when you see the statue. how do you feel about that? >> that was put up as a way of telling black and brown people you go this far and no further. >> what do you base that statement on? >> the history. >> that's contrary to anything i know. >> how would you feel if you were a black man or black woman. you talk about generations of enslavement. how do you feel seeing the statue? >> i don't think as a white person i will ever completely understand how a black person feels. >> and he also has an exclusive interview with jay z. quite a show. that's it for us. time to hand it over to chris cuomo. for cuomo "prime time." >> have a good weekend. everybody keep an eye on your

twitter feed. president of the united states landed from his davos trip and will want to throw shade on the new reporting on efforts to oust the special counsel. you may want to listen to advisors who will beg him to put down the phone. what are we going to do tonight? what you need to know about the case against the president. the pluses and the minuses. and we'll test them with one of his former counsels. a man who was there when this happened. it's friday night, let's get after it. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." new questions no doubt about that. into possible obstruction of justice fuelled by reports that trump ordered white house counsel don mcgahn to fire robert mueller. we'll go one on one with a lawyer who worked in the white house with mcgahn when it happened. the show has a mandate.

let's start with facts first. what is obstruction of justice? influence, ob trukt or impede the due administration of justice. quick lesson. two parts to a crime. criminal act. and just as important the intent component. that will be the trick here for prosecutors. they have to show president trump did whatever he did with corrupt intent. what does that mean? he was doing it to mess with the investigation and its goal. the president has flatly denied that specific crime. there's no easy route to knowing why he did what he did. until perhaps this latest reporting. about his order to fire mueller. and the timing thereof. let's start with the first in a series of actions that investigators may consider. last. when the fbi director jim comb told him i need loyalty. i expect loyalty. then comey says in february

trump told comey i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go. letting former national security advisor michael flynn go. he's a good guy. i hope you can let this go. march the president reportedly asked the white house counsel to pressure jeff sessions not to recuse himself from the russia investigation which of course sessions did. >> i am disappointed in the attorney general. he should not have recused himself. almost immediately after he took office. and if he was going to recuse himself he should have told me prior to taking office. and i would have quite simply picked somebody else. >> all right. there's reporting the president was saying who's got my back? where's my roy cone? in may he fires fbi director jim comey and gave a possibly incriminating reason. >> i was going to fire him. regardless of recommendation.

knowing there was no good time to do it. in fact, when i decided to just do it i said to myself i said you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made up story. it's an excuse by the democrats for having lost an election. that they should have won. >> now, for many of you when you hear that and hear me say possibly incriminating. you get upset. you have to understand, that's not corrupt intent. that the president doesn't like the russia investigation. for all of these facts all of the acts, not facts. he could well explain his intention in ways that have nothing to do with corrupt intent. he likes loyal people and asked for loyalty. he likes flynn and didn't think she should be prosecuted. he didn't think sessions should recuse himself and it made him angry. comey had to go buzz it was a pointless investigation into collusion. ordering the fire of mueller could be different.

because it came right after the special counsel. the word came out he was looking into the president for obstruction of justice. that may signal something different to investigators. if the president doesn't tell the truth to the investigators, federal agents. about ordering the firing or anything else they may never need to get to obstruction of justice. all right there are the facts those are the questions. let's take it on. cnn legal comment ator. he believes his work in the white house counsel office he has an ethical obligation not to talk about what he knew and didn't know. that's fine. we have plenty to chew on with the facts. one point you want to make a fair point and true point. let's get it out of the way. those those says he tried to -- he ordered the firing of mueller.

