we begin with a question about the president of the united states and obstruction of justice. namely, can the president obstruct justice if he attempts to shut down an investigation into someone he knows has committed a crime.

it's a question front and center tonight because what the president seemed to admit in over the weekend and what the president's attorney said today. former nixon didn't seem to believe ament could be accused of strouking justice. here is what he said to david frost in the spring of 1977. >> when the president does it that means it's not illegal. >> the fact that richard nixon said this as an expresident foerlsed out of office as an unindicted conspiratorer in the watergate affair. and having been nearly impeached maybe that should tell you how that went over at the time. yes it's revived over the presidential tweet saturday morning. i had to fire flynn because he lied to the fbi and the vice president. he pled guilty to the lies it's a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. tlfrs nothing to hide. now that is a stunning tweet because until that tweet was sent as far as the public knew the president fired national security adviser michael flynn for lying to vice president pence about contact with the russians. yet the tweet says let's show it

again. i had to fire general flynn because he lied to the president and the fbi. now lying to the vice president certainly is ill advised but look vice presidents are problem use to do that it's not illegal. the second lying to the fbi, that is a felony. so this tweet suggests that when the president fired general flynn he knew or had reason to believe that flynn had lied to the fbi there by committing a crime. that tweet suggests that when president trump it had dinner on the 27th january. with comey and asked him for his loyalty that means the president had reason to know -- reason to believe on that night that the national security adviser had committed a crime. this tweet also suggests that on february 14th when i comey says the president asked him to drop the fbi investigation into flynn the president knew or had reason to believe that flynn had lied to comey's agents committing crime. now we have new cnn reporting that says the president was in fact advised to that effect. how did the white house come to

know that flynn had lied? well remember sally yats, the acting attorney general at the time on the 26th january yats made an urgent appointment to bereave don mcgann about what she knew of flynn's kwakt certifyingia are sergei kizlyak. she spoke about it exclusively with me though declined to give specifics. >> when were you first made aware that general flynn was lying aboutis had interactions with the russian ambassador? >> well, first let me say i know that this may seem artificial to folks. i can't really talk about what general flynn's underlying contact was because that's wasted on classified infection. >> 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 started coming out of the white house based on misrepresentations he had made to people there. >> so two weeks went by after

yates poke to the white house before flynn was forced out for lying toe the vice president about his contacts with the russians. that's the reason the white house said they fired flynn. now a source familiar with the matter tells gnaws don mcgann after speaking with yates briefed the president telling him based on his conversation with yates he believed that flynn had not told the truth in the interview with the fbi. we dough know it happened in january. this means that when the president allegedly asked james comey to go easy on flynn he may have known or at least had reason to believe that flynn had committed a felony. and that means this tweet on saturday could provide additional evidence he obstructed justice. which may explain why the white house especially the personal attorney john doud has been doing damage control regarding that two-wheel .doud first saying that the part in the tweet referring to lying to the fbi wasn't a new admission was merely par phrasing what was in white house attorney ty cob's statement about general flynn's

guilty plea. then there was another explanation. doud said he not the president was the one who wrote the tweet acknowledging it was sloppily worded process today the he didn't wrietd it nar fif the new narrative isn't only that president trump didn't obstruct justice it's to baier o from richard nixon four decades ago that a president can't obstruct justice. mr. dowd telling the news cyte the axe owe that the president can't obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement offers unthe constitution article 2 and has every right to express his view of any case. in a moment our legal panel weighing in we have other russia related storien on this related to paul mafrpt and for striking behavior for someone on bail. also an item used by the president is a as mm ammunition to attack the fbi and mueller. also more on this that a significant portion of the account that accompanied general flynn's guilty plea was contradicted by his former deputy kay tee mcfarland that

happened in congressional testimony. man ewe rambling ewe is on capitol hill with more >> kay tee mcfarland was nominated to be the singapore ambassador. during the confirmation hearings before the senate foreign relations committee is she was asked about conversations she may have had michael flynn related to sergei kizlyak. i'll read you exactly what was sent in a written question from senator cory booker. he said did you ever discuss any of general flynn's contacts with russian ambassador sergei kizlyak directly with general flynn? now in response mcfarland wrote back i am not aware of any of the issues are or events as described above. according to her july response. what we learned on friday from the court documents that were unsealed in the flynn case in which he pleaded guilty it says that there was a senior transition official who discussed with flynn how to approach the idea of these new sanctions that had been imposed by the obama administration in

