good evening from washington. extraordinarily reckless. no those were the words used by the department of justice warning republican lawmakers against releasing a memo alleging misconduct from the

russia probe. reckless. a short time ago republicans ignored that warning and ignored a request by the director of the fbi to appear personally and explain why releasing the memo is not a good idea. they ignored that and voted along party lines to release the memo. they also voted not to release a memo written by democrats which they say point out the falsehoods on the republican memo. >> we had votes today to politicize the intelligence process, to prohibit the fbi and the department of justice from expressing their concerns to the committee and the house and to selectedly release only the majorities distorted memo without the full facts. a very sad day, i think, in the history of this committee. as i said to my committee colleagues during this hearing, sadly we can fully expect that the president of the united states will not put the national

interest over his own personal interest. but it is a sad day indeed when that is also true of our own committee, because today this committee voted to put the president's personal interest perhaps their own political interest above the national interest. in denying themselves even the ability to hear from the department and the fbi, and that is, i think, a deeply regrettable state of affairs. >> so in the name of transparency, the nunez memo will come out. only the nunez memo. democrats say this is an attempt to delegitimize the law enforcement personnel taking part. i want to give you context. the republican memo was written for the chairman of the committee devin nunez. the same man who temporarily shrank from the pot slight months after he rushed the white house to brief the president on the allegedly shocking facts he had just allegedly uncovered about the russia investigation. facts we later found out he had just gotten from the white

house. the very white house he claimed he had to rush to to update them on facts they already had. it amounted to a smoke screen. democrats say that is what today's memo is really about as well. a smoke screen, an attack on the intelligence and law enforcement communities involved in the russia investigation. that brings us to tonight's other big breaking story, the number two man at the fbi, andrew mccabe is out. you probably have heard his name before because the president has repeatedly singled a handout for the criticism. the president tends to criticize a certain kind of career public servant. the ones investigating him, his team, and his campaign for possible collusion with russia and/or possible obstruction of justice. why did andrew mccabe leave his post today? some describe it as a mutual decision. others say he was forced out. mccabe, though just 49 had

already announced plans to retire. he becomes eligible for full benefits on the 1th of march and may have had enough unused vacation days to leave now. in some ways the fact that it happened was hardly a shock given the president's campaign against him. >> can you see the president did not play a role in andrew mccabe stepping down? >> yes, i would say the president was not part of the decision making process. >> if she means this process about leaving today, perhaps that's true. there's no evidence the president ordered him out today. it's been clear what the president wanted. it began last july. the president tweeting problem is that the acting head of the fbi and the person in charge of the hillary investigation got $700,000 from hillary for wife.

they're talking about the support of a governor. an old clinton friend. this happened before her husband was involved in the russia probe. the president believes it influenced him to go easy on hillary clinton and presumably to be biassed against the president. the fbi in respect general is looking into it. late today the bureau director hinted the upcoming report playpla played a role in mccabe's departu departure. right now the only thing in the open is open suspicion of the man. there were tweets. how many days until mccabe's benefits vest. and the report the president met with mccabe at the white house and asked him who he voted for in the last election. the president denies doing that. the president has also taken aim at rod rosenstein and considered firing him as well. he's publicly attacked special counsel mueller and ordered him

fired and then backed down after the white house councsel refuse to do it. he has spoken out against the attorney general for recusing himself from the russia probe. >> 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 micked somebody else. bear in mind the attorney general is one of the president's original supporters. and he's a republican. as are andrew mccabe, rod rosenstein and robert mueller. as is jim comey and christopher ray. as are a large number of fbi special agents and top brass at an agency he's described as being, quote, in tatters. >> it's a shame what's happened with the fbi, but we're going to rebuild the fbi. it will be bigger and better than ever, but it is very sad when you look at those documents

and how they've done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it. >> bear in mind the president isn't slamming the interior department here. he's not publicly attacking a deputy under secretary of state or assistant energy secretary. he's not accusing staffers of political bias. the president of the united states is attacking the public servant, even cabinet members who have had roles or should have bigger and friendlier roles in the various investigations of donald trump j. trump. more on the mccabe part of the news later, but let's focus first on the house intelligence committee eruption. adam schiff joins us. jessica schneider joins us. what's the status of this home moe at this hour? >> we know from an administration official this memo voted out of the committee by the house intelligence committee has been cover youred to the white house. that begins a five-day review period here where the president will decide whether or not to

