only at jared. welcome to the second hour of 360. a "new york times" story praeking in the past hour that trumps lawyers are advising he refused to sit down with any interview with robert mueller. will the president let it see the light of day. what about the claims the nunes memo vend kates him in the russia affair. he claims democrats were treasonous and un-american during the state of the union address. the first details of this last week. pam joins us.

the "new york times" report was broken about 45 mips minutes ago. it tracks what you were reporting last week. seems to sound a more definitive note the line the legal team will draw with the special counsel. >> we have been reporting this is the stance of the president's legal team. a week ago we reported they believe robert mueller hasn't met the threshold to interview the president. they don't want him to sit down with mueller and his team. ty cobb said on the record he believes it's a perjury trap and want to prevent this from happening. they want to prevent any type of fishing expedition. the sources that we have spoken to have said first of all they belief that the president shouldn't be treated like anyone else and second of all they leave robert mueller hasn't shown the evidence or proof they have to sit down to talk to the president to understand his state of mind. they argue they handed over all the documents they see exactly what robert mueller's team sees

for the most and see no reason to have to sit down with the president. now that may not sit well with robert mueller. as you know, the president has been very public saying he wants to sit down with robert mueller's team. he would be happy to do it. under oath. we can tell you behind the scenes his lawyers have been saying that not so fast. that likely is not a good idea. one source close to the legal team told me tonight he's not testifying. so that really is the stance among the president's legal team sfwl is there any sense of the time line? when this is expected to reach a boiling point. mueller won't wait around forever for an interview president. when will this come to a head? >> it's interesting. with the lawyers now digging in their heels. to not allow the client the president to to do an interview, with robert mueller. it raises the question will robert mueller issue a subpoena and compel a testimony from the president. that is well within robert

mueller's right. now sources i have spoken with doubt he could go that far. it's certainly possible. it could end nup in court. that's something the legal team doesn't want to see happen. the president wants this wrapped up sooner rather than later. it's unclear where it will go. robert mueller made it clear he wants to do a sit down interview with the president. the loam team said no we're not letting you do it. you haven't met the threshold. >> the president did have the caveat. listening to the advice of my attorney. >> exactly. at the time, our thinking was that the president has cover. he can come out and say whatever he wants. that he wants to sit down to show that he has nothing to hide. but of course ultimately as you said he the caveat he would listen to his lawyers. who behind the scenes having telling him for weeks he should not talk to robert mueller or testify. because it will be a perjury trap. >> thank you very much. i want to start the question.

jeffrey we were talking about this in the last hour. the motion of a perjury trap you find bunk. >> it's ridiculous. just tell the truth. there's no trap. it's. >> couldn't you argue it's a trap because if robert mueller has all this information from other people, it is a potential trap if the president is not telling the truth? >> well that's right. it should be. it should be a trap. if the president is not telling the truth. >> i have been trapped because i perjured myself. >> there's certainly nothing wrong with the witness saying i have never seen that document before. i don't know what it means. i don't remember seeing that. i don't remember saying that. that's totally appropriate. witnesses say it all the time. whether it's try or not i don't know. it is appropriate to not answer questions, not remember. but lying is lying. and there's no such thing as a perjury trap.

it is simply a defense lawyers speak for a justification for a witness they don't want to get in front of the to testify under oath. >> i always thought it meant that people can't remember everything. there's so many facts coming at them and you're asked to remember things. people have a hard time remembering last week let alone two years ago. is there any validity? >> you're right. this is a difficulty. there is nothing unlawful about saying it was so long ago i don't remember. i was confused. it's a lots of things have happened. the problem is lying. only lying is a crime. >> this idea of a perjury trap was popularized by democrats to defend bill clinton. when he arguably perjuried himself in the monica case. right? this was something that the left in democrats created to defend bill clinton. that's the origin of that.

>> it was bogus then. >> that's where the idea was popularized in politics. >> this has been a question in criminal law. in criminal prosecution. it was it's been said way before the clinton investigation. >> having not gone to law school and not understanding this. i don't get why what is the harm in robert mueller just subpoenaing the president if the president is refusing? >> you would start when you know someone is represented by counsel you go to the lawyer first and we want to sit down with you. it's also usually in everyone's interest to have a sort of quieter conversation before you get someone tht grand jury under oath. it's sort of the first step you would take. in most instances people would comply. this is of course an extraordinary circumstance. and the president lawyers we know from reports they have been trying to negotiate how long it will go for. what the terms will be. there's back and forth we don't usually see. usually you see a prosecutor say

