call, visit, or go to xfnitymobile.com. good evening. with the president about to speak to republican party function being held, no surprise at the trump international hotel in washington, we begin tonight with the drama over the nunes memo. keeping them honest, it is in many ways a phony drama. it is a forgone conclusion. it is and always has been. we should point out the document in question is not some bipartisan finding of fact from the house intelligence committee. it appears it will be something of a press release. possibly just e-mailed out perhaps under the letter head of the house intelligence committee membership, chaired, of course, by congressman devin nunes. so despite grave concerns from the director of the fbi,

christopher wray, as well as from officials at the department of justice, the memo is in all likelihood going to be released. how will we know this? we know it because the president himself said he wants it out. he's been calling for it. on tuesday night he said the odds of it being released are 100%. >> release the memo? >> don't worry. 100%. could you imagine? >> again, the grave concerns of the republican fbi director, who the president himself chose, have not swayed him. and according to new reporting those grave concerns have not gone away. just yesterday the bureau said, quote, we have great concern of material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy. the president wants it out even though there's concerns that the work of tens of thousands of law enforcement and intelligence professionals may be smeared. in fact, we learned just today that the president has been telling friends he wants the memo made public not

as a way of rebuilding the fbi, as he promised or in the name of transparency as house speaker ryan and others have said, but as a way of impugning the russia investigation and the people running it. every indication we have from the president, from his son don junior who's been tweeting up a storm lately and others, this is about attacking the fbi and the justice department. so will he or won't he is phony. he will. what's also still not known is if the white house had any role in the crafting of this memo with staffer chairman nunes. nunes has said he did not have contact with the white house. but when pressed by a democratic member of the house intelligence committee about whether any of his staffers had contact with the white house, he didn't have an answer. and sarah sanders apparently had no answers either. >> did devin nunes work with anybody at the white house on the memo? >> not that i know of. >> he wouldn't answer that question. i just don't know the answer. >> he has worked with the white

house before when it comes to intelligence and the russia investigation. >> look, we have certainly coordinated with members of congress as is appropriate, as to specifics on this, i just don't know the answer. i'm not aware of any conversations or coordination with congressman nunes. >> in a moment two of the chairman's house colleagues join us, a republican and a democrat. first cnn's jeff zeleny at the white house with the very latest. jeff, so just to be clear, the president has been telling his associates, what, this memo is going to discredit the russia investigation? >> reporter: anderson, we did learn that today. talking with some friends and associates of the president they said in recent days, in telephone calls, he's been calling around particularly after the "state of the union" address to see how it went, that he believes the release of this memo will indeed discredit and confuse if you will the russia investigation. simply by exposing bias in his view in the fbi. so that is something the president has been openly saying as the white house has been trying to show they've been doing due diligence here and going over this 3 1/2 page memo.

the reality is, the lawyers have been reviewing it, aides have been reviewing it, the president himself read this memo himself yesterday, we are told earlier today. but the reality is the president was always planning to review it and release it. so the point here is he has been talking about how he believes this will discredit the investigation was simply refuted by speaker paul ryan today when he told reporters in west virginia this should not impugn the russia investigation. so they are at odds with each other. of course, he does support the release of this. but certainly the president getting ahead of this believing this will discredit and muddle, if you will, this investigation. >> i understand the fbi today still pushing back on the release. even though they're redakting parts of the memo. >> reporter: they are indeed. and throughout the day we heard they were redacting it. a senior official said they might be making accommodations to not anger the fbi here. but the reality is the fbi has

the same view it had a day ago. they are sternly opposed to this. and a u.s. government official familiar with the thinking of the fbi released this statement tonight to our jessica schneider. it sounds like this is just spin to justify the release of the memo. there are still grave concerns about the release of the memo. and this is all coming on the 6-month anniversary of this fbi director who was hand picked by the president. he was confirmed on a 92-5 vote in the senate back in august 1st here, and this big confrontation between the fbi and the white house, it had some officials here he might leave or quit. it doesn't seem he's inclined to do that. certainly this is the biggest confrontation between these agencies we've seen so far in this administration. >> so far as we know it looks like the memo is going to be released tomorrow? that's the reporting? >> reporter: it does look like

