ould be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today. welcome to "inside politics." i'm dana bash. john king is off today. a key house committee could release today a memo that abused its power in the russia investigation. that as president trump prepares for tomorrow night's state of the union address. we expect to hear from him this hour. and the grammys get political. from what instantly became an anthem for the me too movement to a surprise cameo from the president nemesis.

>> he had a long-time fear of being poisoned. one reason why he liked to eat at mcdonald's. nobody knew he was coming and the food was safe. >> we begin this hour with a looming confrontation inside the house intelligence committee that has serious implications for the russia investigation. a potential committee vote tonight over whether to publicly release a memo written solely by republicans alleging grave and politically motivated surveillance abuses. a source familiar with the document says the memo written by gop staff accuses the fbi of using information gleaned from an unverified steel dossier, one originally funded by democrats to obtain a warrant to spy on former trump adviser carter page. it's a serious charge. and there's another one. that the deputy attorney general and deputy fbi director played roles in the process. the white house says you deserve to know what the memo says.

>> well, i'll say this. the constitutional process as laid out involves the house of representatives, the house intelligence committee and the white house and the president of the united states. the department of justice doesn't have a role in this process. it could send a message of accountability. it could shed light on allegations that have existed for some time. again, nobody has seen the memo at the white house. i certainly haven't seen it. we will see what's in it if the house of representatives votes it out. >> the democrats see something very different in the memo. they see a brazen plot to smear the department of justice and undermine the russia investigation just as special counsel robert mueller nears a potential sbe potential interview with the president. >> since they've not been successful at the front end in trying to chop off the head of the investigation, the reckless behavior they're taking which is now, let's just bloody up the

overall reputation of the fbi and the department of justice. this is the ultimate kind of secret star chamber approach created by a subset of trump zealots. >> here with me to share their reporting and insights, "the weekly standards" john mccormick, julie davis with the times and time magazine. julie, i want to just start with the idea that obviously there is so much partisanship with the notion of even creating this memo, much less releasing it publicly. and i think just the idea that the house republicans won't even show the senate intelligence chairman, the republican chairman? that says a lot. >> it's really extraordinary. the fact, as you said, that they set out to do this memo in the first place, the fact that they're focusing in on this very specific issue of the way -- according to the reporting we've

all done around what this memo is, because as raja said earlier, none of us have seen the contents of the memo yet. but as we understand it, it focuses in on this very narrow issue of what was told to the authorities in order to obtain this intelligence surveillance act warrant is really quite extraordinary. there is a turf file going on on capitol hill. there is certainly a partisan fight going on between democrats skpr and republicans, but you have the trump white house essentially taking on its own justice department which has essentially weighed in and tried to do tos to say, wait a second. there is a process here. they seem to be getting ready to blow past all that and make a case for why that's justified here. >> people might be watching and listening to this saying, okay, tell me something i haven't heard before. there is a partisan fight about the nature of an investigation

and whether to release a memo that was just written by one party. but the context of this is that the intelligence committees, historically on both sides of the capitol, even the house, which is a very partisan place, have been historically nonpartisan. >> yeah. this is a deeply unsatisfying discussion, i think, because we're talking about a memo nobody has seen based upon an application of a fisa warrant that nobody has seen. if they're going to go ahead and release this memo, they need to release the underlying fisa application. i don't know whether or not it would compromise intelligence to do that. but i think if we're going to have this discussion, we need to have a full discussion. it can't just be based on one party's take. >> this has really taken a partisan turn with the memo. the clip you just played there, nobody has any idea of a partisan flame thrower on capitol hill. i want to talk about the political context in which this is arising. there was a poll a few days ago by quinnipiac that shows president trump's approval

rating among democrats as 68%. among republicans it was 86%. this is what makes the people on capitol hill want to defend him. >> the house intelligence chair. >> the house intelligence chair has done that, and this is also the context in which the senate homeland security chairman ron johnson last week seemed to get ahead of himself talking about a secret society based on one text message that now appears to be a joke. the final verdict of this mueller investigation could come down to an act of congress. and if republicans believe, as many do, that this whole investigation is illegitimate, this creates an extraordinary situation, i think. >> yeah, and i think you also see a lot of this, that republican approval rating coming out of -- the controversy about the memo really being generated in conservative media. and they've been pushing this very, very, very hard. now, there is some virtue in having perhaps a minority report, right, a group of

