you are a lawyer. i'm not. when i looked at this as someone who served in government. i looked at someone who walked in the oval office and looks at the fbi director and says

something inappropriate. it is that comment about flynn and backing away from the investigation. the president doesn't want the investigation to continue. the context is this is a good guy. can you get out of it? if that is the sole thing we are looking at, that is inappropriate. it is not illegal. >> let's ask laura coats. you are a lawyer. was this interference or inappropriate or new york bargaining or obstruction of justice? >> it was the former three. the instance of the president trying to throw his weight around in the attempt to influence an election. remember, influence an investigation. remember, attempting to try to do that can constitute a crime. that is not the end of the inquiry here. the reason this is important is because it is an attempt to thwart an investigation or stall one in some capacity. the end game here is not to stop at whether or not the president tried to influence the investigation or stop one.

the end game is trying to ascertain what is the actual evidence they are looking for? what is a proof of a greater crime here? obstruction is not the end game. more importantly in this contest of credibility as chris stated, you have the fbi director who is corroborating the statements of the president. he felt compelled to document, but not compelled to confront the president on the inappropriateness of the questions. he has tried to talk to the attorney general. at one point jeff sessions and then dana bente. this begs one question. when you have obstruction, it is intent of the speaker and how it is received. if he acquiesced to try to assure the president he was not doing the wrong thing or not inn appropriate, you have a harder case for any prosecutor on that charge. >> that's a good point. if comey is going to deal with that today, he will be asked a lot of questions why he did not do more if he thought that it

was so wrong. david sanger. you left a juicy one for you where they talk about this requirement of loyalty. let's put this up here. all right. president trump then said i need loyalty. i replied, you will always get honesty from me. he paused. then said that's what i want. honest loyalty. i paused. then said. you will get that from me. as i wrote in the memo i created immediately after the dinner. it is possible we understood the phrase honest loyalty differently. i decided it would be productive to push it forward. the term honest loyalty helped end a very awkward conversation. what do you make of that politically? >> well, the phrase itself is so ambiguous to make us wonder whether or not the two participants in the conversation

were even in the same planet much less in the same room. by honest loyalty. if the fbi director wants to come with honest assessment and the president considers that honesty to be disloyal, where are you? it is clear comey did this to get out of the room. i can understand why he would feel that way. the political impact, i think, of the statement is the very best thing you can say about president trump is that he did not understand why it is inappropriate for a president to be discussing an ongoing investigation, particularly one about his own administration with the fbi director. that he did it repeatedly tells you he probably didn't want to hear very much about why it would be inappropriate. and the conversation seemed to be similar, i'm sure, to ones that mr. trump held when he was

running a small business. it is just part of why he was unable to make that transition smoothly enough to understand the institutional distinction in the united states. that is the most generous, i think, interpretation of events you could make from the statements. >> i think david is incredibly generous there. it is the fact the president would behave this way is so unbecoming of the president of the united states. it is just glaring that he would ever think this is okay. you want to do that in a real estate negotiation? i don't know what that means. new york bargaining. that is offensive and f euphemistic to me. the other piece goes to comey and your point, chris. this is not a subtle guy. james comey gets in your face and let's you know if something is inappropriate. david and i covered that in the

bush administration with regard to the illegal wiretapping when ashcroft was in the hospital. i'm interested to learn why he did not interrupt the dinner and tell the president you talking about loyalty. i think we know what you are doing here. not appropriate. i'm the fbi director. i'm independent. let's not go there. that is not how this works. >> that would have been the ideal script. you know, on some level, kudos to comey for not injecting that into it. he could have written anything. this is his take on what happened. >> he put plenty of opinion. >> i'm not saying opinion. he did not make himself look as good as david gregory wishes he could. he could have stood his ground. i think he is reflecting something that doesn't make him look as good. that is more authentic. >> except if he had done it that way, many people assume he should have, it caraises the question why didn't he do

anything about it? >> he does say he did try to talk to the acting deputy attorney general about this. it is not he just kept quiet. he tried to talk to some people. >> he had the opportunity in front of the committee to talk about it and did not say anything. he was asked and said nothing. >> that will come up. >> it was disbaraging. >> no aggressive talk from any new yorkers. >> coming from new jersey. you know your place. >> we know aggressive talk. >> new jersey and new york. much more with our panel. what questions will senators have for james comey when he takes the stand in the coming hours? this is about comey today as it is about trump. next. i'm thomas and i quit smoking with chantix.