that's obstruction of justice. can't be because he never foo fired mueller. what do you make of what i said? where am i wrong? >> i think first of all we have to look at the facts. the facts in "new york times" are starting to evolve. it came down to -- if you believe the "new york times," that he gave an order. the "new york times" is now changed its story somewhat. and it was about conflict of interest. he was asking his lawyer about conflict of interest. according to to the "new york times" report and reports out there. if he wanted evaluation of his lawyer on conflicts of interest as it related to mueller that's something don mcgahn could do. and according to to the reports he did to. and according to to the reports he gave advice. that's good advice. >> all right, i would quibble with the fact the times is changing its reporting. this isn't just about the "new york times" anymore. cnn and out lets matched the reporting and advanced it. but the point of well there's

this conflict stuff going on. the marc kasowitz and others were bringing up. he had chances to bring this up when mueller was brought up and the incidents earlier. none of the conflicts cape up later. they were old news. they never came up. he could have brought those up as the reason for doing it. and didn't. he never brought them up. ordering the firing right after word comes out that mueller is looking into obstruction of justice by the president. that's some coincidence timing don't you think? doesn't that mean something to investigators? >> i think the idea that the this was an order given is something that certainly in dispute. it's something that you have seen sources starting to dispute in the stories as they become evolve. whethe it was an order, whe he had questions. can go to his white house counsel and ask for advice. today extent that ever happened,

that's an appropriate question to ask of your white house counsel. and he gave an appropriate answer. if you believe what you read in the newspaper. >> if he asked what can i do what can i not do. there's nothing to suggest that's what happened. it's reported as he ordered it. and it's reported as mcgahn threatened to quit. if he made him go through with it. and then the president relented. again, we will stipulate that this can't be obstruction of justice on its face. there was no firing. but why isn't that evidence of something investigators could look at and say wow, he heard that the special counsel was looking at him and wanted to move on mueller. maybe that is also the intentional it i that motivated his other actions in the pattern of conduct. >> let's think about the timing. talking about something that allegedly occurred back in june. now we're here. now we're in a time it's getting

close to a point where mueller may want to talk to the president. now all of a sudden characterizing a bomb shell. a conversation between the president and white house counsel. becomes a bomb shell. >> you're calling it a conversation. we have no reason to ploobeliev was a conversation. unless you want too to do that. we have never heard about it as a conversation. this is what i want to do and you're going to do it. mcgahn said don't do this. it will really push this question of obstruction of justice. i'll resign. and said fine i won't do it. that's not a conversation. that's different. the timing is very relevant because it came out when word that the obstruction of justice case revolving around the president was going to be a focus of this. >> doint have any non-public information about this issue. that's why i come opt show and talk about it. >> i thought you liked me.

>> i wasn't there. of course i came on the show because i like you. but i do want to say that the facts are certainly in dispute. depending on the articles you're looking at. that's something that has to be taken into consideration. and people have to be have to take a step back before you draw a conclusion. the person and the group ta will figure this out is likely mueller. they probably already asked the questions reltded to the conversations. we don't know about it. we're not part of the investigation. >> true. that's a good point. so many people say the mueller investigation has been leaking. i know leaks. this is not a leaky investigation. but we do understand from the reporting that mueller does know about this scenario already. from white house staffers. that is an intriguing prospect. what do they remember about why it happened at the time? what do they rember about what the president was saying and thinking that was motivating this body of activity? that's relevant.

another point you were trying to make about timing. why are we learning about this if it happened back? june. that doesn't wash with me. it takes time for people to come forward and talk about things. and the idea that it's coming out now because the investigation is winding up and the media wants to keep it going. or want to rain on his parade in davos. that's only unsubstantiated. and silly. why would that be the motivation? you go with the story when you get it. >> i didn't blame the news media. these are all coming to light now. there are folks that may have information that pr bringing it to light and talking when they shouldn't be talking. and leaking information when they shouldn't be lauking information. >> that's beside the point. how -- >> it's becoming public. at a time and becoming public at a time as this whole thing is winding down. and everybody wants to portray it as a bomb shell. i'm certain to the extent that any of this is true -- it's not

a bomb shell. to mueller. >> well, fine. it is to us in our understanding of it. would you agree with this statement. that from everything we have learned so far, this is the best evidence we have seen and i'm using evidence not as something that's material and come tent in court. this is the best sense we have gotten so far of where his head was when he was going to do something that was involved with this investigation. this is the closest we have gotten to understanding the timing, and the intentionality of him making a move. he didn't do it. but ordered it according to to the reporting. >> a characterization of what one man said relative to an issue. the folks that sort that out is mueller. not us on the show. it's fun to talk about. but it's not us on the show. mueller will parse this.