partisans who can see the situation in a different way, interpret the evidence in a different way if, in fact, the evidence is legitimate, if it's not being distorted. there is a role for that. there is a role for partisan media to see the story in a different way. but i think we know that the president is an avid consumer of the partisan media, and as he was saying, the aim is to create a common enemy and is keep people in the tent who might otherwise be tempted to turn away. >> and let's be fair. there has been partisanship on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the capitol with regard to this russia investigation. let's talk more broadly beyond the memo about what's going on with the white house and what your paper first reported last week on the president's attempt to fire robert mueller back in june. i wanted to show you what ty cobb, the white house special counsel, said about all of these stories. he said, we do not find it to be a coincidence that there is an

onslaught of false stories circulating at what appears to be a coordinated effort to distract and deflect from new revelations about already reported bias and corruption. first of all, i read this like three times. i still don't really understand what he's talking about, which is part of the reason why i wanted to put it up there. but i think, obviously, he's saying don't look over there, it's because i want you to look over here. but also the stories were about what's going on inside the white house, which means that it is coming from people who are familiar with at least what's going on inside the white house. so does he protest too much? >> i actually thought it was very interesting the way in which he is protesting, because he is essentially arguing that the reason we're seeing these stories now is because people are trying to distract -- i think the reason we're seeing these stories now is because we know that president trump, who has long harbored these views, these worries about the fact there are a bunch of people out to get him both in the justice

department and the fbi, certainly in the special counsel's office, and democrats on capitol hill, of course, he is now actually engaging with that in a much more active way. these have always been worries of his. he has from the very beginning tried to, you know, disseminate the idea that mueller is maybe conflicted, his team is conflicted, and basically, as warner said, muddy the waters to sort of undercut the very basis of the entire investigation. now that this has progressed to a point where they may actually be ready to interview him, now we're starting to see a much more active pursuing that was just before some suspicions. now he's thinking maybe these are things i need to act on. and with the mueller situation, he not only tried to fire him, but he's still wavering on this question today. >> let's talk about that, because over the morning we had some very strong warning shots

on that idea from prominent republicans, including on this network. take a listen. >> it probably wouldn't hurt for us to pass one of those bills. >> i told my republican colleagues leave him the hell alone, and that's still my advice. >> i've got legislation protecting mr. mueller and i would be glad to pass it tomorrow. i see no evidence that president trump wants to fire mur. muelle now. i don't know what happened back last year, but it's pretty clear to me that everyone in the white house knows it would be the end of mr. president's presidency if he fired mr. mueller, so i think we're in a good spot with dr. mueller. >> does everyone in the white house, the guy sitting in the oval office, think it's a tremendous mistake to do that? >> apparently not. it was well sourced and the president responded by calling it fake news. that was obviously just a blatant lie, which is not something new for the president,

but it led his supporters to say, wait a minute. this guy cannot be left to testify. you've had people in the last few days say, hey, you really need to think about it. if he refuses to testify, bill clinton, richard nixon, they've been compelled by the supreme court rulings. whether this would be different, i have no idea. >> do you think the legislation, which has been on ice for a few months, which is bipartisan to make it impossible for the president to fire robert mueller, the protect robert mueller act is going to see the light of day now? >> a few days ago he said he doesn't see it as urgent, that trump is not trying to fire mueller now. i think it has hit a wall. as i mentioned, the politics of

this on the republican side are certainly a factor. no republican legislator wants to be seen as taking an action that could be argued by the administration. if the president made the decision to fire bob mueller, couldn't that bell be unrung? you have kevin mccarthy saying it's not something needed now. but if it's not needed now and the president takes that action, what is the theoretical recourse sns if the firing was found to be relatively improper. we need to take a break, but up next, president trump is preparing for his state of the union. we'll talk about that next. >> we worked on it hard, covered a lot of territory, including our great success with the markets and the tax cuts, but we have a lot of things to discuss and we'll be discussing them, and i hope you enjoy it.

oh, manatees. aka "the sea cow"" oh! there's one. manatees in novelty ts? surprising. what's "come at me bro?" it's something you say to a friend.