that. the president has indicated to his advisers he is going to sign-off on this. in fact, major news and a big surprise if he did not do that. likely tomorrow, to send word to the capitol hill house intelligence committee they can release this. it seems the white house does not want the president to speak about this publicly. we had a couple of opportunities to ask the president as he flew to west virginia for the gop retreat today, we shout ed questions at him. he often likes to stop and explain his thinking on things. he did not answer our questions on this today. the reality is tomorrow at this point this will likely be released because there was a five-day review period. so the question is what happens after this, how these two agencies continue to sort of exist here. but by tomorrow at this time it should be released, anderson. >> jeff zelleny thanks very much. joining us now house judiciary chairman congressman bob goodlatte. thanks for being with us. appreciate it. >> good evening. good to be with you, anderson.

>> the fact that the fbi took this extraordinary step publically saying, quote, they have grave concerns that impact the memo's accuracy and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and dni coats have all met with chief of staff kelly to look at the memo. does that concern you at all? >> no. i've had the opportunity to review both the democrat memo and the underlying documents as the chairman of the house judiciary committee. i think it's important the american people have access to the information contained in this memo. i do believe that the president, whatever advice he's getting. the president should let the memo speak for itself. he should release it. but i don't think he or anybody else in the white house needs to comment on it. >> i'm wondering why you feel it needs to be released now. obviously the house intelligence committee has an incredible vital oversight roll. if there's an investigation of

wrong doing by the fbi and department of justice, that's incredibly serious. but if there is an investigation why wouldn't one of the first steps before going public be to bring the fbi leadership, including director wray or anybody who may have done something wrong, in front of the committee, the house intelligence committee and grill them? wouldn't that be the next step rather than releasing a memo? >> well, first of all, the director, in my opinion, has not done anything wrong. it's not about him. but it is about several other people in key positions in the department, in the federal bureau of investigation. and i think that this is part of a much larger investigation. as you know, congressman trey gowdy and i as chairman of the judiciary committee and several members of the committee have launched an investigation into another aspect of this related to the fbi's handling of the clinton investigation. and at some point a lot of these things start to come together.

but i called months ago, as did most of the republican members of the house judiciary committee, for a special counsel to handle that. this needs to be out from the fbi. it needs to be handled separately, and we're continuing to do this investigation. and we'll continue -- but the american people need to know the basics of what is going on and what is at stake here. they have an absolute right to know. their civil liberties are affected by this. the public has a right to know, absolutely. >> you launched an investigation. you haven't released a memo with -- taking facts from intelligence documents from your committee, nor has trey gowdy. i don't understand if there is this investigation by the house intelligence committee as it sounds like there should be, why not start having witnesses? whether it's chris wray or others directly involved from the fbi? i just don't understand the need to immediately release this memo now. >> i can only speak for myself,

and personally i believe that this memo lays a predicate for the public understanding the larger nature of the entire investigation and the bias involved here, that some of the public has seen through some of the parts of the struck/page texts that have been released. but i think this is important. no, our committee has not yet reached a point. we started our investigation much later than the intelligence committee, and we have not released any reports. we're expecting that the next step will be a report from the inspector general of the department of justice, which i think will also be very important. but i think this is an important aspect of this that will, i think, help the focus on how this investigation should be conducted. because while director wray should do the right thing within the fbi, i think this goes beyond what he can do and requires outside supervision. the public has a right to know about it. >> so you're saying it's about educating the public.

so if it's really about educating the public, shouldn't the public be fully educated and hear what the democrats, what their problems with this memo are? i mean if it's really about educating the public, why not release both of these memos at the same time? >> well, first of all, the work on this has been going on for quite some time. the democratic memo is much newer. but after -- >> does that matter? >> -- the members of the house -- i think it does matter. as members of the house have an opportunity as hundreds of them unveiled themselves with the majority memo, have an opportunity to review the minorities memo. and after sources and methods are carefully addressed and removed from the memo, then i think that the committee should. but, again, i'll have to leave it to the intelligence committee to decide. it's those members of that committee who make the decision. i wouldn't disagree with you.

