republicans and the train on the way to west virginia. thank you for joining us on "inside politics." jim sciutto is in for wolf blitzer, and he's picking up our coverage right now. hello. i'm jim sciutto in again for wolf blitzer. the fbi sounding the alarm over a secret republican memo accusing the fbi of abusing its surveillance powers. the fbi issuing a defiant statement just now, saying, quote, the fbi was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. as expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy. fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy. our crime and justice reporter joins us now with the latest developments. tell us the back story.

the fbi is saying this is just fact ch factually incorrect. >> that's certainly their concern. their statement says that they really didn't have a whole lot of time to review this memo. from everything they have seen, that is the fbi director, christopher wray, has seen this memo. from everything he has seen, he has concerns that it is going to be misleading, that there are inaccuracies. this memo, apparently, from fwht i've been told in talking to sources, does not paint a full picture of what the fbi was doing. that's the danger here. we in the public are going to see something that is not complete. and yes, it's going to be unfavorable to the fbi. that is because we are not seeing the full picture. >> i've been told similar things. when we say the full picture, it's all the background intelligence that would have been used to make a judgment that you need to monitor. >> so for instance, if this is about a fisa, a renewal fisa

that the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein approved, in order to get an approval on a renewal, you have to show the fisa court that the existing fisa was giving you information, that you were getting valuable information. in order to get the renewal, so if they got a renewal that, means the court felt they were getting good information. >> i want to get more into that, but big picture here, you have christopher wray, the new director of the fbi, chosen by president trump, openly, is he not, defying the administration here and the justice department. >> certainly is. we're told there are people at the department of justice that did not want the fbi to do this, to issue this statement, to go public with their concerns over this. privately, certainly people at the fbi, at the department of justice who have spoken to us have raised this concern. but for the fbi to issue this kind of a statement so publicly, it's unprecedented, unheard of, and perhaps maybe the fbi is now saying, you know what, enough is enough. we've been beat up enough and

it's time we stand up for ourselves. >> and there are really two issues here. the fbi is saying this is not an accurate portrayal of why we wanted to surveil this person, carter page, who is the subject of the surveillance, former trump campaign adviser. the intelligence community, more broadly, has been telling me that there's also a danger here that you're revealing the way the u.s. intelligence goes about its business, how it picks targets and why it might pick a target here. both a security issue here and an accuracy issue. >> and you're dealing with fisa, which is some of the most secret stuff this country does. by revealing information in a fisa, sources can figure out where the information is coming from, perhaps. we don't really know what's in this memo. so that is always a concern. it's funny because usually we hear if you reveal information, sources and methods are going to come up. you're not really hearing that in this case. you're hearing more about the

accuracy of the information and the purpose of congress in doing this, of nunes in doing this, everyone certainly at the fbi feels this is political and to undermine them and to undermine parts of the department of justice and the russia investigation. >> which is part of a broader campaign we've heard led by the president. thanks very much. i want to go to white house correspondent jeff zeleny. jeff, you heard us talking there. this really pits the fbi with a director chosen by the president against the white house, openly defying the white house and jus us it departme tice department on this. >> it does indeed, jim. this is only the latest installment of what's been an extraordinary feud and fight between this white house and its justice department and indeed its fbi. we do know that christopher wray, the director of the fbi, was over here at the white house on monday making that argument directly to white house chief of staff john kelly, urging them not to release it.

