so that happened. john berman here for anderson, keeping them honest. the question is why? what's the motivation behind releasing a widely disputed, bitterly resisted four-page document accusing misconduct by the people running the russia investigation, many of them, by the way, republican? some of the key figures appointed by the president himself. how does this memo put out by house intelligence chairman devin nunes track with the facts

that we know? what, if anything, does it omit, blur, or distort? how much of it is even news? does it make the case that its author and most importantly the president are claiming it does? >> i think it's terrible. you want to know the truth, i think it's a disgrace what's going on in this country. i think it's a disgrace. the memo was sent to congress. it was declassified. congress will do whatever they're going to do. but i think it's a disgrace what's happening in our country. and when you look at that and you see that and so many other things, what's going on, a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves and much worse than that. >> the president today on the memo he wanted released according to "the washington post" before he had a chance to read it. the one that according to our own reporting he has been telling friends would discredit the entire russia investigation. but before going down that road, you should know the key items in the memo itself. the major complaint centers on

the fisa surveillance court warrant obtained back in october of 2016 for ex-trump foreign policy campaign adviser carter page. the memo alleges that recently departed fbi deputy director andrew mccabe said no warrant would have been sought without the steele dossier information. now, that wording, sought, and information, jumps out, and we'll explore the significance of that tonight. christopher steele was hired by fusion gps, which was hired to do opposition research on trump, then was later hired by the dnc and lawyers for the clinton campaign. the memo alleges that near the initial fisa filing nor three subsequent renewal applications was the clinton connection disclosed even though according to the memo, this was known to senior justice department and fbi officials. democrats say the judge told there was a political connection. officials identified in the memo assigning one or more of those fisa applications include fired

deputy attorney general sally yates, dana boente, who by the way was just hired as the new fbi general counsel, fired fbi director james comey, departed deputy director andrew mccabe, and the current deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. the implication that all of these officials, key officials, including the one currently overseeing the russia investigation, rod rosenstein, acted in bad faith targeting carter page by not revealing who was paying fusion gps. now, first if you look at the case law, it's not actually clear they had to. now, that aside, keeping them honest by october 2016, page had already left the trump campaign, and keeping them honest, as cnn has been reporting for months now, carter page was, by 2016, already no stranger to u.s. counterintelligence, something the democratic vice chair of the intelligence committee underscored this evening in the situation room. >> there's a lot that the fbi knew about carter page that had nothing to do with christopher steele's reporting. carter page had come to the

attention of the fbi, indeed, years before he joined the trump campaign in connection with a russian intelligence network operating in new york, in which carter page was very much a target. >> on top of that, fisa warrants have to be renewed, and a case be made for renewing them every 90 days. the court renewed this one three times. and even if you believe everything the memo alleges about bias with respect to carter page, all of it, he was not even the spark for the russia investigation. how do we know that? it's in the memo. the memo itself says the fbi launched a counterintelligence investigation on george papadopoulos in july of 2016. papadopoulos, another trump campaign foreign policy adviser pleaded guilty to lying about contacts with russians and is now cooperating with special counsel robert mueller. so the fbi was all in on possible trump campaign/russia connections months before asking for a warrant on carter page. so if the memo was designed to

discredit the genesis of the russia investigation, that notion itself discredited by the memo itself. and even setting that aside, it's being criticized for more than just internal inconsistency. the fbi, run by the president's handpicked director, a republican, says the document is marred by, quote, omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy. a leading and highly respected member of the president's own party goes beyond even that. the statement from john mccain is frankly scathing. the latest attacks against the fbi and department of justice serve no american interests, no parties, no presidents, only putin's. he goes on, the american people deserve to know all the facts surrounding russia's ongoing efforts to subvert our democracy, which is why special counsel mueller's investigation must proceed unimpeded. he concludes, our nation's elected officials, including the president, must stop looking at this investigation through the lens of politics and manufacturing political side

shows. if we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing putin's job for him. yet for all the sound and fury surrounding this memo, for all the distrust it sows of institutions and officials that were formerly held in high esteem, others argue that the bottom line is just how little substance there really is. james comey tweeted, that's it? dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the house intel committee, destroyed trust with intelligence community, damaged relationship with fisa court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an american citizen. for what? doj and fbi must keep doing their jobs. keeping them honest, whenever you think of james comey or his decisions and or his firing and subsequent testimony, whatever else you think, those two words, for what, go straight to the heart of it. and perhaps the best answer we have comes tonight from the one person who can act on the memo that he, himself, so badly wanted out there.