declassify this memo and release it publicly. we reported earlier the president is inclined to declassify and release this memo. again, this is a crucial five-day window. we know the president will be advised during this window and undergo a national security review of sorts. and we're also told that because the state of the union is tomorrow night, not to expect anything before then, so we understand that this could be a several-day process. no exact word when the memo will be released if at all. that's all up to the president. >> what do we know about this memo? >> it's kind of shrouded in secrecy. this is a classified document that we know that was spearheaded by intelligence committee chairman devin nunez. it was written by republican staffers and because it's classified members have to be very discreet about what they actually release here. they're not allowed to talk about this. but what we understand from sources is that this is a

four-page memo. of course, it is heavily partisan drafted by republicans. it gets to the notion their contention that the fbi abused its power in putting forth this surveillance warrant, putting forth a surveillance warrant application for trump campaign foreign policy adviser carter page. and we understand from a source that this steele dossier was used in part to get this surveillance warrant and one of the sources is telling us that it was not disclosed properly to the judge that this dossier was funded in part by democrats. that's something we've reported before. of course, this is a republican cry that this investigation was potentially politically motivated and all the right channels weren't checked off. >> jessica, thank you. joining us, adam schiff, ranking member of the house intelligence committee. thank you for being with us.

can you just explain why republicans voted to release their memo and not the democratic response which according to democrats kind of poked holes or pointed out things which were incorrect or factually untrue? >> it's a good question. when mr. king made the motion to release the republican memo, i offered a couple secondary motions. one to allow the fbi and the department of justice to read it. >> they have not read this home moe? >> no. the director has, but he's the only one i think who has been able to see it along with an intelligence analyst. we haven't gotten the feedback about what impact it could have on sources and methods and the pending investigation, and the fbi director wanted to come before our committee or have the bureau come before our committee and express concerns or answer questions. they weren't willing to entertain a briefing for the members of either the committee or of the house. so why do they release one and not the other? these are the people pushing the

release the memo campaign. it's political. it just -- this is a continuation of the effort to protect the president's hide, push out a misleading narrative selectively declassifying information. it's a really disgraceful act in my view to make partisan and political the declassification process. i think it's what you see when you have a flawed president infecting the whole of government. >> you have no doubt this is just a smoke screen. that this is about trying to stop the russia probe or slow it down or raise questions about the fbi, the department of justice that then allow rod rosenstein to be removed. >> this is what they're doing. i used to be a prosecuter, and a tried and true defense tactic when the facts are really bad for the defendant, you try to put the government on trial. so from the very beginning of this investigation, rather than keeping a focus on what did russia do? what do we know about the secret contacts with the trump

campaign? what do we do to protect ourselves in the future? the chairman and those aligned with him in the white house, their whole goal has been no, put the government on trial. don't pay attention to what russia did or what we need to do to protect ourselves. put the government on trial. that's the best way of protecting the president. >> can you say who wrote this memo? what's the gist. >> >> it was written by republican staff, and here's the thing that the department of justice acknowledged. they reached an agreement with the speaker's office and the chairman. these would only be made available to the chairman, myself, or one of our designates instead of us, and two of our staff each. so the chairman never bothered to go read these underlying materials after months and months of making this argument that the fbi and doj are involved in a conspiracy, he didn't both tore read the materials himself. >> so devin nunez has not read the underlying classified

information that forms the basis for the mem snow. >> correct. >> the notion that -- the department of justice gave this information. they say the republicans are saying there's a process for releasing something like this, and they've gone through the process. they said the reason they want transparency, but the reason they're not releasing the democrat's response is it hasn't gone through the same multiday process of being available for everybody in the house to read. >> there's no multiday process. that's a fiction. the house rules simply say with a majority vote you can publish the to the entire country subject to a presidential essentially veto, any classified information. doesn't say you to wait five days or show the full house. that's all nonsense. what they wanted to do is they knew they were on very thin ice. i mean, how do you credibly go before the country and say in the interest of full transparency, we want the

