and they have stonewalled on. >> on what? what were you looking for that they have stonewalled you on? >> we asked certain information, and they were not turning it over. some information they said didn't exist and then we found out it did. let's continue to go through the process, get the truth to us and to the american people. because if there's any problems with the processes we have, we have to correct them. that's our responsibility. i feel like we're conducting ourselves very professionally. we have a professional obligation for oversight. keep that in mind too. congress has oversight over doj, over fbi. it's not the other way around. >> congressman, is it fair to say to say at this point you don't trust the fbi? >> oh, i think that the agency itself and members throughout the agency, i have tremendous respect for. you know, in any agency, in any entity, whether it's government, business or otherwise.

you may have some people that may not be performing to the top notch way that they should be and doing everything correctly. we have an obligation to check into that. but i'm not going to throw the entire fbi under the bus. and i'm not going to name individuals at this time because that's what we're looking into. >> all right. congressmen, again, great work for your heroism yesterday. thanks so much for being with us this morning. >> great for those families. thank you. thanks to our international viewers for watching. for you, cnn "newsroom" is next. for the u.s., "new day" continues right now. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day". why waste time? unprecedented public clash between president trump and the nation's top law enforcement officials over releasing that classified gop memo alleging sur is have a lance abuses. in a rare statement, the fbi is expressing grave concerns about the accuracy of the memo. i know you just heard a congressman say christopher wray had no problems with the

accuracy. that's not true. it's serving their political purpose of getting this memo out. the justice department warned last week that releasing it would be extraordinarily reckless. the man who gave the warning was an appointee of president trump. the top democrat on the house intel committee now accuses republican chairman devin nunes of secretly altering that kop controversial memo before it was september to the white house for review. all of this comes as questions continue to grow on whether nunes is working with the white house on the memo. he refuses to answer the question. >> there's another big development to tell you about in the russia investigation. the "new york times" reports special counsel robert mueller is zeroing in on an alleged cover up of the new famous meeting between russians and trump campaign officials. did a top aide to the president try to obstruct justice? >> and we have two cnn exclusives. first, sources tell cnn that

president trump asked rod rosenstein, are you on my team? is that an attempt to gain support. the fbi agent whose text messages have led to the allegations of bias in the mueller investigation played a key role in reopening the hillary clinton e-mail probe just days before the 2016 election. we have all of these stories covered for you. let's again with cnn's abby phillip live at the white house. abby >> reporter: good morning, alisyn. all eyes on the white house this morning as we wait to see how and when that gop motorcycle might be released today. sources tell cnn it's likely to happen today, even though the fbi and the justice department have expressed concerns. the fbi putting out a statement saying they really don't want this memo released because of factual inaccuracies. overnight, new drama is unfolding in this ongoing saga.

the top democrat is accusing the republican chairman devin nunes of secretly altering that controversial memo before he sent it to the white house for review. >> this is not about the facts. this is about a narrative that the chairman wants to put out, misleading narrative to undermine the if you can, undermine the department, and ultimately undermine bob mueller. >> reporter: schiff writing in a letter to nunes that it was materially different than the version of which the committee voted. he called it a strange attempt to on thwart the publication of the memo. the back and forth unfolding on the back and forth about whether nunes coordinated with the white house on the memo. >> i asked the chairman did he work with, and i asked all the preliminaries, you know, coordinate, discuss. and he said not to my knowledge.

i asked did your staff. and then he became quite agitated and said i'm not answering that. >> did devin nunes work with anybody in the white house on that memo? >> not that i know of. >> he was a member of trump's transition team. he was asked to step aside the committee after rushing to the white house to discuss intelligence related to the probe. nunes was eventually cleared. the memo setting up an unprecedented showdown between the president and his hand-picked fbi director chris wray. they asserted they have grave concerns about the material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy. they warned it would be extraordinarily reckless to released. chief of staff down playing the concerns. >> it will be released shortly and then it will be released. >> don't worry. 100%.

