♪ this is "trump one year later," a cnn special report. new political aftershocks in the one-two punch absorbed from the trump white house this week. i'm jim sciutto. >> i'm pamela brown. first came out the slow rollout of scandalous allegations from a tell-all book, raising new allegations about the russia investigation and trump's fitness for office. >> that all pointed to a possible obstruction of justice case. and new reporting tonight.

a senior administration official tells cnn that white house officials were involved in the effort to persuade attorney jeff sessions not to recuse himself from the investigation. reince priebus and sean spicer did participate in calls between the white house and the justice department. white house counsel don mcgahn reach out, trying to dissuadie ing sessions from recusing himself from the russia investigation. now that you know that you have other officials that were involved in this outreach to sessions, is it reasonable to conclude that social counsel mueller will want to interview them? >> i think those two officials have gone in for their interviews. if they weren't asked about this, they would want to be asked about this.

the interest of robert mueller is to figure out if from was something here and was something being done. if there was a conspiracy to obstruct this investigation. and this goes certainly to that part of the question. i think, you know, for the white house and for president trump more importantly, i think what he cares more about are the people that are closer to him, his son-in-law and his son. if he sees robert mueller going to those people, that's when you'll start seeing bigger alarms from the white house. >> and as far as we know, that hasn't 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 is the honest answer. if it was an attempt to say to the attorney general, do you think the regulations require this of you? can we talk about it? the white house counsel is really the only person that is

supposed to talk to the attorney white house and d.o.j.of the - that's why there was a problem when president trump wanted to talk to comey because he bypassed white house counsel. they're doing the right procedure. i'm looking at the regulation here and it says shall and should and could, can we talk about it, maybe it's not so bad. but if it's a direct order that says, i don't care what the regulation says, you are not stepping back from this thing because i need you to protect me because mueller is going to otherwise crucify me, that's much more problematic and mueller will want to look at that for obstruction of justice. >> it's a nice, hot mess. we go back to when trump came into office. he wasn't expected to win. he didn't have people in the gop that were with him. those with him were huddled around trying to make decisions. and he brought that attitude

into the white house. they've been understaffed and overmanned the entire time there. the fact they had conversations, that many of them had conversations, isn't at all surprising because they had such small numbers to make any decision. they had to have a lot of people involved. that's not worrisome in and of itself. what's worrisome is if, in fact, as you said, at some point in time, the president said, you have to bail me out and protect me, yeah. then we're talking, you have a little bit of a problem there. that's where we're at. >> i want to bring in jack kingston. we know that the russian probe was weighing heavily when he fired james comey. he said as much in the oval office to the russians that it took pressure off when he fired comey. he said so on national television to lester holt on nbc. how can you come up with an explanation that he fired james comey because of the russia probe to take pressure off?

>> i think a president can fire an fbi director without cause. they have a ten-year term. it's unusual to fire them. clinton fired one of his. i think the statements that he made were later. i can say this, that originally, the question was raised by harry reid when it said, didn't comey violate the hatch act by getting involved in an election? john podesta and hillary clinton raised those questions. >> but after that, jack, trump prized james comey. and he's basically, you put all of the pieces of the puzzle together, that's not why james comey was fired. >> why do they always go back to hillary? your guy won. your guy won. he's the president. >> i'm sorry, but the law has not change d.

hillary clinton raised the point, i'm sorry, when harry reid brought up the violation of the hatch act. >> why don't we talk about president trump and what he did. he's the president. >> i can't believe it. >> why don't we have warren g. harding. he has as much relevance as anything else. >> that's why we're continuing to look in the clinton foundation. >> you'll the prosecuted, as well. >> suddenly, they are relevant. if they're guilty, you said to prosecute them. hillary clinton is a relevant person. the previous administration is relevant and harry reid's actions are relevant. >> and the president is relevant. >> i think he can fire james comey without it necessarily being that i'm going to try to torpedo this investigation. you can fire james comey because of the way he's conducting it. >> okay. i mean, that's quite -- that

hair has been split pretty thinly there, has it not, jack? you're saying he can fire him because he doesn't like the way he's running the investigation. and there's a distinction between that and how he's running the investigation? >> he can fire him without cause. he's the president of the united states and comey works for him. he can show where he tampered with some evidence or lied to him. i'm quoting alan dershowitz on this. >> there's your trouble right there. >> let's go to the source, michael. >> it's correct, what jack says, ha the president has the authority to fire the fbi director without cause. if, however, he fires the fbi director with bad intent, with corrupt intent, in order to

obstruct the investigation, that can be actionable as an indictable offense, or to take dershowitz's point, but as an abuse of office and impeachable offense. >> strategy -- >> he doesn't need to destroy it. the obstruction of justice statute is endeavoring statue. you have to endeavor to obstruct the justice. you don't have to succeed. you just have to endeavor to do it. >> the president would be better off if he had stopped at the memo that was written by rod rosenste rosenstein. if he had just shut up and didn't have any other interviews with lester holt or anybody else. >> let's acknowledge that. >> that's where all of his problems come from. >> he would have been better off if he didn't fire comey. >> i didn't mean to cut you off. >> it's on the point. if that holds for the firing of james comey, right, did he do it

with intent to obstruct the investigation? is that the same principal to encourage sessions not to recuse himself? if it was protect me from this investigation, is it the same standard? >> you're putting together a mow so mosaic, and you say tile one is you fired comey with bad intent, to take pressure off, what else did he do to take pressure off? and if one of the things that he did in the same vein, was to try to convince the attorney general to no follow the law. the cfr is quite clear he has to recuse himself. >> the cfr? >> the code of federal regulations. sessions did the right thing. he had no choice. the law says if you're involved in a political campaign, you can't investigate that political campaign. if he is trying to get sessions to not follow the law, then it is just like firing comey with