i was very grateful to have chantix. at times when i would normally go smoke, i just didn't it's kind of like "wait a minute, i would normally be running out the door to go grab a cigarette." along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. thank you chantix. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. many insurance plans cover chantix for a low or $0 copay.

oh, it's actually... sfx: (short balloon squeal) it's ver... sfx: (balloon squeals) ok can we... sfx: (balloon squeals) goodbye! oof, that milk in your coffee was messing with you, wasn't it? try lactaid, it's real milk, without that annoying lactose. good right? yeah. lactaid. the milk that doesn't mess with you. so, if anyone has a reason that these two should not be wed,

speak now. (coughs) so sorry. oh no... it's just that your friend daryl here is supposed to be live streaming the wedding and he's not getting any service. i missed, like, the whole thing. what? and i just got an unlimited plan. it's the right plan, wrong network. you see, verizon has the largest, most reliable 4g lte network in america. it's built to work better in cities. tell you what, just use mine. thanks. no problem. all right, let's go live. say hi to everybody who wasn't invited! (vo) when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited. plus, get our best smartphones for just $15 a month. i wiwhat are you doingake care oftomorrow - 10am?ut... staff meeting. 3:45? tai chi. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investmensts that worked as hard as you do? yeah. essential portfolios. the automated investing solution. the beswith neutrogena® beach? beach defense® sunscreen. helioplex™ powered, uva uvb strong. beach strength protection for the whole family. for the best day in the sun. neutrogena®.

dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia so comey released his opening remarks early. we have a sense of what he will say before the senate intelligence committee. often the questions wind up being as important as the anticipated answers. they can change everything. let's bring back david gregory and laura coats and david sanger and phil mudd. let's go through the pressing

inquiries he could get today. david gregory. give me a couple. >> did you think the president was trying to obstruct justice? did you think he was trying to shutdown the investigation? >> when he demurs and says i'll leave that up to other people. what is the follow-up? >> you put all this down how you felt about it and awkward the silence and uncomfortable it made you. we know you went to the attorney general and said don't leave me alone with this guy. you were clearly uncomfortable. oh, by the way, mr. director, you have not shied away from the conclusions of the hillary clinton investigation. as a follow-up to that, why didn't you really rattle the cage and go up the legal chain of command and say the president of the united states is out of line. i think he may have committed a crime and this investigation is compromised as a result. you know, he has to be reined in. >> phil mudd, your question for james comey.

>> one question. the president is commander in chief. it is not primarily about infrastructure. it is not primarily about health care. it is about protecting the united states. can you find one instance where the commander in chief tells the fbi director and says it is not just about me, mr. director. it is protecting the americans and the right to vote free and fair. i would like you to join me with the national security adviser about protecting america going ahead. every one of the pages is about the president. i want one sentence where james comey exercising his authority as commander in chief. i don't see it. >> david saernnger. >> chris, at any point did comey take on the assertion that the russians may have had nothing to do with this. let's remember how we got here. we got here because the russians were meddling in the election.

that would have gotten us to the question of whether or not the president was protecting the group and that including mr. flynn for their statements about it and effort to reconstruct things with russia. the second thing goes to your earlier question, chris. why didn't you stand up at some point and say mr. president, i recognize you are new to the office and don't understand yet or may not understand the limits the fbi director deals with the president. we cannot discuss ongoing investigations, particularly dealing with your administration. doesn't strike me that would have been a very difficult thing for somebody with the self assurance and background and knowledge of jim comey to come out straight out. as alisyn pointed out, he did not contend in his statement he made that effort. >> laura, your question? >> the first question i would ask is whether or not the

president's attempt to undermine the investigation actually opened up his own exposure to a personal investigation for his participation. number two, based on the dealings with comey and attorney general at that capacity sessions and dana bente. does he believe the special counsel was in place because the department of justice is powerless under this administration to do an objective investigation. it is very telling. >> these are good list of questions. i'm trying to think what comey will do. i think the biggest thing he is dealing with, david gregory, is this acquiescence. i think it might be a democrat who says, i have to tell you, you didn't play this way with hillary clinton. you sent that letter you knew everybody was going to leak. you came up and gave all these opinions about her being

reckless. you said it didn't meet a legal standard. that was the legal standard in that case. now, mum about all this. what are you so afraid of? >> right. you know, i think his underlying credibility is an issue. he is walking into a political caldrin here. we know the administration wants there to be a back up on the part of republicans. that's why i come back to phil's point which is so very important. this is about more than the president and whether he is being investigated or whether he wants jim comey to prove that dossier wrong. this is about protecting the country and why it is that the president has never seen that interested in getting to the bottom of why and how the russians meddled in the election and how to prevent it from