>> reporter: a source tells cnn the white house may release the memo as early as today, possibly with some redactions. it is not clear if it would address concerns about it being incomplete. they informed the president they want to talk about the now infamous statement on board air force one. a former spokesperson plans to tell them that hope hicks sat on a conference call that don jr.'s e-mails with the russians promising dirt on hillary clinton will never get out. leaving corallo concerned hicks could be contemplating obstruction on of of justice. in december, fbi director rosenstein was in a meeting in which president trump asked him if he was, quote, on his team. he is the person in charge of the russian probe. he made testimony before congress saying that no one has ever asked him for a loyalty pledge. today, president trump is going

to be going to west virginia to speak before a gop retreat with lawmakers. he said march 5th is rapidly approaching and the democrats are doing nothing about daca. they resist, blame, complain and obstruct and do nothing. start pushing nancy pelosi and the dems to work out a daca fix now. so the president has been silent for quite some time. but this is a key opportunity for him to show how exactly he's going to work with democrats on this immigration fix as he promised tuesday night in his state of the union address. >> abby, thank you very much for all of that. we have john avlon and cnn counterterrorism analyst phil mudd. before we get into all the new details about this memo, i want to get your take on what this means, the the fact that the president is now publicly fighting with the heads of the department -- with rod rosenstein, with christopher wraeu, head of the fbi, steven

boyd, department of justice official. what does this mean? >> he's not fighting with the heads of those agencies only. he's fighting with the entire executive branch and an organization that has been around 110 years. he's been in office 13 months. this is a setup. it is not about chris wray or the deputy attorney general. if robert mueller comes out with additional indictments, i guarantee you the president will come out and say i told you all along. this is a witch-hunt by deep state bureaucrats opposing the mandate for me to run this country. >> he hand-picked people. his hand-picked republicans he calls deep state bureaucrats. >> that's right. my point is he hand-picked these individuals. he is setting it up as the executive branch, the white house against organizations that they have said are incredibly honorable. if you look at polling data how

the americans viewed the fbi, it is apples and oranges. he is trying to change the dynamic saying you can't trust them. >> this is left and right and these institutions are the democracy. very unusual. it was such oh, come on moment. this guy saying we want the information to get out this congressman says. you want the information to get out. but you haven't seen the information. you haven't read the facts. you haven't seen the fisa application you are saying was dirty. but you want facts to come out. it is such a come on. >> of course. but for part answer talking points are easier to remember than facts. that's a big core problem in our politics right now. the dividing lines we're seeing really are stunning. it is trump world against the rest of the world as they see it. he's fighting with his own executive branch, his own employees. can't simply dismiss that as a conspiracy. he's fighting against congress. certain members of congress are

following in with trump world. they see it ativdvantageous in short run. there are designed to be checks and balances. >> and pandering saying it is all dirty. trust no one. >> let's not call it a deep state anymore. let's call it conspiracy theory. that is what is being fomented. rhetoric has to be reality. that's not going to be on their side. >> phillip mudd, let's talk about this memo. they changed it. after they voted to release it and accepted it of to the white house, they then changed it. if you believe devin nunes's people, they changed it minorly, just tweaks. if you believe adam schiff, they changed it substantially. either way, they changed it. how can anyone trust this memo when released to the public. >> let's take it back a step. there are thousands of fisa

applications every year on counterintelligence and terrorism cases. thousands. my guess is in this case they're looking at some related to the investigation on russia, obviously, and related to individuals connected with the trump campaign and saying among these thousands, among these few we will pick a few facts and persuade the american people who don't understand the fisa process and shouldn't based on a couple of facts that the entire process is wrong. i can tell you from the start that's what we call cherry picking that happened in 2002 going before the iraq war when people cherry picked intelligence. we lived it 15 years ago. we will live it again today. cherry picking. >> the first is another push for loyalty by the president, john avlon. this time rod rosenstein, are you on my team? and timing matters. in december he was up there to talk about his testimony on congress about what was going on