>> does it make you have confidence in im? >> you figure that one out. >> congressman jim jordan of ohio, who is a member of the house judiciary committee, great to speak with you. i want to read you something from a cnn story here. the fbi last year used a dossier of allegations of russian ties to donald trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a trump associate. now, the interesting thing about what i just read you is that's from an article from april 18th of last year. >> yeah. >> so what's the big revelation in the memo that was so important to release? >> salacious, unverified hadn't been said by james comey. salacious, unverified is how he described the dossier. it's taken to a secret court to get a secret warrant to spy on a fellow citizen of ours. and when they go to the court,

they don't tell them it was democrat financed opposition research paid for by the clinton campaign. they don't tell them critical facts. john, they don't do this once. they don't do it twice. they don't do it three times. they do it four separate times where they go to the court and fail to disclose critical information about getting a warrant to spy on a fellow citizen. that's what's wrong with this thing. that's what this memo exposes today. >> when you say sa lalacious an unverified, he was referring to part of the dossier. >> he said it under oath in front -- >> he was referring to part of the dossier as salacious and unverified. he refused to answer the question if they corroborated any of it in open testimony. he told people behind closed doors, unless he told you it was all unverified behind closed doors -- >> you know why he didn't disclose that? because he knew they took it to the court.

for goodness sake, that's why he didn't disclose it in an open hearing. >> your own memo says minimally corroborated, so there's at least some corroboration there. >> it was about russia and the person they were looking at was carter page. they got the name right, and they got the country right. so there were some things that were probably accurate in the dossier. >> they got the fact that russia meddled in the u.s. election right and that may be the most important thing. i do want to move on to this other key point. it states that deputy director andrew mccabe testified before the committee on december 2017 but no surveillance warrant would have been sought from fisa without the steele dossier information. sought and information there. >> yeah. >> did andy mccabe said there would have been no warrant without the dossier? >> look, everyone knows the dossier was the basis for getting the warrant. andrew mccabe said but for the dossier, we wouldn't have got the warrant. that's what the memo points out. >> that's not what the memo says. the memo says we would not have

sought the warrant without the dossier information. >> yes. >> sought and information. so when you say dossier information, the implication there is it was corroborated by other research. >> yeah, and the memo points out, you know what they used to corroborate was the story by isikoff where steele's the source. so they used the same information presented as a separate piece of information that corroborates the dossier. >> congressman, do you know that's all that was used? >> i don't. i know what the memo says, and i've called for releasing the underlying documents. >> by your agreement -- >> but i trust when trey gowdy went to look at the underlying documents and what they put together, i do trust that. >> he didn't -- >> tray -- [ overlapping voices ] >> i understand. trey gowdy never said it was the only corroborating information. >> i'm not saying that. i didn't say that. i said he reviews the underlying

documents. >> i want to bring in jim himes, a democratic member of the house intelligence committee. you're on judiciary. you guys both agreed to come on with each other, so no one is being ambushed. congressman himes, you heard jim jordan talk about andy mccabe. the suggestion is that the warrants -- sorry -- that the dossier, the steele dossier was the only reason there was a fisa warrant. did andy mccabe say that to your committee? >> well, i was in the room, john, when mccabe testified. jim jordan was not, and i will tell you that part of the nunes memo is just flat out wrong. it is not true. that is not what andrew mccabe said. and by the way, i mean anybody who knows anything about fisa warrant applications know that they are very, very rigorously vetted. they are based on multiple sources, and then they are presented to a federal judge. a federal judge who is hardly in the business of allowing shoddy work to permit a warrant to spy on a u.s. citizen. so, no, that part is just

outright false. >> what did he say? >> it is true that elements of the steele dossier -- and let he take a big step back here -- >> oh, now it changes. >> that the steele dossier -- no, there's nothing changing. it's the difference between elements of and essential to. and remember that the steele dossier still, we don't know what's true and what's false. nobody is saying that everything in it is false, but you can be pretty sure that if the fbi were going to present elements of the steele dossier to a federal judge, that they wrote haould h it into context and done their work to make sure they weren't blind siding or misleading a federal judge. >> congressman jordan, i read the article from april 18th -- >> let me say something. it's essential to tell the court who paid for the document. to go four times to the court and not tell them it's a democrat clinton campaign financed piece of information that they dressed all up like legitimate intelligence, that's a pretty important fact you

should have disclosed to the court, not to mention the fact that bruce ohr and nellie ohr were involved. >> congressman himes, should the fisa judge have been told that the steele dossier was funded by the dnc and clinton campaign? >> well, interestingly enough, so let me get to that. but remember that the work of fusion gps and the work of christopher steele started out funded by a republican entity. the free beacon. >> i have to stop you. i think we believe fusion gps was hired by the washington free beacon first, and, yes, they were funded. but steele did not come on, we believe, until the clinton campaign -- >> $12 million from the clinton campaign -- >> hang on. let congressman himes finish. the question at hand is whether the fisa judge should have been told about the source of the funding. >> well, so this is another misleading element of the nunes memorandum. the notion that the judge was not told the context in which this information was developed