here's your subpoena. see you tomorrow in the grand jury. at 9:00 a.m. >> i tend to had i if trump lawyers had the opposite position and wanted to testify under oath. he would have good cause to fire them immediately. he could have every intention to tell the truth and being factual. the way he talks and goes on tangents he would be in major jeopardy. maybe the smoking guns dwoent know about. the clearest shot they have at him a criminal offense is him going under oath. they should resist it with every fiber of his being. >> as a lawyer they're going to say, boss, you don't want to do this. if it's something they can l litigate. and force mueller to litigate. i would say they're giving him sound advice. >> if he were a normal subject of an investigation, and this

were a regular white collar case, riches advice would be right. never let this guy within an inch of prosecutor who given lying and challenge rating. the difficulty is he's president of the united states. and he has said repeatedly he wants to testify. and it would like terrible for him to take the fifth. rich is exactly right that a lawyer's job is to keep him from testifying. but he's not gist an ordinary subject. he's president. if it looks like he's hiding from robert mueller that is a problem. >> they will flip that the other way. he's the president united states he's busy. he has to watch tv and tweet all the time. you have to show us a specific crime. and why you can't get any evidence. >> hasn't he laid the ground wok for mueller being biassed and the department of justice being biassed and transfer i won't do

it. we uncovered bias and it won't be fair? >> 35% of the people would agree with that instantly. so i think that is a very good possibility. in fact i think that could even be a frex for him taking the fifth. this is a witch hunt, they're out to get them. the advantage of taking the fifth is it ends a legal fight. you can go to court and force someone to not take the fifth. >> we'll continue this discussion. we'll also later on in the program the former fbi top official resigns. saying why he's taking aim at the president and his supporters in congress. he'll join us ahead. friends, colleagues,

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. ♪ ronoh really?g's going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms... again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management.

it's abor it isn't. ence in 30,000 precision parts. it's inspected by mercedes-benz factory-trained technicians. or it isn't. it's backed by an unlimited mileage warranty, or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned, or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through february 28th. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer.

talking about what called the major jeopardy for the president talking to robert mueller's team. and the jeopardy he could face refusing to testify. the depositions of the president you have read when he was a citizen. he is better than people think. >> i think so. there's a common perception he's unt undisciplined and says whatever he wants to say. i think he looks disciplined and on point and on message in the ones i have looked at and read. not to say you wouldn't find some inaccuracy in there. his language is much more specific and detailed. and it's much more to the i would argue controlled. he does say i don't recall a number of times. which jeff points out a good way

to deal with something you would say something that was not true. >> life tip for everyone. i don't recall. >> nixon says that. on the watergate tape. you can say you don't recall. i think ann is right. he's a better witness than you think he is. when he sued tim o brian for liable. and tim got his lawyers got trump under oath. he had to admit he had lied in other circumstances. in public, in public statements and he had not didn't admit he lied under oath. so i think trump has an understanding of the difference and the importance of restraining himself in that setting. >> it does go to court. what sort of time line, how long could that take? and go into the 2018 campaigns? >> you're talking about tlooefls of appeals. a district court.

the dc circuit court of appeal. and the supreme court. it's hard to imagine that could get done in less than three months. >> that's the two equities. you don't want him under oath but you don't want to drag it out. it's not inconceivable the obstruction faze could be over in is the umer. >> the fact they want to talk to the president does indicate they're at the end of some aspect of it. you wouldn't bring the president in early on in the investigation. >> that's right. remember also that mueller is subject to the department of justice rules and guidelines which say you do not issue subpoenas and do overt nfgt investigate i have acts within three months. 90 days of an election. >> james comey should have read that before he destroyed clintons campaign. >> yes. and not everyone applies. there are exceptions. >> a famous one in 2016.

>> mueller would follow it. >> dwrou think there's political damage for the president if he does not appear before mueller? >> not with his base. the question is whether or not this rises to the level of the average american caring about it. it doesn't seem to. i don't see, i'm interested what the lawyers will say. how do you end this case without talking to the president? isn't it about his intent in how do you find out intent without talking to him? >> most criminal investigations do not have the subject the defendant interviewed. that's why we have a fifth amendment. and most subjects defendants do not talk to prosecutors. you will have to as a prosecutor robert mueller may well have to draw the circumstantial evidence. examine the surrounding circumstances and draw conclusions about whether the president did anything unlawful. but many investigate v