>> but all this talk about the process, that the full house has to see it. that's actually not some process written in law or written in stone. i talked to chairman mike rogers, former chairman of the house intelligence committee. and he said on monday night, no, if the committee wanted to release it, they could have done a second vote right then and released the democrats' memo at exactly the same time. if they really wanted it released, there is no process written in stone, correct? >> no, i think that's correct. but there is a process for declassifying classified information, and they have followed an orderly process to accomplish that. they should do the same thing with the democratic memo. it's also important to note that this is -- >> but waiting a couple of days to release the republican one so the democrat -- again, if it's about educating the public, i don't understand why you don't

release them together. >> anderson, first of all, when this memo is released the democrats will be perfectly free. and i have no doubt they will comment on the contents of this memo. and so that will give you a pretty good idea of what is contained in theirs. and theirs will come out in a little bit. i have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. >> yeah, they can comment, but, again, it doesn't have the same specificity as the republican memo will have. the democrats are saying the republicans have basically cherry picked facts from reams and reams of intelligence and put it into a four-page memo that there's no rebuttal for. and you know they can't come forward with facts that are classified. that would be inappropriate. so if it's really about informing the american public, i don't see how you're informingthe american public in a one-sided way. i go back to the benghazi, when both sides couldn't come to an agreement, they both released reports at the same time. that seems fair. no? >> first of all, let's naught overlook the fact this memo has

been under preparation for quite some time. the democrats have been fully aware of that. and then at the last minute they throw in one and say, no, you shouldn't release one until you release both. and secondly, they have tried to prevent the release throughout this process. even today when changes were made to the memo that their request and the fbi's request, they complained that was not proper. >> because those changes weren't voted on. >> so i think the american people need to see the basis for this had debate. the democrats to the extent that they have information in a memo that once it is clear that sources and methods have been protected, and once it is clear that the members of congress have had an opportunity to review it, we can do that quickly. i have no doubt. then an appropriate vote should be taken. but, again, i'll have to leave that to the intelligence committee. i don't speak for them on that. i'm just giving you my opinion about the necessity of the

american people seeing what was taking place in the department of justice. and then they'll hear a lot more about this beyond that. i have absolutely no doubt. >> even though -- obviously protecting sources and methods are incredibly important. but the fbi has taken this really unusual remarkable kind of unprecedented step to put out saying they have grave concerns. and it's not just about sources and methods. it's about omissions which alter actual fundamental understanding of what went on. but let me ask you -- >> i get where they're coming from -- let me respond to that for a second. i get where they're coming from, but after all the department -- it is the federal bureau of investigation that is being investigated. and that is a very unique thing in our country's history. >> has a memo like this ever been put out to your knowledge? >> i do not know of a similar circumstance in the past. >> so in all the history -- >> i don't know everything to know about that. >> but in all the history you do know of the house intelligence

committee and the oversight role its had for decades, the idea that a memo like this -- i haven't found any evidence of a memo like this at this stage being put out. it is an extraordinary step. >> i think that's why it has been carefully vetted and gone through the process it's gone through. it's up to the white house now, to the president, to make the final decision. and it's my hope that the american people will see it and see it shortly. >> you say it's been carefully vetted. republicans kept saying on monday and on tuesday, and speaker ryan said this as well, look christopher wray, the fbi director had a chance to look at it, he didn't ask for any factual changes, implying the fbi was fine with it. we now clearly know the fbi was not fine with it. the fbi wanted the opportunity to come and testify before the committee and explain their concerns, and the republicans on the committee said no. does that seem like careful vetting? >> i definitely believe it does. there are thousands of pages of

documents that a few members of congress and several staff members of the judiciary committee, the intelligence committee have had the opportunity to review who have top secret clearance, and i think this is ready for the american people to consider. i definitely think that in the course of this investigation director wray and other members of the bureau will have an opportunity to testify, maybe in a classified setting, maybe in a public setting depending upon the questions to be asked to give their point of view about this. i also think it is very important that there be independent reviews of what's happening in the bureau and that we not depend just on the bureau's opinion whether they would like to see this released or not. >> absolutely. look, transparency, as a reporter obviously, reporters are all for transparency. according to reporting, though, the president has been telling

