that. i want to thank all our panelists. that's it for us. obviously this is major story tonight. it's time to hand it over to chris cuomo. >> a anderson, appreciate it. we're going to get beyond this headline. the president trying to fire the special counsel is no longer a hypothetic hypothetical. as ander sop has been discussing for the last half hour the new york time s reporting it almost happened last summer. we now know more about the concerted effort that the president had undertaken to undermine the special counsel and what it means for a potential prosecution against him and for what may happen going forward. let's get after it. i'm chris cuomo, welcome to primetime. this is more than the headline that the president tried to fire the special counsel.

all alone not only contradicts a narrative that's been consistent coming out of this white house but gives us the clearest picture to date of what may be an intent to obstruct. it's still an open question but we now have proof that there was an actual effort to undermine the special counsel by the president of the united states. an empts that's been intentionally ignored by the white house when asked about it. exhibit a. on tuesday, the white house press secretary said this about the president's thoughts on the special counsel and reports he may want to fire him. >> we want to see this come to a complete and full conclusion. i think we all know what everybody in this room would do if the president did that. i don't think that's helpful to the process. the president wants to see this end. >> we now know that is a clear deception. how? the new york times published a story saying president trump wanted robert mueller out over

the summer in june. he did not want to see this through to its conclusion. the timing here is key. june. that's around the same time we were learning that mueller's investigation wasn't just looking at russian interference but expanding to look at possible obstruction of justice but the president of the united states. the times citing four sources that say mr. trump only backed down when white house counsel don mcgann refused to ask the justice department to fire mueller and threatened to quit. there are two critical points of analysis. one legal, one political. legally, obstruction of justice as we'll discuss tonight is a crime of intent. that means you have to show that the defendant was trying to stop a process that could expose him to criminal jeopardy. now, while trump did not go forward with firing mueller, yet. could investigators see this report, which they learned about

this information, they knew about this from interviews with white house staffers. could they see this as proof of intent if not obstruction itself. you get my point? it isn't a crime in itself because he didn't move on mueller, but is it proof that the president is trying to do something that may be criminal. again, it's an open question but there's now more of a suggestion of that than there was before this report. then there's a much more clear point. if this report sg true and at this point we have no reason to doubt it, president trump, yesterday, he made reference to the nixon investigation in the context of a bogus suggestion that missing fbi texts were proof of a cover up. that's been removed from the realm of possibility. it's just false. let's listen to it again. >> do you trust the fbi? >> well, we're going to see. i am very disturbed, as is the general, as is everybody else

that is intelligent. when you look at five months. this is great rose mary woods, right? it's a large scale version. that was eighteen minutes. this is five months. they say it's 50,000 texts and it's prime time. that's disturbing. >> now, what is disturbing are two things. one, the president had every reason to know when he said that. those missing texts weren't a mystery. the fbi, the inspector general, the investigation into them had already given information to lawmakers that the reason they were missing wasn't a cover up as he was suggesting and others in the republican party but because after a glitch that doesn't just affect the phones of two fbi members in question but one in about ten. thousands of phones. now they are saying they have learned that so it's not as much of a mystery. the fbi said it's found those

texts. butt th put that to the side. he cited the nixon example as it applies to those texts but it applies to his effort to topple the special counsel. don mcgann, the white house counsel may have saved the trump presidency. the white house counsel reportedly stopped trump from being richard nixon. specifically when nixon fired archibald cox, the real nixon reference is that if the president had moved on the special counsel, bob mueller, there may well have been a cascade of resignations just like with nixon that would have left trump exactly where nixon was. forced to resign for efforts to derail justice. that's where we are tonight. let's bring in one of the new york times reporters who broke the story.

can you hear me? >> i can. >> where do you want to start? i think it makes most sense -- have you heard anything from the white house in response to this reporting? >> just a statement from ty cobb that out of respect for the process they were going to decline to comment. that's not a denial. i think it's worth noting. the first that we have heard of an actual effort by the president to do this. chris who is an ally of the president and who was in the white house last summer, around this time went on television and said the president was considering firing mueller. there was a frantic effort by white house advisors to walk that back and insist it wasn't true even though it was true.