mueller will ask the appropriate questions. probably has asked the appropriate questions relative to it. and as with get closer and closer to the request for a discussion with the president, we'll see the facts continue to play out. >> if somebody tries to do something to impede an investigation, into them and a criminal act, would you see that as obstruction of justice? >> well they have to have criminal intent. you talked about it. you said it. they have to have criminal intent. >> that would mean they have to be doing it to disrupt that effort to bring them to justice, right? >> correct. >> that will be the question. it is only one man's reckoning we get. it's the man. the president we're talking about. i appreciate your mind on this matter. especially a friday night. thank you for doing it. >> thanks for having me on. >> be well. some lawmakers say mueller now especially needs to be protected from the president.

there should be a bill blocking trump from firing the special counsel. is it constitutional? is it legal? is it necessary? will republicans allow it? we'll discuss, next. not just airline purchases. think about all the double miles you could be earning. (yelling) holy moly, that's a lot of miles! shh-h-h-h! ( ♪ ) shh! what's in your wallet? man: shh-h-h!

you're more than just a bathroom disease..shh! you're a life of unpredictable symptoms. crohn's, you've tried to own us. but now it's our turn to take control with stelara® stelara® works differently for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system

to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion, and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. we're fed up with your unpredictability. remission can start with stelara®. talk to your doctor today. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for stelara®. 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. all right. it has been 24 hours since we learned that president trump tried at least once to fire special counsel bob mueller. some lawmakers are working on a bill openfully that would be law in the estimation to block trumps ability to fire mueller. tonight a top senate republican chuck grassly is urging trump to let the investigation work its course. that's very different than him saying he would back a bill to stop the president legally from moving on a special koun counsel. the great debate. former federal prosecutor and former independent counsel for the whoit water investigation. mr. robert ray. and former federal prosecutor and nyu law professor.

it is very good to have you both. let's do this the easy way. pro, con. in terms of the situation. make a case to me professor, that it would be okay to pass a law to stop the president of the united states from acting on his responsibility over law enforcement. >> remember there used to be an independent counsel act. which bob can speak to at length. that did sort of set forth what independent counsel could and couldn't do. that bill lapsed. it wasn't renewed. >> did it allow that the president could not fire a special counsel? >> i'll have to turn to my expert. >> the president could fire. but there was recourse. >> the idea of proscribing. not allowing him to fire. why is that okay? >> for the president to fire, for anyone to fire bob mueller now there would have to be a report to the house judiciary committee and cause that he did something wrong.

to be clear it's not like you can just say. >> can't do it on a whim. >> you have to make a case. that could be made public. >> why don't we want this law? >> there's some real serious question about whether it's constitutional. i'm not sure first of all other than an academic exercise. i don't think the votes are there to enact that legislation. >> this is a political process. that's what matters. >> i'm a bottom line person. it's not likely to happen. also things have changed. both parties lived through independent counsel world. and they came away if they didn't agree on anything, the one thing they agreed on they both have been victim of it and didn't want it. that's a prak kal answer to the question. there's wisdom in that. the second thing is the constitution matter. the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute was endorsed by the supreme court 8

to 1. the one is something that people paid a lot of attention to. but given the history of this. it turned out a lot of what he said was right. that was ska lee ya. lessons were learned. >> rest in peace. but his thinking is in the mind of the stuff. let's get to the substance. the notion that ordering of his special counsel to fire bob mueller if true that's the best window we have had into what investigators may look at as suggestion of corrupt intent. the timing came out. mueller is looking for obstruction. that's it he has to go. do you accept that? it could be something investigators look at differently. >> it's a critically important fact. mueller is looking at everything. this is one of many facts. what i think is important about it, we had the information about comey being fired. the conversations. a series of conversations and pieces. but all related to sort of this