is incorrect. now, whether individual americans were named specifically is a different question. remember when you're applying for a fisa warrant, you would typically mask the names of u.s. citizens. but the fbi did in fact in that application indicate the context in which this information was developed. so the notion that they hoodwinked the judge, which of course is the core here, is just not supportable by the evidence. >> was the judge informed it was a democratic source or just a political source, congressman? >> that i do not know. like devin nunes, i have not actually reviewed the fisa applications themselves. adam schiff and trey gowdy have. but what i'm told is that the judge was not hoodwinked. remember, it's not just democratic. that work was originated by a republican opposition research effort. >> and congressman jordan, you haven't seen the underlying intelligence either, have you, sir? >> no, we're not permitted to. i asked christopher wray,

director wray, show us the application. show us what was put together to go get this warrant to spy on a fellow citizen at a secret court. show us that information. we haven't seen it. >> well, he was a suspected foreign agent. that was why they were asking for a warrant to surveil him. >> if you had -- i heard congressman schiff say on the previous segment, if you had other information on carter page, why didn't you use it? why did you rely on the dossier? >> hang on. >> why tell the court -- >> let's ask congressman himes. >> congressman himes is clear. they didn't tell the court that the democratic national committee paid for it. that's an important fact. >> okay. did they rely exclusively on the dossier, congressman himes? >> like the nunes memo, that's a complete misrepresentation of the facts. the fbi has been keeping their eye on carter page long before christopher steele was in the picture. remember this, congressman jordan said that four times they went to the fisa court, and that's exactly right. four times in which they went to the fisa court and under the

rules each of those times when they apply for a renewal of that fisa warrant, they would have to convince the judge not just that the original information was solid but that the surveillance that had been authorizized was in fact producing new evidence. so as much as jim jordan holds up four times in front of the fisa judge as a problem, that's actually indicative of the fact that these wiretaps or whatever they were, were developing new and different evidence quite apart from whatever was used out of the steele dossier. >> congressman jordan? >> i hold up four times where they didn't tell the truth. they didn't tell them who paid for the dossier. they didn't tell them about bruce and nellie ohrr, and they didn't tell them they had terminated the relationship with christopher steele after he got caught disclosing to the press he was working with the fbi. >> every time they go to a judge, they have to make the case a new time. they have to present the evidence to a judge, and your own memo suggests here that it was an essential part of the application. you keep saying it's the scl

exclusive part. >> andrew mccabe said but for the dossier, we wouldn't have sought the warrant. the dossier was critical. >> he did not say that. >> i'm saying what the memo discloses, which is andrew mccabe communicated this was an important reason for seeking the warrant. but for the dossier, they weren't going to go for the warrant. >> but for the information in the -- >> what did he say one more time? >> again, what the nunes memo alleges andrew mccabe said is not accurate. it is true that information from the steele dossier, which is the wording of the memo, was part of the application. these applications contain all sorts of information, but this notion that they never would have gone after carter page is just inaccurate. and as we know, carter page had been of interest to the fbi for years prior to the application for a fisa warrant. >> why didn't they do it before? why was it the dossier that prompted it then?

>> because the steele dossier didn't exist when the fbi -- >> guys, with -- >> the answer to your question, jim, is the dossier did not exist when the fbi first started investigating carter page. >> guys, hang on for one second. gentlemen, congressmen, sirs if i can, i'd like to take a quick break and continue this discussion in just a minute.

millions of us suffer from the symptoms of dry eye. theratears® unique electrolyte formula, corrects the salt imbalance that causes dry eye. so your eyes will thank you. more than eye drops, dry eye therapy. theratears®. pssst. what? i switched to geico and got more. more savings on car insurance? a-ha. and an award-winning mobile app. that is more. oh, there's more. mobile id cards, emergency roadside service... more technology. i can even add a new driver... ...right from her phone! geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more. wear back talking about the

nunes memo with two congressmen who have agreed to appear at the same time. republican jim jordan and democrat jim himes. congressman jordan, there's a fascinating part of this memo put out today which says that the russia investigation, that the fbi launched a counterintelligence investigation back in july of 2016, which is months before they sought the fisa warrant on carter page here. so the russia investigation per se, writ large, wasn't based on the dossier, correct? >> well, john, it's one thing to start an investigation. it's an entirely different matter to go to a secret court to get a warrant to spy on a fellow citizen. and understand who was the agent behind launching the investigation? when papadopoulos shot his mouth off at the bar in london? peter strzok. i mean holy cow. this guy has no credibility left. we've seen the text messages. so peter strzok is the agent -- >> two things.