with the investigation. rosenstein supposedly answered, we're all on your team, mr. president. technically right. he is part -- >> supposed to be on the same team. >> but this is another one. by itself, people will write this off as trump being trump. and a really ignorant idea about how people from new york speak. 0 to prosecutors, it could be a piece in a puzzle of corrupt intentions. why is he asking this question? what is he trying to get out of these executives. >> this is clearly part of a pattern. this is loyalty oaths part,000. sit not a verbal tick from a guy from new york. >> why not? this is how he divides the world. are you on my team or not? >> are you going to do a nice story on me. is he saying are you going to help me get out of this

investigation or not? >> i get it. >> it is about america versus the world when it's george bush. with donald trump, are you investigating me and are you going to be kind to me and my friends. that is the fact person pa. everybody knows he is furious about recusing himself. so let's not be too clever here. it is what it is. >> a verbal tick is when he goes forget about it. >> it's how he sees the world. if you ran into him today, he would say are you on my team or not. obviously he's the president. this is the -- the stakes are higher. but this is how he divides the world. >> context matters. he is about to go in and testify. one word comes out. >> i'm not saying it's appropriate.

>> prosecutors are looking at it because they think it is more than just a tick. >> more information came out that you won't hear much from the republican side pushing the memo. it is, phil mudd, that strzok was involved with the clinton he mail investigation. and there's now information that that letter that comey put out publicly, that they were reopening the case, just a gut shot to clinton at the end of the campaign. strzok was involved with drafting the early version of that. and that he wanted to aggressively pursue the e-mails that were found on anthony weiner's laptop. by the way, they wound up being highly duplicative and not anything new. he wanted to look at them. but he was against comey making them public. significance? >> the significance is you have someone ironically charged with trying to undermine the trump campaign who was involved in the most significant step that partly destroyed hillary clinton's success.

you couldn't have made that up in a novel. the other quick thing i would say, people have the impression that someone can initiate an investigation, get a fisa to intercept e-mail. peter strzok couldn't have made any of these decisions alone. no one should think ez the wizard of oz behind the curtain. by the way, i would never pick you for my team. i want to make that clear up front. >> you know why? i'm not loyalty to you. i'm loyal to the truth, my brother. that's the road that divurges with me and that yellow tie. i love phil mudd. he's one of the best guys we have. the "new york times" with another big scoop. mueller investigating a possible on cover up of the trump tower meeting between russians and the

trump campaign. joining us on the phone is cnn political analyst and "new york times" reporter maggie haberman. maggie? >> reporter: chris, thanks for having me. >> i insist to bother you late at night and early in the morning when you are with your family. thank you very much. the headline matters. tell us what you know and what you think it means. >> reporter: sure. look, mueller will be the one who can decide how significant all of this is. we have learned more about how things went down in terms of drafting, the statement that was crafted aboard air force one about the trump tower meeting. we know mueller has been asking people about it. some prosecutors are -- not prosecutors, excuse me. some people involved in the interviews are a little bit puzzled as to why because the argument is that being, you know, not candid with the press is not a crime but not that it would be. and that was not the issue here. it was simply the former. we also know of a conference

call that took place the day after the statement was drafted with the president supervising it essentially between the president, hope hicks and mark carolla of the president's legal team. he told people he resigned. supposedly during this call hope hicks referring to e-mails that don jr. exchanged with something trying to set up the meeting with a russian lawyer. it was said to be about getting dirt on hillary clinton with the russian government's help. this is all said in the e-mail. she said they would never come out. her lawyer said she never discussed destroying documents. there is a scenario where she is

