him. i'm not dismissing anybody. i have haven't given it any thought. we learn from maggie indeed he had. >> i want to thank the panelists. that's it for us. obviously this is a major story tonight. time to hand it over to chris cuomo. for "prime time." >> i appreciate it. we're going to be able to get beyond this headline. the president trying to fire the special counsel. is no long r a hypothetical. the "new york times" is reporting it almost happened. last summer. we now though more about the concerted effort that the president had under taken to under mine the special counsel. 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 "prime time." >> again, just to catch yo up to

speed. this is more than the headline the president tried to fire the special counsel. all alone that not only contradicts a narrative consistent out of the white house. but gives us the clearest picture to date of what may be an intent to obstruct. it's still an open question. we have proof that there was an actual effort to under mine the special counsel by the president of the united states. effort that has 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. we all know what everybody in this room would do if the president did that. i don't think it's helpful to the process. the president wants to see this

end. >> we now know that 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 mullers investigation wasn't just looking at russian interference but expanding to possible obstruction of justice by the president of the united states. the times citing four sources. that say mr. trump only backed down when white house counsel don mcgahn refused to ask the justice department to fire mueller and threatened to quit. there are two critical points of analysis. one legal and one political. legally obstruction of justice 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 didn't 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. is it proof that the president is trying to do something that may be criminal? again it's an open question. there is now more of a suggestion of that than there was before this report. there's a clear point. if this reporting is true. 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 false. but let's listen to it again.

>> do you trust the fbi? >> i'm very disturbed. as is the general. as it everybody else that is in intelligence. when you look at five months this is the late great rose mary woods. right? this is large scale version. that was 18 minutes. this is five months. they say it's 50,000 texts. and it's prime time. that's disturbing. >> now, what is disturbing. two things. one, the president had every reason to know when he said that that those missing texts weren't a mystery. the fbi the inspector general the investigation into them had already given information to lawmakers the reason they were missing isn't a cover up. as he's suggesting and others in the republican party. but because of a glitch. that didn't just affect the phones of the two in question. but one in about ten.

thousands of phones. now they're saying now they learned that. so it's not as much as a mystery. the fbi said it found the texts. put that to the side. he cited the nixon example. as it applies to the texts. it really applies to his effort this past summer to topple the special counsel. don mcgahn 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 cox. forget the president's reference of rose mary woods. his secretary. 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. magg magg maggie haberman. where do you want to start? it makes most sense. have you heard anything from the white house in term of response to the report? >> just the statement from ty cobb that's in the story. that out of respect for the process and special counsel they were going to decline comment. that's not a denial. and i think it's just worth noting. the story i think speaks for itself. the first we have heard of an actual effort by the president to do this. i should note credit where it's due. chris ruddy who is an ally of the president and was in the white house last summer, around this time, went on television and said the president was

considering firing mueller. there's a frantic effort by white house advisors to walk that back. and insist it wasn't true. it was true. and i think various people at various points have used the threat of resigning to try to impact the president's behavior. this was clearly one of them. it may have had a very dramatic impact in the don mcgahn stayed on and didn't go anywhere and prevented the president from doing this. >> that is important to note. however there have been numerous members of the administration. im putting together a file in realtime. who have gone out of the way to say the suggestion the president wanted to make a move on the special counsel is bs. they had to no that was a lie. even sarah sanders what she said a few days ago. she had to know she was misleading at best. we now know back in june not did

the president just out of caprice think about moving on mueller. he had attorneys. putting together a case against mueller that had three points. let's discuss those. >> caller: so there were three issues that the president was going to talk about or was talking about as what he believed were conflict of interest. on the part of robert mueller and to your point this all took place at the time when he had a different lead lawyer on his legal team. marc kasowitz. the long time personal attorney. pit ball attorney from new york. what they were talking about was some dispute about fees at a golf club that mueller belonged to. he had a lawyer until he was appointed special counsel. at the same law firm that jared kuch ner's lawyer worked for. and interviewed to be the

interim fbi director replacing james comey. the last two were pushed out by advisors to the president at time on background. they talked about this. they said this is a conflict. i never understood how interviewing for the fbi job was a conflict. and the will mer hail is a firm that employs a number of lawyers. they were looking to build a case. we now know exactly where the case was going. it wasn't just going to be a media campaign to discredit. there was an active effort to try to remove. >> it is important to know at the time that bob mueller was selected by rod rosenstein the president's choice to be the active ag. recus recus recused himself. the man who wrote the memo -- trump never objected. to mueller. his people may have been talking