late december with kizlyak. now, we have learned separately that that senior transition official who is named in those court documents was in fact kay tee mcfarland her testimony before committee at part of the confirmation hearings appears to contradict what bob mueller in the special counsel released on friday as part of their court documents that was -- that was signed by michael flynn as par of this plea agreement. this is all raising new questions anderson on capitol hill whether or not kay tee mcfarland was kugt ugt truthful with the senate foreign releases committee but her version of events is that she didn't recall. but according to the documents and according to bob mueller there was the communications that occurred with michael flynn about sergei kizlyak. >> members of the senate foreign relations committee do they want to speak to mcfarland against. >> the democrats are concerned. booker himself putting out a statement telling us that he believe she gave false testimony

before the committee. and the top exact on the senate foreign releases committee ben cardin told me separately he has concerns about her before she moves forward for a full senate vote and wants her to clarify the testimony before the entire senate actually debates and votes on her noms. now we have -- the decision will ultimately be made by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. it's uncertain what he will decide to do about her nomination and the chairman of the senate foreign releases committee right now is of course bob corker who of course is sparred with the president. we have not heard from him yet about this matter. but clearly democrats are raising some concerns tonight, anderson. >> report. man ewe thank you very much. joining sus california congressman adam schiff ranking democrat on the intelligence committee. >> is the statement a false statement. >> it appears to have been a false statement if she wroen are wrote in the written response to

the oral testimony that she wasn't aware of the discussions and in fact those reports are accurate that she was one of those senior transition officials, then yes it's a false statement. now i don't know who the senior transition officials are. that has been publicly reported but that's not something i can tell you from our investigation. we want her to come before the house intelligence committee. i think that's going to be very important. but, yes, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that if she said to the senate i'm not aware of the conversations, and she was one of those senior transition officials and the emails if they're accurate that have been publicly released, it certainly appears that was a directly false representation to the senate. >> now that president trump has seemed to confirm that he knew michael flynn lied to the fbi or had reason to believe he lied to the fbi when he asked former fbi director to drop the investigation in your view does that amount to obstruction ever justice and do you believe the president can be charged with obstruction of justice. >> it's certainly evidence that fwoes to obstruction of justice.

and yes i believe the president is no more above the law than any other american. it would be an absurd result to say that the president could interfere with an investigations involving himself or others potentially and that he is immune from any repercussion. i don't think the congress which would ultimately make that decision whether this rises to the level of crime or misdemeanor, i don't think that congress would ever tolerate a president willfully obstructing justice and say, no he is above the law we can't do anything about it. the fact that he has the power to fire the fbi director doesn't mean that he has the power to fire him for an illicit reason. anymore that any employer can fire a employee for the employee's refusal to do sog wrng or based on other illicit motivate. >> even if the mueller were to determine that the president obstructed justice. a censure or impeachment is up

to republicans in congress. they haven't shone an appetite for anything like that. >> i don't think there is a constitutional bar to the special counsel actually dieting a sitting president. but there are lots of reasons why that wouldn't happen. rather he would make a report to congress that might say this is what i found and if you found evidence of obstruction here is the evidence you'll have to weigh whether you think that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. now, anderson, i tried an impeachment case in the senate some years ago when i was on the house jshdary medicate and impeached a federal judge. there is a legal stad what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. but there is a practical standard as well. in this congress that practical standard is would republican members ever go back to their republican districts and be able to make the case that what the president did was so wrong that he had to be removed from office? and this wasn't simplery about nullifying an election that others didn't like. that's a high bar but in president is capable of clearing

that bar if he was actively involved in trying to obstruct a dsh of an investigation that he believed might lead back to him. >> just lastly there is new reporting today that paul mafrpt was ghost writing an unpublished editorial on ukraine with a russian who has ties to russian intelligence. mueller's office is arguing that this violates the terms of manafort's bail. do you think it does. >> well if the condition of bail was mot making public statements that could influence the imimpartial alt of a public jury. it's hard to imagine a more bone headed move if he did process this. and i have to think that unless he has really incompetent counsel his counsel put muster not have been aware he was doing this. because he would have certainly advised manafort not to go near russians and certainly not to be creating op-eds and ghost writing them. there is no better way to end up having your bail revoked and- and your liberty confined.