he was assigned the investigation. he was assigned the investigation. >> he's the agent. he's the agent who who said we're going to launch this investigation in july. he's the agent. peter strzok -- >> i don't think the agent gets to decide that he launches the investigation here. >> he's only deputy head of counterintelligence, and in july of 2016, they launched a counterintelligence investigation. peter strzok's the agent that's cited in the memo about papadopoulos. okay. that's fine. so they launched the investigation in july. they went and got the warrant using the dossier, and they didn't tell us -- here's another thing they didn't tell the court. christopher steele's relationship with the fbi is terminated because he's broke a fundamental principle. he has went to the press and talked about the relationship and how he's working for the fbi. he broke a fundamental trust, and yet they still used his work product, the dossier, to get that warrant. >> i'll come back to that. >> that is a big concern. >> congressman himes. >> if i can, if you can comment on the papadopoulos revelation

in this memo, an admission really by the house intelligence committee because we've heard for a long time, you feel like the russia investigation was launched by the dossier. in this memo itself it makes clear there was an investigation pre-dating the dossier. >> look, there's no question that is true. what is sad in this instance is a small group of -- actually not a small group but a meaningful group of republicans are seizing on things like strzok's texts back and forth. despite the fact that strzok had absolutely nothing to do with the initiation of this investigation, at a time, john, where i feel obligated to point out that a lot of republicans who are deadly serious about this nation's national security, john mccain, who called this memo vladimir putin's work, lindsey graham, who said this is a profoundly partisan exercise. mike rogers, the former chairman of the intelligence committee weighing in and saying he has profound concerns about this. the good news is while too many of my colleagues sort of seize

on irrelevant, misstatement rumor, to try to do the work of damaging the fbi in order ultimately to put pressure on rosenstein and to put pressure on the mueller investigation, a lot of icons of republican national security are calling this the effort what it is, which is designed to create chaos and deeply, deeply partner. >> let me ask you specifically on that point. look, if this memo says things about the fbi or the investigation that are untrue, i can understand why the fbi and the intelligence community object to that. but if the concern was sources and methods and revealing sensitive intelligence here, having read this now multiple times, did the sky fall in here? was anything revealed here that hurts the way the fbi does business? whether or not, you know, some of the charges in here are true. >> well, by and large i would say that perhaps in this instance not because it's not been a particularly well kept secret that carter page was of interest, and he himself said that he was being wiretapped.

what is really concerning, though, is the precedent. and the precedent established by this memo is that in a deeply partisan move -- by the way, those are john mccain and lindsey graham's words, not mine -- a congressional committee acting to support a president's notion that this investigation is a hoax declassified, without any review by the agencies concerned, no, no interagency review, declassified something that in another instance might actually be very, very dangerous. so now we have a precedent that in a deeply partisan move, a committee of congress can say, hey, we're going to declassify this. and that ultimately could lead to real threats to our sources and methods and national security. >> the fbi director did get to see it before -- he didn't object -- well, he objected to it strenuously. >> he objected to it. he was afforded the opportunity to look at it, and the fbi put out a blistering memo. you know the fbi doesn't usually do that, saying this is a terrible thing to do. >> congressman jordan, i want to

get to the people named in this memo, and i think that was a big part of it, a big part of the reason for putting out this memo, i assume, was to name names here. those people -- >> no. it was to stop abuse of the fisa process. >> okay. by the people named in this, many of whom are still in power. if rod rosenstein, who is named here, approved of these fisa warrants or at least one of them, did he abuse the fisa process, and does he belong in the justice department? >> here's what we do no. comey's gone. mccabe is leaving. jim baker, the chief counsel, has been reassigned. peter strzok has been reassigned. lisa page has been reassigned. bruce ohr has been demoted. when you talk about the fbi, we know the rank and file agents are doing a great job. i'm talking about the key people at the top of the photocofbi. we've seen them leave,i be demoted because they've down things wrong. we called for six months ago a

second special counsel. i don't like second special counsel -- >> do you want him to go? >> no, i want a second special counsel to look did. >> dana boente was just hired as the fbi general counsel. if he signed off on one of these fisa warrants and you've got a four-page memo here saying that it's awful -- >> inspect or general or a second special counsel will get to the bottom of it. >> why wait to tell me if you think it's a good idea to have him still working at the fbi? >> we called for a second special counsel six months ago. congressman meadows, myself, and a whole bunch of other members called for a second special counsel because -- and mueller can't expand this probe. i think he's inherently compromised. jeff sessions has recused himself. i know of no other remedy where you can get to -- >> you said mueller is compromised. is he compromised by this memo because i was told by trey gowdy and everyone else who is commenting on this today it's

not about robert mueller. >> speaker ryan. >> i'm talking about a second special counsel to look at the fbi. i'm not talking currently what he's doing. he's go the that investigation going on. >> congressman jim jordan, congressman jim himes, thank you, gentlemen, very, very much. i aappreciate you appearing to appear together on this show. next, what will the president do? he's got the weekend at mar-a-lago to think about it. we'll hear from our panel shortly when 360 continues. well, you know, you're getting older. um, you might be experiencing some, ah, sensations. ah, it happened to your dad..uh with.. oh, look the tow trucks here! can't wait to be rescued? esurance roadside assistance lets you know when help will arrive. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. you have any questions, uh.. i'm good. awesome.

