this is "trump one year later." political and legal aftershocks in the wake of the devastating one-two punch absorbed by the trump white house this week. >> i'm jim sciutto. >> i'm pamela brown, first rev vagss from a tell all look raising questions about the russia investigation and president trump's fitness for office. >> then the second blow, potential evidence obtained by robert mueller all pointing to a possible obstruction of justice case. and new reporting tonight, a

senior official saying white house officials were involved in the effort to persuade attorney jeff sessions not to rescues themselv -- recuse himself from the investigation. among those anticipated in the white house and justice department. earlier today, cnn was told by a source close to sessions that white house council reached out to try dissuading him from the russian investigation. let's get right to the panel of experts evan, we'll go to you first. now that you know we'll have these other senior administration officials involved, is it reasonable to conclude he would want to interview them? >> i don't know if they were asked about this already, but if they don't, i think the internet

of robert mueller is to figure out if there was something being done that could obstruct this investigate. i think it goes certainly to this part of the question, but for the white house, for president trump, more importantly, i think what he cares more about is the people that are closer to him. his son-in-law and his son. you will see bigger and more alarm coming to the white house. >> and as far as we know that has not happened yet. >> you look at this, is there legal jeopardy for members of the president's team that would have been involved in this outreach. >> it depends, if it was an effort to say to the attorney general do you think the regulations require this? can we talk about it? the white house council is really the only person under the regulation that is supposed to

talk to the attorney general on matters that involvement white house and the doj. that is the communication set up. that is why there was a problem when president trump wanted to talk to comey because he bypassed white house council. can we talk about it, maybe it is not so bad. but if it says i don't care what the regulation is, your not stepping back, mueller will crucify me. that is more problematic, and he will want to look at that in the conte context. >> in the beginning if we remember he went back to the trump team came into the office, he wasn't wanted to win, he didn't have a lot of people in the gop with him, and he brought that attitude in to the white

house, they have been under staffed and overmanned the entire time there. the fact they had conversations, many of them had conversations is not surprising because they had such small numbers to make any decision, they had to have a lot of people involved. that was not worrisome in and of itself. at some point in time, the president said hey, you have to bail me out and protect me, then yeah, you got a little problem there. and that's where we're at. >> and i want to bring in jack kingston. we know the russia probe was weighing heavily on president trump. he said as much to the oval office to the russians saying it took pressure off that he fired comey. how can you come up with any other explanation that he fired comey because of the russia probe to take pressure off. >> i think the president can

fire an fbi director without cause. they have a ten-year term. it is unusual to fire them. clinton fired one of his, but i think for the statements they made later, originally the question was raised by harry reid in the campaign when he said did he violate the hatch act by influencing an election and getting involved with it. john po john podesta. >> trump praised james comey. you put all of the pieces of the puzzle together and that is not why. >> why do they always go back to hillary. >> it is historically accurate -- >> he stands -- >> i'm sorry, but the law has not changed.

hillary clinton raised the point, the law was not changed. here is what i can tell you. >> what about president trump and what he did. >> i don't know you get so excited when we bring up hillary clinton. >> he is the president. i can't believe it. >> let's bring up warren g. harding. >> today must have been a terrible day -- i guess so, that's why we're continuing to look at -- >> prosecuted as well. a pros kus them. hillary clinton is a relevant person and the previous administration is relevant. and comey is also relevant. i think he could fire james comey without it being that i'm going to torpedo this investigation. you could do it because of the way he is conducting it.

>> that is quite -- that hair has been split pretty thinly there, has it not? you can fire him if he doesn't like how he is running the investigation, but there is a disfings between that and trying to change the direction of the investigation. i think that in order to prove obstruction you have to show where he destroyed evidence, tampered with a jury, and someone lied to him. >> jack, i think that -- >> i'm quoting someone on this -- >> that's your problem right there. >> so it is correct that the president has the authority to fire the fbi director without cause. if, however, he fires the fbi director with bad intent, corrupt intent, in an effort to obstruct the investigation, that

can be actionable as an indictable offense, or not, but as an indictable offense. he does not need to destroy anything. the obstruction of justice statute is an endeavoring statute. you don't have to succeed, you just have to -- that is the reason i fired him and just shut up, don't say anything else, do do any other e-mails. >> that is where all of his problems -- >> i'll go one further, he fired comey, that was the tipping point. >> yeah, evan, i didn't mean to cut you off. >> if that holds for the firing