i can't imagine the circumstances that manafort thought this was a good idea. but i would say the special counsel has of a awfully good case to make why this bail condition ought ob to be revoked. >> the bail agreement would have freed manafort from house arrest and gps monitoring do you think the conditions should be off the table right now. >> if he wrote this or ghost wrote an op-ed and he was trying to place this in clear violation of the court's instruction then i think he is dead in the water in terms of getting any further relax aches of conditions of effectively home confinement. so i have to imagine that a judge is not going to take in lightly at all, having appeared before a great many federal judges when i was a prosecutor. the last thing they want to learn that someone shaef given a generous bail condition to has violated the terms of that. and effectively tried to conceal it from the court. >> yes, congressman schiff i prem appreciate your time thank

you. coming up next the legal panel weighs on why the president's actions can be called obstruction of justice and later my exclusive conversation with a woman who are the reported settled a 84,000 sexual harassment claim with a congressman about how she pursued justice even though warned it could ruin her career. jay chooses to run every day. no matter what it brings. or where he is. and pain doesn't hold him back. thanks to dr. scholl's running insoles. the only ones proven to relieve and prevent pain from runner's knee, shin splints and plantar fasciitis. dr. scholl's. born to move.

♪ ♪ give a little bit ♪ ♪ give a little bit... -hello. ♪ give a little bit... ♪ ... of your love to me oh, haha. ♪ there's so much that we need to share ♪ ♪ so send a smile and show that you care ♪ ♪ i'll give a little bit of my love to you ♪ aleve direct therapy. the only remote controlled tens device that's drug free, wire free for deep penetrating lower back pain relief. and now get aleve direct therapy. available at walmart.

i'm an outdoorsman. so i've asked chase sapphire reserve cardmembers to find my next vacation. chile, what's going on? i'm at the el tatio geysers. geezer. geyser. geezer. geyser. enough. geezer. whoaa, wooooo. dude, be careful. i think you should come camping. why would i camp in the atacama desert? oh... 3x points on travel and restaurants on every continent. sapphire reserve, from chase. make more of what's yours. you're more than just a bathroom disease.. you're a life of unpredictable symptoms. crohn's, you've tried to own us. but now it's our turn to take control with stelara® stelara® works differently for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis.

before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion, and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. we're fed up with your unpredictability. remission can start with stelara®. talk to your doctor today. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for stelara®. the president's perm attorney says his client cannot obstruct justice because he is the president. he cites article two of the constitution which case says the president is the executive branch which is necessary for the government to function and an indictment would cripple the operation attention of government which would penalize the american people and not just the president. there is a lot of debate about this including amongst jeff tuben and former attorney

general and kelly cord row she teaches lou georgetown university. >> can he obstruct justice, ken. >> the question of whether the president can be indicted for anything while owes president walks obstruction of justice, bang robbery anything is really unresolved. the the supreme court never addressed that. what is clear is that the congress and house of representatives can find that the president obstructed justice in an quichement proceeding. that's what the house of representatives found against bill clinton that's what the house jshdary committee found against richard nixon. john doud's point that the president can't obstruct justice is krerly wrong. but the forum where that can be resolved, that is unclear. >> ken can be, do you agree with jeff. >> i do agree with jeff with one caveat. i assume that doud was referring to the ordinary criminal justice

process, not impeachment. impeachment has much wider latitude. it's not limited to what we normally think of as felonies, criminal offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors is ultimately subject to political judgment to a great degree, as congressman schiff referenced earlier. but i do think it would be very hard in the ordinary criminal justice system to find a president obstructing justice within the federal system. but, again, i agree with jeff, this is completely unresolved as a matter of existing case law in the united states. so we're in a no man's land from a legal perspective. but, again, people as you know significant on the left as allen dershowitz have said similar things to what doud said in the president's right-hand man in terms of these sorts of things.

>> kari where do you stand. >> so it is an unsettled area of law. there just hasn't been a circumstance where we've had to actually see how it would play out. here is sort of as a practical matter how this could go forward, though. so the special counsel -- let's say the special counsel's investigation uncovers facts that in their judgment -- the special counsel's judgment would make a reasonable charge of obstruction. and a prosecutor can't bring a charge of any type of crime, a federal prosecutor unless they believe they have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. so if the special counsel's office thinks they can do that then they have several options. they they can either bring the actual charge and this unsettled issue actually would be litigated. >> unsettled, yes. >> or the special counsel could make some kind of report that would go to congress that then would provide an impetus for them to do an impeachment inquiry.