happening again. that should be the litmus test. >> you don't think you know the answer to that question? >> i think i know the answer to the question. i think that obsession with his own perceived legitimacy and ego are getting in the way of real leadership. the real question here. i think i know the answer to it. i think that is it at least or something worse. i just think he is not getting to where a real leader needs to get to. >> can i say this if i could? you talk about leadership. i think it should surprise everyone to know the leader of the fbi was timid when he should have been forthright and aggressive. my question is when you talk about, david and phil, did the timidity he displayed to the president of the united states affect the trump campaign? the timidity of hiding behind

the navy curtain or acquiesce where he should have been confrontational. did that timidity affect the investigation and will we see the results of that going forward that we do not have the aggressive investigation that could either stop the investigation because there is nothing there or accelerate because there is something there. >> i don't know, david sanger. we see this through our own lens as we see everything. for me, having once worked for a long time for somebody who demanded loyalty like that. sometimes these conversations one-on-one on so surreal that all you can do is leave the room and get outside of the looking glass and write it down because you just think there's nothing i can say to this person. >> i think we all have been in conversations like that where we decided to go deal with the uncomfortable issue by deflection. clearly mr. comey makes it clear in the statement that in some

cases, he just decided not to go press the issue. i think that the real question around laura's good point is whether or not comey believed that he was the firewall protecting the investigation. that by not telling those below him who were working on it about the president's pressure and president's interests here that he was just going to let that investigation play out. my guess is that is what you will hear him tell the committee. >> that's a good guess. david sanger, thank you. panel, thank you. james comey's testimony. one thing for sure. it is on today. it is must-see tv. our special coverage today at 9:00 a.m. eastern. you have anderson cooper and wolf blitzer at 9:00. comey breaks his silence at 10:00. >> we have more of the coverage of the testimony ahead. first, a suspected terrorist targeting the u.s. embassy in

ukraine's capital. we have the breaking details for you next. hi. i'm the one clocking in... when you're clocking out. sensing your every move and automatically adjusting to help you stay effortlessly comfortable. there. i can even warm these

to help you fall asleep faster. does your bed do that? oh. i don't actually talk. though i'm smart enough to. i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed. let's meet at a sleep number store. i'm leaving you, wesley. but why? you haven't noticed me in two years. i was in a coma. well, i still deserve appreciation. who was there for you when you had amnesia? you know i can't remember that. stop this madness. if it's appreciation you want you should both get snapshot from progressive. it rewards good drivers with big discounts on car insurance. i have news. i've used most of our cellular data. come on, susan lucci! ♪

breaking news. an explosive device thrown at the u.s. embassy in ukraine's capital kiev. an unidentified suspect threw the device over a fence. it detonated on embassy grounds just after midnight local time. police are calling it a terror attack. they say there are no reports of injuries. the embassy is open and aversn n investigation is under way. missing plane parts in the myanmar sea. two adults and children found with life vests. the plane lost contact wednesday. 122 people were on board. including 15 children and 58 civilians. the other passengers were military personnel. british voters heading to the polls to elect new members

of parliament. prime minister theresa may and the two liberals leading the polls. the snap election taking place in the wake of the back-to-back terror attacks. jim comey released statements a day early. now two officials give us their take on it next. cm the rer. the whisperer? why do they call him the whisperer? he talks to planes. he talks to planes. watch this. hey watson, what's avionics telling you? maintenance records and performance data suggest replacing capacitor c4. not bad. what's with the coffee maker? sorry. we are not on speaking terms. when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way.

fastsigns designed new directional signage. and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com.

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.

in just hours, james comey will testify before the senate intelligence committee. in an unusual move, comey's prepared opening remarks were released by the committee a day early at comey's request giving lawmakers time to craft questions. let's discuss this with former republican congress member and former chairman of the house intelligence committee. pete hoestra and now the director of the center, congress member harmon. congress member harmon, how unusual do you get the prepared

remarks with such detail a day before the witness shows up? >> i don't know another example of this. i gather it is at comey's request. i'm not sure comey come played. i think pete would agree. this is not reality tv. this is not house of cards. this is american democracy on trial. it is not just about trump. it is really about whether congress can thoroughly investigate the matter which it is entitled to do. did it in macarthur hearings. i think the president drives news in this direction. i think the networks do too, these days, i hate to tell you. >> meaning we shouldn't cover it? >> you should cover it. it is all about he said-he said and what is the latest tidbit. if you step back and anybody in the world, you are looking at this and thinking what has

america become? is this tryouts for president in 2020? i hope not. congress has had great moments. pete and i did not do badly a few years ago as ranking member and chairman. congress is on trial as well as the fact situation as well as american democracy. >> congress member hoekstra, what jumps out at you? >> it is great to be with jane harman. alisyn, this is the hearing in front of the intelligence committee. the investigation has supposedly all been focused or should be focused on russian intervention in our elections. it appears that there's no collusi collusion. it doesn't appear obstruction of justice. >> hang on a second, congress member. sorry to interrupt.