associates, on the phone and in conversations, he thinks this memo can help discredit the russia investigation. i know you've seen it. but if the president thinks it does and is releasing it with that in mind, are you comfortable with that? >> i am not going to comment on the president's comments, but i will say -- and i'll go a step further with regard to the mueller investigation. the mueller investigation should absolutely proceed. and this action and other investigations that are going on do not impede that investigation. in the judiciary committee we have been very careful to give a wide berth to mr. mueller. we have expressed concerns to make sure that that investigation is impartial, that people participating in it have an impartiality and professionalism that we did not see for example in the struck, page texts. we asked for the removal of some

other people participating. however, that does not change the fact that mr. mueller is a professional, both an investigator and an attorney, and he should proceed with his investigation. >> i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. coming up next a democratic member of the house intelligence committee weighs in on all this. we'll be right back.

we had a vacation that kinda put us in a hole. had a little incident with a moped in bermuda. oh. even with insurance, we had to dip into our 401(k) and it set us back a little bit. sometimes you don't have a choice. but it doesn't mean you guys can't get back on track. great. great. yeah. no judgment. just guidance. td ameritrade. new year, new phones for the family. join t-mobile, and when you buy one of the latest 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. he gets the best deal on the perfect hotel by using. tripadvisor! that's because tripadvisor lets you start your trip on the

right foot... by comparing prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. saving you up to 30%! you'll be bathing in savings! tripadvisor. check the latest reviews and lowest prices. [ horn honking ] [ engine revving ] what's that, girl? [ engine revving ] flo needs help?! [ engine revving ] take me to her! ♪ coming, flo! why aren't we taking roads?! flo. [ horn honking ] -oh. you made it. do you have change for a dollar? -this was the emergency? [ engine revving ] yes, i was busy! -24-hour roadside assistance. from america's number-one motorcycle insurer. -you know, i think you're my best friend. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. that's okay.

the news tonight and the conversation surrounding the

nunes memo and how the president plans to use it, and the white house nor chairman nunes have denied. or is it material merely as republicans on the committee have said is this just a case of lawmakers doing their job and exercising oversight in the name of transparency? before the break we spoke with the house judiciary committee chairman, congressman goodlatte. you heard the congressman defend the memo. i'm wondering how you respond. >> it's painful for me to watch an otherwise honorable man like chairman goodlatte trade his historical legacy as he retires in order to cheer lead this second rate hit job, which the american public is about to see is precisely that. i listened to the chairman say things that simply weren't true. like he alleged that this had been underway for a long time. but republican and democrat members alike saw this.

for the very first time last week. this was not a product of an investigation. there is no investigation out of the intelligence committee. and again, very soon if this memo is made public people that are implicated in it and institutions that are implicated in it will quickly rise to their own defense, and the public will see what a shoddy second hit rate this is. >> could it be used to discredit the russia investigation? because again the president has been reported as saying to his associate or friends it could be. >> it's interesting the president is saying that, but paul ryan, the speaker of the house is saying exactly the opposite. this will in no way intersect with the mueller investigation. i will side with the speaker on that. i've read the memo, studied it, it makes absolutely no mention of bob mueller or of the russia investigation. again, it's a series of unfounded and out of context attacks on the department of justice, on the fbi and a number of individuals. by the way, most of whom are republicans, some of whom are trump appointees accusing them of bias. and i'm never a fan -- chairman goodlatte said, let's let the

public know. this is a memo that is based on highly classified information. the public's not in a position anymore than the committee was, anderson. we were not afforded the opportunity to review the underlying intelligence when the memo was presented to us. nonetheless, this memo is of such low quality that when it is out there, people will very rapidly see that this is the latest installment of second rate efforts to impugn the fbi. >> there's omissions of facts which color the overall fact picture is what the fbi says. what congressman goodlatte was saying was that democrats will have a chance to respond, they could respond on television or wherever about what's in this memo once it's released. is that really accurate? i mean if it's about educating the american public, i don't understand why they wouldn't just vote to let the democrats release their memo at the same time. again, like the benghazi investigation had two reports