or the special counsel wsh another option is they could sort of hold the indictment for when the president is not in office. but the most likely scenario, i think, where most legal experts agree, is that if the special counsel were to bring a charging document that that probably would then trigger reaction in congress. >> congress. >> but, anderson, it just -- it's worth remembering that both leon jaworski, the watergate prosecutor within and starr in the werth. the famous starr with all the dirty parts. basically they dumped the problem in the house of representatives' lap. the big difference in beth of those was the. sigs party controlled the house of representatives. under nixon democrats had thes house. under clinton republicans had the house. now with republicans in charge of the house of representatives there is nothing as far as i can tell that mueller would tell

them that mueller could tell them that would lead them to lead any sort of impeachment inquiry here. >> can, i mean within cnn is reporting that the white house counsel told flynn he had left the fbi prior to asking comey to drop the investigation. does that change nirp the president's exposure to this charge whether to congress or whomever. >> no, not substantially. i mean obviously it becomes one subject ever inquiry. nonetheless, what -- what flynn pled to was rying about something that was illegal with what was illegal was doing the lying. >> i guess the question is if the president new that he had lied to the fbi and then. >> right. >> tells mueller dr. platz the investigation about somebody who -- i'm sorry tell comey drop the investigation knowing that -- that flynn had lied, that doesn't raise the stakes in your mind. >> i think the exact quote was go easy on flynn something

though that effect. i mean we can look back not too far to a case i followed closely with david petraeus. a history like michael flynn. i was surprised with hout how lightlily treat david petraeus was. and i don't think you're in the same category of ordering someone to drop a case versus go easy on him. does it sound great? i don't think it does. but i also don't think it sounds like obstruction of justice. >> yef, does it sound like obstruction of justice to you. >> well it sure does. i mean, remember, he is the base of jim -- of jim comey. and he knows. >> yet he didn't give an order. >> well, you know when the president of the united states in a private dinner one-on-one says go easy on somebody, i think that's pretty close to an order. when he doesn't go easy on him what happens to jim comey? jim comey gets fired. which is an even more egregious

example of obstruction of justice. so i don't think you can look at one isolated piece of evidence. when you look at the fact that he asked comey to go easy on him. comey didn't. and then he fired comey. injury that sets out a very compelling case. >> kari, to you, are you. >> waits, wait if i could intersection. >> anderson, so. >> hold on kari. >> yes there is anderson there is something odd about the events over the last couple of days. it's sort of hard to understand how it is that the president would be informed that flynn lied in his fbi investigation. sally yates the former attorney general testified before congress that she did not actually inform the white house counsel that flynn had lied. so either mcgann the white house counsel inferred that from conversation with her and then communicated that to the president. or the other -- any other

channel that the president might have learned that really is very unclear. so this whole sort of scenario over this tweet over the weekend is just very unusual and difficult to understand what actually transpired and who knew %-pw into question the role of the white house lawyers and whether or not they can continue to be effective if they are really become fact witnesses in any potential obstruction inquiry. >> ken and then we got to go. >> yeah, i would certainly agree with the being dragged in at the factual level that kari maid the point of. but i would also note we were talk about particular incidents. flynn did not do anything -- i'm sorry comey did not do anything with respect to flynn per se before trump fired him. so -- you know the comment that comey didn't go easy on flynn and so he was fired i don't think those two -- those ohs don't add up at the time of the firing. and i would agree with allen

dershowitz with respect to the comey firing in particular, that can be done by the president that's a exercise of constitutional authority. and if there is any review of that it shouldn't -- and i don't believe it can be done in the criminal justice system. it can only be done via congress. >> right, ken, he jeffrey, kari cord roe as we mentioned there is one comparison that the administration can't shake. watergate keeps coming up. the latest example the president can't obstruction obstruct justice. we'll get into that with an journalist all ngs things watergate carl bernstein. at fidelity, our online planning tools are clear and straightforward so you can plan for retirement while saving for the things you want to do today. -whoo! while stuff happens. things when you have a cold... [ sneeze ] shut down cold symptoms fast

with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels. ♪ tired of sore throat lozenges that only last a short time? try new alka-seltzer plus sore throat relief. the melts dissolve quickly. plus, the powerful pain reliever provides long-lasting relief for up to six hours. try new alka-seltzer plus.

we that's why at xfinityic. we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now with instant text and email updates you'll always be up to date.