in background. in fact the opposite is true. he was praised. lifelong republican, decorated veteran. worked for the fbi. there was this case months later gong on and that takes us to the all important question. why he was thinking about moving on the special counsel. what do you understand? >> caller: the $64 million question. that is unanswered. i don't want to speculate too much about the president's mind. he has clearly shown a concern about this investigation that has grown over time. and particularly grown in the last couple weeks as it has two things happened. one it has become clear it wasn't wrapping up by the end of last year. or close to the beginning of the yore. as his lawyer suggested or ty cobb suggested repeatedly. and also it is getting closer to the time he might be interviewed.

he talked about it in a gaggle with reporters that i happened to be at. and he was boastful he was looking forward to meeting with mueller. i will tell you the concern within the white house from people i speak to is much less about the idea he might fire mueller. going forward. although cloerly that's an unspoken fear. the fear is he's going to go in and will go before mueller and say something that would count as perjury. when you are interviewed by federal investigators if you lie that sa felony. and that is their big concern. >> that's an important point. i keep saying that. you're making so many important points. thst all this talk about will the president be under oath. immaterial. whether or not he's under oath he's open and subjected to perjury because if you lie to a federal agent there's a statute. 18 u.s. c 1001.

if you lie to a federal agent it's a crime. there will be federal agents in the room. it's the same. the consideration will be the duration and whether it will be brought to the grand jury. mueller knows this. he has known this for sometime. because of interviews with white house staff. how does that figure into his thinking and your point now? we saw an example of this of what you're talking about yesterday. the president when asked about what he asked andy mccabe. the acting fbi director at the time about whom he voted for in the election. which is inappropriate. a side note that's why bob mueller didn't talk to the attorneys that had hired about who 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 important. you can say that to the media. you can say that. it's up to us to check it.

but the white house hasn't backed off the suggestion he said that to mccabe. and mccabe hasn't said it didn't happen. if you say that, maggie, in front of the investigators, you expose yourself to questions that can lead you into a trap. they are concerned about that. yes? >> yes, correct. that's 100% correct. the answer yesterday was very similar to one that if you look at the video and transcript in the deposition over the years, those are similar to answers he has given in the past. i don't recall, so what, i'd ask you the same thing, i don't remember. it's really worth noting. the white house hasn't backed off the idea he did it. officials were confirming the night before the president said this he did indeed ask that. it's the question that he would ask of many people. and any setting. essentially a version that's how he talks. which by the way is true.

that's how he talks. the problem is the law doesn't necessarily make exceptions for that. and that is why they are concerned about what he will say if he goes before the federal investigators. >> right. maggie, so helpful. thank you very much for scrambling to the phone and talking to us about this. i may call you back later in the show. >> my pleasure. >> thank you for opening our eyes to an important aspect of the situation. let's take all of this one on with with chris stewart of utah. a member of the house intelligence committee. congressman, appreciate you coming on. this story obviously is going to predominate. whaths what's your take on the suggestion in the report? >> i might not be helpful. i got off the airplane. the only thing i know is what i have been listening to you. i haven't had a chance to talk to the whi house. i have always said that mr. mueller should be able to complete liz investigation.

i say that now. i think the president feels that now. he indicated recently or sometime last month he feels mr. mueller will be fair and he would like to see the investigation complete and move forward. i don't know. let's see if i could respond to something you said. maybe we can agree disagree. there's proof here that this means the president wanted to interfere with mr. mueller and the investigation. >> i said that's a question for investigators. >> yeah, okay. maybe i misunderstood. it's too early to draw conclusions from one press report. we know sometimes we have it wrong and some other stories. i'd love to see the white house response. and mccain's response. and get information. >> let's do this. let's look at what we know. literally. please check it any way you want. i'm happy to have you here. you've always be candid. it matter right now more than the past.