talking about it getting out into the press. >> right. >> but what's going to matter is who said what to mueller. >> her lawyer, trout, an established guy, used the language that would exactly echo a carveout in the statute for obstruction of justice. he used those words on on purpose. and zealously representing his client's interest that she wasn't doing what would trigger that statute. understood. >> that's right. >> on the other side of this equation, you have someone equally respected. corollo worked there. contextually, it will be relevant to mueller. he will make a good witness in terms of why he would be concerned. it is not just some remember p.r. flack. you're right, maggie, it ultimately comes down to what did she mean and what is your sense of whether or not -- she's already talked to them. so what does it mean this is

still something they're looking at? >> i think what it means is first of all, i'm not sure they were even going to talk to carollo. hicks was getting a phone call or gets called back. again, it still comes down to one person's word against the other. it is a huge open question right now. >> all right. maggie, thank you so much once again. >> thanks, guys. all right. concern in congress and the fbi about that devin nunes memo and its expected release. with print services done right. on time. guaranteed!

expert tech support. and this week all dell pcs are up to twenty five percent off! save even more when you purchase a dell monitor. and make sure you protect your investment. office depot® officemax. officedepot.com ♪ taking care of business

the chairman devin nunes of secretly altering a memo alleging fbi surveillance abuses before sending it to the white house. is nunes working on this controversial memo? joining us is senator blumenthal of connecticut. thank you for being here. >> thank you, alisyn. >> i know you're not in the house, or on the house intelligence committee. you are very involved in the investigations. what do you know about the changes made to this devin nunes memo? >> we know they are unauthorized by the minority. >> the democrats meaning. >> exactly. >> and so the memo is different than the one approved by the committee. but we also know very, very importantly that the department of justice has said that it would be extraordinary reckless. and the release of this memo is

really reminiscent of the darkest days of the mccarthy era. it endangers methods and sources of the intelligence community and reflects an effort to distract from the mueller investigation, which now is tightening its vice with this interview with mark corallo. >> the spokesperson for the trump legal team and mark corallo are expected to be interviewed in the next approximate two weeks. we just had maggie haeberman on from the "new york times". they will ask about the aftermath of that summer meeting with don jr. and the russian lawyer were then on air force one they tried to craft a statement that it wasn't about sanctions. it was about adoption. and that hope hicks reportedly, according to the "new york times" sources, said those e-mails will, quote, never get out. >> one of the most dramatic

pieces of evidence really stuning, was donald trump jr.'s reaction when he was invited to this june 9, 2016 meeting at trump tower. he was promised dirt on hillary clinton and he said, i love it.. and the president was used in drafting an explanation given to maggie haberman and other "new york times" reporters and apparently deliberately distorted and misrepresented the purpose of the meeting having to do with russian adoption not the dirt on hillary clinton. >> this is why your chair, chuck grassley, wants the don trump jr. transcript of when you all interviewed him to be released. is that going to be released? >> i certainly hope so. i believe it will be. it will be very dramatic because there are explosive pieces of

that transcript that have been already revealed in part in exchange with wikipedia and its effort to amplify what it already knew in terms of stolen memos. so i think it's going to be a dramatic moment. >> what other on explosive things are in there? >> well, i'll await its release since we're under a bar to talk about what's in the memo. >> but why? this isn't classified, right? this was just a closed door interview, right? can you talk about what he said? >> there are rules which we are committed to observe. but i will say this, alisyn, the people of america will have a right to ask about the recollection of donald trump jr. and other witnesses whether they are being forth coming to the committee. and here's the most important point. not only should transcripts be released but donald trump jr. should be subpoenaed to appear under oath in public answering

questions from committee members so that people know that all the documents have been produced under subpoena and that he is testifying in public. they need to know. >> when do you think that will be released? >> i hope very shortly. that is in the chair's prerogative. what i hope will happen as a result of that release is that we will continue to public testimony. because i think it's very important that we move forward in protecting the special prosecutor against attacks. >> cnn has new exclusive reporting today that in december rod rosenstein, deputy ag, met with the president at the white house. and the president is quoted as asking rod rosenstein, are you on my team. how do you interpret that? >> that cnn report is very significant. one, it shows the president's