of james comey, right? did he do it with the intent to obstruct the investigation, it was an effort to not recuse himself. if it was don't recuse yourself to protect me from this accusation. >> title one is he fired comey with bad intent to take pressure off. and he said what else if anything did he do to take pressure off. in the same vain, he tried to convince the attorney general to not follow the law. it is quite simple. the code of federal regulations. he did the right thing, he had no choice, he says if you're involved in a political campaign you can't investigate that political cam bane. if he is trying to get sessions to nol follow the law, it is

like firing him with bad purpose. >> the question they always want today ask everyone is that it is about why, isn't it? at some point why did he do it? >> that's right, that's the intent. excuse me one second. it is the intent. he has to do these things with the intent to obstruct the investigation, so did he do it with that intent. >>. >> i think having work on capitol hill, i can tell you there is 535 members of the house and senate that want loyal, full-time, chiefs of staff that go to bat with you and he did not want to have -- >> that is not the point. >> let me finish. >> let me finish. >> let jack finish. >> he wants his ag to be

full-time working the job and not be recused. don is an ethical guy, for the republican national committee, he is the guy that made sure that people like me followed the law and when we had questions about it we went to him. he would not go there and say you need to hang in there for the boss man we need do you do our bidding. i think donald would say i studied this i don't think you need to recuse yourself. i think it was annest request, and also questions about the timing of it, could you hold on a little longer. for me it is very logical for them to go to the ag and say don't do this. >> was it subverting the law? putting the interest of the country behind the interest -- >> we're talking about the attorney general. the chief law enforcement

officer of the united states. >> chief of staff -- >> i think that it is a legitimate discussion, and there was up earlier tonight on this nerk network. they had a disagreement on whether or not he should have had to rescues himself or not. so i belief and i work for a law firm, that's why you hire lawyers, to get different opinions. sessions overruled whatever arguments were presented to him. if i was a president in that situation, i would be disappointed. but sessions had to do what he thought was right. you can be disappointed and furious, but it doesn't mean you're going to encourage him to break the law. we have all been there and dealt with lawyers and had the ball bounce the wrong way for us. >> one seasons here, it says here, jack, no employee shall

parties pay in a general investigation for which he has a personal or political relationship. no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal relationship -- >> that's exactly what this is. >> how does that work with peter s strauge or peter mccccade. plus, why do a pair of republican senators say the man behind the russian dossier should face criminal charges. ♪

it's time for sleep number's 'lowest prices of the season' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. and snoring? does your bed do that? it's the lowest prices of the season on the queen c4 mattress with adjustable comfort on both sides. now only $1199, save $400. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you. the great emperor trekking a hundred miles inland to their breeding grounds.

except for these two fellows. this time next year, we're gonna be sitting on an egg. i think we're getting close! make a u-turn... u-turn? recalculating... man, we are never gonna breed. just give it a second. you will arrive in 92 days. nah, nuh-uh. nope, nope, nope. you know who i'm gonna follow? my instincts. as long as gps can still get you lost, you can count on geico saving folks money. i'm breeding, man. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

we're back with our panel, president trump is spending late night tweets attacking steve bannon and michael wolff. he said michael wolff is a loser that made up stories to sell this really boring and untruthful book. and now sloppy steve has been dumped by a dog by almost everyone. too bad. >> i have to say we're used to these tweets, but you have to say this is an official presidential statement, is it

not? and the word total loser, really boring, dumped like a dog, begged for his job, cried when he got fired. it's remarkable. >>. >> i would like you to weigh in first because i had to cut you off at the last segment there, this is the same person that says he only brings on the best people. he said he was one of the best, and as recent as october he said he is doing well, one of the best. now he is saying she a total loser. >> which street is that. maybe you can go for a walk with me in new york, or in savanna. >> he lives in the 1600

pennsylvania avenue. he is president of the united states, he can conduct himself a little more -- >> neither you or i were elected. the reason why trump, a billionaire from new york city connected with people in the heartland is he spoke their language. i want to know who asked the question. >> you're focusing on the language, but the bigger point here is, jack, that the president touted how he would bring on the best people. now he is saying what he said was so great. . >> i'm disappointed. as part of the campaign, i worked somewhat under steve bann bannon. she she a brilliant strategist. i think he didn't like some of the trump family members getting

in position of authority. by april he had not found a portfolio in the white house and he was unhappy. i think the riff got worse and worse until he left, but i don't think any of us knew, and i'm not trying to act like i know from the ideas what it is, but i don't the we now had he must have been to talk like that. if you look back at some of the great staffers, i think that's one of the thing that is a great disappointment, why did he have to go out and say all these things? >> michael, you wanted to add. >> as i listen to this trying to devoid myself of political points of view but just legal, it strikes me this fits into the narrative that comey has articulated, which is this