♪ i'm walkin♪ wow! nshine ♪ i'm walking on sunshine ♪ wow! ♪ i'm walking on sunshine ♪ wow! ♪ and don't it feel good ♪ hey! ♪ alright now ♪ and don't it feel good ♪ applebee's handcrafted burgers. any burger just $7.99. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood.

the president is at mar-a-lago perhaps weighing a personnel decision having read the nunes moeemo. deputy attorney general rod rosenstein oversees the probe and as the president made clear today, serves at the president's pleasure. >> do you still have confidence in him after reading the memo? >> you figure that one out. >> joining us now hogan gidley. congratulations on the new job. >> thank you so much. >> does the president plan on firing the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein? >> there are no conversations or considerations about firing rod rosenstein, none at all. >> were there conversations or considerations about firing rod rosenstein? >> no, not to my knowledge. >> there have never been such

conversations? >> not to my knowledge. we had this conversation today based on obviously the memo that dropped, and everyone went into a frenzy saying rod rosenstein is gone. this president's going to fire rod rosenstein. there's going to be some constitutional crisis. we huddled up. we had a conversation, and it's been very clear throughout the process in the white house. there are no conversations and no considerations about firing rod rosenstein. >> does the president have confidence in rod rosenstein? >> look, we've said many times if the president doesn't have confidence in you, you won't be around any longer. we all serve at the pleasure of the president, and when he's pleased with you, you're still around. >> is that a yes? >> absolutely. >> he has confidence in rod rosenstein? >> yes. like i said, if he didn't, he wouldn't be there. >> the reason i'm asking is because, again, he said this today. let's play it again. >> you figure that one out. >> so you figure that one out, hogan. you just told me yes. the president said "you figure that one out." >> i guess the media couldn't

figure it out. so i guess that's why i'm out here tonight to tell you exactly what he was talking about. there have been no conversations. i'm telling you we haven't even considered this move. so rod rosenstein's in place. he's not going anywhere. >> if rod rosenstein tomorrow morning called the president and said, hey, i'm out, i'm submitting my resignation, would he tell him not to? >> that i don't know. i've not had a conversation with the president about that. >> do you think he would be happy about that. >> i can't speculate what the president would or wouldn't do, especially how he would feel emotionally about someone tendering a resignation. >> if nikki haley quit tomorrow, do you think the president would be happy about that? >> again, i can't get in his head. nikki haley was my governor. i'd be sad to see her go. >> would you be said to see rod rosenstein go? >> i wouldn't be sad to see him go at all. i don't know rod rosenstein. >> you wouldn't be sad to see him go? >> i'm saying i don't know. i don't know him. you just brought up nikki haley, and my point is i know nikki haley, so i'd be sad personally.

i don't know rod rosenstein. if he left tomorrow, life goes on, and we'll continue to make the country great again. but i mean the president has no desire to fire rod rosenstein. >> all right. so the president put out that statement. we played it a little bit earlier talking about the memo. he says it shows a lot of bad things are going on in america. and then this morning he put out a statement that said the top leadership and investigators of the fbi and justice department have politicized the sacred investigative process. who? who are the top leadership at the fbi and justice department he's talking about? >> look, i think we've said this many times, and the president's been very clear. he has extreme confidence and respect for the rank and file members of the fbi and the doj. subsequent reports and reviews have come out and we've now seen there has been an apparent clear political bias against donald trump and for -- >> by whom? >> and for hillary clinton. >> by whom? >> peter strzok for one. >> beyond peter strzok. he wasn't the leadership of the

fbi. the people named in the memo include rod rosenstein, the aforementioned rod rosenstein, and dana boente among other people who was just hired as the general counsel by the fbi. are they the leadership of the fbi and justice department who have politicized the sacred investigative process? >> listen, this house intel memo raises serious concerns about the integrity of the decisions made at the highest levels of both the department of justice and the fbi. >> are they at the highest levels? >> when they can use the most intrusive surveillance tools against american citizens, i think the american people should be concerned, and i believe they are. >> should they be concerned that rod rosenstein signed that fisa warrant, that dana boente, the general counsel now at the fbi signed that fisa warrant? >> that's up to the american people. >> is the president concerned they did? >> look, the president has confidence in rod rosenstein. i've said that multiple times on your show. >> so lastly, speaker ryan, house speaker paul ryan says that the memo does not impugn