clearly they are escalating that by releasing this statement. in terms of where things stand right now, we heard from white house chief of staff john kelly earlier this morning. he was talking in a radio interview that he says this is going to be released fairly soon. he said advisers and lawyers are, in his words, slicing and dicing it. we mow it's a three and a half page memo and is likely to be released soon. the white house is not saying exactly when that would be. the white house is also not saying exactly if the president himself has seen or read this memo. we do know it's only three and a half pages long. it has been over here since monday evening. so it seems difficult to believe that he would not have seen it by this point. but the white house is trying to at one hand say it's going to be released, but on the other hand, you know, trying to show that due diligence is being done here by the lawyers. but we heard the president's own words last evening when he was leaving the state of the union address, when he was asked exactly by a republican member of congress if he'll be

releasing it. he said 100%. so we know the president's mind set on this. but i am told if it is released released, it will not come in any type of public setting here at the white house. it is a document from the house of representatives. it will be released on the hill from them, jim. >> jeff, so i have to ask you here, let's look at the facts. the white house has claimed they're going to go through the steps of a process here, careful process. five days in the white house to review we're not releasing anything that is inaccurate or misleading. the president said last night in effect the decision's already been made. how do you rectify -- reconcile, rather, those two statements? >> it's a great question, and i do not have an answer. the reality is there's a contradiction between what the president has said, you know, saying that 100% he will release this, and his advisers are trying to say, look, it is a process here. the reality here is, jim, we know that this is almost

certainly to be released. we have heard advisers say that, you know, that definitely is the plan. the question is when and how. also, if some parts of this would be redacted, if some parts of this would be modified in some respect. that is still an option here, we believe. but jim, the sense here is that the question is a matter of timing. do they want to step on the message from the state of the union. the reality is this is hanging over washington. again, this feud between the fbi, the house of representatives and the white house here is not going to go away. it's simply escalating here. we look for it to be released at some point. the question is when that will be. >> jeff zeleny at the white house, thanks very much. let's get some perspective now from a former fbi assistant director for the criminal investigative division. chris, you listen to this now, and we know the fbi does not love the idea of getting into battles with the commander in chief.

and yet, christopher wray, a new director of the fbi, chosen by this president, felt the need to do so. why? why do you think he would believe it was necessary to call out the white house on what it sees as an inaccurate portrayal of events? >> well, chris, if you listen to his hearings, he said he would exercise independence. he's been proving that since the day he took office as the fbi director. i think what chris is getting at is the principle and the precedent here they're always briefing congress in closed session and classified settings on things that are very sensitive. if now congress decides to unilaterally release information that they're briefing them on, then really it's a breach of trust between the fbi and congress, not so much the fbi and the white house. we know the white house is probably going to release this information. i, like a lot of people, would like to see the information. on the other hand, i defer to

chris wray and the agency itself and the doj as to whether that would, in fact, compromise sources and methods. you know, in shorthand, that means somebody could get killed. >> you're going right to an issue here, which is also central to this. you have the accuracy question. you have the fbi saying this is misleading. i've spoken to current and former intelligence officials who are concerned exactly about what you've brought up here, which is that you're revealing what is by design a secretive process, which gets at how targets are picked and surveilled for national security issues here. what's your degree of concern about lifting the veil, so to speak, on this process? >> well, i personally have been involved in using fisa information in open court in criminal cases. there's a process for that. and fisa information can get sanitized and released to the public. it's really all about the process here. fisas are based on a mosaic of

information, lots of different sources, corroborated, and like a criminal wiretap, the person that's putting forth the fisa application has to reveal all the facts they know at that time that are relevant. so as a member of the general public, i'd like to know, you know, if it was paid for by an opposition party, if there was information there. on the other hand, i defer to the agencies. chris wray in particular, who has integrity and independence, and if they say, look, this will compromise sources and methods, you have to take them at their word. albeit, they're a little conflicted because the criticism is leveled at the fbi. however, you also have -- they report to the department of justice, and the justice department, as i understand it, is saying let's hold up here, this is going to compromise sources. i have to defer to them at this point. >> let's talk about what you raised there. the essential republican argument here is that this is going to reveal that this whole thing started because of this