there is nothing here in the seven pages of the comey testimony that you think is obstruction of justice? the president is saying i sure wish you could back off the investigation into michael flynn. >> well, i'm not an attorney. again, this is in front of the intelligence committee. these are folks that are looking at issues that are going on in the intelligence community. they are not -- the role of the intelligence community is not to debate whether obstruction of justice or those types of things. it is to identify and this is what the committee should focus on. jane is right. congress is on trial here through the process as well. the american people if there is anything they want to know about this, sure. they want to know about the president's role. they are interested in what did the russians do in 2016? did it have an impact or not? that is what the intelligence committee -- they have the expertise and background to do that. a lot of the issues thro s thro

around today are the issues where the intelligence committee is not the best committee to do the job. >> go, pete. the hearing they held yesterday which should be part of the discussion is on section 702. >> the intel chiefs. >> intel chiefs. that quickly morphed into the conversation today. what did they know and unmasking and whether they were unduly pressured. that was not the topic of the hearing. that wasn't the right subject for the committee to be talking about. i was very surprised that two very senior people who had the -- who are the head of the dni and nsa did what they did. sort of go halfway in and say we were n't pressured. eager don't say anything or go into private session or tell what happened.

it felt awkward. i think the committee should have said it is awkward. >> you feel as the committees are distracted. quickly, do you believe james comey? >> this is a strange third chapter for james comey. he was very bold in the ashcroft hospital room. he was very bold and wrong last year. this year, he seems more timid. >> congress member hoekstra, do you believe james comey? >> i believe what he said. he has credibility issues with what happened over the last 18 months. especially with the hillary clinton investigation and those things. i think we have to be cautious reading too much into what he says. a lot of this is the context of how were these conversations and comments made. we don't know. we weren't in the room. >> it will be very interesting to hear what your counterparts in the senate intel committee will ask him today.

thank you very much. great to have both of you. chris. >> thank you. >> it will be an interesting match of fact and feeling. james comey's testimony. his concerns about his repeated interactions with president trump. how did he handle the situation? we discuss with members of the intel community next. i miss you babe. i wish you were here. i miss home. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ tango! for the guy who finds a way. always unstoppable. 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! so, if anyone has a reason that these two should not be wed, speak now. (coughs) so sorry. oh no... it's just that your friend daryl here is supposed to be live streaming the wedding and he's not getting any service. i missed, like, the whole thing. what? and i just got an unlimited plan. it's the right plan, wrong network. you see, verizon has the largest, most reliable 4g lte network in america. it's built to work better in cities. tell you what, just use mine. thanks. no problem. all right, let's go live. say hi to everybody who wasn't invited! (vo) when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited. plus, get our best smartphones

for just $15 a month.

a big point of scrutiny is how james comey handled interactions with the president. and in his statement that he released early, we see an inchiin insight. he said he took copious notes after each meeting. in the car outside trump tower after the meeting in january. why? comey writes i felt compelled to document the conversation with the president-elect. i typed it on the laptop the moment i walked out of the meeting. creating written records of the con vversations with mr. trump s the practice going forward.

this has not been my practice in the past. what is the right way? what does it show about comey and how he will be dealt with today? we have former members of the intel committee. former cia officer david priest. and national security program nada bakos. and cnn law enforcement analyst and special agent james galiano. this time we see the practice because he was concerned about it, but not concerned enough to do anything about it. james, that is the test for comey today. why was that the right move? >> i think he explained it inside the document, chris. inside the seven pages. his argument is i did not want to do anything to influence the

russian collusion case. if i tainted the agents doing this. i look at this as a west point graduate and putting it in a military paradigm. the president is the commander in chief. if you are the commander in chief in the military, you adhere to the code of justice. there are crimes and misdemeanors you can be charged with. anything that doesn't fit in the black and white issues is conduct unbecoming an officer. that is end all. i look at the way the president handled this. maybe there is not obstruction of justice case here. maybe that can be argued. legal scholars will do that. it was conduct unbecoming commander in chief. >> nada, how do you feel about comey taking the copious notes? >> i agree with james. separate question of obstruction of justice. this is a counter intelligence