the mueller investigation, or he also said the deputy attorney general. does the president agree with that assessment? >> that what? > that this memo, which i'm holding in my hand, this four pages, that it doesn't impugn the mueller investigation? >> look, we're not talking about the mueller investigation. the president has no plans to fire robert mueller either. but the fact of the matter is in the height of a presidential campaign, the fbi and the doj signed fisa warrant applications bought and paid for -- using information bought and paid for by the democrats and did not tell the judge about it. again, should be very concerning to most americans, and i believe they are. >> you said at the height of the campaign here. it was three weeks before election day when the fisa warrant was signed and the american people never knew. so if they wanted to do something bad in the campaign, they didn't tell the american people what was going on. >> look, most of the media were falling all over themselves to

release this bit of information about the dossier with no sourcing whatsoever. you guys ran it wall to wall. it was the biggest news story in the world. >> january. >> and for whatever reason, you guys didn't want to talk about this and release this information at all. >> that was january. you just said height of the election campaign. january was not the height of the election campaign. >> listen, democrats have to pick a lane here. yesterday we were hearing if this memo comes out, the whole world is going to fall apart. american defense systems are going to fall apart. the american people are going to be at risk. now they're on your show saying there's nothing to see here. so which is it? they saw the information. they knew it. they were being speculative. now we are where we are. >> look, i agree democrats may have raised the alarm there. the counter to that is there's some conservatives who appeared on other networks who said this is bigger than waterwatergate. >> i want to be clear about this process. the president obviously has concerned about some of the reports that have come out that show clear bias against him.

but more than that, this process, the president wants sunlight here. he wants people to see just what's going on with the fisa warrants. so much so that sarah sanders put out the statement today that pointed out should the adam schiff memo make its way to the white house, we're going to have the same process. we're going to treat it with the same respect, and we're going to go through it all over again. >> hogan gidley, great to see you. thank you for coming on tonight. look forward to speaking to you again. >> thanks, john. we've got a political and legal panel to envy tonight. maggie, i want to start with you here. you know, the memo is the memo, and people have argued about that back and forth. the bigger issue ultimately might be what happens because of it, and the question stands, is rod rosenstein's job in jeopardy. we heard hogan say six times to sunday no. >> my reporting actually does not have it that rod rosenstein is in imminent danger of being fired. this is, however, something that the president was talking about

with people last year. now, i -- >> he just denied that. >> right and that's fine, but it was something the president was talking about last year with a number of people, and he had asked about how it would work and how rachel brandt, the number three at justice, if she presumably stepped up into rosenstein's job. he was thinking out scenarios. i think he recognizes there's a danger in doing that, and he's not looking to do that now. i think he likes the sort of wheel see what happens or you figure it out is sort of part of his tag line of stay tuned to the next episode. so i don't think that's where this memo goes but i do think it's going to be something that's now going to dominate the conversation for several days. there is a lot going on in this memo in terms of first of all this was not just a dossier that was paid for by the dnc and, you know with lawyers for hillary clinton. it began with the washington free beacon, which is a conservative website, and then it was taken over. the memo does not mention the fact that carter page had been under fisa warrant prior to

this. and so it is basically what we have seen repeatedly from certainly the president, which is a lot of facts that get presented a certain way devoid of context. that does not mean there is not a real discussion to have about fisa. there is a very really conversation to have. but the white house was not in lockstep about how to approach this. some of his advisers believed both memos should be released. that may happen next week. what's going to happen now is this is going to be what everyone is talking about as opposed to, say, his state of the union address, which feels like it was a century ago, but it was three days ago. that is what republicans and congress who have to run this year would rather be talking about rather than having a war on the fisa system. >> david gergen, you were in the nixon white house during the saturday night massacre, and that's the argument -- the history democrats are preemptively citing here that could happen if the president forced out rod rosenstein. do you get the sense based on what you're hearing from maggie, from what you're hearing from the white house and based on just your sense of things that

the deputy attorney general's job is safe? >> i don't think we can assume that. remember the white house told us almost a dozen times that no one in the white house has -- the president never talked about firing mueller, and now -- we now have verified reports the president has been talking about it, and that was a pack of lies that there were no conversations. so when we heard tonight repeated claims that no one has been talking about rosenstein going, why should we believe that? so i don't believe that. and i do think there are some differences now that are emerging from the nixon time, which are troubling. nixon tried to use the powers of the existing law enforcement agencies to protect himself. trump, by contrast, is trying to destroy the credibility of our law enforcement agencies in order to protect himself. frankly, i think the effort to destroy, to discredit is doing a lot more damage in some ways to the institutions than what nixon