first piece. and now i think we see more of a pattern of an interest in trying to stop the investigation. mueller still would need to prove corruptly intends, persuade. intent in someone's head. the more pieces you have the easier it becomes for prosecutor to prove what intent is. it's an important piece of evidence. again, to me this obstruction question will be a series of different facts. there's no one smoking gun. there are a number of pieces that come together to make me believe mueller is making a case or pulling together evidence that goes in this exact direction. this is an important piece of that if the witnesses are confirming what we have seen publicly reported. >> do you smell what the professor is cooking? >> yes and no. it's important to uncover those facts and for bob mueller to consider them. i expect at the end of the process no matter what happens if there's a prosecution or not.

he'll deliver up a report to the deputy attorney general that will be released to the congress. and probably be released to the congress. i agree with you this an important evidence to be considered by the country. not just bob mueller. >> we'll stipulate to that. but if you're asking me about the legal question. as a prosecutor. in other words mueller principally is not a fact gatherer for his health. he's for purposes determining whether or not prosecutions are warranted. we have a number of problems there. we have the unresolved question, i don't think a sitting president can be indicted. >> we'll move passed that. >> the process would be a fact gathering process that might provide grounds to warrant initiate impeachment proceedings. if you're asking the legal question i really don't think given the fact the president's prerogative is the head of the executive branch. and the constitutional officer

that he is, if he wants to fire gym comey he has every right to do that. for a good reason. for a bad reason. for no reason at all. some suggest he couldn't fire an fbi director for racially motivated reasons or because they are statutes in congress that prevent that. could he be indicted for that while he's president? probably not. you can remove him from office and charge him with a violation. for example the civil rights act. the notion that you would be able to show whether by proof or just think about it. that a president carries corrupt intent in firing someone that he's entitled to fire sfwl is it absolute? >> i would go back and forth. i think the first point is that there's nothing in the constitution that gives the president immunity from prosecution. for felonies.

this is a conversation we don't have to stay on. the constitution doesn't say the president cannot be prosecuted. that's important. if it intended that it would have said that. the second thing is, to say that the chief law enforcement officer is not liable under the law because they are the chief law enforcement officer. it strikes me as incredible. i was the chief law enforcement for new jersey when i was attorney general. i could take over any criminal case, i could super seed any police department. there is no way in my mind that i could have fired chiefs of police. i did take actions where i need to. the idea i could have done that because they were investigating me. it goes against the roul of law. >> i hear that. and there are a number of americans and a number of legal experts and you're reflecting that view too, it rubs in the krau. it suggests if you make the argument i'm making you're making an argue the president is above the law. i have to tell you, i spent an entire investigation trying to

validate the principle that clinton was not above the law. i will say with regard, even nixon no one claimed during water gate that richard nixon was committing a crime. by firing cox. he had every right to do that. including the right to do that because he didn't like the fact cox was getting close to showing that richard nixon engaged nd criminal misconduct. you can charge once he's removed from office. for a whole bunch of things including orchestrating a conspiracy to obstruction justice. to pay off witnesses. what you can't do i don't think is charge richard nixon or trump with a crime of obstruction of justice because he removed somebody from office. which he had every right to do it. >> this is why the question is obstruction is intent. yes, if he thought there was terrible conduct, racial

discrimination or didn't like comey. okay. we agree on that. the real question is going beyond that. did he do it because he intended to stop an investigation into his campaign? >> an unusual constitutional law. your role in new jersey. correct. but the president is a unique constitutional officer. he's the only person other than the vice president who is elected by all of the people in the country. and the second thing is he has the authority as the executive branch and the chief executive to in effect remove. you think he can be charged. he can remove the attorney general. the special counsel. every prosecutor. i have to go. i get bha you're saying. it wind up being -- here's why. i don't expect that the special counsel is going to indict the president. but when he does pass along this report. if he says the facts show not only did he to these things because he could.