this is not just one report. there are four sources. ty cobb the president's lawyer didn't back off of this. other than to say the president wants to cooperate. and of course cob wasn't with him at the time this was happening. we know one thing, unless this is all false and fwen 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 didn't exist when mueller was appointed and he was celebrated by all of you. as a great choice. most of you. jim jordan and others had problems. most celebrated the choice. if this is true, what happened here, and but for don mcgahn, he would have moved on mueller. what do you make of that? >> there are sources, four sources. i haven't had a chance to read

the report. it's uncomfortable for me to -- >> it's uncomfortable for me too. >> but both of us want to gatt rer more information. four anonymous sources. to one newspaper. we have to be gun shy. i'm not saying it doesn't matter. i'm not saying that. >> if it's true. >> let's take a breath. i'll get to that. let's be careful what we say. if it's true, it would be concerning to me. >> why? >> it would show that the process worked. that the people in the organization around the president did what they needed to do. and the out come was actually the right out come. that was mr. mueller wasn't fired. maybe the president in maybe he was angry, frustrated. maybe for a moment he suggested this. we don't know. if he did his instincts were

wrong. the people around him protected the instincts. the investigation went forward as it should. and the process served the president. >> i don't know that the process should be defined as there but for the grace of mcgahn. goes president trump as nixon. this is not any process that's building. you're not supposed to have the white house counsel have to threaten to resign and say you will raise suspicion of obstruction of justice if you do this. and only then he relents. that is a frightening scenario. not reassurance. >> actually it is reassuring. you can substitute people if you want. instead of process. once again they served the people. they served the constitution as they should. and i don't know enough about it to say much more. let's collect information. the president said fairly recently he thinks mr. mueller will be fair. i think he'll be fair. we don't hear any talk of

collusion any longer. we don't hear talk. >> we don't hear any talk of anything. i hear this from lawmakers. we haven't heard anything out of mueller and the investigation. other than people they interviewed. and some of the charges that have been brought. and deals being cut. the fact we're hearing about collusion or not is irrelevant. we have heard nothing from them. >> we have never heard anything from mueller. we heard collusion from lots of other people. >> those are politicians. >> we heard collusion for months and months from the intelligence community. investigating this. we heard it from other members of congress and the senate. the investigation there's more investigations going on. ours has been going on much longer. there were many people as you know who were claiming collusion for months. >> congressman, hold on. because this is confusing.

once we hear from bob mueller that is the only time we will know what proof they have. what we hear from the congressional committee with all due respect has to be discounted because the partisan nature of what's going on is as disgusting as it is obvious. the recent efforts which thankfully have been diffused by the facts to under mine the fbi are as coincidenceal as usual get. painting missing texts as something they were not. paint fisa abuses with a memo you won't release. a secret organization. a senator, ron johnson, responsible for homeland security. comes on and says in there's a shadow organization essentially. that is under mining justice in the fbi. and a couple days later, or it's a joke. come on. if you want to talk about what we don't need to hear anymore of. start there, no? >> i can't answer for everything

that every politician says. >> you can answer for that. members of your party. >> i can't answer for anything. >> you can condemn it. it was wrong. you should say they shouldn't have made it up. they should apologize. >> just a minute. let me finish my thought. i used a word with you last week. some people are overly dramatic. that's true. that's what i'm trying to not do tonight. let's gather more information before we draw conclusions. before we use the loaded words that we have used in my opinion even you have used tonight. >> what have i used tonight? >> let me -- >> people saying kwaent trust the fbi. including the president of the united states. >> you and i become friend. i trust you. i'm glad to be on the show. >> thank you the respect is returned. >> thank you. if i could come back to the point. i think it's so important you are discounting completely the effort of the intelligence committee here in the house

because you said it became partisan. i completely agree on that. i said it early on many times. i wanted special counsel. we used to work in a bipartisan. we have taken that investigation very seriously. we have tried to ask every question to answer every question. and all we can do at the end of the investigation is tell the american people the truth. tell them what we have learned. we have tried to do that. i can promise you that is our goal. we're going everything we can to do exactly that. it has become partisan. that's too bad. we need to focus on the work we're trying to do. >> i understand the intention. we hope it gets carried out. i appreciate you for being on tonight. it's an important moment. >> thank you, sir. >> this breaking news tonight. president of the united states reportedly ordered the special counsel to be fired. over the summer.