i think various people have used the threat of resigning to impact this president's behavior. there's been numerous members of this administration, i'm putting together a file kind of in realtime here who have gone out of their way to say the suggestion that the president wanted to make a move on the special counsel is b.s. they had to know that was a lie. even sarah huckabee sanders, what she said a few days ago. she had to know that she was misleading, at best. we know that back in june not did the president just out of caprice think about moving on mueller but he had attorneys putting together a case against mueller that had at least three points.

let's discuss those. >> so there were three issues that the president was going to talk about or was talking about as what he believed were conflicts of interest on the part of robert mueller and to your point this all took place at a time when he had a different lead lawyer on his legal team. his long term personal lawyer. pit bull attorney from new york. what they were talking about was there was some dispute about seeing at a golf club that mueller belonged to. mueller had been lawyer up until he was appointed special counsel at the same law firm that jared kushner's lawyer works for. the third was he had interviewed to be the fbi director replacing james comey. the last two were pushed out by advisors to the president at the time on background. they talked about this. they didn't say he should be fired. they said this is a conflict.

i never really understood how interviewing for the fbi job was a conflict. it was clear they were looking to build a case. we know exactly where that case was going. it wasn't just going to be a media campaign to discredit. there was a more active effort to try to remove. >> it's important to note that at the time that bob mueller was select by rod rosenstein, the president's choice to be the acting ag recused himself. the man who wrote the memo giving a basis that the president said he didn't rely on, trump never objected to mueller out wardly. his people may have been talking on background but we didn't get them on the show saying mueller shouldn't be there. in fact, the opposite is true. he was praised. lifelong republican, decorated veteran, worked for the fbi. there was this case months later

going on. that takes us to the all important question. why he was thinking about moving on the special counsel. what do you understand? >> that's the $64 million question that's unanswered. i don't want to speculate too much about what was in the president's mind. he has clearly shown a concern about this investigation that has grown over time and that has grown in the last couple weeks as it has two things have happened. it's become clear it's not wrapping up by the end of last year as his close to the beginning of the year as his lawyer suggested or white house lawyer suggested repeatedly. also it's getting close to the time when he might sb intbe interviewed. the president and he was boastful thawast he really looking forward to meeting with mueller. i'll tell you that the concern was in the white house from

people i speak to is much less about the idea he might fire mueller going forward. clearly that's an unspoken fear at minimum. the fear is he's going to go amongst these advisors and go before mueller that would say something that would count as perjury. we're you're interviewed by federal investigators, as you know, if you lie, that's a felony. that's their big concern. >> that's an important point. i keep saying that but you're making so many important points. there's all this talk about will the president be under oath. immaterial. whether he's under oath or not, he's open and subjected to perjury because if you lie to a statute. that says if you lie to a federal agent it's a crime. there will be federal agents in the room, it's the same. the real consideration is the duration of the interview and whether it will be brought into

the grand jury. we know that mueller knows this. mueller has known this for some time because of interviews with white house staffers. how does that figure into his thinking and to your point now. we saw example of this what you're talking about yesterday. the president wasn't when asked about what he asked andy mccabe, the acting fbi director at the time in the oval office about whom he voted for in the election which is inappropriate. you're not supposed to talk to people about politics. that's why bob mueller didn't talk to the attorneys that he hired about whom they supported politically. you're not supposed to. however, the president said when asked. i don't think i asked him that. i don't remember. if i did it's not really that important. you can say that to the media. you can say that and it's up to us to be able to check it. the white house has not backed off the suggestion he said that to andy mccabe. mccabe hasn't said it didn't happen. if you say that in front of

these investigators, you expose yourself to questions that can lead you into a trap. they are concerned about that, yes? >> yes, correct. that is 100% correct. that answer that he gave yesterday was very similar to one if you look at the videos and transcripts of his depositions over the years, those are similars to answers he's given in the past. i don't recall. so what. i'd ask you the same thing. i really don't remember that. it's worth noting to your point, not only has the white house backed off the idea he did it, white house officials were confirming the night before the president said this that he did indeed ask that. it's the kind of question he would ask of many settings, which is what i was told. thoost how he talks which is true. that is how he talks. the problem is the law didn't necessarily make exceptions for that. that is why they are concerned about what he will say when he goes before the federal