he did them because he wanted to and didn't like it was about him. that could mean something to congress that it wouldn't have meant otherwise. however, where do we wind up? it's a political process. if they don't have the votes it doesn't matter what the basis is. it means whatever they want it to. >> high crimes and misdemeanor. it's up to the plit cat process to decide what they want. >> the gop would have to move against the president. we haven't seen resolve to do that at all. that was helpful and i appreciate it. up next something very different. u.s. ambassador to the united nations. she has been forced to deny whether she had an affair with the president of the united states. tonight we'll show you how this got started and why it needs to stop. next. hundred miles inland to their breeding grounds. except for these two fellows. this time next year,

we're gonna be sitting on an egg. i think we're getting close! make a u-turn... u-turn? recalculating... man, we are never gonna breed. just give it a second. you will arrive in 92 days. nah, nuh-uh. nope, nope, nope. you know who i'm gonna follow? my instincts. as long as gps can still get you lost, you can count on geico saving folks money. i'm breeding, man. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. he gets the best deal on the perfect hotel by using. tripadvisor! that's because tripadvisor lets you start your trip on the right foot... by comparing prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. saving you up to 30%! you'll be bathing in savings! tripadvisor. check the latest reviews and lowest prices.

i no wondering, "what if?" uncertainties of hep c. i let go of all those feelings. because i am cured with harvoni. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c. it's been prescribed to more than a quarter million people. and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who've have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni, your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b, which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment.

tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness. ready to let go of hep c? ask your hep c specialist about harvoni.

all right. i don't know if you heard about this. you should have. in a stunning interview the u.s. ambassador to the united nations nikki haley took on a rumor shooets having an affair with

president trump. just when we have momentum going to confront the disrespect of women in the society. even the vaguest suggestion that a woman success maybe tied to sex. catches fire. spawned by the book "fire and fury." specifically an interview about the book with a comedian and the author. michael wolff. here's a part of the conversation. >> you have to read between the lines. >> what lines? tell us the line. it's in the book. >> it's towards the end. you have to, you'll know it. now that i have told you. when you hit the paragraph. >> one, you won't hear journalist talk like that about they're reporting. he alleges trump has been quote spending a notable amount of private time with hayly on air force one. people took it to be nikki haley. that's all he has. and more sad that's all it took.

to give a whiff of credibility to an otherwise becauseless rumor. we'll go one on one. she spoke to nikki haley for the pod cast women rule. you know what, nikki haley is among those numbers. tremendously successful. a stand out governor and the u.s. ambassador. she had to to deal with this. she wanted to. >> agree with you. it's unfortunate she had to address it. she didn't have to. but she did address this when i asked about it. i should say that her office was open with me about the fact they haven't fielded a lot of inquiry from journalists about this rumor. michael wolff did go out there and he's got a run away best selling book. and floated this rumor on nationally syndicated television show. and the pod cast is intended to

address women's issues and i did want to give her the opportunity to address this rumor. and i think it falls into a category of rumors, you know, about women who successful women who sleep their way@top. in the context of talking about issues that successful women face. i wanted to give her the opportunity to address the rumor. i think it's important to note her office did say they haven't got a lot of inquiry about this. she did address it head on. >> let's listen in. >> it is absolutely not true. it is highly offensive. and it's disgusting. if you look at what -- i have said this before. it amazes me what people will do and the lies they will say for money and power. in politics it's rampant. here you have a man who's basically saying i have been spending time on air force one. i have literally been on air

force one once. there were several people in the room. he says i'm talking a lot with the president. in the oval about my political future. i have never talked once to the president about my future. and i'm never alone with him. so the idea that these things come out. that's a problem. >> it goes to a bigger issue. that we need to always be conscious of. at every point in my life i have noticed, that if you speak your mind, and you're strong about it, and you say what you believe, there's a small percentage of people that resent that. and the way they deal with it is try and throw lies. to diminish you. women have dealt with this a long time. it's not just in politics. it's in corporate and . for the most part most men respect women. there's small group of men that if you just do jr. job and try