what's not surprising? how much money matt saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. i'm trying to manage my a1c, and then i learn type 2 diabetes puts me at greater risk for heart attack or stroke. can one medicine help treat both blood sugar and cardiovascular risk? i asked my doctor. he told me about non-insulin victoza®. victoza® is not only proven to lower a1c and blood sugar, but for people with type 2 diabetes treating their cardiovascular disease, victoza® is also approved to lower the risk of major cv events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while not for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (announcer) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away

if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing, or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. change the course of your treatment. ask your doctor about victoza®. but he hasoke up wwork to do.in. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. you myour joints...thing for your heart...

or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. from now on, america will be

empowered by our aspirations, not burdened by our fears. inspired by the future, not bound by failures of the past. and guided by a vision, not blinded by our doubts. >> that was president trump last february addressing a joint session of congress just a month into his young presidency. the speech earned him rare praise from the right and from the left. but the year that followed was mired by trivial and non-trivial fights and partisan squabbles. tomorrow night president trump again has a chance to give his state of the union address and change the tone while doing so. let's get straight to senior white house correspondent jeff zeleny who is at the white house. now, jeff, i know you've been talking to your sources and have new information about what the

president will or will not say about russia. >> indeed, dana. one question has been will the president talk about the russian investigation. he talks about it so much, he's called it a hoax, he's called it a witch hunt. when i asked a senior white house official if he'll mention it, flatly the answer was no. so the plan here at the white house is for the president not to dwell on or perhaps mention at all the investigation. they want the president to reset his message in a broad swath with the american public. this is one of the largest audiences he will have. people are watching who aren't following the daily machinations here. talk about the economy, talk about the tax cut pledge he signed into law last year, talk about immigration, talk about infrastructure. officials here say the president, and dana, they

actually hope the president won't talk about the russia investigation as well. of course, that is the elephant in the room, if you will. there is a senate committee and a house committee investigating this. of course the special counsel will as well, but right now it's the hope that the official will not talk about it at all, but as we know, the president can go off script here, and we'll see if he does it tonight. >> i want to visit one more memorable moment from the president's speech in 2017. listen. >> the time for small thinking is over. the time for trivial fights is behind us. >> but if you watched the president's twitter feed the very next week, he did the following. he belittled arnold schwarzenegger for poor ratings on "the apprentice," he accused

d president obama of wiretapping him and he talked about a second investigation on russia. he does tend to, in the address of this nature, stick to script and deliver a message that is more traditional than we normally see. >> and we saw this in the speech at davos last week as well. i've seen this on a number of occasions. the guy can give a formal speech. he can read off a teleprompter. it's more like if he's in a rally-like atmosphere so he can give people what they want, the red meat.

that's not what the congress wants, and i think he can read the room is full and that is expected. but he is so unpredictable that people are llz. and speaking to so many of the business and other leaders who go to that conference, they really didn't know that trump even had it in him to read a 15-year-old. >> the big thing about trump in a lot of these segz, whether it's a rally or state of the union or joint set of congress, he leaves the room. that is something he's very good at. he's also good at spontaneously reacting to a queue in the room. that's where it's dangerous for him. there have been moments where a member shouting something, or a member of the cabinet shaking their head, you never know, and if that happens, i think trump

may have a hard time. in some ways -- told me this was supposed to be sort of a warm-up for him. this is the. what he went do is, and that's where i think you get into the tweeting and veering off the message, because what is he going to be doing instead? we know he'll have twitter. but if he's not trauking. >> that is such a good point because it is something -- there has been a script for modern presidents. you give the state of the union address, you list off some of the things that are on your agenda and you travel around for the following week or so, and you keep promoting what you talked about before congress. he hasn't done that.

and -- obviously this is his first formal state of the union address, but just look at tax reform. he had a very big legislative victory and he didn't go around promoting it. >> i'm sure you'll hear him say that, look at your paychecks. people are just envision iing a deadline approaching just a week after these speech. does he set any red lines? again, this president changes his mind with his statements, but again, 20 to 30 month million people. i think a lot of americans will be surprised, given to what we've heard about immigrants, i think he'll be reasonable on giving on daca, on d.r.e.a.m.ers, in exchange for

tough changes in the immigration policy. >> and remember, we also have a very important thing. remember we are in an election year, and my friend amy wrote something really spot on about this year. state of the unions are always overhyped. here's the key. given the deeply polarized electorate in congress where i can't think of a time when disconnect between what trump says tuesday and what actually happens in '18 has been larger. i think that's a good point. >> he's capable of being likeable and even charming. the difference is nothing will change. he'll still wake up tomorrow morning or it is morning after, turn on his favorite cable network and start tweeting. in terms of impacts on the state