released at the same time. >> again, chairman goodlatte made it sound like the nunes memo was something that had been the product of months of work and lots of investigations. i will tell you this. there was not a single hearing, there was not a single interview, there was not a single deposition associated with this so-called nonexistent hearing. i'm a member of the committee doing the russia investigation. we've done dozens and dozens of interviews. i guess technically speaking in as much as the democratic response is a response, it is a little younger tan the nunes memo. but the fact they're not being released -- and by the way, the democratic memo won't be released unless the president says it's okay. i would be shocked quite frankly because the democratic memo takes the republican memo point by point and refutes the screwed up time line and all sorts of facts of the republican memo. again, you'll have a chance to look at it and the people accused of things will respond, and this will be shown for the effort that it is.

>> both nunes and the white house have not denied that they worked together to put this together. sarah sanders said she just didn't know. nunes says he didn't work with the white house. when asked whether his statures did by a democratic member of your committee, he didn't answer. do you believe have or have any evidence this was in fact a coordinated effort? this is an issue, because in the past devin nunes has worked with people in the white house and gone to the white house claiming to be briefing the white house and the president on things which apparently the white house apparently already knew. >> yeah, congressman quigley in our hearing, and it's available in transcript for the public to review, asked precisely that question that the chairman refused to answer. so i don't know the answer. there's a larger point here, and it's extremely important. we asked that as would be traditional with oversight -- remember house speaker ryan called this oversight. as would be traditional with oversight, oversight is about hearings and calling people in front of your committee, asking them tough questions. we asked that the fbi and the doj, both of whom are badly

criticized in this memo, be given an opportunity to come in and talk to us about these allegations. if that had occurred you would say, golly, we've learned something and maybe we wouldn't -- congress wouldn't spin-off the rails with a bunch of poorly founded allegations. the committee refused to provide an opportunity for the department of justice or the fbi to answer these charges. this is not oversight, anderson. this is a political hit job. >> chairman goodlatte said he doesn't know of any other example, though obviously he doesn't know the entire history of all committees and oversight, but he doesn't know of a memo like this being released. and there's been obviously decades of oversight by congress, law enforcement communities, of the fbi. do you know of any other examples where there hasn't been an investigation but intelligence was examined by one group, republicans or democrats, on a committee and then decided to release a memo and they had

to get the president's sign-off to do it? >> i don't any of any example of a memo being released. and frankly, anderson, as i think about the history of this country and the many investigations that have been done in the national security realm, i can't think of another example as when something -- very serious charges, that a work-product would be produced without actually talking to the entity being investigatored. that a work-product wouldn't be produced with every attempt to make a bipartisan conclusion. not only can i not think of a memo being issued on a partisan basis out of any review, but conscious of the fact that america needs to trust its institution. i cannot think of this process which would get thrown out of a court in a second would be followed as has been followed in this particular case. >> do you trust that nunes did

not work with the white house, do you trust that his staffers did not have some sort of contact with or direction from the white house? do you believe there was no contact? >> well, i don't want to speculate on something that i don't know about. but anderson, this is part of a much larger effort that got kicked off the day comey announced he was recusing himself from the investigation. certainly the president has made his desires known. when devin nunes made his midnight run to the white house alleging there had been spying on trump tower. then we get the allegations that susan rice and sam powers were unmasking improperly. both of those things turned out to be false. both of those things exist only to throw sand in the gears of this investigation and create doubt in the american population that the fbi and specifically the mueller investigation are happening in an unbiased way. they are happening in a non-biased way.

there is zero proof or evidence that there is a political bias in the fbi. but if you say it long enough and often enough, there will be people who have doubts about it. it's a profoundly unpatriotic thing to do. >> thank you very much. coming up ahead we're going to talk about all of this, what it may mean and why the president seems so determined to release this memo.