to do it well and yur out spoken, they are sent it. and think the only option is bring you down. >> this isn't the first time she had to deal with it. when she was running for governor there was another rumor that amounted to nothing. what do you hope comes out of this? >> i hope people listen to the entire interview. we had a 40 minute conversation. this is the part that everybody hones in on. because she did talk for probably 35 minutes about foreign policy. and i think that's telling. how she got into politics and said that henry kissen jer schooled her on these things and talked about interesting things. i hope people take away from the fact that how damaging the rumors are. even if real journalists aren't floating them. just that one person can have a real insidious effect on highly successful women. who are more successful than

they. >> i appreciate it. thank you for coming on here. sex and politics go together like ugly and the dprgorilla. there's more. perfect for the great debate. clinton refused to fire a senior a advisor in 2008. who was accused of sexual harassment and reports the finance chair for the rnc steve win has a slew of sexual misconduct accuser gens him. why isn't the rnc moven on him. especially after moving on democrat ties to harvey winestein. rich and joan. hillary clinton. champion ot movement. they come to her and say this

guy has problems with someone in the office. he's got to go. she says no. she keeps him on. how can you support that? >> i don't support it. i want to know more about it. >> what more do you need to know? >> i need to know the exact conversation. it's not like he didn't get punished. i'm not defending this. i want you to know my thought process. he got docked pay. he got sent to counselling. the thing ooip focussed on in 2016 he worked for democratic group. correct the record. when he has the history. he's been accused and found some sort of guilty. >> suggested clinton knew that as well. >> i guess so. i find that the most disturbing. i think she's going to have to come out and talk about this. it's not like he wasn't punished. that's who people are talking about. our colleague here. made this rejs recommendation to her and said no. why did she say no.

she has to say more about this. times have changed. it wasn't a great decision then. and times have changed in 2018. it needs elaboration. >> does it matter to you. or is it low on the list? >> it's telling. she had a certain element of hypocrisy on the issues. she's joined at the hip to bill clinton. married. and also political partner. who had real issues that she helped cover for. and instances and helped discredit his accuser. so i have never -- >> i won't buy sh she helped discredit. >> why do you think she discredited? >> all during the campaign when he was running for president. these. >> reporter: -- these were erupting. and had to be beaten backment discrediting the women. or saying they are white trash. he could have said no i don't want to be part of that. >> she called someone white

trash? >> james did. >> that's not clinton. >> she could have said no. why are we calling her names? don't do that. not on my watch. >> we don't know what she said. >> did she come out at any point and said don't attack the women? >> she didn't. but she wasn't part of attacking them. the only thing that she said about monica. se had choice words. if you sleep with my husband you will hear some choice word from me. >> what do you expect her to do? >> she told her best friend. >> she leaves the husband or supports her husband. >> stay married to him. but doesn't have to enable the political career. not every husband has to run for president. that was the compromising choice he made. i'm all in on this. you have done these things that were wrong. >> if every man that cheated -- >> we have to defeat them.

>> if every man that cheated. this is such an old story. could not run for president. we have would have a lot less running. we would have more women. >> i'm glad you're on your high horse. when harvey winestein came out. he never held a position within the democratic committee. he gave a lot of money. the gop came out on twitter and saying give the money back. these things he's ak accuse of. give that money back. now steve win has a slew of accusations. stuff i won't talk on. this is a limited series. not worth it. not worth discoloring people's friday night. rnc is silent. this guy holds a position tr them. he's the chairman. talk about hypocrisy. what's going on with your people? >> there's a woul street journal article. they talked to 150 people.

you can never specific allegation is correct and true. >> one of them true. just one. >> very bad. usually when there's a pattern means something is there. i think it's unsustainable he'll continue to be a chairman of the rnc and winestein stuff will be thrown back at democratic candidates and they'll give back the money. >> why hasn't the gop said what you said. there are allegations and we have to look at it. >> all the organizations you go into a huddle at first. when these come out. and. >> after you were on your high horse. a moment ago. >> i just said, you heard what i said. >> i'm talking about the rnc. >> i manl they'll come out. >> is eventually okay? >> if it's tomorrow tths okay. they'll have to get rid of him. i do. i think we're -- >> you're trying to get a debate.