famous dossier funded at times by democrats. i spoke, for instance, yesterday to the former director of national intelligence, michael haydn, who like you has been involved in fisa warrants, the issuing of them. he made the point, listen, you do not ever seek or get granted a fisa warrant based on some one piece of outside information. you've got to have independently collected intelligence to bolster that case, intercepted communications, et cetera. say it was mentioned in the fisa application, this dossier, there's no way -- first of all, the fbi would request such a warrant or the judge would grant such a warrant based on one piece of information. is that an accurate expression of how this is done based on your experience? >> it is. i did a lot of criminal work, spent some time doing counterterrorism work, but these work the same way as criminal wiretap applications. it's a composite of information

from a multitude of sources. some of these affidavits run into the hundreds of pages. it's not inconceivable that some information from the dossier went in there. i think in fairness, i think procedures would require that you would relate to the court that some of this -- where it derived from, what your source was, and let the court decide whether that tainted the information or not. i don't mean to confuse the issue here. as a member of the general public, i'd like to know how much of a role the dossier played. as a former member of the intelligence community, you have to defer to these well-established procedures that are in place. the fbi says that'll compromise sources. i think we have to take them at their word. >> chris swecker, you have your own experience in the fbi. i appreciate you sharing it with us. i want to bring in our panel

now. april, if i could begin with you, we know that the president wanted to bask, to some degree, in the glow of a successful state of the union speech last night, at least by his own measure and others. >> depends on who you talk to. >> there's some positive reviews. this is how many hours afterwards, the morning after, and this is his fbi director that he appointed who is openly defying the white house, is he not? >> yes, but you have to remember -- and everyone wants to believe the president -- well, the republicans want top say the president is allowed to do what he wants, but there has been a line over the years with administrations and justice as well as the fbi. there's no intermingling. now there seems to be i'm going to control you, i'm going to do this. to leave this over your head like i have the power to thwart this and to thwart a possible investigation into possible obstruction of justice.

if he does indeed fire, do whatever, or anything is moved around -- what is it, musical chairs we've been hearing about, so things can happen at the fbi. this just does not bode well. whatever the success was last night, because when you poll, you look at the fact that the people who are watching the state of the union are basically people who support the president. all of this cloud leaves people wondering and the trust factor. there's going to be a crisis of trust, a confidence crisis if there's any kind of impropriety or look of impropriety that happens. >> part of this is an intentional campaign by the president, is it not, to attack the fbi on a number of fronts. we've heard that going back to he's attacked the intelligence community, the department of justice, but he's gone after the very credibility of the bureau, individual senior officials in the bureau, its behavior, the fbi in tatters, et cetera.

this memo, is it not, is part of that broader campaign. >> we know that the president's advisers believe that a fire storm over this nunes memo will help change the subject from an intensifying mueller probe. they know the risks. i think, jim, you pay as close attention to this as anyone. if you know the fbi director wray met at the white house to read the memo on sunday, he's likely been saying this since sunday. it took a public statement, because it's being ignored by the white house, a process and place with expertise from all these people that are supposed to weigh in on this, take what doj and fbi says into consideration, and then make a presentation to the president has all been tossed away. he already made up his mind to release it. >> and said as much last night. 100%. >> and i was told last night that things change in the trump white house, that they were going to bask in the glow of the state of the union for two days and release it on friday. chief kelly indicated it's

coming soon. for chris wray to have to come forward with a defiant -- what looks like a defiant statement means no one would listen to him sen since sunday. >> katelyn, you cover the white house. do you have any doubt that the white house will go ahead and release this, perhaps be swayed by a public comment like this? >> well, the president has made it so clear that he wants this out. i mean, we saw him -- he erupted at officials on air force one when he was flying to switzerland when he found out that the doj had tried to block the release of this. so the president has made it very clear he wants it out there. i would be stunned if they do not release this memo after the president's attitude towards it. you heard from him last night saying 100%. it really goes to show that even a statement from his fbi director, who the president hand picked not that long ago to lead the fbi, saying this. it really goes to show also the president is not heeding the advice of not only his fbi director but also aides in the white house have said let's wait a few days before releasing this