investigations end before -- without hearing from the defendant. >> it seems like he's muddied the water so much with sort of turning this into another political issue. democrats think this on immigration and republicans think that. do you think that the mainstream republicans will sort of buy into that idea? this is just a witch hunt and we of course he's not going to talk to them. >> that fight has substantially been won already. >> won by the president? >> right. in terms of the hearts and minds of republicans. i don't see either side on a partisan divide budging. it's like 1917 trench warfare. clean belt of health from mueller. or some incredible smoking gun that no one can deny. otherwise people are dug in. >> the question about the time line is important for a lot of republicans. there are a lot of republicans who want trump not to be on the ballot in the midterp election. the more this is litigated the more this is a big clash in the

legal system between mueller and the president with the president not wanting to to do an interview. the worse that is for republicans. it will be interesting in the wake of maggie's piece what republicans on the hill say. do they nudge him to say we want you to speak. speak now. get this investigation over with. maybe it will help us in the midterm elections. >> if this went to the supreme court, do you have a sense of what will happen? >> i don't think it's a slam dunk for either side. probably mueller would win. nixon was forced to surrender tapes in response to a subpoena. during a trial. the clinton vs. jones. clinton was forced to give a deposition in a civil case. here the criminal justice system generally says criminal cases are more important than civil. if the president is subpoenaed by a grand jury, i think the supreme court would be more likely than not side with

mueller. it's not a 100%. >> i agree completely. it would be a protracted litigation. back and forth. this is a criminal investigation the president has evidence or information that the special counsel is seeking. and a court would order him to provide it. >> coming up we'll talk about an immediate decision. whether to allow the public to see a democrat rebuttal to the nunes memo. and the claim the memo vindicates him. why wait months for your next vacation

when you can squeeze one in between friday and monday at hilton? 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

( ♪ ) (grunting) today is your day. crush it.

angie's boom chicka pop whole grain popcorn. boom! still more breaking news to talk about. the house intelligence committee voting to send the democratic rebuttal to the nunes memo to the president. and schiff is calling attention to. chairman nunes continued refusal to say whether his memo had input pr the white house. he declined to comment. you know the rules dwoent talk about committee business. despite his interviews one which he did today. in collaborating with the white house. i spoke art it earlier today with congressman mike who challenged the chairman on it for a second time today. >> you don't want to give anybody an out because you don't ask the specific enough question. members of the committee himself, the staff. and every possibility i make sure i get it right.

prepared, reviewed. communicated about the house about the memo. i was the only member he wouldn't answer questions for. he answered another members question and said i'll answer your question because i like you. so the besides having my feelings hurt he didn't answer the question. it is my colleague mr. schiff said, at the very end he had a very lawyerly answer. that only responded to one small aspect of that. >> back now with the panel. joining us as well is steven more. there's no way to tell whether the president the white house hasn't said whether the president will release this or not. it will go through the same review process. although it seemed like the president decided he was going to release that. >> he made it clear he was going to release it. there's no way the president is not going to release it that would be so bad and make him look bad. i feel like i can totally see him not releasing it. right? i can see him saying no this

makes me look like. or having it so redacted it doesn't have meaning. maybe he'll release it. and put it out exactly as it is. there's nothing in the past showing he would be shamed to putting it out. >> i'm sure he doesn't want to. the political pressure will be tough. and i think if he doesn't release it, the temptation for someone just to leak it will be very strong. so my guess would be one way or the other we'll see memo. and i want to see it. the nunes memo raises legitimate questions. we need more information rather than less. i want to see the schiff memo. and the under lying intelligence as possible to release. >> the larger issue is nunes has blown up the way that the house intelligence committee has worked for decades. in before nunes was the chairman if there was a serious issue that needed investigation, like fisa reform and how the fbi goes and gets a fisa warrant is a

serious issue. with a lot of interesting reform ideas. the committee would do a private investigation. tla might issue a report that would have redaction. a majority view a minor tu view. this whole way of staff partisan driven memos and that get leaked and a twitter campaign behind making it public that the president of the united states leads. this entire process is insane. and has really damaged one of the most important institutions in the house. and made it operate like another partisan committee. and it's really sort of tragic what's happened. now the democrats are getting drawn into this. >> you look so skeptical. >> it i think trump has won this fight. because now -- look, it's hard to follow. this whole debate. over the various memos. and whether the fisa was accurate. and what the role of the dossier

was. it looks like yet another partisan food fight. which in part it is. the fact that the roots of the investigation are seen by lots of people as a partisan food fight, that's what trump wants. and so even though i think on the merits nunes position is absurd. his memo was ridiculous and totally misleading. but, most people just are going say democrats and republican fighting. >> it is interesting. you have gowdy and other republicans on the hill come out and say he's not running for reelection. coming out and saying that hz nothing to do with the mull probe. we want the investigation to go on. >> they're telling the truth. because it does have nothing to do with the mueller investigation. but i don't mean to have disrespect for the audience or the public. this is pretty hard to follow. this stuff. and the number of people who can keep track of the precise twists