(crying, screaming) today is your day. crush it. angie's boom chicka pop whole grain popcorn. boom! fired fbi director james

comey stepped into the memo controversy today. he tweeted, quote, all should appreciate the fbi speaking up. i wish more of our leaders would. but take part american histories shows in the long run, weasels and liars never hold the field so long as good people stand up. not a lot of schools or streets named for joe mccarthy. here to discuss is phil mudd, mike shields, former chief of staff for the republican national committee, and jen psaki. phil you and i were talking about this at the break a. do you know of a situation where a memo like this was released without, you know, talking to -- having the fbi testify before a committee at this stage of an investigation? >> i do. and we quickly forget history in this country including democrats. look, i think this process is fraudulent. you've got to have both parties sit down together. they have to talk about the individuals involved in the case. that is the fbi.

and if they're going to critique, one suggestion i have is a third piece here, they might offer recommendations for improvement. just a few years ago we had the so-called torture memo come out. in that case it was the democrats who owned the committee. they came out with their memo, and republicans came out and said we're going to issue a minority memo separately. and finally the third memo came out, the cia saying, we have a perspective, too. let me tell you how many witnesses they interviewed before it came out, none. i don't remember any of us testifying with the congressional committee. i think the process is fraudulent. but to say we've never seen this before ignores history. we have. >> jen, how extraordinary is it for the president to allow the house intelligence chair, who seems to be running interference for the white house, to basically ignore the fbi director and deputy attorney general? >> well, it's pretty extraordinary. one thing i'd like to say to phil's point, it is true this happened in 2014. i can't defend how senator

feinstein handled it. but the way the president at the time handled it was very different, and that's a key pivotal difference here. >> i agree. >> because president obama took the memo which was sent to him from the intelligence committee, asked the dni to run a process. which took months and months so it wouldn't put national security at risk. this is being rushed out of the door. i want to make that point. >> look, the precedent we're making is there's no precedent exactly for this in terms of how trump is handling this. and the question of does it matter if devin nunes was involved in the white house drafting, of course it matters. he's been shown and been a witting or unwitting puppet of the white house. but this memo, the president has said he think will impact the russia investigation. even if it won't, this is an intentional misleading of the public. and that's a precedent that's

very dangerous to be setting in this country. >> chairman goodlatte said, look, this is about educating the american people about what they believe is going on and the concerns they have. i totally get that and i believe in transparency, obviously. but if it really is about educating the american people, why not allow the democrats to have a -- you know, their response or their take on the nunes memo both released at the same time? >> look, i think that would be ideal. we're not living in an ideal situation. i think one of the things that really frustrates a lot of conservatives is how devin nunes takes a lot of hits and adam schiff is not hit by the media for how partisan he is. the leaks coming out of his committee, the entire process is broken. the democrats are out for blood on this thing. they're not letting the process just play out like it should. they're leaking things that creates an entirely broken system where there's lack of trust on both sides. what's amazing to me is, so a year into an investigation there has been multiple leaks but never any actual evidence that has come out about collusion. should we be surprised that a

year into that, with this thing dragging on, that people are putting out different memos and this sort of thing is happening? i mean this environment that has been created of using this russia investigation for partisan gain, for leaking stories -- what do you know, shortly after some good news comes out in the trump administration, we're going to be back to talking about wall-to-wall coverage of the russia investigation. and the republicans are sick of it. and the investigation carried out in the fbi, they believe that's legitimate and they have a say in that. >> mike, you believe the republicans leak just as much as democrats. obviously for different reasons and at different times. >> look, i think the committee is broken. but to lay that at the feet of devin nunes and lay the blame just on republicans here is absurd. there are plenty of democrats trying to use this for partisan gain. >> but you believe it would be ideal to release both at the same time? >> i don't think it matters. sure. you can release one -- the democrats are saying this is not going to affect mueller's case and it's really trumped up, but we want to release ours at

the same time. well, sure, they're going to have their say. the fbi is going to have their same. i'm a law enforcement republican. i think americans sleep safely at night because the fbi is protecting them, and we should keep that in mind. i understand the leadership of fbi wanting to protect the institution and their people that work for them. that's their job to protect their employees. to a point. but in the end they work for the american people. the american people have elected representatives. and if those representatives want to investigate the fbi and want to release information, it's shocking to me the media isn't supporting this. we're fine putting those things in the air at times. >> we just like getting accurate information. and if this is cherry picked information and not a full picture, as the fbi is saying, that's obviously a concern of everybody -- >> we'll find out when we get it. >> we won't really know because we won't see the underlying intelligence. phil, if you were christopher wray and this intelligence was