so it looks like we at least weighed it, mulled over it, thought about these concerns that the department of justice has made about this memo and the recklessness of releasing it. it clearly shows the president does not have any concerned about that whatsoever. >> this devotion to process seems to be belied by that comment last night. listen, stand by. we'll have a chance to talk about it more. turning now to our other major breaking news story, that crash of a train carrying a large number of republican lawmakers, including members of the leadership. they were on their way to a republican retreat when their train collided with a garbage truck at a crossing. there's at least one fatality in that truck, minor injuries for passengers on the train. joining me now is one of those passengers, florida congressman aboard the train. thanks very much for joining us. we're certainly happy you and your colleagues are safe. tell us, if you can, what you saw and heard as this happened. >> jim, appreciate you having us on.

yeah, everybody on the train seems to be fine. some bumps and bruises. we're traveling along at a modest pace, i would say. i don't know how fast we were going. you heard a loud thud and a jolt of the train. it came to an immediate stop. we knew we hit something. you know, you always hear the worst. there's a school bus or something like that. a truck pretty much got annihilated. >> congressman yoho, i know you're in something of a rural part of virginia. we're having a little trouble with your signal. so we're going to take a break. we're going to come right back to you. meanwhile, there's another congressman who was on board that train with you. his name is john fasso, from new york. congressman, can you hear me? congressman, it's jim sciutto with cnn. just checking to see if you can

hear me. all right. we're having a little trouble. that train in this accident -- this train carrying numerous members of congress, republican members of congress on their way to the retreat. took place in a rural area of virginia. having a little trouble getting those cell phone lines up. we're going to check those lines and be back right after this break with an update. and get u. then i found aleve pm. aleve pm is the only one to combine a safe sleep aid plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract

and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. attention homeowners age sixty-two and older. one reverse mortgage has a great way for you to live a better retirement... it's called a reverse mortgage. call right now to receive your free information kit with no obligation. it answers questions like... how a reverse mortgage works, how much you qualify for, the ways to receive your money and more.

plus, when you call now, you'll get this magnifier with led light absolutely free! when you call the experts at one reverse mortgage today you'll learn the benefits of a government-insured reverse mortgage. it will eliminate your monthly mortgage payments and give you tax-free cash from the equity in your home... and here's the best part... you still own yohome. call now! take control of your retirement today!

welcome back. more now on our breaking news, the crash of a train carrying a large number of republican lawmakers. they were on their way to a republican retreat when their train collided with a garbage truck at a crossing. there's at least one fatality in that truck, minor injuries, thankfully, for passengers on the train. i want to go live to capitol hill, where our sunlen serfaty is standing by. sunlen, thankfully no serious injuries or really any injuries at all among members of congress. >> that's right, jim.

we're hearing from multiple sources that among the members of congress, their staff, and many families who were, in fact, traveling on that train from d.c. to west virginia today, that there were no extensive injuries. we're hearing minor injuries. some people describing bruises, small injuries. many of them even saying likely, you know, potentially in the next few days people might have whiplash. those sorts of things. but no serious injuries to people on the train, according to multiple sources. the white house press secretary, sara sanders, has said that there is one fatality confirmed and at least one serious injury, unclear exactly who those people were. in talking to members of congress on the train, we've heard many of them say after the initial collision, that initial bang that their train had with that garbage truck on the tracks, the immediate need was

for the people outside of the train. the immediate need for the extensive and serious injuries were those people in that garbage truck. we've heard anecdotally from many members of congress, many of them who are trained medical doctors, really jump in and roll up their sleeves and help people. certainly a scary incident. now, of course, plans being reworked for how this retreat, this three-day republican retreat goes on. we're told it will continue on. vice president pence, who was not on that train, was scheduled to speak there later today. he has said that he indeed intends to speak there. president trump will speak there tomorrow at that retreat in the green briar area in west virginia. certainly a very tragic and scary incident, one that many members of congress, their families and staff, are still trying to recover from. jim? >> sunlen, as you know, there are a number of doctors, medical doctors who are members of congress. they were aboard that train. michael burgess, roger marshall, bill cassidy p.