miscomprehension of the role of the department of justice. it is not his team. rod rosenstein serves the american people. the justice department is not donald trump's department. it is the american people's. second, it corroborates what jim comey has testified about, the loyalty oath that the president demanded of him. >> but it does not corroborate what rod rosenstein testified to. correct me if i'm wrong, didn't rod rosenstein testify he had not been asked for a loyalty pledge. >> that's an excellent question. he did testify before congress that there was no loyalty pledge demanded of him. he may have interpreted somewhat differently when the president said are you on my team. he may not have interpreted it as a pledge of loyalty. he is going to have to explain the differences. >> there are six people. we have a graphic to show everyone, that have been asked for some sort of, call it what you want, an are you on my team question or a loyalty pledge of

some kind. we have it there. rod rosenstein included. but you know the question. is this just trump being trump? >> it certainly reflects a pattern which is deeply disturbing. the politicization, the taking of the department of justice and the fbi to partisan levels we haven't seen. for him to demand these loyalty pledges, call them what you will, is contempt for the department of justice and law enforcement. >> we have a big cnn exclusive. the agent at the center of allegations of bias in the fbi against the president played a

key role in reopening the hillary clinton he mail investigation. now, what will this mean to critics attacking him? so far they're ignoring it. why? we'll tell you next. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com all right. now to a skrpb exclusive. sources tell cnn the fbi agent whose text messages led to allegations of bias in the mueller investigation played a key role in reopening the hillary clinton e-mail probe days before the 2016 election. peter strzok was part of that

gut shot to clinton. he helped draft the letter that comey made public about looking at those e-mails they found on anthony weiner's laptop. they were duplicative and illustrious of nothing new. joining us is mike rogers. why this is so relevant is because this guy is being painted as a patsy. he is a clinton favorite. he was trying to help her. he is exhibit a of this deep state that people on the right are trying to construct. what does this reporting do to that notion? >> a couple of things, chris. first of all, the rope that strzok and page were in trouble, the general counsel and this specific special agent was not because of their investigative work. it was because they were in an inappropriate relationship and using government of services to

do that. there is some notion that taking the personal e-mails of that conversations that anybody might have either at the bar at night, after work, at home, on the patio or whatever, and try to stretch that back into the investigation. i would argue it is inappropriate. what they would need to have done is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and i think both of them should get due process here, is their attitudes reflected their work in the investigation. they were not happy with what sounds like to me with either candidate but they went through and did their job, or at least did his job on this particular piece. there are 50,000 texts we don't know what's in there. by all appearances they got caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. it didn't impact his investigative work. >> there was no correction of that.

the same texts where one of them mentioned a secret society that elected lawmakers from your party jumped on as proof of a deep state. when the context came out, there was no back off of it. mike, you were loyal to your party and loyal to this country. is there any question about the motivation for what's going on right now. these people haven't even seen the fisa application they're saying was wrong and unjustified. they haven't even seen it. how is this about politics? >> i'm disturbed by what they haven't seen and members didn't read the supporting materials before they went on to vote. democrats have been equally bad about this. >> not right now. got to deal with the instant situation. >> i'm hearing you. they haven't been pure on this either. >> mike, just so you understand. the one reason this is going to be so effective, and this is my suggestion, when they comes out, i don't care what the basis is.

people will read and see what they want to see in it. one of the reasons they will do that is because they don't trust anybody down there. left, right, middle, center, any label you want to give yourself. they don't trust you guys because of stuff like this. >> you guys. >> you're one of us, mike. you look better already. >> i am concerned as well about the fact that through this they haven't seen the fisa application. i have done a title 3, the criminal version of what they did in the fisa court. lots of information goes in there. i hope they have not taken a few pieces, the ampleatiffirmation

they liked and put it in there. because it is not an accurate view of what happened. to not have the full picture and ensure they can run around and say it shows exactly what i want you to see. i'm sure they are putting their own spin on things. >> right. >> this is the one place none of that was supposed to happen, the intelligence committee. >> look, trump's own cleansing agents, christopher wray, steven boyd at doj, rod rosenstein. they are all saying this isn't the way to do it. we think stuff is wrong. he's not listening. that takes us to another headline. the idea that the president asked yet another top official for loyalty, asking rod rosenstein to prepare for his house testimony, trump said to him, are you on my team.