released would you stay on the job? >> i would for a simple reason. the american people haven't seen one critical aspect of this in the last 24 hours, and that is the flip side. let's say christopher wray says the honorable thing for me to do when the president that appointed me decides i'm running a corrupt enterprise is to leave, in the coming months maybe as late as this summer, but i think probably earlier, the special counsel mueller will release some sort of indictment. if wray leaves, who will be in the chair? i think that'll be a tough situation. ahead a conversation with david axelrod about the current affairs of the trump white house. be right back. slow down for. put the phone away, and use a knife and fork for. and with panera catering, it's food worth sharing. panera. food as it should be. when you can squeeze one in wbetween friday and monday at it's food whilton?nring.

there's a vacation at the end of every week. whatever type of weekender you are, don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com

[ laughs ] rodney. bowling. classic. can i help you? it's me. jamie. i'm not good with names. celeste! i trained you. we share a locker. -moose man! -yo. he gets two name your price tools. he gets two? i literally coined the phrase, "we give you coverage options based on your budget." -that's me. -jamie! -yeah. -you're back from italy. [ both smooch ] ciao bella.

[ both smooch ] we can now simulate the exact anatomyh care, of a patient's brain before surgery. if we can do that, imagine what we can do for seizures. and if we can fix damaged heart valves without open heart surgery, imagine what we can do for an irregular heartbeat, even high blood pressure. if we can use analyze each patient's breast cancer to personalize their treatment, imagine what we can do for the conditions that affect us all. imagine what we can do for you.

with the nunes memo burning up official washington, it's always good when cooler heads prevail. joining us right now is cnn political commentator david axelrod. i guess, what does the fight over this memo say about where we are as a country or where our parties are? >> look, i've said this consistently, which is in a democracy party wins the white house, they have a right to make policy subject to the approval of a congress. you may not like the policies they make, but that's our system. but the institutions have to endure. and if you begin to subjugate the institutions to politics to this degree, that's a real danger for the country. and the notion that a president

would overrule his own fbi director, the guy he appointed, his own appointee at the justice department, both of whom have warned that this was reckless, dangerous, had potentially grave consequences -- in order to satisfy what is apparently a blatantly political objective, the fact that you have one committee in the house unwilling to share that memo even with their own counter parts from the same party in the senate, the fact that they won't release the democratic memo so that people can get a full picture, all of this undermines institutions, undermines confidence in those institutions. and that should be a big concern to people of both parties. >> i mean is there any going back now from this precipice? because it just seems like every few years we talk about partisanship, and it's unlike it used to be. you know, tip o'neil and

republicans used to sit down and have lunch together. there's this evolution of stuff. it seems like we're at all-time high. >> we keep waiting for the fever to break. but the concern is that once the glass is broken and you set these precedents, then it becomes easier for the next administration or parties to do this in the future. this is why, anderson, i've been so -- so reluctant to join with others who say -- who even talk about impeachment now. because impeachment becomes a tool that you use to get rid of presidents with whom you don't agree politically. that's a very dangerous thing. and if you do it once then that precedent is established. and that's why i say wait for this probe. but my concern about this president is he has absolutely no regard for institutions norms, perhaps even laws when they're inconvenient.

and that makes it -- he is setting precedence that may be followed by others. >> but it's also interesting the extent to which it is now his republican party, and people are just going along. i mean other than a handful of republicans they're just going along with the president on this and saying things which i'm not sure i've ever heard republicans say in this way. >> well, you would not have thought, even a year ago, that the republican party would be the party that would be running rough shod over the fbi, justice department, intelligence committee. but i think there's an effort going on, a campaign being run to -- to degrade the investigation that mr. mueller is conducting. so as to perhaps make it easier for the president not to testify or to refuse to testify. or if the result is negative, to be able to make the case that the whole probe was politically motivated and invalid.