i understand they took to the aid of some of the injured in this crash, and they were performing cpr. just incredible. >> that's right. we are hearing at least one member, representative marshall, trained medical doctor, performed cpr. his office says that was on the train conductor. we're not exactly sure what the status of that train conductor is, although we know according to sources that everyone on the train seems to have minor injuries. so we'll get more information on that. but yes, senator flake, many others saying that those who are trained, have medical backgrounds, really jumped in to help treat people, administer potentially first aid. we saw that in the immediate aftermath of the shooting last summer that took place just outside of washington, d.c.. certainly this another tragic occurrence, a much different occurrence, but a tragic occurrence where those trained medical doctors, members of congress on the train, potentially some of their families traveling with them, of course, had to jump right in as well. >> sunlen serfaty on capitol hill, thanks very much.

just a reminder, we are in touch with members of congress who are on that train. just a little trouble getting the cell service down there to keep those lines open. but we're going to continue to try that. joining me now in the meantime is the former ntsb managing director. peter, you have been involved in investigating a lot of crashes, whether air crashes or train crashes. this took place, as we often see, sadly, at a train crossing. a vehicle that was crossing the tracks there. what kinds of things will investigators be looking for in the immediate aftermath? >> well, jim, you're right. this happens all too often in the united states. once every three hours a train hits either a pedestrian or a vehicle on the train tracks. in this case, the investigators on their way to the scene, the first thing they'll be looking at is the front-end camera on the amtrak engine. that will probably tell the story. what you had, jim, was a special

train running at probably an odd hour for this neck of the woods. you had a guarded crossing. the camera is going to tell whether this truck driver made the deadly mistake of trying to get around the crossing when it was already activated. >> and that is something that happens too often, frankly, does it not. you hear those stories often. we don't know. it's far too early to conclude what happened here, but that is something that you see all too often, is it not, people ignoring those crossings and trying to get across in advance of a train. >> i've ridden on the front end of trains through rural virginia, north carolina, south carolina, and i've seen it all too often. engineers can tell you that it happens virtually every day. somebody takes a risk. they see the train coming. they misjudge how fast it's going. they have no idea how long it's going to take to stop that

train. and they take a chance. i'm afraid we'll learn about this one very shortly. >> yeah, and listen, if you're listening at home right now, the lesson there is don't even think about it. peter goelz, thanks very much. >> thanks, jim. more now on our other breaking news. the fbi issuing a public, defiant warning saying it has, quote, grave concerns about the accuracy of the republican memo that apparently attacks law enforcement agencies. the president said to be getting very close to releasing it. in fact, he says 100%. stand by, we'll have more. if you've been diagnosed with cancer,

searching for answers may feel overwhelming. so start your search with our teams of specialists at cancer treatment centers of america. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts when a achoo!alls... ...answer it. with zicam cold remedy. it shortens colds, so you get better, faster. colds are gonna call. answer them with zicam! zicam. get your better back. now in delicious fruit drops.

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.

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. 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.

there's more breaking news on capitol hill this hour. it's a businey day. congressman trey gowdy says he will not seek re-election. the south carolina republican published a lengthy statement online saying in part, quote, whatever skills i may have are

better utilized in a courtroom than in congress, and i enjoy our justice system more than our political system. my panel back with me here. a.b., if i could begin with you. this is part of a string of republican retirements here. i've lost track now, but it's probably three dozen now or so. that always happens in a lot of cycles. but in this particular cycle, it's been notable. >> yes, it's really a record going back many, many, many decades. so it's disconcerting to the republican leadership, facing headwinds going into the midterms to lose anybody. he's not in a swing seat, but he's sort of a leader in the republican party. he's been a great spokesman on these issues. republican voters know who he is. he led the benghazi investigation. he's interestingly, because of what we talked about today, tried to straddle an interesting line. >> no question. during the obama administration,