country to have this information, but we don't want them to see the rebutl. that's unsustainable. the best they could hope for, i guess, is give us a week. let's see if we can concoct a reason why we need a week just to have our narrative out there to set in before the democrats show just how many holes it has. >> are you saying that essentially the republicans have cherry picked facts from the classified information they were give snn. >> absolutely. >> to form a narrative that is in your opinion, not correct? >> not only not correct, but deeply misleading. >> intentionally in. >> intentionally misleading, absolutely. why else would they not want the fbi and the department of justice to come in and be able to tell the members, okay, here's where there's a problem with this memo, and here. they don't want their own members to hear this. they want this out in the public to help shape the narrative. >> so they voted against that? >> they voted against that.

>> is it possible -- i mean, there's reports that rod rosenstein comes under criticism in the memo. is this part of an effort, do you believe, to sort of pave the way for the removal of rosenstein? >> you know, it certainly could be a part of an effort to either justify or mitigate the blowback to the president firing anybody from rod rosenstein to bob mueller or anyone else. this is designed to undermine the fbi, undermine the department of justice, create uncertainty and doubt about the professionalism about the people of bureau so that if mueller produces something really incriminating, they can somehow discredit it or if the president does what he tried to do earlier and fire mueller or fire rosenstein, that this will cloud the issue enough to protect the president. >> to republicans who believe there has been some malfeasance

or bias against the president, what's wrong with investigating the fbi, and the department of justice? >> there's nothing wrong with doing oversight. we've done it for the ten years i've been on the committee. we have never voted to make something public before we've given the agencies a chance to come in and say here's where you're right. here's where you're wrong. by the way, you obviously don't know about these other facts. and the fact that they're not interested in that, they don't want to hear that. they don't want their own members to learn that, i think it tells you all to need to know about the true motivation. >> if your opinion, they are pushing this release of classified information solely to benefit the president of the united states against the national security interest. >> to benefit the president of the united states, but also to protect themselves. i think they fear if this president goes down either in credibility or otherwise, that their majority goes with him. this is not only protecting the president's hide but they think protecting their own positions. >> you said earlier at the press

conference we played, part of that, that the committee is investigating the department of justice and the fbi. some on the committee of republicans pushed back at that and said we didn't announce, we're not launching some investigation. >> one of the nice things about the open session is a transcript will be made publicly available. i asked for it to be made available tomorrow. you'll see the chairman directly assert, we are investigating the fbi and the department of justice. >> is that something that began prior to today? >> well, presumably, yes. now, they have consulted to us prior to the investigation, but they did not do that. >> that's the first you heard of it? >> yes. >> you're in an important position. this is the first time you've heard there was an investigation of the fbi in the department of justice? >> there were public reports that there was a group within the majority that was doing an investigation of doj or fbi, but in terms of a formal announcement, we're doing an

investigation of them, we're not investigating issues at these places or investigating in our oversight capacity or requesting documents adds part of a russia investigation. this is the first we heard directly, we're investigating the doj. >> the republican committee member joins us next. and andrew mccabe's sudden departure from the fbi. what we know, the possible reasons for the timing. the investigation he's been facing. more ahead. samsung galaxy phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. yahoooo! ahoooo! plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included. spectacular! so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. whoa! join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free. all on america's best unlimited network.

we're pretty sure no one's everg asked howsaid microwaved. eggs, you deserve a breakfast made with respect. try the new bacon, egg, and cheese on brioche. panera. food as it should be.

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.

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. before the break you heard from the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee, chairman devin nunez is not talking period. he said tonight he does not discuss committee business outside the committee. joining us instead republican committee member congressman rick crawford of arkansas. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> you bet. >> the fbi director, president trump appointed a republican, said he asked for an opportunity to come before the committee to

share the concerns about the memo. it was turned down. i'm wondering how could republicans say they're for transparency but not want to hear from him? why do you think it was not necessary? >> i'm not sure it was entirely correct. it was my belief the director did vu the memo and there was no changes of any facts. and so they have had eyes on ththe memo. >> you're saying it's not true the fbi wanted to address the committee? >> no. that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying the director did have an opportunity to view the memo. it's my understanding he did. they were given the opportunity to edit, and there was no factual errors that they felt needed corrected or anything of that nature. so the memo you're going to see has been viewed by the fbi director and two of his top five staff. >> that doesn't chris ray wanted