you can easily add premium channels so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for. because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today. we've been talking tonight about the idea that the president cannot be charged with obstruction ever justice because he is. . that idea has brought up before. here is richard nixon talking to david frost in 1977. >> when the president does it that means it's not illegal. >> joining me now to discuss

carl bernstein who won the pull it'ser prize for the coverage of watergate. we've been careful carl with the comparisons to we agree. does that sound nixonen to you. >> nixon said that after he had been forced to leave office for exactly the reasons that he did obstruct justice among other things. richard nixon was a criminal president who abused his authority in secret throughout his presidency and had to leave office because of it. donald trump by contrast is a president of the united states who has claimed authoritiarian powers for himself and exercised them not in secret but openly. and now because of that is looks like he may well have obstructed justice among other possibly illegal acts. what you're seeing is we had a cover-up in watergate in which the president of the united states presided over that cover-up to hide his own criminality. now we have a cover-up in which

the president of the united states seems to be presiding over it. and we don't know yet for what reasons and exactly what he has covered up. but his susceptibility to being held accountable for obstruction of justice is out there. and evident. and it looks like there is a plausible case that this might happen. >> although as jeff tuben pointed out in the last block with nixon he had -- he had a house which was under democratic control. i mean assuming the house stays in the control of the republicans it's a very different scenario. >> it is. because the big difference in watergate and now the -- that the heroes of watergates were buy and large republicans who had the courage to say, this is not about ideology. this is about illegality. this is not a republican. this is about a criminal president who abused his authority. the republicans today on capitol hill seem to have no such willingness to say these things, though, in private they are the ones who are saying that the

president is both unfit, very often and unstable. and does not have the requisite abilities to exercise the powers of the presidency in a competent manner. and we're hearing that increasingly. so we have never heard that about nixon, that nixon lacked competence, that he lacked intelligentle ability and ignorant of history. we have all the strands coming together with donald trump a unprecedented presidency being accused both of illegality and incompetence. >> well, i mean if watergate was the case the cover-up being worse than the crime do you believe that's. >> not true. >> not true. >> it's not true. the -- the cover-up was secondary. the crime was a terrible abuse of authority. and including trying to undermine free elections in the united states in which richard nixon and deputies tried to engineer who the democratic nominee would be for president of the united states through a

series of sabotage and dirty tricks, and now we have a president of the united states in which it is claimed the russians enabled him and he helped enable the russians to make him president of the united states. we don't know yet if that is true. that's what part of in investigation is about. also, we are no where near the part of mueller's investigation to where jaworski, the special prosecutor in watergate was after two years. we are just seeing a tiny piece of what mueller has done. and that tiny piece is ugly, insidious, a shows a willingness of the president of the united states to preside over a cover-up, whether it's illegal and an obstruction of justice, we'll find out. >> yeah. >> but the conduct of donald trump in office has we have seen it publicly is much more egregious than we publicly saw nixon's conduct certainly up to

the time that he fired the special prosecutor in saturday night massacre. >> we have a conjohn dean he was the white house counsel for nixon. pled guilty to obstruction charge. is there a john dean potentially in the -- in the orbit of this white house? >> well, the other night on the air john was on and i was on with john dean. and i said, john dean, is general flynn the john dean of donald trump's presidency? and the campaign? and dean said, well, certainly flynn knew more than i, john dean knew about the conspiracy going into watergate. dean, however, presided -- helped nixon preside over the cover-up. we don't know yet that flynn helped trump preside over the cover up. we only know -- let me put my hands up here a tiny bit so far about this conspiracy that mueller has outlined. but we can see he is outlining a

real conspiracy to obstruct justice, to enable a large number of players just like in watergate under nixon, to be found guilty perhaps, certainly indicted. for a conspiracy to undermine all kinds of democratic processes through illegal accuracy a and perjuryious conduct and now we are seeing potentially perjury or k.t. mcfarland among others. >> carl bernstein thank you very much. the fbi agent removed from the mueller investigation why what he did during the clinton email proposal probe giving ammunition for the special counsel right now. happy. in love. and saving so much money on their car insurance by switching to geico... well, just look at this setting. do you have the ring? oh, helzberg diamonds. another beautiful setting.

i'm not crying. i've just got a bit of sand in my eyes, that's all. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. hi, i'm just looking at my account, and i've got all this extra cash back. yep. that's your cashback match. only discover will automatically match all the cash back new cardmembers earn at the end of their first year. you matched everything i earned this year? yeah. whoo! more money! more money! it's all very exciting. i'm going to spread the news! spread it wide! it's cashback match people! people! you know that. you all work here. new cardmembers get a dollar-for-dollar match at the end of their first year. only from discover.