about june. setting the legal implications aside the political implications could certainly shake up the white house. we will be right back with that. see that's funny, i thought you traded options. i'm not really a wall street guy. what's the hesitation? eh, it just feels too complicated, you know? you know, at td ameritrade, we can walk you through your options trades step by step until you're comfortable. i could be up for that. step-by-step options trading support from td ameritrade sometimes you need an expert. i got it. and sometimes those experts need experts. on it. [ crash ] and sometimes the expert the expert needed needs insurance expertise. it's all good. steve, you're covered for general liability. and, paul, we got your back with workers' comp. wow, it's like a party in here.

where are the hors d'oeuvres, right? [ clanking ] tartlets? we cover commercial vehicles, too. i think there's something wrong with your sink. we cover commercial vehicles, too. i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores.

don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. breaking news tonight the "new york times" reporting president trump ordered speshlt counsel robert mueller to be fired. last june. and only backed down when white house counsel don mcgahn 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. >> mr. president, you thought or thought about considered leading the dismissal of the special counsel. anything he could do to send you in the direction? >> i haven't given it any 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. >> if the "new york times" and its four sources on this story are to be believed the president of the united states and numerous of his advisors are lying about this. there's a will the to talk about. here with cnn contributor norman. and cnn presidential historian tim. tim, let's start with the macro view of this. the president brought up rose

mary wood. nixons secretary. and the hole in the tape. he did that in the context of the fbi missing texts. and did so erroneously. there's no intrigue with those. and by the way he had every reason to know there was no enteeg with those. that the fbi said it was a glitch. it wasn't just the two agents involved. it was one in every ten phones. now the fbi is saying they found the missing texts. so that was a bogus assertion. but could it be true that but for white house counsel don mcgahn, if the president of the united states had ordered the firing of the special counsel, he might have wound up exactly where nixon was? >> we would have had i think it's likely we would have had an impeachment crisis last june. you may 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 nixons case, he wanted to fire cox the special prosecutor and his team stopped him from doing it in the summer of 73. but they couldn't hold him back by october of 73. and he pulled the trigger. >> why? >> because they -- he said i won't give the tapes up. and they said we'll find a compromise that will satisfy the special counsel. at this special prosecutor and couldn't. when they couldn't he said okay now he's gone. we don't know what promises if any mcgahn made to the president about containing mueller. but it means the president wants to fire mueller. that's if the reporting, four sources that's darn good. if the reporting is solid and turns out to be accurate the president wants to fire the

special counsel. that would be a disaster for his presidency. just because he didn't do it in june doesn't mean he doesn't want to do it in january. there's a crisis atmosphere over the white house. >> all right, so, you were in the obama administration. you were in the ethics department. you understand the issues and what needs to be satisfied for a prosecution. obviously this is hypothetical. we know mueller is aware reportedly that this was a foot in june. what would make the removal of the special counsel by a president a crime? because obviously he can remove a special counsel. there's a process, obviously 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.

and yes, there are circumstances where the removal of a special counsel would itself constitute obstruction. the way the law works is you love at the intent. if there is a corrupt intent to block or cut off or interfere with a government investigation, even if you're exercising otherwise lawful power, if you're 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 from somebody. those wrong purposes are why we instruct juries in obstruction cases. if it is a wrong improper, evil or bad purpose that's corrupt intent. that's why the news is so important. tim, of course wisely as always makes the analogy. nixon didn't want to turn over the tapes. because he knew that they would implicate him. there was evidence. >> what do you have here that

would be similar to that? there's no suggestion that the president was being asked to do anything he doesn't want to do and therefore moved on the special counsel. here the most gross suggestion in the reporting is in june, the timing becomes relevant. the special counsel was now looking at obstruction. the only reason he was looking at obstruction is because the president moved on gym jim comey and other actions that raised the suspicion of the investigators. and sure enough there was one. but if the timing is not just coincidence. that he says i have obstruction of justice, you're not going after me. i'm firing you. is that enough certainly not on its own it isn't because he didn't fire him. would it be intent of something that could satisfy any criminal standard? >> i do think that we're moving

towards having sufficient evidence to satisfy the obstruction standard. and like you, i'm not happy to hear it. and i agree that we have to be caution. and i'm not ready to say there was obstruction. that's why mueller has to sit across from the president and look into his eyes and listen to him as he talks. 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 that the president is protecting flynn? what does flynn have on the president or don jr.? 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. he's cut his deal with flynn. >> there's something else. there's smlg else the president