it released. if the fbi wanted to brief your committee, why not allow them the opportunity to do that? >> well, look, i don't make that decision. i would be okay with them briefing us. they briefed up on a number of items. but that's really not the issue here. the issue is that there's an assertion that a director did not see it. in fact, he did, and top adviseh a high degree of expertise reviewed it as well. while they were given the opportunity to make some edits, there was no factual material edited or changed in any way. >> the democrats also asked for both memos to be voted by the fbi and the department of justice. they say it was turned down by republicans too. >> i don't think that's necessarily accurate either. i think there's a process by which this memo would be shared with the general membership of congress, and before it would be released to the public it would

certainly be vetted. ours has been viewed by as i said, director ray and two of his top staff. i don't have a problem -- nfrt, i would encourage that the democrat memo also be vetted as well. we don't want to see potential national security breeches as a result of material that might be released. >> right. the department of justice, they did warn republicans not to release this memo saying it would be, quote, extremely reckless to release it without review. >> well, i would think that you can understand why they'd have a problem with the memo being released. probably there's some information in there that doesn't reflect positively on them. that's the point of the memo. in general what we have in congress is a responsibility to exercise oversight over federal agencies. and doj and fbi are not exempt from that. >> congressman schiff says that it was disclosed the democrats today for the first time or at least to his knowledge, the republicans had an open investigation of the fbi and the

department of justice. has this been going on for a long time? >> there's been some ongoing back and forth with the fbi and doj, investigation oversight. to say you didn't know that was going on, i kind of question that. we've had some problems with doj being forthcoming with information that's been requested. even subpoenas that have been ignored, and so, yeah, you could probably understand why doj would have a problem with this being released to the public. >> you're saying they don't believe it would be extremely reckless. they're just trying to cover their own hide? >> i'm not saying they don't believe it would be extremely reckless. what i am saying is we have a mandate, a responsibility of the american people to exercise oversight and particularly where there may be constitutional concerns and potentially due process being denied u.s. persons. if, in fact, that's the case, it's our responsibility to make sure that we take corrective action and it doesn't happen

again. >> but wouldn't -- if the department of justice wrote a letter saying it's extremely reckless and that part of the concern is it gives away sources and methods, why not give them a chance to review it. >> sources, you're right, we don't want to reveal sources and methods. that's why we gave them the opportunity to review that. i think it's had an adequate review. it's only four pages in contrast. >> the department of justice is wrong when they said it's reckless. they're mistake snn. >> that's their opinion. our opinion as a body is that we need to share this information, because we have a responsibility to exercise oversight over federal agencies. as i said before, it may not appeal to doj, but if there's any wrong doing, we have a responsibility to expose it and take the appropriate action. >> how many republicans on the

committee have seen the underlying classified information that formed the basis for this memo? >> i'm not sure about that. i know that an agreement was reached to allow that, but it's been fairly recently. >> right. congressman schiff said free, he said trey gowdy and two other staffers that wrote it. >> i'm not sure how many members have seen it. i couldn't give you an accurate count. >> is it appropriate for vote on a memo that it doesn't give up sources and methods if they haven't seen the underlying information. >> in the context of the information we've seen, this is factual and accurate. director ray and his staff had an opportunity to review it and take issue if they had concerns with the factual accuracy of the memo. and so there were no edits made. and we have a responsibility that we have to not only do we have to protect, as you mentioned, sources and methods.

it's very important. making sure that all of our equities are protected from the standpoint of intelligence, community, and things like that. at the same time balancing constitutional rights of the american people. even if we find a particular u.s. person somewhat repugnant, whether we like that individual or not, they're still a u.s. citizen and entitled to due process and constitutional protection. >> democrats have a lot of problems -- the democrats on the committee, a problem with some of the facts that allegedly are in this memo and say they want to release their own memo which points out what they believe is factually incorrect. in the sport of bipartisanship, why not allow the democrats to release their memo at the same time? >> well, we're giving the democrats the opportunity to do what we did. in fact, it was devin nunez who allowed for the release of the memo to the membership of the house.