relevant? >> to me it is all about context. if you came in and you say, team america. you're on my team. that would be really, really different. if there was some other motive there. i think that's probably what special counsel has to stkaoeufpltd is there a pattern suggestive of something, that gregarious moment of, hey, we're doing great things for the country. just isolated, really, really hard to tell. >>. >> understood. it is all about how they put together the context. the perfect point to make. that's why you are the perfect guest. i trust you mike rogers. i trust you. >> to have you. >> thanks. >> he's been waiting for that assurance. >> he will sleep a little easier tonight, i guarantee. >> i can tell. he looked very relieved. >> i felt it. congressman jim himes asked devin nunes directly about it. congressman himes joins us next

with the answer he got. its technology was engineered (beeping). while its design was meant to be seen. experience the new 2018 lexus nx, and the nx hybrid. experience amazing, at your lexus dealer. yes! ours is still buffering. what's happening? you're experiencing a network delay. you both need to be watching that on the iphone with verizon. the best streaming network. how long have you been here? i've been here a couple days. (avo) get the best unlimited on the most awarded network. and now, when you buy iphone 8, you'll get one on us. (whispering) with the capital one venture card, you'll earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, every day. not just airline purchases. (yelling) holy moly, that's a lot of miles! shh-h-h-h! what's in your wallet? man: shh-h-h!

luckily, office depot®not officemax® is hereeart. shh-h-h-h! to take care of you. ♪ taking care of business with print services done right. on time. guaranteed! expert tech support. and this week all dell pcs are up to twenty five percent off! save even more when you purchase a dell monitor.

and make sure you protect your investment. office depot® officemax. officedepot.com ♪ taking care of business

the only thing i was aware of is was making grammatical changes and making sure we did not describe someone's job, if it was a matter of national security, but the content wasn't changed. >> all right. republican house intel committee

member on "new day" this morning denying that chairman nunes made any significant changes to his controversial memo before sending it over to the white house. but democratic member jim himes worried changes could happen. he tweeted about it. he said in a formal meeting i asked chairman nunes not once but twice if his memo would be released precisely as we reviewed it. he said yes. then he altered it. good morning, congressman. >> good morning, alisyn. >> do you know what changes have been made to this memo? >> no, i don't. and neither does winstrop. we committee members only learned last night that the memo had been alter before being sent to the white house. >> how did you learn that? >> because adam schiff discovered it and wrote a letter saying, hey, what's up with this. this is different than the one we approved. alisyn, at the end of the day, it doesn't even really matter how big the changes were.

this is very serious stuff. when a committee votes to release an explosive memo that many of us believe is founded on falsehoods and designed to tar the fbi, you don't then get to alter the language particularly when you have read a democratic memo which rebuts the allegations in that memorandum. can you imagine in congress changed the language on bills? >> i hear you. what if it is just grammatical changes? >> so if you read the letter, adam schiff, whatever you think of him being a democrat in a partisan fight is an attorney, he is not bombastic. he said there were material and substantive changes. it is is now on devin nunes and other committee members to show

us exactly what they were. >> i want to read the exact exchange you had with devin nunes. i do think it is telling. so on monday you asked him this very question if there would be changes. you say is the intent to make the memo as presented to this committee and as shown to members of congress that precise memo available to the public or will there be a process to redaction before it is made available to the public? devin nunes said only -- yeah. it is to make the content available, is what we will do. and you say is that memo word for word to be made public or will it be redacted or altered in any way? well, as the gentleman knows, we will send the content over to the white house, and the president has 5 days to either agree with us. he's not exactly answering your question. >> well, no. but i mean, if the intention had been to make any changes at all, look at my wording. exact. word for word. there would have been a pretty easy way to say, hey, we may