investigators. >> right. maggie, so helpful. thank you very much for j scrambling to the phone and talking about this. i may call you back later in the show. >> my pleasure. >> thank you for opening our eyes to an important aspect of this situation. let's take this one-on-one with republican congressman chris stewart of utah. a member of the house int intelligence committee looking into this. appreciate you coming on. we were going to discuss other things but this story is going to predominate. what's your take on the suggestions in this new york times report. >> chris, i might not be very helpful. the only thing i know is what i've been listening to you and maggie. i haven't had a chance to talk to the white house. i'll tell you this, i've always said that mr. mueller should be able to complete his investigation. i say that now. i think the president feels that way now. i think he's indicated as recently last few weeks or some time last month he feels mr. mueller will be fair and he would like to see the invest

fwags complete and move forward. i don't know. if i could respond to something you said and maybe you and i can agree to disagree. i think you said this is proof the president wanted to interfere with mr. mueller and the investigation. >> i said that's a question for investigators. >> okay. maybe i misunderstood you. i think it's too early to draw conclusions from one press report. i'd love to see the white house response. >> let's look at what we know. literally. what we know and please check it any way you want. i'm happy to have you here. you've always been candid with us. it matters right now maybe more than in the past. this is not just one report because there's four different sources. we know that ty cobb, the president's lawyer did not back off of this other than to say the president wants to cop rate.

cobb wasn't with him at the time this was happening. we know one thing. unless this is all false and again, we don't have any reason to question it. the president, in june, when mueller said he wanted to look at obstruction, he had lawyers start looking into mueller and coming up with at least three different reasons to disqualify him. reasons that did not exist when mueller was appointed and celebrated by all of you as a great choice. not all of you but most of you. if this is true what happened here and but for don mcgann, he would have moved on bob mueller. what do you make of that? >> if this is true, and there are four sources. i haven't had a chance. it's uncomfortable for me to try -- >> uncomfortable for me too. this is very weighty stuff that we're talking about. >> both of us want to gather

more information. as i understand it's four anonymous sources to one newspaper. look we just have to be gun shy. i'm not saying discount it, it doesn't matter. sfwlp if it's true -- >> let's take a breath. i'll get to that. let's take a breath and be careful what we say. i'm trying to do that. if it's true, it would be concerning to me. >> why? >> it would also show -- it would also show that the process worked. the people and the organization around the president did what they needed to do and that the outcome was actually the right outcome and that was mr. mueller wasn't fired. maybe the president, maybe he was angry, frustrated. maybe for a moment he suggested this. we just don't know. the investigation went forward as it should. i think the process served the president. >> congressman, i don't know

that the process should be defined there but for the grace of mcgann goes president trump as nixon. this is not any process that's built in. you're not supposed to have the white house counsel have to threaten to resign and say you will raise suspicions of obstruction of justice if you do this, mr. president and only then he relents. that's a frightening scenario, not reassuring. >> it is reassuring to me. you can substitute people instead of process. they served the constitution as they should. we don't hear any talk of collusion any longer. we don't hear any talk of these. >> we don't hear any talk of anything. i keep hearing this from lawmakers. we haven't heard anything out of

bob mueller or his investigation over than some of the people interviewed and charges and deals being cut. the fact we're hearing about collusion or not is irrelevant. >> no. we've never heard anything from mr. mueller. we heard collusion from lots and lots of other pele. >> those are politicians. the are pundits. >> we heardollusion for months and months and months from members of the intelligence econo committee that were investigating this. >> once we hear from bob mueller, that's the only time we'll know what proof they have. what we hear from the congressional economiy

congressional committees has to be discounted because the partisan nature of what's going on is as disgusting as obvious. the recent efforts that have been diffused by the facts to undermine the fbi are as coincidental as you can get. efforts to paint missing texts as something they were not. efforts to paint fisa abuses with a memo you guys won't release. a secret organization. a senator, ron johnson, who was responsible for homeland security comes on and says there's a shadow organization essentially that's undermining justice in fbi. a couple days later, it's a joke. come on. if you want to talk about what we don't need to hear anymore of, you should start there, no? >> chris, i can't answer for everything that every politician says. >> you can answer for that. these are members of your party. >> i can't answer for anything -- >> you can condemn it. you can say it's wrong.