>> next week. that's a week after this memo. >> no. no. no. he made the motion for that to be released immediately. the members of the house can go in and view the documents adds early as tomorrow, as i understand it. we have a procedural path to follow here, and they'll review it. we had probably a week to ten days of members given the opportunity to review our four-page memo. a very small memo. they can read it, come back and reread it and digest that information. we're giving the democrats the same opportunity. we all voted to support that. this was a unanimous vote and it's on record. it was in open session. you can see how everybody voted. we all did vote to give them the opportunity to present the minority memo to counter ours. >> as you know, congressman schiff is saying you want to get your memo out, have that be the narrative for a week and then maybe the democrat's memo comes out. he says there's not a procedure where it has to be five days and

the whole hato see it. >> i'm not saying it has to take five days for that to allow members to review it over a five-day period. there's no prescribed period for which that memo is open to the members, and then we go through the process. we didn't do that in the majority memo. . if we vote as a committee to release the memo to the public, it has to go to the president and then we have a five-day waiting period before it can be inserted in the congressional record. that's the only time line. >> why not vote to allow the democratic memo to go to the president like the republican one did? >> that requires a separate vote. what we did tonight was to allow for the democrats to release their memo to the members. we think it's only fair the members get ample opportunity to review it on both sides, republicans and democrats. just like they did with the

majority report. >> you could have taken a separate vote and allowed them to send the report to the president at this hour? >> we could have, but they also indicated they wanted to have the fbi and doj look at their report. that's fine. but -- >> to look at republican report as well as the democratic one? >> yes. as i said before, the fbi director has seen our memo. it was only four pages so he can read it pretty readily and come up with an opinion along with his two top advisers and legal counsel. as i said, there were no issues factually raised with the content. >> congressman, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. our panel joins us next with more of the breaking news. we have a new tweet from james comey coming out on andrew mccabe. find out what comey said about him, next. why treat your mouth any differently? complete the job with listerine® help prevent plaque, early gum disease,

bad breath and kill up to 99.9% of germs. listerine® bring out the bold™ this one's below market price and has bluetooth. same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value.

i'm a small business, but i have big dreams, and big plans. so how can i make the efforts of 8 employees, feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes. just like that. like everything. the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done, dream more, dream faster, and above all, now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places,

can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. more breaking news on a busy night in washington. james comey tweeted about the departure of his colleague saying andrew mccabe stood tall over the last eight months when small people were trying to tear down an institution we all depend on. i wish him well and wish him continued strength for the rest of the fbi. america needs you. the tweet comes after the house committee voted along party

lines to release a memo released by republicans about the russia investigation. i want to bring in mike rogers, also our two legal experts. a former fbi director joins us as well. the republican congressman said they couldn't release the memo. it has to go through a procedure. the whole house has to see it. is it true? toward the end he said they could have just voted a second time and released it. >> there is no requirement for the house to see anything in that regard. i mean, if the house committee that controls the classified information which is the intelligence committee in this particular case, decided that they wanted it released, they would vote on it at the same time. >> and when the congressman says, well, the fbi director looked at it and didn't have any changes, does that mean the fbi reviewed it? >> no. the director reviewed it and said i'm going to have to take it back to the folks who do this

every day to look at it. that's why you want to give the people who do the classified restrictions on all of this type of material, bring them in and have an opportunity to look at it. again, what frustrates me most about this, and i think republicans a making a serious mistake here. getting an order is a complicated process. it involves a lot of people. you the agents working their sources and their sources of investigation. could be signals or a human source that brings this together. they may or may not have used some of the dossier. that's a factor, but there's lots of corroborating information in there. then it goes to an fbi senior. then another senior and then goj. before it even goes to the judge, and then there's rewrites before the judge. unless they interviewed all of those people, unless they found out all the corroborating information, unless they looked at all the files containing that source information, i argue this memo is probably not reflective, and that will come out at some

point. so i think this is a big mistake for them to rush to this, to try to kind of control the narrative on what they want to have happen. if they believed that the fbi did this, which i argue is a criminal offense. if you purposely misled the judge in a court, somebody needs to go to jail, releasing a memo is almost like a farce. you need a full, professional investigation into that. if that's what you believe, then you launch a full investigation. you get all the facts before you release something like this. >> you were saying if christopher ray had put pen to paper and made a change, that would have been a ridiculous move on his part? >> that would have been in my view a profound mistake for a simple reason. as soon as you start editing one word, one sentence there, you add legitimacy to the document. let's say anderson or any of you is accused of a crime by the fbi or by state and local police