a lot of breaking news ton. we are learning more about the fbi agent dpilsed from robert mueller's investigation. the top counterintelligence expert was taken off the time after sending text messages of messages critical of trump. he made an exchanges to comey public statement on the clinton kmel investigation. what are you learning about the agent's roll in the email investigation. >> we are talking about one of the fbi's top russian counterinterrelation experts now under scrutiny as the white house pushing claims of political bias in ongoing russia probe. peter strzok led the hillary clinton email investigation. for several weeks this summer worked on the special counselor's robert mueller team. he was removed this past summer after an internal investigation found private messages that he had send that appeared to mock president trump. now we have learned that during the clinton probe last year he -- he is the fbi official who

changed a key phrase in how the fbi described clinton's handling of classified information. electronic records show that strzok changed language. as describing clinton axes to grossly negligent to extremely careless process here is comey uting that he had indicated team to explain i which wipe clinton was cleared. >> although we did not find clear evidence that secretary clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information. >> so the changes -- the change there wasn't a small thing. the federal law on handling of classified material includes criminal penalties for gross negligence. extremely careless doesn't have the same legal significance, anderson. we are told by official that is the drafting process was a team effort. the handful of people reviewed

the language as editing changes were made. the fbi declined to comment for the story anderson. >> you're learning more about the fbi agent role in the investigation into investigation during the election. >> we have learned that strzok was the fbi official who signed the document or the memo that officially opened the investigation into the russian meddling of the 2016 election. former and current officials tell us this isn't surprising. he was the number two official in the counterintelligence division with strzok was considered one of the bureau as top experts on russia. all of this is now likely to add to the political fire storm over the russia investigation. you know the white house and congressional republicans want the fbi to provide documents because they think that there could be some political bias not only in the handling of the clinton investigation anderson but also in the trump investigation. >> all rightive rein perez thank you fop. >> jeffrey tuben. michael capito and democratic strategist. how big is the difference between gross negligence and

extreme carelessness. >> well it can be significant. but i think we're sort of missing the point. that's on james comey. comey said it. comey understands the difference. and he is the one who made the decision not to use the gross negligence term, be instead -- and instead to say extremely careless. ewe know whoever drafted is irrelevant. i think the text messages are a problem. but as for what comey said that's on comey not on -- not on some password knit. >> paul, i mean this seems like it would give the president at the very least an argument that both the clinton email probe and the russia investigation are to use his parless rigged. >> but just everything gives him an argument to attack hillary clinton. he couldn't get through the day without it. the statement itself that the agent helped to draft was an outrage. the fbi director is not allowed by justice department guidelines to take an innocent american one he decided not to charge and then call a national press

conference and trash her. fws a total violation of justice department guidelines it was a outrage and hurt hillary clinton politicly. the fbi job is to investigate and refer. they have career professionals. impress. i hate the president attacks them process pu but the statement who ever crafted it did enormous damage to hillary clinton politic will i which is not the fbi job. they're not the federal bureau of politics. 11 days before the election comey tilted the election to donald trump by attacking hillary clinton again about email sfloos michael what do you make about jeff's argument this is more about what comey ended up saying rather than what this guy suggested he said. >> i don't think that's very credible. when we heard this language they were carefully using in the statements before the end of the election we knew that he meant gross negligence. he knew they were avoiding using the terms because they did so directly to the statute. and so to say just shrug and say it was some person who drafted the message i think that's not credible. this guy was the head of

counterintelligence. he is the one who staerted the russia investigation and appropriate think for him in his position. but now we hear from other news organization that is he may have actually participated in the interview of general flynn. as well as texting antitrump messages to his lover who was also a member of the mueller investigation. you know, this is not a good look for mueller. it's giving the president what he is looking for all the president's supporters are looking at this with a gim let eye. i think mueller has a lot of explaining to do. >> jeff, according to the fbi protocol agents -- they're allowed to express opinions as an video visitly and publicly on political subjects. and candidates. was this breaking any rule, though? it certainly doesn't seem wise or appropriate that somebody engaged in an investigation would be sending messaging even priefrtly like this. >> it's not -- it's not -- it's not wise given the political sensitives but let's be career. apparently text messages between two people who know each other.