may say when he looks mueller in the eye. in any interview that happens. i want your take on this. a the tile he was appointed we heard nothing from president trump about why the guy was unfit or conflicted. with know according to to the reporting he was having his prior lawyer marc kasowitz and others. make a case. if he wanted to move on you because you quit a golf course over a dispute over fees. you were the member of a firm that represented jared kushner. and number three, you just interviewed to be the director of fbi and i wasn't going to use you and you were appointed special counsel after. that's why i don't trust you. is that enough to clear a legal standard in your opinion? >> listen, i'm not a lawyer. >> let's go to -- >> i'll say it's a political standard that matters here. congress would have to see that this that he is reached this

threshold that makes him politically unfit to remain in office. it's a political issue rather than. >> impeachment is only as good as the votes you can fwet. it's a political process. it would require the gop to move on one of their own. if he lays out the three reasons and say you are conflicted you're out, is that good enough to clear him? >> bob mueller will laugh in his face. sfwl it shows where his intentions your. >> no. those are bogus intentions. and that's just what -- it's not a partisan thing. i was the obama czar the bush czar and i wrote when the president and his colleagues floated these bogus excuses, there is no legal basis. those are not sufficient legal conflicts. those are not the real reasons. >> that's what you have to show. >> mueller left -- >> the president may well say they are.

and 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. thank you for giving us spective here. we'll see what happens. >> thanks, chris. >> for the rest of us. breaking news president trump ordered mueller's firing last summer. that's what the "new york times" is reporting. with four sources. up next, we'll go on one on one with a member of the president's inner circle. who is in davos. former white house communication director anthony scaramucci. he'll tell us what he thinks of this. next. we stay with you to and through retirement. i get that voya is with me through retirement, i'm just surprised it means in my kitchen. so that means no breakfast? voya. helping you to and through retirement.

if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough,

it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

we usso why do we pay to havers a phone connectede days. when we're already paying for internet? shouldn't it all just be one thing? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you can get 5 lines of talk and text included at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. choose by the gig or unlimited. and ask how to get a $150 prepaid card when you buy

a new lg x charge. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com breaking news tonight. president trump ordered special prosecutor bob mueller to be fired last june. that's according to to the "new york times." and four sources. former white house communication director anthony scaramucci. joins me now. he's in davos where the president is. for context here, last month you to fire mueller.nt is too smart when you said that, did you know what he had been trying to do last june? >> i actually didn't know. but it's totally irrelevant. he didn't fire mueller. and i find it very ironic this information is coming out while he's here in davos.

while he had great fanfare. you and me i would love to get a look at steve bannon's phone record and see who he's talking to and how the information is out there. second thing is that the president talks to everybody and so this information apparently happened in june. why is it coming out right now like a big water balloon object president when he's having a fantastic trip here in davos meeting with world leaders and about to get a fantastic speech about global prosperity and global growth? i find this to be a nonsensical story. and another in the -- >> i appreciate you -- it matters too much. it can't be a red herring. a red herring is a distraction for what is otherwise important. the timing of -- >> we're distracting from the

president's speech tomorrow. and all the great things he's doing here in terms of laying the ground work. distracting from the business leaders meetings he had today. the meeting with the prime minister of the united kingdom and israel. and we're distracting from the speech he'll give at 2:00 p.m. today. >> you think any of that -- you think of that matters nearly as much as efforts. >> he's had the story for a year. where's the collusion evidence and the story? >> over talking is not being compelling. different things. you are saying i'm tired of hearing collusion. we have lemarned nothing. you're a lawyer you went to harvard. we have heard nothing from bob mueller. we have no idea what he knows and doesn't. we do know that the congressional investigations with the exception perhaps of the senate intelligence committee has been nothing but

partisan backed. the idea we have heard nif about collusion. that's all bs. we don't know anything. the questions out there the conclusion will come. to say it's a distraction. it sound like the suggestions about the fbi that the president and others are saying it's not trustworthy on the basis of nothing. talking about text messages they had to back of off. notions of a secret group. they had to back off of. saying it was a cover up when they knew it wasn't true. everybody knows it wasn't true. don't say the reporting can't be believed because of the timing. deal with what it is on its face. the white house hasn't denied it. four sources. >> chris, i did not say that the reporting cannot be believed. >> you just said it. >> i didn't i said it's a red herring. he never fired mueller. >> what's the difference? >> the president believes there