did even though nixon's crimes were obviously far bigger. >> carl, is this all part of the long game ultimately? this memo, which the president was telling his friends would discredit the mueller investigation, is this all part of an excuse not to testify to the special counsel and then later on when the mueller report comes out, to say that this investigation has been tainted from the start? >> i think that question is a little too deep in the weeds because the larger picture is did donald trump -- is doing, has done for a year, everything in his power to cover up and to make this investigation go away. what we are seeing today, this great day for the russians, as great a day as russia and putin could have, as witnessed by the food fight that we just saw between the two congressmen on this television show, the destabilization of our institutions that has been

accomplished while the president of the united states continues to try and undermine, impede, and obstruct this investigation. and now has a republican party that he has managed to co-opt to go along with this with the kind of red herrings that we have been seeing in front of our faces with this so-called memo that really is about some deep state stuff going on. really? let's look at the big picture, which is about a president who is trying to overwhelm, demean, undermine, and make an investigation into him, his family, his conduct go away. and if there's nothing there there, there is every opportunity for the president to cooperate in a meaningful way with this investigation, and let's see. >> the president obviously using the deep state to scramble your picture, carl bernstein, right now. carrie cordero, if i could bring you into this conversation,

maggie among others have said, look, there are questions about the fisa process that are raised here. this memo suggests that the fisa judge, not one, not two, not three, not four different judges or the same judge four times was never told that the clinton campaign and the democrats were funding the steele dossier, which was at least a part of the evidence used to get the fisa warrant. should the judge have been told that? >> well, here's the issue. look what has happened, john, as a result of this selective declassification. you just had on your program two congressmen who can't agree upon what was in this information, what was presented to the court. and we really don't know. the memo that was written and released by the house intelligence committee has so many glaring omissions that i can't tell you whether or not there was a specific fact that was told to the court. and, in fact, what i know is that the normal process is that once the fbi changed its assessment of steele as a

source, that what they should have done and what the normal practice would be is they would go back to the court and inform the court. so the amount of information that they originally in the first application would have needed to provide to the court depends on all the other information that was in there. so it depends on how critical his information was to the application. and we just don't know that, and the members that you've had on haven't read the applications, haven't been briefed on them. and because the house intelligence committee released this memo and clearly picked and chose what information they wanted to put out to support their narrative, the american public is less clear about what transpired, not more clear. >> you bring up jim himes and jim jordan couldn't agree on the facts of this memo. they can't agree my hair is brown, so i'm not sure that is prizing in and of itself. the point here is based on this memo, it's not clear what happened. it doesn't lay out the facts per se. it doesn't put in quotes the idea that andy mccabe said that

the only reason they got the warrant was because of the steele dossier. james galliano, former fbi agent, i know you were waiting to see this document come out. i know you were waiting to see what they came out with. we talked about the questions that might exist on the fisa, but is it as damning as the republicans were suggesting it would be? >> john, call me a healthy skeptic on this, and the dangerous hyperbole on both ends, it's unconscionable, last night on chris cuomo show -- i cautiously awaited this today, and i had it printed out because i'm old school. i like the 8 1/2 by 11 paper, and i read through the 3 1/2 pages. i got to describe it as are there unsettling things here? absolutely. did the fbi make some mistakes and missteps? absolutely. are there some connections that

need to be sorted out? absolutely. i read this, and what i came away with is they're trying to shoot a cannon out of a canoe. it just didn't hold up to what i thought it was going to be. i thought this would truly be -- and i hate to use this metaphor -- the smoking gun. there are troubling things here, and i've been harshly critical of an organization, the fbi, that i believe in, spent 25 years in it, and there are some things that need to be looked at. i'm confident right now, i think we have special prosecutor fatigue. i'm confident in the office of the inspector general. let them do their job. let's away the democratic rebuttal to this, but it wasn't what i thought it was going to be. >> maggie, do you think the democratic rebuttal is going to be released? the white house says they want to see it. speaker ryan says yes. could this get caught up in the political process? >> everything can get caught up in the political process. i think it's likelier than not that it does get released and you're going to have these two

competing pieces of paper that say very different things. i do want to point out to your point, we heard all kinds of things about what were going to be in here. much of that did not live up to what was actually in there. so i would like to wait and see what the democrats actually provide. but i think absent producing the actual testimony, absent producing what mccabe actually said to the committee, you are seeing a host of people talking about testimony they weren't even in the room for, when they're not even members of the committee. so we are at the moment basically going further and further down a rabbit hole. to your point, there are legitimate concerns. there are real issues. the fbi has clearly made a number of mistakes in a number of ways, but i'm not sure this gets any closer to solving that. >> i'm not sure that's clear at all. i don't think you can say based on this memo that they clearly have made mistakes. >> i'm saying in jen basgeneral previous reporting. that's what i'm talking about. >> carrie, why don't you think it measures up?