of the union, it doesn't have much impact. it doesn't move public opinion much, especially less likely to be the case now in these polarizing times we live in. it doesn't lead to members of congress changing their opinions and moving toward legislation they had previously posed. in the moment, i think president trump gets what he wants. in addition to what jeff reported, i'm tomd not toonly backward but forward looking and the tax reform to help toward everyone's successes. the white house tells democrats their immigration plan is as good as it's going to ge . while the music world stands up for d.r.e.a.m.ers. >> i'm here on this stage tonight, because just like the

d.r.e.a.m.ers, my parents brought me to this country with nothing in their pockets but hope. these kids are not be forgotten and are worth fighting for you do all this research

on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

. >> are you going to bring chuck schumer back? >> i wouldn't mind. >> asking the president if he would bring chuck schumer down here, and this is obviously about ongoing negotiations with the democratic leader on the question of immigration. deputies say the framework initiated last week is not up for debate. >> the president has offered a compromised solution, showing real leadership that reaches

across the aisle. we're going to see if democrats are serious about border security. we're going to see if they actually want to fix the problem or just demagogue it. >> that compromised solution angered democrats for wanting to give away liberty. now, a moderate sentiment democrat says it's time to try a different approach. >> common sense coalition, i think, is going to be the grounding, if you will, for what will pass or what can move through the senate. we're going to meet monday night and start over again. the president has laid out what he wants. that's a good starting point. that's l let's see if it's something we can agree on, something we can negotiate with. >> we're back with our panel now. julie, i should say, that was

not my colleague jim acosta, it was my old colleague senator manchin. what do you think will happen with these negotiations? >> the president went out there asking for what he wanted for weeks. there was a sense folks on capitol hill didn't know what he wanted to do. democrats on capitol hill didn't know what he was willing to give. strangely, he puts out this proposal a couple days before the state of the union. typically you would maybe unveil something like this in the state of the union address, but he's gone out there with something that the polls on both sides do not like. maybe it's senator manchin and the democrats that can do this,

but is there the critical mass for a deal? it doesn't seem like there is for what the president has put out there. there is much more the possibility of a narrower deal. it's going to have to be a very delicate and narrow balance, because you already see the progressives that care about the issue don't think it's good enough. and some think it's way too lax, and that's not where you want to be in this situation. >> and the big question is house senators, and house republicans, to be specific. molly, i want to play for you what a pair of house republicans have said about the president's framework. >> simply say we'll go and offer now an opportunity for citizenship. i think the votes do not exist. >> i'm afraid if we create a special path for citizenship for those who are here illegally that we encourage more illegal immigration. i would have to be a no vote and

i would think there would be others as well. >> so in recent times, those kinds of comments from house conservatives would have been a death vote. the house speaker didn't want to bring anything up that would get a majority of the majority of votes. paul cain from the "washington post" noted something that is a very interesting potential change. here's what he said. now there's the corollary to the hastert rule. named after disgraced former house speaker j. dennis hastert. it's the trump rule.

even on the divisive issue of immigration, ryan is guide by whether president trump supports legislation. >> they never know whether the president has their backs. it's been true on health care, it's been true on the funding fight, it's been true on tax reform. the caucus could come behind that bill because they could see how strongly and forcefully the president was behind it, and it didn't look like he was going to waffle and abandon them. there may not be a silent majority, but there is a large caucus of moderate to center right house republicans who want to get behind some kind of immigration compromise. but if the president is going to take their knees out from under them, if their conservative colleagues are going to turn this into a primary issue, there is a lot of feeling that ever since trump's 2016 campaign revolves so much around the issue of immigration, it has really hardened this issue, and trump is really the only one who

could change that. >> molly said the house republicans are worried about the president. i would argue that they're much more worried about their base, which is why they need cover from the president, i should say, as you start talking. we're waiting to hear from the president who just spoke at a white house luncheon, but go ahead. >> i think the president will bully the white house bill. where this all goes in the end, i don't know. if it's just a stalemate, this will play out in 2018 and it will play out differently in states like nevada and arizona where republicans are playing defense. they're holding onto their senate majority there. and the majority is making key points. >> the white house made a very significant step in its first offer on immigration. but for conservative republicans in the house and the senate, the safe thing to do is to be opposed to any kind of