you can say they should apologize. >> chris, just a minute. let me finish my thought if i could. >> please. >> i used a word with you last week and said some of these people are overly dramatic. i think that's true. that's what i'm trying to not to do tonight. let's gather more information before we draw conclusions and use some of these loaded words that we used and even you have used tonight. >> what have i used tonight that you feel is unwarranted? i don't like being lumped in with people who say don't trust the fbi. >> you and i have become friends. >> thank you. the respect is in return. >> you're discounting completely the efforts of the intelligence committee here in the house because you said it became partisan. i completely agree with you on that. i said that early on many, many times. that's why i wanted mr. mueller special counsel. we used to work in a bipartisan

fashion. it became too public, too loud, too much before the cameras. we have taken that investigation very seriously. we have tried to ask every questi question, to answer every question. all we can do is tell the american people the truth. tell them what we have learned. we have tried to do that. i can compromipromise you that' goal. we're doing everything we can to do that. it's become partisan around. that's too bad. we still need to focus on the work we're trying to do. >> i understand the intention. we just hope it gets carried out. i take you at your word. i appreciate you for being on tonight. >> thank you. this breaking news tonight, the president of the united states reportedly ordered the special counsel to be fired over the summer in about june. setting the legal implications aside, the political implicati n implications should certainly shake up the white house. we'll be right back with that.

new year, new phones for the family. join t-mobile, and when you buy one of the latest samsung galaxy phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. yahoooo! ahoooo! plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included. spectacular! so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. whoa! join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free. all on america's best unlimited network.

do you like freshly steamed lobster? do you like the word and? then you'll love outback's steak and lobster. back by popular demand, only $15.99. so hurry in now. outback steakhouse. aussie rules.

the new york times reporting president trump ordered special counsel robert mueller to be fired last june. only backed down when white house counsel don mcgann threatened to quit if he was forced to do so. top white house officials have said over and over there's been no thought of firing the special counsel, including the president just weeks after he reportedly tried to do just that. >> you thought about dismissing the special counsel. anything he could do to send you

in that direction? >> i haven't given it a thought. i'm not dismissing anybody. i want them to get on with the task. i want the senate and the house to come out with their findings. >> the president of the united states and numerous of his advisors are lying about this. there's a lot to talk about. tim, let's start with a bit of a macro view of this. the president brought up nixon's administrative assistant. he did that in the context of these fbi missing texts. he did so erroneously. there's no intrigue with those. by the way, he had every reason to know there was no intrigue with those. the fbi said it was a glitch. it wasn't these two agents involved. it was one in every ten phones. now the fbi is saying they found

the missing texts. that was a bogus assertion. could it be true that but for white house counsel don mcgann, if the president of the united states had ordered the firing of the special counsel, he might have wound up exactly where nixon was? >> well, we would have had, i think it's likely we would have had an impeachment crisis last june. i'm sure you all recall that a number of leaders in the senate, republican leaders were sending signals to the president don't do this. don't fire the special counsel. this is what's really concerning. why does he want to fire mueller. that's the real issue. why does he want to fire him. in nixon's case, he wanted to fire the special presideosecuto his team stopped him from doing it in the summer of '73. they couldn't hold him back by october of '73 and he pulled the

trigger. >> why? >> because he said i won't give the tapes up. they said we'll find a compromise, mr. president that will satisfy the special counselor and they couldn't. when they couldn't, he said now he's gone. we don't know what promises, if any, mcgann made to the president about containing mueller. it means the president wants to fire mueller. if the reporting the solid, the president wants the fire the special counsel. that would be a disaster for his presidency. just because he didn't do it in june rn june, doesn't mean he doesn't want to do it in january. there's a crisis atmosphere hanging over the white house now. >> you were in the obama administration. you understand what needs to be