was no collusion in the russian investigation. >> is that why he tried to fire the special counsel? >> not contemplating the firing. if he thought there was no collusion and sat down with the white house counsel and in a private conversation, the president in a privilege conversation with his attorney. i did go to harvard law school. i know a privilege conversation. i know he had interlopers in the white house last june that were leaking information on him that was very unfair. you're telling me your president is not allowed to have a confidential conversation with the whoit house counsel? >> so what. this is about the truth. if don mcgahn hadn't threatened to resign. this distraction about leaks and steve bannon. who cares about that? >> you know i'm making sense. to the viewers. >> you're saying don't believe the reporting it was a leak by bannon. >> i'm not saying that. i'm accepting the reporting.

maggie haberman is phenomenal. i'm not saying that. don't say i'm not saying. what i am saying he didn't fire the guy. he may have had a conversation about firing the guy and made the decision not to fire the guy. the guy is in place. you can't say had e fired him. >> i didn't say he fired him. >> the reporting is he wanted to fire him. >> contemplating. >> he wasn't contemplating. he ordered mcgahn to make the move. mcgahn said i will resign if i have to do that. and then the president relented. and. >> you're twisting the story. >> that's the reporting. >> why is that coming out tonight? >> this is when they got it. it's irrelevant. when it comes out. >> point number one he didn't fire the person. point number two the president

believes there was no collusion. despite only being in the white house eleven days i work for the president for 18 months i didn't see any collusion. there's been news stories that had to be shot down and people fired over the russian investigation. point number four, robert mueller is still in his job. as a special investigation. he is still in his swrob and the president said recently that he expects mueller to treat him fairly. and obviously believes he's going to be exonerated. you're telling me a private conversation. >> it doesn't matter if it was a private conversation. >> with your counsel. it does matter. >> not to the truth of the matter asserted. it doesn't matter it's private. >> interloping leakers. >> irrelevant. irrelevant. how the information came out is irrelevant. the substance of e reporting is relevant.

don mcgahn said i won't fire -- he said i won't do what you're ordering me to do. it's bad for you. it's wrong to do. and the president relented. even if he didn't fire him. which he didn't. >> the if the fired james comey. did he get fired yes or no? you're not listening. >> you're making silly points. >> i'm trying to tell you that you're focussed on something that's not fair to the president. the president -- i'll accept maggie's words. shes an honest, ethical journalist. >> four sources. >> i accept that. i'm saying as a lawyer somebody that went to harvard law school, the president is not allowed to have a privilege and private conversation with the white house counsel? no he isn't. we have a ton of leakers inside the white house predating my

departure on july 31. now that water baa lon is being dropped on the president when he's about to make a historical speech about global peace and prosperity. he doesn't think there was collusion. the decision was made not to fire mueller and the president said most recently he expects him to treat him fairly. that's my side of the story. you want to say there's under lying guilt because he wanted to fire him and some kind of anxiety about what happened. and i'm saying the very opposite. there's no collusion. it's non-sense. >> what you're saying. >> four months into the job and asking for advice from the white house counsel. >> that's not what happened. >> what happened, chris? >> i like your theory. it's creative and protective. it's also not the reporting. the reporting is he ordered mueller fired. mcgahn 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 mcgahn, it could mean to investigators he does have the intention to obstruct justice. >> okay. all right, listen. >> am i wrong? >> that's a good theory on your point. i actually, yeah i think you're wrong. >> how so? >> in all due respect. how so, because i know the guy. i was there. >> you're saying this didn't happen? >> i was part of the campaign. i was on the executive committee for the transition team. i know don jr. i would vouch for him. >> he didn't order mueller fired and don mcgahn. >> i have said four times in the

interview that i accept the reporting. >> if that's what happens, how is my theory wrong about what it could mean to investigators? >> because i can't get inside the mind of the president. this is what i really believe happened. he said there's no collusion here, why do we need this unnecessary distraction of a special prosecutor? and mcgahn told him you can't fire the guy. it will be a disaster for you. and the president said okay. no problem. there's no collusion. fast forward to thee weeks ago the president said i expect mueller to treat me fairly. the guy never got fired. period, the end. if he was that concerned why didn't he fire him? >> he was told it would be bad for you. and the guy would resign. they are looking at obstruction of justice. reports came out they were looking at obstruction of