but there's so much collateral damage as part of that. and, you know, it's just kind of mind-boggling, and it's depressing. you know, i'm a believer in this stuff, and to see institutions -- so i could not have imagined having served in the white house, these kinds of developments. and i don't think anybody republican or democrat save perhaps those people who served in the white house during the nixon administration could imagine this set of circumstances. now, it is important to remember that we did recover from what happened in the nixon administration. so when you say can you come back from that, but it takes the will of both parties to make that happen. >> what's so interesting about this memo, again, and phil brought up the idea of the torture memo the democrats put out, which i think is a fair comparison. but it just -- if that is the only other example that comes to

mind, it just shows how extraordinary this is. >> yeah, there's no question about it. i mean, i can't think of any parallel at all. and you're right about one thing, which is -- and you may be right about many things, anderson. but on the point about the republican party, i have to believe there are many members of that congress who are deeply disturbed about this. but feel compelled for political reasons to at least remain silent. >> david axelrod, thank you very much. appreciate it. coming up what we're learning about the meeting between the cia director and the russian spy chief, a man who's under sanctions. more on that ahead. 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. with advil's fast relief, you'll ask, "what pulled muscle?" "what headache?" nothing works faster to make pain a distant memory. advil liqui-gels and advil liqui-gels minis. what pain?

♪ get ready for the wild life with one a day men's. advil liqui-gels and advil liqui-gels minis. a complete multivitamin with key nutrients, plus b vitamins for heart health. your one a day is showing. this valentine's day i wanted to turn everything i love about you into one thing you'll love forever. the jared valentine's day diamond event. save up to $1,000 off any diamond when you buy her setting at jared. and let our expert jewelers help you find or create the one ring that could only come from you

and only be for her. only at jared.

did the director of the cia recently meet with russian intelligence officials. and did it include russias spy chief who is under sanctions. chief national security correspondent joins me with more. was there a meeting? >> there was. i have that from a u.s. official with direct knowledge of the meetings. he met with the heads of the

fsb. that is russias domestic intelligence services and the svr which is sort of the equal of the cia. he met them last week. the cia makes clear one this is shotg something that multiple administrations do. exchange other common threats. it happens one of the intelligence chiefs is urnds sanction of the u.s. the cia followed what is a legal process here. that led all the proper agencies know we're doing this. to exchange information. and followed the processes before they came here for the meeting. >> i talked to director clapper. he was saying he had done that in the past. often it wasn't quite as fruitful as he hoped. it was a one way street. how does chuck schumer factor in to this? >> he has since had a press

conference tuesday and sent a letter to director pom pay. saying you didn't provide information about this. why did you meet with the implication that the cia was keeping this in the bark. i'm told by the u.s. official that senator schumer staff was briefed before the senator held the press conference on tuesday and before he sent the letter. so briefed for instance on that legal process. that they followed before they brought in the intel chiefs under the sanctions. from the cia, senator schumer making a implication here about the meetings they say the facts do not support. >> this had been reported in the russian media would we know about the meeting? >> no. that's another thing from the cia perspective. russia leaked the meeting on purpose. by the state news agency. with the intention of creating a

c they got want they wanted. >> thanks. the president said today a senator told him he was the best president ever. bert than lincoln and washington. did the senator really say that? next. get your bathroom super bowl ready with febreze. breathe happy. 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.

♪ but he hasoke up wwork to do.in. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong.

we begin the hour with the report. we end that way as well a pair of cham claims from the president. the first is about his state of the union message which was scene by tens of millions of people. huge audience. no small achievement. tweeted in part 45 million people watched the highest number in history. that is not true. according to it is number 6. nothing to sneeze at. just not number one. there's this from the gop reteet today. talking about senator hatch. >> he's i love listening to him speak. he said i'm the single greatest president in his lifetime. it's not that much. he's a young man. he once said i'm the greatest in the history of the country. i said does that include lincoln and washington.

he said yes. >> hatch says that's not what he said. senator hatch said the aid said he would like to work with the president to make it the greatest presidency in history for the american people. google it first. we're back in an hour. time to hand it over to cuomo for cuomo "prime time." great to give you a break. always good to see you. tonight we have to get after it. and get beyond the headlines. we now know the president wants to release the memo. and the push back with that decision is growing. that's just the surface. the real deal is to get deeper into the motivation. and what's going to happen when this memo comes out? that's us tonight. let's get after. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." breaking news once again tonight. a bipartisan plea from senators urging president trump