satisfied for a prosecution. obviously, this is hypothetical and something for mueller to take up. we know mueller is aware this was afoot in june. what would make the removal of the special counsel by the president a crime. he can remove a special counsel. there's a process. the attorney general has to do it but the president could instruct the attorney general to do so but are there circumstances where that would be wrong or illegal? >> chris, thanks for having me back. yes, there are circumstances where the removal of a special counsel could itself constitute obstruction. you look at the intent. if there's a corrupt intent to block or cut off or interfere with the government investigation, even if you're exercising otherwise lawful powers but doing it, think about

it to protect yourself, to protect the family member. if he wanted to fire mueller for the corrupt intent of having taken a bribe for somebody. those kind of wrong purposes is why we obstruct juries in obstruction cases. if it's a wrong, improper or evil purpose it's corrupt. that's why this news is so important. nixon didn't want to turn over those tapes because he knew they would implicate him. >> what do you have here that would be similar to that? there's no suggestion that the president is being asked to do anything that he doesn't want to do and move on the special counsel. the most gross suggestion in june the timing becomes relevant.

the president moved on jim comey and raised other suspicions that they need add special counsel and sure enough there was one. if the timing is not just coincident coincidental, is that enough, certainly not on its own because he didn't fire him. would it be intent of something that could satisfy any criminal stand? >> i do think we're moving toward having sufficient evidence to satisfy the obstruction. like you, i'm not happy to hear it. i'm still not ready to say there was obstruction. that's why bob mueller has to sit across the table from the president and look into his eyes and listen to him as he talks. the president has a big

disability when he tries to explain. the key question is why did he say to comey can you see your way clear to letting the flynn case go. why did he fire comey? what is the reason the president is protecting flynn. what does flynn have on the president or don junior or on jared kushner or somebody else that the president is so desperate to keep out of the public eye? now, whatever it is, bob mueller knows about it because he's cut his deal with flynn. >> now there's something else. there's something else the president may say when he looks bob mueller in the eye literally or figuratively in any interview. we heard nothing from president trump about why the guy was unfit or conflicted. we know according to the reporting he was having his prior lawyer and others make a case for conflict against mueller. if he were to say mueller, i wanted to move on you because

you quit one of my golf courses over a dispute over fees. number two, you were a member of a firm that represented jared kushner. number three, you had just interviewed to be the director of fbi and i wasn't going to use you and then you were appointed special counsel right after. that's why i don't trust you. is that enough to clear a legal standard, in your opinion and norm you give me the last word. >> i'm not a lawyer. i'm going to say that it's a political standard that matters here. >> because? >> congress would have to see that he's reached this threshold that makes him politically unfit to remain in the office. >> impeachment is only as good as the veets you can get. it is a political process. it would require the gop to move on one of their own. if he says you're conflicted, you're out. is that good enough to clear

him? >> bob mueller will laugh in his face. >> it shows where his intentions were. >> those are bogus intentions. that's just what and is not a partisan thing. when they floated these bogus excuses. those are not sufficient legal con flicks. those are not the real reasons. >> that's what you would have to show, norm. you'd have to show they are not. the president may say they are. if it's about why his intentions were with what he did or didn't do, it's going to be relevant. we have to end it there. i appreciate your perspective very much. thank you for giving us some hit cal perspective. we'll see what happens. for the rest of us, the breaking news tonight, president trump ordered mueller's firing last summer. that's what the new york times is reporting with four sources. up next, we're going to go on

one-on-one with a member of the president's inner circle who is in davos where the president is. former white house communications direct tor. he stayed up late. he's going to tell us what he thinks of this, next. tens of millions of people have switched to unlimited on america's most awarded network. verizon? uh... whoa, whoa, whoa. vince. it was just ranked highest in network quality performance nationwide by j.d. power. it's totally verizon. vince! we can see the sign. the v's sticking out. still could be anything. anyway, the most awarded network is...

verizon! w-wait, hold it! vince... you didn't know what it was. you did? okay. (vo) unlimited is only as good as the network it's on. so switch to the best unlimited on the most awarded network. now buy select smartphones like the google pixel 2 and get one free. a farmer's market.ve what's in this kiester. a fire truck. even a marching band. and if i can get comfortable talking about this kiester, then you can get comfortable using preparation h. for any sort of discomfort in yours. preparation h. get comfortable with it. there'swhatever type ofhe end of eweekender you are,ton. don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com my hygi...a mouthwash.o try... so i tried crest.