>> well, because the memo doesn't say what the fbi did in terms of what they actually did report to the court about the sources. it doesn't have an affirmative statement about what they said about those sources. it doesn't talk about what other bases for the probable cause was in the application. there could have been a whole host of other types of intelligence information that formed the basis for that application. it doesn't say -- the memo doesn't say whether or not the fbi and the department of justice went back to the court and said, court, we've changed our assessment of steele as a source. and, court, will you reauthorize the surveillance again anyway since they had three more renewals. so i just think it's premature. it may be -- you know, there may need -- there may be an inquiry that reveals there was something done wrong, but i think it's premature. >> carl bernstein. >> we have plenty of organizations, inspectors general, and oversights committee to look at the fbi and

what they have done in this investigation. what we really need to be looking at is the president of the united states, the russians, what occurred, and whether the president is part in presiding over a cover-up and obstructing justice. that's what's been lost all day in this just as the president of the united states intended. >> all right. thank you so much. everyone. coming up, it's not just carter page mentioned in the memo but also a journalist who wrote about him. michael isikoff wrote about page's trip to moscow in an article that is cited in renew your sense of wonder...

in the caribbean. for a limited time enjoy two free perks, like complimentary wi-fi and drinks. a savings up to $300 when you book now, during the celebrity cruises sail beyond event. renein the caribbean.onder... for a limited time enjoy two free perks, like complimentary wi-fi and drinks. a savings up to $300 when you book now,

during the celebrity cruises sail beyond event. the republican memo features a cast of characters that include two journalist. cites a yahoo news article by michael isikoff. and david corn. we'll hear from michael isikoff in a moment. here's the reference in the memo. the carter page fisa application cited a september 23, 2016 yahoo news article by michael isikoff which focuses on pages july 2016 trip to moscow. it does not corroborate the steele dossier. information leaked by steel himself to yahoo news. he and isikoff are the author of russian roulette the inside story of putin's war-over

america. isikoff joins me tonight. >> so michael, first of all. did you have any idea your name was going to be in the memo? >> absolutely not. i was as stunned as anybody. look, clearly i did the story the story i wrote for yahoo news in september of 2016 was the first story to disclose there was a u.s. intelligence investigation. into anybody associated with the trump campaign. but what kind of stunned me when i read the memo is they it's asserts that this story was then used as extensively cited as corroboration for the fisa warrant against carter page. which baffled me because the story was based reported there was already an investigation. and it was based on information

that the fbi already had. so it's not quite clear to me why they would have needed to cite my story. to corroborate their allegations. it was about the information they already had. >> let's break it into parts. the memo says on the fisa warrant it used your article as corroborating information to the steele dossier. the article doesn't corroborate the steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by steel himself. to yahoo news. >> a couple things. first of all what the memo doesn't say is what they were citing in my story. my story was had far hr information than which that which came from christopher steel. it cited other sources a u.s. senator. congressional sources. u.s. intelligence sources. background on carter page. and his earlier trips to moscow.

so they may have been citing other aspects of the story. we don't know because we haven't seen the fisa application. >> you're not denying that steel was a source. >> christopher steel said in a court filing that he talked to a number of journalists when he came to washington in september of 2016. and he named the news organization. ta he spoke to. and yahoo news that's me, was one of them. i'm not giving anything away. yes, christopher steel was somebody i spoke to when i wrote the story. >> implication from the memo put out by devin nunes is he was the only source. for your story. >> that's not the case. >> you corroborated it. >> read the story. and you'll see there are multiple sources. who are cited. >> you corroborated the things steel said with other sources. >> what i corroborated is that the fbi and the information had been provided it the fbi.

they were taking a serious look at it. they were investigating. now, the under lying allegations about the specific meetings that christopher steel asserts in the dossier. that alleges that carter page had. that remains an open question. >> did you reach out to steel or did steel reach out to you? >> on the pod cast, which we did today. i laid it out that glen simpson a old friend of mine turned private investigator invited me to a meeting at washington restaurant to meet christopher steel. that's the first time i met him. >> his credentials seemed legitimate? >> i checked him out. he was who he said he was. i talked to people who dealt with him. he had been -- he was mi 6. the british intelligence agency. he was the specialist.

a source for the fbi. on one of the main investigations in to corruption in the world soccer league. and he was a known quantity to the fbi. and to the u.s. state department. >> michael, great to have you. much more on all this the latest from the white house. and the what democratic congressman eric swalwell has to say about the memo and the repercussions when 360 continues. corrects the salt imbalance that causes dry eye. so your eyes will thank you. more than eye drops, dry eye therapy. theratears®.

topping this hour of 360. take a memo. please. the long awaited hotly disputed nunes memo is out. president trump wanted the public to see it before he himself saw it. and now that he has seen it, listen. >> i think the it's terrible. you want to know the truth. it's a disgrace. what's going on in the country. it's a disgrace. >> the president okayed the release despite quote grave concerns from the fbi and objections from a senior memo of his justice department and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. as you know we reported he's been boasting to friends a