>> on hilary we can go. we agree on this. they have to get rid of him. i thank rich for saying it. it's disgusting. a family friendly. he had german shepherds in his office that only responded to commands in german. that chilled me to the bone. the stories about the women we don't have to go into. a atmosphere of intimidation. these women must have felt. some came to his office to perform these. >> i would quibble with you. if he wanted to be a bad ass with trained dogs. >> it all goes to together. that's different. >> how do the dogs are of much higher character. if the stories are correct. >> we agree again. >> fair point. all of the accusations need to be vetted. the wall street journal did that before they came out with it. we presume. and haven't heard otherwise. this was good.

i don't want you guys to fight. false friction. the unraveling of a conspiracy theory. it's very rare. that we get to really look inside the anatomy and see where it came from and never should have come from in the first place. this talk about the secret society and the fbi. and can't trust the justice department by high ranking republicans. where are they now? now that the facts have come out? we got distracted about the "new york times" piece. i didn't forget. we'll debate what was said and why it was wrong. next. 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

coming at you with my brand-new vlog. just making some ice in my freezer here. so check back for that follow-up vid. this is my cashew guy bruno. holler at 'em, brun. kicking it live and direct here at the fountain. should i go habanero or maui onion? should i buy a chinchilla? comment below.

did i mention i save people $620 for switching? chinchilla update -- got that chinchilla after all. say what up, rocco. ♪ say what up, rocco. 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.

all right. here's the question for you. should republicans come out and condemn the effort to tar the fbi. that were largely disproven this week. the "new york times" rumor a report really. about trump trying to fire mueller. like i said it distracted from this. round two of the great debate. with national review editor rich and joan walsh.

tell me i'm wrong. it hasn't been disproven. what's been going on is good in the face of all the facts that blow up the secret society. >> you're wrong. the is e credit society thing was obviously absurd. and he got overly excited. so it shouldn't have gone there. if the shoe were on the other foot and it was president l hillary clinton being investigated. and fbi agents hate her. and on the record expressing fear and hatred for her. it would be a huge scandal among democrats. >> first point. fine. joan take up the point. i heard that argument from clintons people when they were doing the e-mail investigation. if people are out to get her. and didn't want comey to clear ler. and that was. they say the same thing. this idea. >> they're right. >> this idea that the secret society they shouldn't have said that. there are other issues.

>> there are other issues. but he strozk was reassigned. he was taken off the investigation. there were consequences. it's not as though james comey said this is fine. we have this going relationship between the two. i think there were complicating factors. he got moved. i think we did see on the other hand -- i will say, that there seemed to be bias within the fbi, some people say within the new york office, against hillary clinton, that did tie james comey's hands and did force him into that late october 28th revelation. >> you have to root it out. people have opinions. we have always known this. the idea that the fbi sets up as a lefty organization i find hard to believe with my dealings with the fbi. that's neither here nor there. if we look at the context, secret society, one text. those guys went crazy. they learned the context of i ey we embarrassed. the missing text, a much better

mystery. unknow. the i.g. said here are the texts. you guys didn't find them. nunes didn't find them it was an insignal investigation. said to you, rather, the texts aren't just missing for these two. they are missing for one of every ten phones. you ignored it because it was inconvenient. they find the texts. they have come out and they show 100 different things that lead us to nowhere. ignoring facts for your own convenience to make people say -- the president of the united states, rich, do you respect the fbi? i don't know. we will have to see. very disturbing. the president of the united states is not an automatic answer of yes? >> that predated the texts. >> the law and order party of the gop. no disrespect to the democrats. who protects blue? who has law enforcement's back? >> one, on the secret society and the missing texts, it shows, don't jump to conclusions. everyone should wait a little bit. this is my attitude this entire