it does so much more than give me fresh breath. crest pro-health mouthwash provides all... ...of these benefits to help you get better dental check-ups. go pro with crest mouthwash. checkup? nailed it

breaking news tonight, president trump ordered special prosecutor bob mueller to be fired last june. that's according to the new york times and four sources. former white house communications director anthony scaramucci joins me now. he's in davos. last month you said the

president is too smart to fire mueller. when you said that, did you know what he had been trying to do last june? >> i actually did know but it's ir relevant. he didn't fire mueller. i find it ironic that this information is coming out while he's in davos. i would love to get a look at steve bannon's phone records to see who he is talking to and how this information is out there. second thing, is president talks to everybody. this information apparently happened in june. why is it coming out right now like a big water balloon on the president when he is having a fantastic trip here in davos meeting with world leaders and about to give a fantastic speech about global prosperity and growth. >> anthony. anthony, please. >> let me finish.

>> you did finish. >> i got up. >> i appreciate you staying up late. it can't be a red herring. it's a distraction for what is otherwise important. this goes to the most important questions we're dealing with. >> exactly. we're distracting right now from the president's speech tomorrow and all the great things that he's doing here in terms of laying that ground work. we're distracting from the business ceo leaders meetings that he had today. the meeting with the prime minister of the united kingdom and the prime minister of israel. we're distracting from a speech he'll give at 2:00 p.m. today on global growth, global peace and prosperity. >> you think any of that matters nearly as much -- >> you guy vs hs have had the s for a year. there's no collusion. >> overtalking is not being compelling at different things.

you you're saying i'm tired of hearing collusion. >> i'm going to be your media coach. you do that to me all the time. >> we have heard nothing from bob mueller. we have no idea what he knows. it's been nothing but partisan back biting. the yours truly of what we heard enough about collusion, there's no proof of collusion. that's all b.s. we don't know anything. the questions are out there. the conclusions will come. the timing of this report to say it's distraction, there's no basis for that, sounds like the suggestions about the fbi that president and others are saying it's not trustworthy on the basis of nothing. talking about text messages that they had to back off of. notions of a secret group they had to back off. saying texts were missing when it was a cover up and they knew it wasn't true. don't say that the reporting can't be believed because of the timing. deal with what it is on its

face. >> you're not listening. i didn't say -- chris. i did not say that the reporting cannot be believed. >> you just said -- >> i was listening. i said it's a red herring. he never fired mueller. >> what's the difference? >> hold on a second. the president believes there was no collusion in the russia investigation. >> is that why he tried to fire the special counsel? >> him not contemplating the firing. time out a second. if he thought there was no collusion and he sat down with the white house counsel in a private conversation. the president in a impressipriv conversation. i did go to harvard law school. i know what a privileged conversation. i know he had interlopers in the white house last june that was leaking information on him that was very unfair. you're telling me your president is not allowed to have a confidential conversation. let me finish. you don't want to let me finish. you're overtalking me.

>> this distraction is about leaks and steve bannon. >> you don't want to let me finish because you know i'm making a lot of sense to your viewers. the guy was never fired. >> you're saying it was leak by bannon. >> i did not say that. i'm not saying that. i'm accepting the reporting. maggie is a phenomenal reporter. i listen to her on anderson cooper. i'm not saying that. don't say i'm saying that when i'm not saying that. what i am saying is he didn't fire the guy. he may have had a conversation about firing the guy and then made a decision not to fire the guy. >> that's not what the reporting is. >> you can't say he fired him fp. >> i didn't say he fired him. >> is the reporting he fired him? >> no. >> he contemplated. >> he wasn't contemplating. >> did he fire -- >> he ordered mcgann to make the moves to fire him. he said i will resign if i have to do that and then the president relented. >> you're twisting -- >> that's the reporting.