officials and they write up a report of it. you look at the report and say this is 180 degrees off. none of this ever happened. would you ever consider editing that report or would you say i got to look at this. i think it's wrong. as soon as you put pen to paper on that, you allow members of the committee to come out and say the fbi edited this. they must believe the substance of it is right, because they're the ones who helped change the language in the document. >> what do you think is -- is this all just partisan politics? >> no, this is actually a really low mark for this house intelligence committee. this is a low water mark for them. they did not have to do it in this way. the way that normally either in the white house intelligent or the senate intelligence side, if there's intelligence information they receive, that they either question the legality or the accuracy and the ethics in which it was obtained, any of that. normally they would go back to the intelligence community. they would go back to the fbi if it was their information.

they should be going back to the director of national intelligence and having that person review this memo, if they wanted it to be released publicly, and then a serious review of what of this memo is classified information should be reviewed for classification so there's no harm to social security. the house intelligence committee did not have to invoke the procedure they've never used. they did this to bypass the fbi, the department of justice and the director of national intelligence. the only reason to do that is if the product they're trying to get out to the product is politicized and not something that accurately reflects the investigation. >> michael, is this about obstructing the investigation or delaying it or putting question marks on the fbi and the department of justice? >> it's an effort to put an alternative narrative out in the public domain and hope that they

can somehow gain the advantage, if you will. but i think as chairman rogers says, they're going to use. a pfizer warrant is proved by two of the three branches of government who have done extensive reviews of this information. now you have a congressman who didn't read the material sending two staffers who write a summary of it. somehow that's going to trump the two other branches of government? it's wrong, and the executive branch actually should say, you know what? you have nothing to do with classification. that's the executive branch's prerogative. say out of the way, because down the line the precedent is congress gets to declassify things is not in anybody's best interest. >> republicans are not willing to meet with the fbi director or anyone from the fbi to hear the bureau's concerns about the nunez memo. >> well, i have to take this

personal for a moment. you may recollect the senate put out a lengthy document on how the cia treated al qaeda prisoners? we also had the republicans putting out a different memo saying they disagreed with the democrats. they did it simultaneously in contrast with this event. they never spoke with any of us. never approached any of us to speak. do you know what it's like to be attacked by a written document, and nobody to say what did you mean by this e-mail? what did you mean by this text? what did you mean by this memo? how can you investigate someone if you never speak to them about what they went when they wrote a memo or e-mail. it doesn't make any sense to me. >> i thought the torture memo took about two years before that was released from the time that they initiated the effort to release it and then found a release.

it did go through -- >> it's interesting the chairman of the committee has not actually seen the underlying intelligence. he left that up to two staffers and apparently one other member of the committee. >> it would be extraordinary, really. normally if there are investigations that are either ongoing or current surveillances or recent, normally the intelligence committees don't review actual applications. i used to handle these cases. they don't review them. in an extraordinary circumstance if the chairman and ranking, if they need to see them, there can be circumstances where they would let them see it. congressman schiff, apparently nunez didn't review the underlying materials. how does he know whether the information in his memo is accurate? >> to democrats this looks like it's laying the foundation for just a continuing to hammer away the department of justice, possibly laying the foundation for the removal of ross ros

rosenste rosenstein. i'm wondering is that the strategy. >> >> i don't understand what they're trying to accomplish by a memo. they make some great points. they say mccabe had these biases going in. okay. if you want to investigate that, that's fair. i do believe -- i'm always worried about the fbi overreaching but also about congress overreaching. we ought to be equally concerned about the facts in something like this. and what this does is it picks some facts that they like. it puts them in a memo, and it puts it out there. that's for a political narrative. now, candidly, having the vice chairman sitting in this chair doing the same thing isn't any better. so what happens is they're destroying the credibility of the one committee that gets access to information that no other committee on the capital gets. i worry about that. these aren't investigations anymore. these are campaigns. they're an extension of

campaigns. if i can give you the five facts that make you think the guy is a rotten dog or good dog, i win. that's a dangerous model when you have the government infearing with people's lives. when you're starting to attack an institution like the fbi? there may be a few bad apples, but it's an incredible institution for the united states for the work they do. >> i'm sorry. there are inspectors general whose job it is to investigate these types of things. >> i want to thank everybody on the panel. next peele talk about the implications of any release of the house a republican memo and whether robert mueller needs congressional protection. turn up your swagger game with one a day men's. ♪ get ready for the wild life a complete multivitamin with key nutrients, plus b vitamins for heart health. your one a day is showing.