president demands loyalty and if you don't give it, you end up with sloppy steve as your nickname. it is corroborative in a sense that loyalty matters to him more than anything else and he's going to demand it and if you have don't give it to him, you're going to suffer the consequences. >> i do want to get to one thing because this is another development today, evan perez, the author of the russia dossier, there's been a referral. how serious should we treat that rereferr referral? >> these men have gone in apparently and looked at classified documents. we don't know exactly what it is they're referring to. they seem to be indicating some kind of false statement made by christopher steele to the fbi. you'd have to say the fbi is

aware of all of this. they know what information he has provided to the journalists and so on. so i'm not sure they're telling fbi something the fbi already doesn't know. there's part of this that is a legal thing and the other part is political and these two senators are working in a political sphere. obviously the president is under attack and they believe this entire enterprise has been a political enterprise. that's what they're operating under. >> the biggest point to make where i say covering on a day-to-day basis, it looks -- the president has painted it and called it a political witch hunt and the gop has circled the wagons and everybody supporting the president gives talking points out weekly and everybody is auditions to end up working in the white house who defends it without looking at it as it really is. there are two components, the

political component and legal component. going back to your comment earlier, not only has he thrown people under the bus who hasn't shown him loyalty, he's even throw people under the bus that he has. >> do you feel that he gives loyalty in return at all? >> i can tell you unequivocally during the campaign nikki haley was not consistently on our team, if she was ever on it. i can say this as somebody who was doing a lot of media during the week following "access hollywood" that nikki haley was not there and yet she ended up with one of the plummest jobs that a lot of people wanted and even in that position she hasn't always been on page. i think he recognizes people have a right to their own opinion. there's been a lot about rex tillerson making statements but he's hung in there with rex tillerson. >> do you think rex tillerson

made the comments, disparaging against the president? >> in terms of chuck grassley and lindsey graham, particularly lindsey, who i know very well, he has not been lock step with the president on russia and in many other things as well. he was out there busting the president on a lot of things. these are not two of the partisan people who is been involved in this investigation. that's why i would say despite the fact they're both republicans, i think it's a very serious letter. >> and lindsey graham during the campaign was downright dispar e disparaging about donald trump, using the word kook more than once. >> there is a legal component and grassley feels that steele may have lied to the fbi with respect to whether or not the dossier was leaked to reporters.

so it's a leaks investigation in some respect. and for the first referral out of any of these committees to go to the fbi is the potential leak of the dossier by christopher steele speaks to me about politics way more than law. >> can the fbi investigate a foreign national? >> well, yeah, sure. they sure can. they don't have jurisdiction to bring him in. >> is to charge him or to bring him on trial. >> mike, your point about the leak, that's all about intimidating -- that's another part of the intimidating of reporters and making sure what we do, they want to jail us. we've been called the enemy of the people. there's a national shield law that congressman jamie raskin from maryland has introduced, which is very much like mike pence's shield law that came in years ago and there is a big push back against that because they don't ant want to protect reporters. they want to make sure if stuff

like that is leaked, they're able to make sure -- >> they haven't taken it off the table to go after reporters. >> i want to give you more time. unfortunately we're going to have to leave it there because we're out of time tonight. thank you to my panel and pamela brown. jim sciutto, the news continues here on cnn. febreze air effects doesn't just mask, it cleans away odors. because the things you love the most can stink. and try febreze small spaces to clean away odors for up to 30 days. breathe happy with febreze.

i got some financial how'd that go?le ago. he kept spelling my name with an 'i' it's bryan with a 'y.' since birth. well, i happen to know some people. do they listen? what? they're amazing listeners. guidance from professionals who take their time to get to know you.

good evening. thanks for joining us. with the sheer volume of news now turning every week into what seems like a year, this week felt like two years. today was quite something all by itself. plenty of news broke today. it all seemed revolve around the russia probe. there was news on the president's opposition to it, news on his attorney general's recusal from it. white house efforts to keep that attorney general in charge on presidential rage reportedly when that effort failed and news breaking just now that others beyond white house counsel don mcgahn were doing the arm-twisting. also, what some see as fair game and others call a smokescreen, two republican senators asking the fbi to investigate the author of the now famous dossier and something the president once slammed his attorney general for not pursuing, investigating the clinton foundation. we learned today that is