all over benghazi. in recent weeks, his statements a bit more on the fence. >> he's made it clear he doesn't want to malign the entire doj or fbi. he's tried to warn his colleagues that you can ask questions and be skeptical without being accusatory. >> what's your read? >> well, there's speculation in the twitterverse there might be an opening on the fourth circuit that he's interested in. he made it clear that he prefers the judicial landscape to the political arena. i don't blame him. he made it clear in a statement. so he might be looking for a judgeship. >> is there anything information that the trump administration is considering him for a court appointment? >> that's a powerful seat. that is a very powerful seat. he stood with the administration, but the administration -- we don't know, we never know what they do. a lot of times people are qualified and sometimes people are not. but one thing i will say, those who know trey gowdy very well and those who work with trey gowdy, both dem and republican, say he has higher aspirations.

those higher aspirations one day could wind up being 1600 pennsylvania avenue. >> you're saying there are political ambitions in congress? >> so he may realize that right now to save himself for later on, for his aspirations, he may need to leave now and possibly move somewhere else and be appointed to a seat, but he wants to make sure he's clean for something else. he doesn't want to fight with this president, being a high-ranking republican that he is. i just want to say one thing too. congressman elijah cummings has outlived darrell issa and trey gowdy. >> not totally surprising he made this decision. he had expressed interest in becoming a judge. i think he filed for re-election at the deadline last time around and threw people off a little bit. i deon't think it's that surprising, but it is significant because it's another republican who's not running and a prominent chairman at that. it does make a change.

>> no question. there's other political news. there's a new poll from monmouth where the president's approval rating has ticked up to 42%. 50% disapproving. this is out of the 30s, where president trump has wallowed, one might say, for most of the time since his inauguration. a.b., why? why do we think? >> i think it's probably related to two things. i mean, they did pass tax reform by a christmas deadline after a year of failing to repeal and replace obamacare and fighting with each other. >> i know that the tax reform plan at least in many polls is viewed by a majority of americans negatively. >> the polling on tax reform was really bad in december. it's actually rising. it's becoming more popular. and either people are responding to their own personal data or they're responding to these stories of corporations feeling a boost and sharing it with their workers. and that is a positive for him. it's a legislative success, and it's an economic success. >> katelyn, i wonder, because you're still seeing this wave of

republican departures and part of that is based on a calculation it's going to be a tough year in 2018. it always is. a midterm year always is. it certainly was for obama in 2010. but as this number rises, if it continues to, does that better improve -- does that improve the chances of republicans in the midterms? >> it certainly raises some questions. the president has created a lot of problems for people who are running for re-election. at times, he's sparred with some of those people who would typically need a president's support. but the question now and in 2018 will be does the president's support actually help pull people over the line who are in those hotly contested primaries. does his support help them? so far we've seen it not really help in alabama with luther strange and roy moore. with those races, it hasn't helped them at all. it is a question for the white house. it will be a question of what they can accomplish for the rest of his term in office, depending on who they have over on the hill. >> april, we know this president likes to celebrate good news, or his perception of good news.

do you sense in the white house an increasing confidence or optimism? >> oh, most definitely. this president will definitely tout my numbers are great. we saw that not long ago on twitter when his numbers were moving. the negative piece was that the vast majority still do not approve of you. you have the vast majority disapproving. this president takes any positive step up and says this is a building block. but the question is, how long will he be able to build? let's see what happens in the next couple days when it comes to issues of having to deal with the budget or cr and having to deal with daca again. those sensitive issues are what brings it back down, when you deal with the issues of the race or did he say this or did he say that or did he tweet this or tweet that. right now, this is a moment. but let's what happens. >> and to add to that, the president insists to his allies and friends all the time that approval rating it not his actual approval rating. he insists to people it's much

higher than what it is. >> yeah, hates polls, except for the polls he likes, right. katelyn, a.b., april, thanks very much. more on our other breaking news. the fbi issuing a stern public warning tre warning directly to the white house saying it has grave concerns about the accuracy of the republican memo that attacks law enforcement agencies. this puts the fbi director christopher wray at odds with the man who selected him, the president. stand by. brought in high protein to help get us moving. ...and help you feel more strength and energy in just two weeks! i'll take that. -yeeeeeah! ensure high protein. with 16 grams of protein and 4 grams of sugar. ensure. always be you.