legalization heerl. >> sorry to interrupt you. we're going to look at video that just came in to cnn. president trump having lunch with the security council. let's have a listen. >> i thank general kelly and general mcmaster to host for ambassadors all around the world. today we will discuss our cooperation in a range of security challenges, including the denuking of north korea, very importantly, countering iran's destabilization activities in the middle east, entering the syria conflict and confronting terrorism. the success of the united nations depends on the independent strength of its members, and these are very strong members. some are new to the council. we're renewing the global stage to end this soven, on a

financial front. it's been incredible what's happened. it's like a whole different place. it's booming and it's going to continue because we have a long way to go. but it's been doing really well, so we appreciate it. i think we're taking the world along with us. we're helping the world. that's why some of the countries, even many of the countries around the world are doing so much better because of what we're doing. our administration is proud to work with you. we've already done a tremendous number of coalition buildings, and the united nations security council in particular is very important to us. the power and the respect that it has all over the world is very, very excellent. but there's much work that we have to together do. earlier today the ambassadors viewed a display of iranian missiles and arms that the regime has transferred to its

attempt today to review atrocities at the holocaust museum. so they've seen missiles from iran and they're looking at some of the atrocities taking place in syria. we'll also discuss what more we can do to defeat the taliban. i don't see any talking taking place. i don't think we're prepared. they're killing people left and right. innocent people are are being killed left and right, people want to kill all around afghanistan so we don't want to talk to the talibanment. that's a whole new front for

what we're being governed by. when we see the atrocities and they're killing their own people, many of them women and children that are totally innocent, it is horrible. there is no talking to the taliban. we don't want to talk to the taliban. we're going to finish what we have to finish. what nobody else has been able to finish, we're going to be able to do it. thank you all very much. we appreciate it and we're going to have a tremendous discussion about that and other subjects. thank you for being here. we appreciate it. thank you. thank you. thank you. >> president trump making some remarks while having a lunch with members of the u.n. security counsel as he prepares for a very, very important spee speech, trying to navigate with members of both parties on a

deal to immigration. let's talk about that discussion. we were talking about the republican side before, but it's not just republicans who are saying maybe they're trying to bite off more than they can chew. some democrats are are saying that as well. chris coons of delaware made that point earlier. >> i think where we should be proceeding is to start with the smallest, narrowest possible deal on border security and d.r.e.a.m.ers and see if we can build out from there in a way that doesn't compromise our core values as democrats. that may be very difficult to do, but we'll get to it this week. >> it kind of makes sense. we have seen the movie so many times of republicans and democrats trying to do a real comprehensive immigration bill, which has the goal to kind of try to sneak in on both side. everybody stand by. we're going to jeff zeleny, our

white house correspondent. let's go right now to jeff zeleny, our senior white house correspondent with some breaking news. go ahead, jeff. >> dana, good afternoon. we are getting word now from our reporters at the justice department that the acting fbi director andrew mccabe, who, of course, has been the center of so much controversy in ire of the president has told his staff that he plans to step down. these sources are telling our colleagues at the justice department that he is planning on stepping down, likely at the end of march. he will go on leave between now and then. this is significant, dana, because as you well know, the president is angry at andrew mccabe. he's called him out specifically over months. it is one of the things that set off the fientire justice department. so for andrew mccabe saying he'll step down, that is

certainly incredible. we don't know what led to this. with puts a key point on an already fractured relationship between the oval office and the justice department. of course, many questions to be asked and answered about this, but that's what we have right now. andrew mccabe stepping down from the fbi after long service there. >> thank you for our procy prez. shi. this does seem to have come out of nowhere. we know that based on most of the reporting we've been doing concerning mccabe that he had been planning to retire for quite some time. he's been telling his senior staff, he's been telling sacs in the field, these are people who run the various field offices,

that he had been planning to retire in march. we had heard that he was considering leaving early because he had accumulated some leave time, and so he can use that. but for whatever reason, he announced today that he won't be officially leaving until march when his contract runs out. >> the obvious first thing to talk about is the reporting recently that president trump asked andrew mccabe who he voted for. which, you know, i haven't heard anybody who has -- maybe elected is a better way to put it -- say that is a good idea or even remotely keeping with protocol. >> it's way outside the norm of

the way a president generally mixes with deputy officials. you don't ask anybody in the fbi or in the hierarchy of the department of justice, are you a political supporter of mine. >> especially the fbi. >> the president told me last week he didn't specifically remember asking that question. but if he has, big deal. part of it is owning up to, in january and had the support - of the president. the fact that his wife is out there talking to people very high ranking -- it could become untenable a situation. who wants to stay in a job like that that is so sensitive the

end of last year, the end and the he was going to retire soon. shortly after that the president sent a tweet about the deputy fbi director andrew mccabe, and here's what he said. how can fbi deputy director andrew mccabe, the man in charge along with leakin' james comey of the phony hillary clinton investigation be given $700,000 for wife's campaign by clinton p puppets during the investigation? they are suggesting he can't do his job because his wife ran for state of virginia.