bad purpose. it's another mosaic piece. >> the question i want to ask everyone about this is it's also about why. isn't it? why did he do what he did. that's the bottom line in all of it. >> let me answer that one question. it's the intent. he has to do these things with the intent to obstruct the investigation. the why is did he do it with that intent? >> let's bring in jack. i know you want to say something and i have a follow-up question, jack. >> having worked on capitol hill, i can tell you there's 535 members of the house and senate that want loyal full-time chiefs of staff, loyal employees that are going to go to bat for you. i think number one, he did not -- >> this is not a fair point. >> let me finish. >> go ahead. let jack finish. >> he wants his a.g. to be full

time working the job and not be recused from certain things. i've worked with donald glen. d don is an ethical guy. he made sure that people like me follow the law. when we had questions we went to him. he would not go there and say, you need to hang on for the boss because we need you to do our bidding. i think what don would say, i've studied this, i don't believe you need to recuse yourself. i think it was an honest request to don't do this. and there's been discussion about the timing of it. could you hold on a little longer? to me, it's very logical for them to go to the a.g. and say, don't do this. >> was that party over country? was it subverting the law for the will of the president? was it putting the interest of the country behind the interests of a person? >> we're talking about the attorney general. >> the a.g. >> the chief law enforcement officer of the united states. >> not the --

>> he's not your chief of staff. >> i think it's a legitimate discussion. in fact, there was one tonight earlier on this network with can cuccinelli, two distinguished lawyers who worked in different administrations and knew the law. and they had a disagreement on if he had to recuse himself. i believe and i work for a law enforcement, that's what you require lawyers for to get different opinions. ultimately sessions overruled the arguments that were presented to him and said, i think i need to recuse myself. if i was the president in that situation, i would be disappointed. but sessions had to do what he thought was right. you can be disappointed. you can be furious. but it doesn't mean you're going to encourage him to break the law. it just means -- we've all been there. we've all dealt with lawyers. we had the ball bounce the wrong way. >> this is not the same thing. >> can we read you one sentence? it says no employee shall

participate in a criminal investigation which he has a personal or political relationship. no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation if he has a personal or political relationship. >> how does that work for peter strug or andrew mckay? >> we're opening up a big can of worms. hold that thought. we'll revisit after this break. everyone stick around. up next, the potential for trouble as investigators dig into donald trump's business dealings with russians. plus, why a pair of republican senators say the man behind the russian dossier should face criminal charges. ...donegal, ireland... ...and your ancestor was a fisherman. with blue eyes. just like you. begin your journey at ancestry.com

parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance

plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long.

we're back with our panel. president trump is sending late-night tweets, attacking steve bannon and michael wolff, the author of "fire and fury." michael wolff is a total liar who made up this book. sloppy steve has been dumped like 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? coming from the president's mouth. it's written by him.

and the word total loser, really boring, sloppy steve, dumped like a dog, begged for his job, cried when he got fired. this is presidential, isn't it? >> let's put this into context. jack kingston, i would like you to weigh in first. i had to cut you off on the last segment there. this is the same person who says he only brings on the best people. what did he say about steve bannon again? he was one of the best. >> the very best. >> as recently as october in the rose gouarden. >> he knew him well. now, he's a total loser and is calling him sloppy steve. does that make the president look good? >> well, i think the president speaks the language of the street. >> which street? which street is that? >> maybe you can go in new york or even savanna. >> he's supposed to be the

president of the united states. it would be nice if he conducted himself with more -- >> you're an expert. you know everything. but he got elected. >> neither you nor i did. one reason that donald trump, a billionaire from new york city, connected with people in the heartland is because he spoke their language. >> you're missing the bigger point. you can have your opinion about the language. but the bigger point is that the president touted how he would bring on the best people. he's fired a number of them. i've lost count. now, he's calling the guy he said i was so great and wonderful a few months ago, sloppy steve, he was begging for his job. >> i'm disappointed. as part of the campaign, i somewhat worked under steve bannon. he's a brilliant strategist. i think he did not like some of

the trump family members getting positions. he didn't have a portfolio in the white house and he was unhappy. and i think the rift got worse and worse before he left. i don't think any of us knew -- i'm not pretending that i know what it is. i don't think anybody would know how mad he must have been to talk like this in public. you look back over -- you look back at some of the great presidential staffers from ari fleisher to paul begala, they've always been loyal to their boss in and outside of the job. that's one of the things is a great disappointment. why did he need to go out and say these things. >> michael, i know you wanted to get in. >> i wanted to add one thing, 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.

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, lindsey graham and chuck grassley, they sent with referral over the author of the russia dossier. how serious should we treat that referral? when senators send a referral, it's not done often. 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've collected the intelligence from christopher steele and they know what information he's 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 disparaging about donald trump, using the word kook more than once. >> i think he said openly he did not vote for donald trump. >> michael, you wanted to get a point? >> 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 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 next here on cnn.

there is a new twist in the russia investigation. we're learning how far the white house was willing to go to keep the attorney general on the case. plus, one-on-one with the u.s. secretary of state, rex tillerson talks exclusively to cnn about north korea and how long he sees himself in the job. and extreme weather conditions from bone-chilling cold in the united states to australia's scorching heat wave. hot weather. >> good to be here with you, george. i'm linda kincaid. welcome to our viewers in the united states and around the world. >> and i'm george