clean up misspellings. we may change people's job titles. but of course that's not what he said. look, alisyn, this is indicative of the process that led to this memo's existence. as you know, all but two members who voted for this memo's release, it is laden with classified information that only two members on the committee had reviewed. there was a vote to prohibit the fbi and the department of justice to come in and talk to us about these allegations. i have been in congress a while. when you have a problem with an agency, you invite them in. >> congressman winstrop, we had him on this morning. he said the head of the fbi did approve of this memo. let me play it for you. listen to this. >> christopher wray saw the memo and said everything in it was factual. but i want you to keep in mind one thing. we have subpoenaed the fbi and the doj for months. and they have stonewalled us. we requested specific information and they were not turning it over. as a matter of fact, there's some information they said

didn't exist. then we found out that it did. >> your reactions, congressman? >> well, sadly, the first thing that brad said, and brad is a good friend of mine. and i honor what he did yesterday in helping the people wounded in that crash. the first thing he said is simply inaccurate. >> when he said christopher wray saw the memo and said everything in it is factual. >> that is very simply the opposite of the truth. it was reviewed late on sunday night, 12 hours before we voted on that memo's release. and he did not say everything was accurate. he came out and said i have profound misgivings. they said it would be extremely reckless. of course, no, he did not sign off on it. that has been the way this process has run from moment one. >> is it true that the fbi has stonewalled all of your interests for information? >> well, be you know, i think doctoring first of all, it's

very hard to know that because although devin nunes maintains there is a committee investigation into the fbi and the department of justice, that is very simply not true. there was never an investigation of the department of justice and the fbi set up by the committee. the ranking member under the rules required was never informed. none of us had participated in that investigation. devin nunes fought a one man war. it goes back to president obama wiretapped trump, sue an rice and sam powers improper unmasking allegations proven not just to be false but ridiculous. this is the latest installment of that. maybe the department of justice and the fbi is saying with our most highly classified stuff we will be careful about how fast we put it into devin nunes's hands. no, as far as i know they have been fully cooperative in what the committee asked them for in the duties of our oversight. >> congressman jim himes, we appreciate you coming on with

all of your position with what's happening this week. thank you. >> thank you, alisyn. >> chris? more victims of abuse are going to come forward against former usa gymnastics doctor larry nassar. there is a second sentencing hearing. the first woman who filed a complaint with michigan state is speaking to cnn. what she said and what the university did, next. i tried hard to quit smoking. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

what is this? when we love someone, we want to do right by them. but some things we can't control like snoring. (snoring) introducing theravent anti-snore strips. clinically shown to reduce snoring. theravent. the answer is right under your nose.

so to this point, at least 265 women have come forward with detailed sexual abuse allegations against disgraceed usa gymnastics and michigan state doctor, larry nassar. convicted, that's according to the judge overseeing the case. dozens of those women are expected to come face-to-face with nassar at his third and final sentencing hearing. cnn's jean casarez sat down with the first woman to file a complaint against michigan state and nassar. jean joins us live. you and i know, we've done a lot of these types of stories. i've never seen this volume of victimization, but to be the first is often the hardest.