investigation. i'm willing to believe anything about fbi corruption. i'm willing to believe anything about donald trump corruption. show me the evidence. that's why we have had a big debate going two weeks about the nunes memo. make sure there are no sources or methods revealed. let's see it. if it's really alarming, it's good to know. >> not a little smelly to you that it hasn't leaked? if it's so explosive. >> i mean, people have seen it. it hasn't -- >> wait until you see it. there's a lot more effective as hype than maybe it would be -- >> i think devin nunes genuinely want it is out there. >> i'm sure he does. why doesn't he read it on the floor of congress. >> i think he would rather go through an established process to do it. >> since when? the guy who runs to the white house to talk about information during an -- because he's investigate something -- >> you're not curious about this

moment. you don't want to see it? >> absolutely. i'm more curious about the hype around it. the president of the united states controls classification and declassification. if anybody would like to subvert a process it would be trump. nothing. >> i'm sorry, devin nunes is not a credible person. he had to recuse himself. he ran to the white house to get intelligence allegedly that showed susan rice was unmasking people. that was shown to be completely ridiculous and she did not do those things or if she did, she was perfectly justified in doing them. he had to recuse himself. but he hasn't actually recused himself. he is playing a role in which folks get called as witnesses. he is not a reliable actor in this. >> let's see the memo. >> i'm fine with seeing the memo. >> if everything you say is true, we will know. >> i didn't say it's made up. if they wanted it out it would be out. i'm saying they are playing it both ways here. >> i guarantee you he wants it out. >> he could read it on the floor of congress if he is --

is co-convicted about the process. >> he wants to go through the process. >> it's an odd thing to hear about him. do you think republicans should say what lowery is saying about the efforts to tar the fbi? >> the fbi in general is an important organization and we should support it. i don't think the president of the united states should be calling out and criticizing specific fbi agents by name. that's just wrong. but there are legitimate questions about how this investigation started, about top agents on the investigation having a political bias. let's see as much evidence as possible. >> facts first. less feels, that's what the kids say. it's good to have you. thanks to both of you. stick around, we have more. what is the final fact on a friday night? next. i d...changed everything... you switched to the capital one quicksilver card. and how do you feel? [sighs] like a burden's been lifted. those other cards made you sign up for bonus cash back.

then they change categories on you every few months. then you had to keep signing up! you...deserve...better. now get out there and keep earning that 1.5% cash back on every purchase everywhere. thanks, doc. i'm not a doctor. what? [whispers] time to go. what's in your wallet? when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. ( ♪ ) (grunting) today is your day. crush it. angie's boom chicka pop whole grain popcorn. boom! here is our final fact for tonight.

there are 35,000 men and women who work for the fbi. they're all around the world. 110 years that agency has been charged with protecting you and me, upholding the constitution of the united states. there's a hall of honor at the fbi headquarters. 70 agents and staff have died in the line of duty. i worked with them for a long time. they care. are there exceptions? yep. could there be bias and preferences? could we have seen politics bleed in with clinton and the e-mails and now trump? maybe. here is the thing. we only know what you show. making things up to tar the fbi for political expediency, no good. the republican leadership should not have stayed silent about these efforts when they got blown up by the facts. they, these people who work at the fbi, they deserve better from our lawmakers and the president who couldn't just say yes when asked if he trusts the fbi.

casting aspersions on the borough without proof has to stop. that's the final fact. thank you so much for all the support of this special series. it's time for "cnn tonight" with don lemon, the man. it starts right now. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. we have new breaking news on the fallout from the blockbuster russia investigation. president trump wanted to fire special counsel robert mueller. we will bring you that tonight. first, who do you believe? the president lobbying his unusual -- his usual lazy fake news accusations ever times he hears a story he doesn't like. an accusation with absolutely no evidence to back it up. >> did you seek to fire robert mueller? >> fake news. fake news. typical "new york times" fake story.