>> there is like a campaign request for loyalty, why wouldn't he ask mccabe for loyalty? it won't affect any obstruction for justice procedures. >> there is somewhat a counter-investigation relative. . there is no one candidate who can't do their job because their spouse has an a. >> we need to know what was the precipitating event. if this was a retirement in the normal order of things, the staff would have known about it, it would have been ampley sort of pre viewed. tt, and you probably wouldn't have said this is the last day today.

it probably would have been more orderly. but i haven't figured out what that is. >> another tweet he sent out, fbi director andrew mccabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. he's n 90 days to go. so he's not retiring until march, apparently, until he gets those benefits. and that's not a criticism. >> no,en not at all. we don't know if a conversation was had after this story about mueller came out. we know the president obviously fired comey, sought to fire mueller, and if you're andrew mccabe and the president is now out in public again hiring fees charges at your family or questioning the inability to do your job, he won't be gone from

the justice department until march. so if you're the trump white house and you're concerned about what he has to say when you're no longer with the government, that day doesn't come until march. >> stand by. we'll all be calling our sources on the break. when we come back, we'll have more breaking news. stay with us. banging their head on a low ceiling. drinking spoiled milk. camping in poison ivy. getting a papercut. and having their arm trapped in a vending machine. but for everyone else, there's directv. for #1 rated customer satisfaction over cable, switch to directv and get a $200 reward card. call 1.800.directv

[ laughs ] rodney. bowling. classic. can i help you? it's me. jamie. i'm not good with names. celeste! i trained you. we share a locker. -moose man! -yo.

he gets two name your price tools. he gets two? i literally coined the phrase, "we give you coverage options based on your budget." -that's me. -jamie! -yeah. -you're back from italy. [ both smooch ] ciao bella.

we're back with the breaking news, and that is fbi director, deputy director andrew mccabe is stepping down. back with our panel. julie, i want to sort of revisit something you said before the break, and that is that he's stepping down now. he's not officially going to be

leaving until the end of march, presumably to get his benefits, but he's on administrative leave until then. what does that tell you? >> we had known and reported late last year that he was planning to retire and that this had been in the works. the curious part of the news today is that he is stepping down as of today without any sort of planning that anyone knew of or that he had informed anyone of. he's on leave until march. the question is was he placed on lave, is he voluntarily taking leave, and if he's leaving, why not just run out the clock until his retirement? there has to be something going on here, and the time sg ding i curious in that they're debating this memo that we talked about earlier, there is a question about his affiliation which may affect his job. >> the memo that julie is talking about that they're

debating as we speak inside the house intelligence committee does reflect, according to republicans, poorly on mccabe and the decision-making process in terms of the russia investigation. i'm not going to ask you to speculate on it, but i will just say affirmatively it's kind of hard to imagine that there isn't at least some form of correlation between what's going on there and the notion that he's suddenly on administrative leave. it's hard to imagine he's doing that on his own. >> there's been a lot of pressure on him. there's been a lot of pressure on him from the intelligence committee, as you note. he's really been put in the spotlight, in particular by this controversy with the memo, and so you can imagine that there was tremendous pressure on him, and we don't know how much of a choice he had about going on leave. that absolutely seems like the most relevant sort of top line with what's going on with andrew mccabe. >> this makes it more intriguing to watch rob rosenstein, the

deputy chief. he appointed bob mueller. he could become a target for all this stuff when president trump is getting stuck between house members. wolf blitzer is next. there is a white house briefing as well. wolf will pick up right after a break.

your insurance company

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

hello, i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington, 6:00 a.m. in london, 8:00 p.m. in jerusalem. wherever you're watching around the world, thanks so much for joining us. we begin with breaking news here in washington. the fbi director andrew mccabe is stepping down effective today. we are joined with details. shema, we knew