>> reporter: to file the formal complaint. amanda thomaso says she knows exactly what she wants to tell the special prosecutor in michigan now investigating msu. >> they came to know that i was sexually assaulted in that examination room, and i somehow got the courage to talk about it. instead of taking me seriously, msu did everything they could to cover that up. >> in 2014 michigan state graduate amanda thomashow was the first to file a complaint against the university under title 9. she said the decision to come forward was agonizing. >> if i didn't say something and protect possible victims, i wouldn't be okay with that. >> reporter: first step,

thomashow was interviewed by police. >> they interviewed me, were disgusted by what happened, i thought i was taken seriously. >> reporter: in his 2014 police interview obtained by cnn nassar said he's been doing medical manipulation treatment since 1997, saying i had no ill intent, calling himself the body whisperer, telling police, use the force, you feel it. thomashow heard nothing from the university for weeks, finally getting a call to come to msu. >> what did she say? >> she told me she was so sorry, there was nothing more -- there wasn't anything else that she could do, but they found that his medical procedure -- his procedure was medical and it was not sexual. >> so when you walked out of that room -- >> i didn't walk out of that

room. i stormed out of that room and slammed the door. i could not believe that they weren't taking me seriously. >> thomashow received a copy of the title 9 complaint, the conclusion was three sentences long. >> we cannot find that the conduct was of a selks nature. thus, it did not violate the sexual harassment policy. however, we find the claim helpful in that it allows us to examine certain practices at the msu sports medicine clinic. >> pretty short. >> yeah. >> so when you read that? >> i just felt so dumb. after that i ended up spending years not know iing what really- i kept going back to the same details, relived them over and over again. the way i said no, and he said i'm almost done. i pushed him off me and he hid in the corner and he was clearly

aroused. i kept coming back to the same details. this is not right. >> for two years she lived knowing her alma mater didn't believe her. then in 2016 she got a call from university police, another woman had come forward, and thomashow's investigation could be reopened. >> what did that do to you inside? >> it was like winning and losing at the same time, because finally i knew that my truth was being listened to. >> reporter: but just months ago, thomashow discovered a second version of the title 9 report, one the university never shared with her. that version had a different conclusion. >> we find that whether medically sound or not, the failure to adequately explain procedures such as the invasive sensitive procedures is opening up the practice to a liability and is exposing patients to unnecessary trauma based on the possibility of perceived

inappropriate sexual misconduct. >> so when you read this conclusion, that gives you a little credibility. >> if i had gotten that full conclusion instead of the three-sentence paragraph conclusion that i originally received, i would have felt so much more hurt -- >> reporter: then two months ago, a representative for msu sent a letter to the state attorney general saying no msu official believed that nassar committed sexual abuse prior to summer 2016. now with the announcement of an independent investigation into msu that could become criminal, thomashow's title 9 complaint may come front and center. she says she still has many questions. >> i think the way that my investigation was handled was not in a way to bring out the truth, but instead it was performed in a way to conceal and protect a pedophile.

>> reporter: we reached out to msu several times on amanda's case. they have yet to get back with us. tomorrow, larry nassar's third sentencing hearing in eaton county, michigan, will continue. >> jean, thank you very much for that interview. when it comes to these kinds of allegations, one should be enough for a major institution to look, not to jump to conclusions, but to look. they shouldn't need numbers to find the situation significant. thank you for the reporting. this morning there is just a fact-first feast going on. so let's get after it. >> they're getting ready to release a mem mo which chris wray says is fundamentally misleading. >> i read the memo. this is earth shaking i. does go deeper than watergate. >> they wanted transparency and did it with a flimsy memo. >> adam schiff charging that

there was a different version of that memo sent to the white house. >> this is the definition of using intelligence information for political purposes. >> the department of justice is not on any president's team. >> it's another part of the mosaic of corrupt intent to obstruct justice. >> if they were doing something nefarious, the last thing they would have done is handle it the way it was handled. >> the president lied to the country about a meeting with russians. that's a big deal. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and sal sin camerota. >> welcome to your "knew day." it's thursday. it's not february 11th. >> no, it's not. >> you're not going to trick me this time prompter. >> fraek prompter. >> a public clash between president trump and his top law enforcement officials over releasing the classified republican memo alleging surveillance abuses by the fbi. in a rare statement the fbi expressed, quote, grave concerns about the accuracy o