this wasn't exactly a campaign speech on a street corner. but, look, it is the first chink in mueller rmer. he has been bullet proof so far. and fox news has something to run with onto say mueller is a political operative and they're running with it. i don't think it's major. i don't think it's serious. i don't think it has anything to do with what james comey said which is james comey's responsibility not some password knits. but it is -- it does create a problem and does give mueller's critics something to talk about into paul is it fair to mueller supporters to be saying this was just some guy on the staff when that's sort of the argument that this the kwhous has been making about whether it's papadopoulos or flynn or manafort and the democrats have been attacking the white house for -- for that. >> well mr. papadopoulos kefzed to crimes mr. manafort is charged with crimes. it's very, very different from

sending an unwise text message in private. but this is what is striking about it. as soon as apparently as mr. mueller learned about it he sent the guy off to siberia. aka the human resources dp. got him off the investigation. just for a private text message. that's how high mr. mueller's ethical standards seems seem to be. the republicans want to trash him good luck with that. because this fwie runs a very tight ship. he doesn't leak the way other special counsels have. he apparently has a high standard. even if you send a private text to someone satisfy seeing i don't like donald trump you're out. this guys has had an kebecable standard for integrity what do you say to paulary argument. >> we also know the chairman of the house intelligence committee is accuseding the formerly director of stonewalling their investigation into this matter. and for months now they've been trying to find out who this mysterious person was and why they were released in the

summertime they were not able to find anything. we are just finding out now. maybe he did do something quickly. but then it appears that the house couldn't find out what he had done and way he had done it. there is oolts of questions to be asked and answered here. i think we're seeing those in front of the house intelligence committee at least. >> michael capito. jeffrey michael. thank you. cnn exclusive interview i'll speak to a staffer for blake fahrenthold who says he sexually harassed her at her work and how she is breaking silence explaining why she filed suit even though people told her it would be career suicide. that's drug free, wire free for deep penetrating lower back pain relief. and now get aleve direct therapy. available at walmart. america's small business owners. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes, who use their expertise to keep those businesses covered. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes behind the heroes,

who brought us delicious gyros. actually, the gyro hero owns vero's gyros, so he should have been with those first heroes. ha ha! that's better. so, to recap -- small business owners are heroes, and our heroes help heroes be heroes when they're not eating gyros delivered by -- ah, you know what i mean. you're more than just a bathroom disease.. you're a life of unpredictable symptoms. crohn's, you've tried to own us. but now it's our turn to take control with stelara® stelara® works differently for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion, and vision problems.

these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. we're fed up with your unpredictability. remission can start with stelara®. talk to your doctor today. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for stelara®.

why did you take credit card debt on? second kid. private school. medical bills. moving costs. solid ground. a personal loan from sofi is a smart way to consolidate credit card debt. certain borrowers cut their credit card interest rates 42% and increased credit scores 17 points on average. borrow up to $100,000 with low rates and no hidden fees. find your rate in just two minutes, and take on your debt at sofi.com.

some more breaking news tonight. congressman john conyers will make an announcement tomorrow morning about his future in congress. as pressure is building for him to resign after sexual misconduct allegations came to light. meanwhile, we're also learning new details about harassment allegations against texas republican congressman, blake farenthold. according to politico, he reportedly settled an $84,000 sexual harassment claim from a former staffer. it wasn't his money he used to pay the claim, it was yours, taxpayer dollars paid that $84,000. according to a complaint, his former communications director, lauren green, says congressman farenthold told her that he was estranged from his wife and had not had sex with her in years. then she says another staffer told her that the congressman said he had sexual fantasies and wet dreams about her. in the complaint, green also said farenthold would make comments about her appearance or wardrobe and then joked that he hoped that it didn't constitute sexual harassment. as part of the settlement, both

the congressman and green signed confidentiality agreements which bar each from speaking about any specifics of the case. here's what congressman farenthold told a local cnn affiliate in corpus christi, texas. >> i was completely exonerated by oce and the settlement agreement has been paid. i've been doing my best and am going to hand a check over this week to probably speaker ryan or somebody, and say, look, here's the amount of my settlement. give it back to the taxpayers. i want to be clear that i didn't do anything wrong, but i also don't want the taxpayers to be on the hook for this. and i want to be able to talk about it and fix the system, without people saying, blake, you benefitted from the system. you don't have a right to talk about it or fix it. >> i spoke with green just before air for her first interview since this news broke. here's that conversation. there's obviously a lot of stuff you cannot say because of the confidentiality agreement and i certainly understand that. can you just talk about your

decision to come forward. how difficult was that or was it difficult at all at the time? >> it was certainly a difficult decision to make. i really just felt that i had to stand up for myself. i just thought that i would have regretted it for the rest of my life if i didn't. and i just felt that it was extremely important that i stand up for myself. >> difficult decision because of concerns of how other people would react? concerns for your career? >> concerns for my career. you know, i was told that, you know, if i pursued with this, then my career on capitol hill would be over and that was all i knew. you know -- >> you'd started out as an intern. >> i did. >> so you'd worked your way up? >> i did. to communications director and was there for five years. so this was all i knew. and you know, i was told, yeah, like, if you -- this would be career suicide. >> was it? i mean, what's happened since then? have you been able to get work in politics? >> as soon as i decided to do