investigation at this point whether or not russia meddled in election. this is the politicizing the investigation. >> david, you have a more basic deal here. those who know james comey. he is no shrinking violet. he may have been trying to hide grapes as he said in the meeting with the president. if it is enough to write the notes, why not push back against the president if you believe speaking truth to power? why not go up the chain? why not alert people like you did with the clinton investigation? >> i keep hearing this word timid thrown around. reading through the opening statement, it looks like he is being careful. i can understand where that care comes from. here he is as someone who is sworn, like i did as a former cia officer to defend the

constitution of the united states. not the person or the president. the constitution of the united states. most of the time, there is no conflict between the two. you hope you are never in a situation where a conflict arises. it did several decades ago when the watergate probe. that is not something that comes up every day for intelligence officer or law enforcement official. he was feeling that conflict in that room. he thought my job is to defend the constitution. is there a conflict with serving the president and constitution? what did he do as a result? he documented everything to make sure that would be on record. he did not want to take that further step which would actually affect the investigation in some way affect what the officers at the fbi were doing. that is a careful attitude and one most of us would not want to be in that situation. >> james, how would it have affected the investigation if he

said mr. president, tstop askin me that. that is out of bounds. >> alisyn, that is fair. i read my twitter feed. i can fairly critique him on this. i can say if that had been me. when i was in upstate new york fbi chief. if i was in a meeting with a small town mayor and he said, can you see to it -- i would have documented that and immediately notified my supervisor and say i need to go on record with this to let you know. >> you would not have said to the mayor, that is inappropriate? >> i will give the director the benefit of the doubt. he was so struck in the moment and mute in the moment. he got back in the car. he went back and assembled his team at the fbi. he said let's talk about this. i want you to be aware of this so no one can say he said this a week later, but doesn't remember the details.

>> here is the problem, nada. this may devolve into a got ya' moment in the senate. you think out of the box, it should be on the broader russia investigation and what was known and what happened between the president and comey and interference. comey has bad facts. on three occasions, you wound up giving comfort to the president he doesn't have to worry about himself in the investigation. >> he is not the target. >> while he was telling you about this, you wound up not doing what you did in the clinton investigation. let everybody know about your concerns and opinions. you did nothing. did that nothing reflect on the urgency you applied to the investigation overall? how would we know if that answer is fair and true coming from comey? >> i think that is spot on. i think today what we will see instead of the senate intelligence committee focusing on russia and meddling in the

election and asking comey fair questions in the public forum about that, we will probably see the really partisan effort of slicing and dicing comey's statements. if you put yourself in president trump's shoes when comey is talking to him whether or not he is a target. that context that could have been provided at the time. not only just saying you are not a target of the investigation. it really was about at this moment we are not pursuing that piece of the investigation. i can't promise you that in the future that this won't evolve into something else. >> i don't know he said that. whatever he said to the president gave rise to the president's request that you should go public with that. let people know that fact that i'm not under investigation. he gave him some comfort. >> panel, thank you very much for insight. more ahead on this very big day in washington.

james comey will testify in just about three hours. what can we expect when the fired fbi director is in the senate hot seat? that's next. (avo) come with us...

...to a new world. deeper than the ocean.

as unfathomable as the universe. a world that doesn't exist outside you... ...but within you. where breakthrough science is replacing chemotherapy with immunotherapy. where we can now attack the causes of disease, not just the symptoms. where medicines once produced for all, are now designed to fit you. today 140,000 biopharmaceutical researchers go bodly to discover treatments and cures unimaginable ten years ago... ...and are on the verge of more tomorrow.

this moves us into the nixon era. >> a day earlier from comey's request. >> what comey is describing is not a criminal case for

obstruction of justice. >> i read this and i wanted to rinse myself off afterwards. i felt completely disgusted. >> it is obstructive and looks like abuse of power. >> that is exactly what jim comey does. he is a grandstander. >> he has a right to say you will not investigate. >> if that is not obstruction of justice, i don't know what is. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> a beautiful morning in washington, d.c. as we look at a live shot of the capitol. welcome viewers from the united states and around the world. this is "new day." a dramatic day ahead on capitol hill with fired fbi director james comey taking center stage there. highly unusual move. the senate intel committee released comey's prepared remarks a day early. telling trump to lift the cloud of russia hanging