that's the reporting. >> you're twisting the story. i'm not. i just accepted the reporting. why is that coming out tonight? >> this is when they got it. it's a ir relevant when it comes out. >> point number one, he didn't fire the person. point number two, the president plooefs there was no collusion. point number three, despite only being in the white house for 11 days, i worked for the president for 18 months, i didn't see any collusion. point number three, there's been new stories that had to be shot down and people fired over the russia investigation. point number four, robert mueller is still in his job as a special investigator. he is still in his job. the president said he expects mr. mueller to treat him fairly and he obviously believes he's going to be exonerated. you're telling me that a private conversation. >> doesn't matter. >> a private conversation with your counsel -- what are you talk about? it doesn't matter. >> not to the truth of the

matter asserted. it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter it was private. >> when you have interloping leakers inside the white house. >> irrelevant. >> it's not. totally relevant. >> how the information came out is irrelevant. the substance is relevant. if the reporting is to be believed, don mcga nn -- >> did he fire the guy? >> it's bad for you. it's wrong to do. the president relented. >> you're not listening. >> you're making these silly points. >> i'm i trying to tell you that you're focused on something that isn't fair to the president. the president -- i'll accept mag

dp maggie's word. >> i just said i accept that. i'm saying to you as lawyer, somebody that did go to harvard law school as you just pointed out. the president is not allowed to have a privileged and private conversation in the white house counsel. no he isn't. we have a ton of leakers inside the white house predating my departure on july 31st. now that water balloon is being dropped on the president when he's about to make a historic speech here in davos switzerland about flow ball peace and prosperity. the president doesn't think there was collusion. the decision was made not fire robert mueller. the president said that he expects mr. mueller to treat him fairly. >> that's my side -- >> you want say there's underlying guilds guilt because he wanted to fire him and there's some kind of anxiety about what happened and i'm saying the very opposite. >> i know you're saying the opposite. >> this is a bunch of nonsense.

>> it's not what happened. >> it's not what happened. >> okay. what happened, chris? >> i like your theory. it's corrective and protective but it's also not the reporting. the reporting is he ordered mueller fired. mcgann refused and threatened to resign. >> is he fired? >> the president said since he never thought about firing mueller. if this is true, that's a lie. secondly, even though he didn't act on it or wasn't allowed to act on it by don mcgann, it would mean to investigators that he does have the intention to obstruct justice. >> okay. all right. >> am i wrong? >> that's a very good theory on your part. >> am i wrong in. >> yeah, di do think you're wrong. >> how so? >> i know the guy.

i was there. >> you're saying this didn't happen? >> i was on the executive committee. >> are you saying it didn't happen in. >> i know don junior. i would vouch for him. i'm saying what didn't happen? you're sin he didn't order mueller fired? >> you're unbelievab. i've said four times in this interview -- i've said four times that i accept the reporting. >> if that's what happened how is my theory wrong in. >> it's wrong because i can't get inside the mind of the president but this is what i really believe happened. why did reneed this distraction. mcgann said you can't fire the guy because it will be a disaster and the president said okay. there's no collusion. fast forward to three weeks ago. the president said i expect mr. mueller to treat me fairly. the guy never got fired.

period. the end. if the president was that concerned, why wouldn't he have fired him? >> because he was told it will be really bad for you and the guy resigned and the timing you're ignoring is this is just when mueller in june said they are looking at obstruction of justice. that was reported. mueller said nothing. reporting came out they were looking at obstruction of justice. let's leave it at that. i have other things i have to do. >> i understand that. me too. it's 3:30 in the morning. >> i appreciate you staying up. >> my gentlemen's bet, there's no collusion. the president is not involved with any conclusion. you'll have to pay for dinner. >> i want to find out what's true, what's done. i appreciate you staying up. >> don't say that i didn't say the reporting is inaccurate. i did. i accepted the reporting as accurate. i don't like the way you guys are spinning the reporting. >> i get it. if you accept the reporting then >> i appreciate you being here,

i do. >> but he didn't. he's still there, brother. he's still there. >> for the rest of you tuning in, president trump ordered mueller out over the summer, four sources, "new york times," that's what they say. why it didn't happen is because the white house counsel threatened to quit if he was made to execute that order. the great debate next. whoooo. going somewhere? here's some advice. tripadvisor now searches more... ...than 200 booking sites - to find the hotel you want and save you up to 30%. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor.