this, i kind of had to come to the conclusion that d.c. was no longer going to be in the cards. >> really? it's that -- it's that big a step that you feel like this is no longer going to be an option? >> right, i mean, that was some -- the feedback that i got that also i just knew that this potentially could -- there would be media surrounding it, like all of that. like, just staying in d.c. is not an option for me. >> what has been the long-term impact? or has there been one? >> it's stagnated my career a bit. i would say it's been hard to kind of find that next step. i've had, you know, a lot of short-term employment and, you know, to a lot of temp work. you know, which has been great, but, yeah, i just haven't been able to get back to where i was. you know, which is unfortunate. and you know, i have reason to believe that there have been a couple of jobs i haven't gotten, you know, because they kind of,

they googled my name or -- >> and that comes up. >> right. and i think it somehow is perceived as a negative. and, so, you know, so you have that against you. and -- but, luckily -- or fortunately, i would say, i feel like the time -- the climate is changing so much in that i'm not as scared of that anymore. you know? like, i think before, that was a big concern of mine, you know -- >> you feel that people's understanding of what can happen -- >> right. >> has changed? >> right. right. i would say so. i think what is going on right now, it's more than a moment. i think it's a reckoning. and, we're having these conversations that have been needed to be had. you know, and they're happening at the dinner table. you know, they're happening in the office place. and you know, i just think america is having this dialogue right now. >> and you really think it's not just a moment, that it is a reckoning? >> yeah. it's more than a moment. because a moment is fleeting. and this doesn't feel fleeting. >> you think that this will have

long-lasting impacts? >> i think so. i do. i mean, i think you already see change, you know, happening, and people being held accountable. you know, people in power who, you know, have abused their power or, you know, the offenders. >> you are under a confidentiality clause, which is one of the reasons that you can't talk about details of what you allege, even stuff that's in the lawsuit, in the complaint. if -- and the congressman, congressman farenthold, released a statement on friday saying, quote, while i 100% support more transparency with respect to claims against members of congress, i can neither confirm nor deny that settlement involved my office as the congressional accountability act prohibits me from answering that question. so he says he supports transparency. if he was willing to waive confidentiality, would you be willing to waive confidentiality as well? >> absolutely. >> so you would -- if he was willing to waive confidentiality, you would waive your confidentiality agreement so you could speak about what

actually happened and what allegations you say actually happened? >> i would. i mean, i have nothing to hide. i think, you know, i felt i've done the right thing. i've stood up for myself. and, you know, i think transparency is important. you know, and while it may, you know, open myself up or -- you know, to more scrutiny, i think it's something that -- i mean, transparency is extremely important, you know? >> lauren, thank you very much. >> thank you. when we come back, more on our top story tonight. claims from the president's attorney that the president is above the law. and a lot of questions about what top michael flynn aide, k.t. mcfarland, told congressional investigators. [ coughing ] when you have a cold... stuff happens. [ sneeze ]

shut down cold symptoms fast with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels. ♪ tired of sore throat lozenges that only last a short time? try new alka-seltzer plus sore throat relief. the melts dissolve quickly. plus, the powerful pain reliever provides long-lasting relief for up to six hours. try new alka-seltzer plus. when food is good and clean and real, it's ok to crave. and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be.

whentrust the brand doctors trust for themselves. nexium 24hr is the number one choice of doctors and pharmacists for their own frequent heartburn. and all day all night protection. when it comes to frequent heartburn, trust nexium 24hr.

with the possible exception of the ridiculist, breaking news fills the hour, cnn has learned the president knew or had reason to know earlier than we've been led to believe that then national security adviser michael flynn had misled the fbi about contacts with russia. we're also learning that flynn's former deputy gave testimony to congress that contradicts some of what flynn pleaded guilty to. on top of that, paul manafort now faces his bail being revoked for contact with a russian. we begin with what the president knew about michael flynn, though, lying to the fbi, and when he knew it. a question that this tweet on saturday certainly prompted. quote, i had to fire general flynn because he lied to the vice president and the fbi. he's pled guilty to those lies. it's a shame, because his actions during the transition were lawful. there was nothing to hide. now, the sentence about the fbi was news to many people and a fresh controversy for the white house.