welcome pacback. more now on our breaking news. the fbi sounding an alarm over a secret republican memo accusing the fbi of abusing its surveillance powers. the fbi issued a defiant statement saying, quote, the fbi was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. as expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy. here with me now is a former director of the cia, james woolsey. he also served as an adviser during president trump's campaign. thanks for joining us, director. this is a rare moment where you have an fbi director here,

appointed by this president. this is not a holdover. christopher wray openly telling the president and republican leadership, one, that this is inaccurate, and two, that it would be a mistake to release it. would it be a mistake for the president to ignore that warning? >> i don't know. it depends on what's in the memo and how they proceed with respect to redacting and the like. if there's one thing in it that might endanger a source and method, then redacting that one thing could resolve the issue. i thought the cia before was the most creative with respect to tangles it could get in, in the government. but boy, the fbi is really running a rival operation. >> the argument you seem to be hearing from the fbi here, and i've heard similar from intelligence officials, is that this memo does not show the full picture, it doesn't show the underlying intelligence that would have been behind the applications for these fisa memos to surveil, in this case,

a former member of the trump administration, carter page. you've looked a the a lot of intelligence as director of the cia. i imagine -- i know that fisa came after your day, but you know how these kinds of requests are made. why does that argument make sense, do you think? that you would need to see the full picture to understand why this application was made. >> well, it's true of just about any intelligence document and really a lot of other documents too. you see things better if you've got the full picture. i think what looks to me is what's occurring is a conflict that could probably only get resolved by some kind of agreed upon redaction. they have to get together and say, look, i want 99% of this cleared, but i could give up on this part. there's ways to work these things out. it really is remarkable, though,

the degree to which the disagreement is broken out into public. there are arguments about classified materials all the time and what you're going to put out, what you're not going to put out. what's different about this is it's done in front of everybody. >> did you ever see in your own experience such open, public fighting and disagreement between 1600 pennsylvania and the intelligence and law enforcement agencies? because keep in mind, this is not the first time you've had disagreements like this. you've had it with the justice department. you've had it with the intelligence agencies. >> this is up there in the top quadrant of disagreements, but i want to point out that madison set things up this way, with checks and balances. we're always going to be arguing with one another. what we don't have is coups in the united states. that's good. we have arguments. some of them are pretty intense, some of them are pretty angry. but we've been going now for well over two centuries arguing

and having our government function and that's good. >> what about the quality of this argument here, though? from the president's side, often the attacks are not substantive. they don't say, i disagree on this issue of policy or this piece of intelligence, whether it's classified or not, but he's firing broadsides at the fbi here. the fbi's in tatters, going after the integrity, in effect, of senior fbi officials, similar to what we heard -- attacks at the intelligence agencies, comparing them to nazi germany with charges of surveillance. is that quality of attack, in your view, acceptable for a president? >> what's new here is not that people are arguing and arguing intensively. it's that they're arguing intensively publicly because of the technology, in terms of twitter in this case. it's just as if, for example, these days and times the russians are interfering all over the place with elections in

europe, here, all over the world. they've been doing it since the 1930s. what's new is not that the russians are interfering. what's new is they're doing it in front of everybody because of cyber and technology. so they don't have to get a spy in to influence something. they can do it from moscow sitting with their headsets on in front of a computer. so i think what's new is that technology has opened up a lot of things to public disagreement that we really are not used to seeing. it's been occurring, but most of the time, something like it anyway, it's always been private. >> final question, is it a mistake for a sitting president to pick a fight with his intelligence and law enforcement agencies? >> well, it's not customary. again, if it were being done privately and there was a leak here and a leak there, it probably would not be something that people spent a lot of time