justice. that's what it happened. >> let's see how it plays out. i understand that. me >> but my gentleman's bet, there is no collusion. the president is not involved with any collusion. >> i don't want to bet. i want to find out what's true, what's done and what it means for the process of justice. i appreciate you staying up late. >> don't say that i didn't say the reporting is inaccurate, because i did. i accepted the reporting is accurate. i just don't like the way you guys are spinning the reporting is all. >> i get it. if you accept the reporting, you accept that the president reportedly ordered mueller out. but i appreciate you being here. i do. >> but he didn't. but he is still there, brother. he is still there. >> okay. breaking news tonight for the rest of you just tuning in. president trump ordered mueller out over the summer. four sources, "the 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. why wait months for your next vacation when you can squeeze one in between friday and monday at hilton? there's a vacation at the end of every week. whatever type of weekender you are, don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com

gathered here are the world's finest insurance experts. rodney -- mastermind of discounts like safe driver, paperless. the list goes on. how about a discount for long lists? gold. mara, you save our customers hundreds for switching almost effortlessly. it's a gift. and jamie. -present. -together we are unstoppable. so, what are we gonna do? ♪ insurance. that's kind of what we do here. the commute is worth it.me, the more you know for all the work you pour into this place, you sure get a lot more out of it. you and that john deere tractor... so versatile, you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive. but just like a john deere, it's worth it. nothing runs like a deere. now you can own a 1e sub-compact tractor for just 99 dollars a month.

learn more at your john deere dealer. we can now simulate the exact anatomyh care, of a patient's brain before surgery. if we can do that, imagine what we can do for seizures. and if we can fix damaged heart valves

without open heart surgery, imagine what we can do for an irregular heartbeat, even high blood pressure. if we can use analyze each patient's breast cancer to personalize their treatment, imagine what we can do for the conditions that affect us all. imagine what we can do for you. 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 cnn political commentator s commentator symone 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.

symone sanders, 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? i think it goes to show that things coming out of this white house cannot be trusted. it's something i've thought for a really long time. these are real political implications. if donald trump did ask for the special counsel to be fired, that's something you just 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. >> true. >> mark castlewitz. >> as you know, his whole approach to this was let's be street fighters. challenging mueller's credentials, 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 out exactly how partisan that was. so 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 queasy if he was investigating me. but i think at the time kasowitz says you ought to fire him. i've dealt wimcgahn many, many years. he said look you do that, i'm out of here because you're not listening to me. i think that between the two lawyers, the president did say well, don mcgahn is right. >> that's not what the reporting is. symone, the reporting is don mcgahn said he would 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, jack?

and his fate? >> no, i think don was 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 kasowitz is telling you to do. but i feel so strongly about it, i would resign. i think that's the legitimate approach. >> it's legitimate except for this, all of the explanations -- if this is true, the explanations have been illegitimate. the president asked whether or not you have considered firing mueller. no, i've never even thought about it. that would have to be a lie if this was true. and a list that i have in front of me of different people who have come on my show and other press media outlets and said never considered it. 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 or any other 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 -- the fact of the matter is we can't trust the things coming out -- we cannot trust the things coming out of the white house. >> true. >> 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. if the president wanted 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 markas sow wits giving him probably a client attorney privilege conversation some

advice which the president was smart enough to take. >> but jack, that wouldn't absolve the president if he then took the step of ordering his dismissal. >> if he did it and it was shown that by doing so he was on obstruction on the investigation, because really, obstruction is a lot more about witness tampering and changing evidence and withholding evidence. >> corrupt intent, that he was trying to do something to stop the administration of justice with corrupt intent. >> but rejecting the advice of of markas sow -- markasle wits. >> 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 -- >> no, no, look. there are open questions. >> what we're seeing in "the new york times." there are open questions. but i think donald trump has a pattern. he 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 -- >> symone -- >> i've convinced her. >> i think you made a lot of progress with symone. 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. >> this is cnn breaking news. >> 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 don mcgahn threatened to quit rather than carry out the order. this story was first reported by "the new york times," which also reports that mueller learned about his near firingnl