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. we can now repair complex at saortic aneurysmsare, without invasive surgery. if we can do that, imagine what we can do for varicose veins. and if we can precisely treat eye cancer with minimal damage to the rest of the eye, imagine what we can do for glaucoma, even cataracts. if we can use dna to diagnose the rarest of diseases, imagine what we can do for the conditions that affect us all. imagine what we can do for you.

breaking news tonight. a partly sunny confrontation. republicans voting to publicly release a memo written by their own staff members that may af e accuse the fbi of -- aside from the few members of congress and the fbi director, no one has seen the memo and as you heard a few moments ago, democrats are outraged that republicans plan to make the memo public. with me now is james langford, a member of the senate intelligence committee. thank you for being with us. >> glad to be here. >> when you see what's going on

with the white house intelligence committee, is this partisan politics? >> i'll let them work that out. i haven't seen it. we tried to focus on the senate intel side. it's important for the american people to see us all working together. we have to put out a common set of facts and agree on it. >> is it important -- do you think it's important for the department of justice and fbi to have time to review something like this? >> sure it is. any time any information comes out that you can look at and say there are sources to protect long term, it's important everyone looks at it. just an individual reading it may say i don't see a problem. someone in the fbi is going to immediately say i know how that information was gathered. and the person that it was gathered from will know what it is. so it lets information we don't want out. >> one of the republican people said director ray had a chance to look over the memo and didn't have any factual changes. former chairman rogers saying

that's not the way it works. he says i have to take it back to my people. >> you want a lot of people to a analyze. it may be a challenge on how the facts were derived. you want to check sources and methods. >> in terms of andrew mccabe leaving, how much of a surprise was it to you given the president's durum beat against him? >> it's hard to tell what went on. we'll see in a few months. i said one of the most beneficial people are folks who leave. then they can see the things they always wanted to say. at that point, it's both republicans and democrats. we'll know the facts. it doesn't surprise me. frankly, he was approaching time for retirement. there's been all kinds of rumors that have come out. is that the andy mentioned in some of the text messages that were partisan? andrew mccabe, with the meetings happening during the clinton investigation? no one really knows. this gives the opportunity to be

able to solve it. >> do you worry about it chipping away at the legitimacy of the organizations? >> absolutely. 30,000 of the folks who work there are fantastic. people in leadership in d.c. or any field office, if they're distracting from the work happening, that's important work, that's a keep great people in the fbi. they have to stay non-partisan. >> you were in mexico. in central america. some of the figures you were giving me about what's going on in mexico is alarming ent people haven't paid attention to what's happening in the narcotics fight in central america and mexico. broad swaths of 45% of the area of mexico is run by the cartel. we're familiar with the map of syria and saying this section half of the syria is run by isis. we have the same experience on the southern word border. they're growing poppies and producing heroin.

cutting in fentanyl. producing fentanyl. transitions cocaine from south america through mexico. >> the introduction of mexican military was supposed to make a big impact on stopping that sfwl they have made a big impact in areas. there are large areas unresolved and become a very big issue. in those local areas the police department and judges and others are not getting the job done and ter fired for their lives and families lives. had is happening on the southern border. one of the areas we have to pay attentionment mexico is an ally, great trade partners. the cartels are taking over the area. >> the trump administration couldn't enact new sanctions against russia. there was a bipartisan bill in the senate. 419 to 3 vote in the house. i wonder your reaction to that. >> i continue to believe russia is actively in engaged to under mine the democracy and around the world. it's the reason myself and others have done a bipartisan bill and election security. we need to assume what they did

in 2016 a learning expeeps for them and they'll accelerate that. >> why not impose sanctions? >> we'll get the final details and hopefully the president will speak about it in state of the union. we need the details on why he wouldn't impose sanctions. >> you voted for sanctions? >> i did. i would again. >> senator lang ford, i appreciate your time. here to discuss the tonight's eruption on capitol hill. over the memo. a very distinguished group. former republican congressman. what's happening with this committee? >> it's stunning. i think it's sort of devolved into partisan wrangling. and i think you have a president right now who taking on his own department of justice including the fbi. i spoke with the friend of the president today who said to me and maybe you can confirm this, he said the president believes that his fbi is corrupt.