focusing on. they're arguing, so what. but to have it be in front of everybody is new. that's hard to deal with. so far they're dealing with it, but it's not easy. >> director woolsey, thank you for taking the time. >> great to be with you. >> more on our other breaking news story. we now know that two lawmakers were actually injured when that train carrying them to a gop retreat collided with a garbage truck. we're going to have more on those injuries with more live coverage coming right up.

welcome back.

more on our breaking news. fbi openly defined the white house and the president on the gps memo, alleging abuse of surveillance by the fbi. here with me now, assistant attorney general. this is a public smack between the fbi and the white house. i might just add again, this fbi director, christopher wray was not a holdover, he was appointed by the president. i imagine they would not go forward with a warning like this unless it's very serious. he is saying this memo is inaccurate and misleading. >> he is. and the fbi hasn't had a chance to review it and do an actual declassification review. the underlying applications would have been fbi information and potentially other intelligence community information. and so normally the way, if congress wants to release something publicly, the way this

would work is they would go through a process. the fbi director, department of justice, perhaps the director of national intelligence would have a voice as to whether national security would be harmed by the release of this information. by the house taking the extraordinary vote that they did and then the president saying it's going to be released has bypassed that entire process. chris wray as fbi director has an obligation to protect national security information. that is part of the duty that he has in his role. so, it really is quite astounding, this early into his tenure that he had to take this step, break from the justice department perhaps, break from the white house and go public in terms of saying how damaging this could be. >> two issues here. the fbi statement goes right to the accuracy, saying that this is fundamentally inaccurate. but you also raise an issue, and i've heard the same from current and former intelligence officials, by exposing this

process of how the fbi and the u.s. intelligence community picks targets to be is your va you are exposing a process. >> classified document, we don't know whether it's secret or top secret, meaning it's disclosure publicly without proper review could cause grave or serious damage to u.s. national security. that's the standard. and so that's part of the standard. and so he has a responsibility to do this and fbi would be concerned about a misrepresentation, particularly about their appearance before the fisa court. any allegations they were not truthful or forthcome something a serious, professional responsibility and integrity issue for them. >> for sure. to be clear, this is part of a broader campaign. you're hearing from republicans and the president himself against the entire fbi on a number of fronts but the mueller investigation as well.

do you see this as part of an effort to undermient mueller investigation? >> it absolutely is. it's hard to see this in any other way other than national security bureaucracy. the mueller investigation was originally an fbi investigation. it's only under special counsel mueller now because the president fired director comey. christopher wray as fbi director still would have knowledge as what's going on. clearly, unfortunately, there's a concerted political effort to damage their credibility, both as an institution and in terms of the russian investigation. >> final question, the president said yes, i would be delighted to but i'll listen to my lawyers. his lawyers seem to say -- and by cnn's own reporting -- that the special counsel hasn't met the standard for the president to sit down. for our viewers and myself as well, is the president required

to sit down with special counsel by law? >> there are arguments his lawyers are making to perhaps delay his being interview bid the special counsel's office. the special counsel can interview the president being interviewed by other special counsels or independent counsels. >> thank you very much for clearing that up for us. more on other breaking news. we now know that, in fact, two lawmakers were injured when that train carrying them to a gop retreat collided with a garbage truck the a crossing. there is more live coverage coming up after this. i have type 2 diabetes. i'm trying to manage my a1c, 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. she 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. 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®. hi, there, i'm brooke baldwin. thanks for being with me this afternoon on cnn. here is the big news. the fbi has now release this had rare public statement writing that they have, quote, grave concerns about the memo's skras. and now we're learning a second group of individuals from the department of justice and the fbi went to the white house, urging the president keep it classified. the first group