breaking news, according to the "new york times" with four sources, president trump ordered special counsel bob mueller to be fired last june. let's bring in simone sanders and jack kingston, only one question tonight, how big a deal is this? forget what we were just hearing from anthony scaramucci about privileged information and timing. we don't know anything to disrupt the reporting as it stands. let's deal with the proposition as it lies. simone, if this is true, what does it mean politically? >> i mean i think politically it means a couple of things. what else do we not know about that happened over the last

couple of months that donald trump and his folks have been denying or brushing to the side. how deep does the rabbit hole really go? it goes to show things cannot be trusted, something i've thought for a very long time and real political implications, if he did ask for special counsel to be fired, that's something you can't come back from in my opinion. >> jack? >> i think at the time you had a different legal counsel. this was before ty cobb got on board and mark kas vits, we did know at the time he put together a partisan group who had given generously to hillary clinton as time has gone on, we found that exactly how partisan that was. that was right. i think the fact that he did not make the fbi directorship job he aspired to be, i think that would make me queezy if he was

investigating me. at the time, kasowicz says you've got to fire him and i've dealt with mcgann, a good guy, he probably stood up, you do that, i'm out of here, you're not listening to me. i think that between the two lawyers, the president did say well, he's right and i'm -- >> that's not what the reporting is. >> let's be clear. that's not what the reporting says. >> the reporting is -- it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. >> ordered to resign if he had to carry that out. the question is this, but for don mcgann, if the president removed bob mueller because he started looking at obstruction of justice by the president, what do you think that would have meant to him and his fate? >> no, think donald is right. don has dealt with politicians in this town and talked them off ledge for decades now. i can see in this position

saying mr. president, i know this is what kas wits is telling you to do but i feel so strongly about it, i would resign. i think that's a legitimate approach. >> it's legitimate except for this, all of the explanations -- if this is true, the explanations have been illegitimate. the question asked whether or not you've considered firing mueller. no i hadn't thought about it. that would have to be a lie and people who have come on my show and other press outlets, never considered it. that would all be lies. how significant? >> it's very significant. look, the fact of the matter is. it is criminal to lie to the fbi, whether or any government official -- government official agencies whether one is under oath or not. there are many folks that have been interviewed by the special counsel's office. if folks went into interviews and noted, point blank asked if the president ever thought about firing director mueller and all said no, they lied if though had

the knowledge we see now in the "new york times" reporting, it's problematic -- >> but none of that was in the story. >> the things coming out -- >> we cannot trust the things coming out of the white house. we heard the president say he never thought about doing it. >> we don't know what went into the counsel's interview and lied about this. we don't know that. we do know that the special counsel learned about these efforts of the president from staffers in interviews. jack, again, let's end where we began. the president wamtnted to fire bob mueller because he was looking into obstruction ever justice, are you worried that investigators would look at that intention as intention to obstruct justice? >> i would say it was probably mark casowicz giving him advice which the president -- >> that wouldn't absolve the president if he took the step of ordering his dismissal. >> if he did it and it was shown that by doing so he was on

instructing the investigation -- really obstruction is a lot more about witness tampering and changing evidence and withholding evidence. >> krcorrupt intent, that he wa trying to do something to stop the administration of justice with corrupt intent. >> but rejecting the advice of mark kas wits -- >> we don't know that's what happened. we do not know that is in fact what happened, congressman. >> we don't know that's not what happened. >> i think it's real rich you're trying to absolve the president -- >> look, there are open questions -- in the new york times, there are open questions but donald trump has a pattern. what the pattern we have from donald trump is a lot of times he'll lie about something that happens and he'll do what he wants to do. >> all of this -- >> i'm convinced -- >> i've convinced her. >> i think you made a lot of progress with sim monday. all that matters, what will this

mean if the president does meet with special counsel and asked about this? if he gives answers he's been giving to the media and others, it may not go well. our coverage continues right now, "cnn tonight" with don lemon. >> and it is bombshell breaking news on the russia investigation, really. this is cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. this is hugely significant. the president, president trump ordered robert mueller, the special counsel heading up the russia investigation fired this past june and the only thing that stopped him was when his own white house counsel threatened to quit rather than carry out the order. this story was first reported by the "new york times" and also reports that mueller learned about his near firing only in the past few months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior white house officials. it has now been confirmed by t