period. flat out that's it. and i think what you saw going on today was devin nunes and many of the people on that committee were basically saying the same thing. and that even though the head of the fbi said please don't do this right now, can i come up and talk to you. they want it released and my next question is what is chris wray do next? >> that's what is so interesting. we had a congressman on the committee. he didn't have changes. everyone else says that's not how it works. of course wray is not going to take out a pen and make changes. he wants his people to review it. is it appropriate to release this information without having the department of justice without having the fbi review it? >> they had an opportunity and had an opportunity to help supply the information. >> but they say they haven't. the department of justice wrote a laert saying it's extremely reckless. that was the term. >> i can't react to the letter. i just heard about it tonight.

i do know talking to members it's been available to member of the congress. 200 members of the congress have read this. it's interesting that if there's anybody who let it become a partisan issue is the democrats. because they should have been there reading the memo and saying look, this is not right. i can say this sfwl they did. they wrote pointing out what is inaccurate. >> they did not read it. they didn't come out with this is what's wrong. >> they did. >> i'm talking about rank and file members. the democrats on the committee felt there was a line in the sand. >> but factually -- they didn't point out inaccuracies. they did. and now you're saying it wasn't rank and file people? >> a general group. the democrat members the rank and file members have had the opportunity to read the memo and come back and push back about it. and haven't done that. and. >> they have on the intelligence committee of course. >> it will be an interesting

debate. we haven't read the memo yet. when we have an opportunity to say are the democrats roigt or republicans right. >> you're just doing double talk. it maybes no actual sense. we won't know what the democrats say. the democrats who wrote a memo despite you saying the rank and file didn't push back. >> once the memo is released in public. the topic is on the table for people to say this is wrong. here's why. the democrat memo in the formal. >> i don't want to jump in. representative king ston is actually showing why this is nothing more than a partisan football. no, no. i do believe what we're starting to see is we're seeing chairman nunes in over his head. the person who doesn't show any courage or va lor when he needs to stand up is paul ryan. the fact of the matter is if nixon was president and paup ryan was a speaker of the house, he probably would nominate richard nixon for nobel peace

prize. he has done nothing to stand up the r foundation and the democracy. the big news today, you spoke about it -- the fact that the president of the united states will not implement sanctions on russia. who we know is a bad actor. that is the news of the day. with all due respect if we're waiting on a response, to why the president chose not to take this act to tomorrow in the state of the union address, that is just wishful thinking. i am so distraught not as a democrat not as a south carolinaen. as an american today because the republican party has let the democracy fall at the wayside. people are saying trump is a above the rule of law and that's not the case. if somebody wants to stand up and fight back and fight for what our democracy means so be it. republicans right now are just cowards. >> you look at how this occurred. you see the president who has been griping about andrew mccabe. tweeting for months. jeff sessions the attorney general says to chris wray, the head of the fbi.

get rid of this guy. chris wray doesn't want to do it. he goes to the white house counsel don mcgahn and says don't make me do it. suddenly he's gone. >> i have to jump in. >> we were getting warmed up. >> quickly. >> the chief of staff was the first to say mccabe had a conflict of interest. if you think you can read the strozk, page e-mails and say there's not a problem a prejudice there. you know there's some -- >> i want to thank everybody on the panel. chris cuomo will pick up the coverage after a quick break. p. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?

breaking news the republicans seem to have found the counter to the russia investigation. and it puts the fbi and the democrats in the cross hairs. the memo they plan to release is just set up for what they hope will be a mass conspiracy of wrong doing at the highest level of law enforcement. all in alleged plot by the enemies of president trump. that's what they're selling. tonight i go one on one with minority