and turns and why gowdy was correct that it has nothing to do with the mueller investigation, i think is small. >> do you think the president should allow? >> we had the conversation last week about the gop memo. i remember exactly what i said. i'm for sunlight. i'm for transparency. for openness. and i feel the same way about the democratic one. put it out there. let the public decide. i think that's the way you bring this to a conclusion. i think both the republican and democratic memo should be out. >> the real -- not to get in the weeds. the real way to decide this would be the full application that the fbi put before the fisa court. right? we would see the entire application and see if there was any sort of bias. that's what -- >> why haven't they put it out there? >> it's highly classified. >> that's a good reason. summarize it. >> is it highly classified? everyone said the sky was going to fall if the memo came out. all the information that's in it has been in the paper before.

>> it's not devin nunes cherry picking. that's the decision of the doj and the fbi. >> it could compromise other investigations prior or future investigations to put out. if you look at the memo it's con clus rare. there are no facts. maybe there are no facts to support the allegations. which i tend to believe. it's done at such a high level. it's done not to harm national security interest. and to not show how the information is collected. i would love to see it. i don't think it's right to open us. and we wouldn't see the under lying -- >> rich, you're saying that devin nunes he didn't write it. but his staffers were not cherry picking information. that's what the fbi is saying. there were facts omitted that materially did change the fact pattern. >> what i meant is i don't thit nunes deciding i can't quote from the mccabe interview

directly. it's the fbi and doj who came up with the rules. the devin nunes hasn't seen the under lying intelligence himself is not because nunes didn't want to look. there's an agreement only one member from each party could look at the intelligence. two staffers. so they have been and maybe it's for national security reasons. but i think this is a obviously a big public concern. and a pig basketbaa big public . >> this is not the way to do over sight. of the intelligence community is pick one narrow issue. have your staff write a partisan memo, leak information about that, and have the president get behind a twitter campaign to release it. the whole process is completely insane. >> the whole issue is whether or not the whether this would be divulging some issues of

national security concern. if you look at the memo and i don't think anybody can say somehow we compromised security. by releasing that memo. we have more to talk about. including presidents call treasonous for not standing up during the state of the union address. what factored into his sudden departure from the bureau. -if you told me a year ago where i'd be right now... aah! ...i would have said you were crazy. but so began the year of me.

i discovered the true meaning of paperless discounts... and the indescribable rush of saving drivers an average of $620. why does fear feel so good? i fell in love three times -- once with a woman, once with a country, and finally... with myself. -so, do you have anything to declare or not? -isn't that what i'm doing? -so, do you have anything to declare or not? if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough,

it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

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. 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. breaking news the house intelligence committee is voted to lease the democrat rebuttal to the gop memo alleging the fbi abused surveillance laws. an fbi special agent who spent more than a decade at the bureau and was a special assistant to james comey resigned over constant attacked on the bureau. josh campbell is his name. he writes quote i'm turning in an my badge and leafing an organization i love. so i can join the growing chorus of people who believe that the relentless -- for political gain. is impossible.

josh campbell joins nous. a cnn law enforcement analyze. you called the day you walked across the stage and got your badge one of the greatest honors of your life. if that's the case why resign? >> it's a good question. i'll say it at the out set that i believe that the rank and file the men and women of the fbi deserve the political attacks to stop. we look within the organization at people trying to do their job every day, they see the attacks and it's puzzling. it's curious. sometimes it's infuriating. i'm a vessel for the dismay. some of the criticism that we heard from within that threatens our public image and ability to do our job. i didn't think i could speak out like i'm doing now. in order to call for an end to the political attacks. if i was still inside the fbi. what i mean by that is no one wants someone inside the fbi anonymously criticizing partisan. no one wants that.

i figure the only appropriate way to do so to defend the organization i love is step out and do it for the outside. >> there have been people talking about the attacks the president said and the comments he made about other political leaders against the fbi, that it doesn't really under mine the bureau. fbi agents are professionals and keep their heads down and do their job. it doesn't impact things on the law enforcement on day-to-day basis. >> i agree with that. they are only one party of the equation. the other part that aloi us to do our job is public trust. that's something we have less control over. when an fbi agent knocks on someones door and needs assistance or information. the likelihood they will assist is if they see us as honest and trus worthy. and people coming to us and a great risk to themselves to provide information. i was talking to a colleague

last week about a source with met over seas and went to great lengths to endanger their own lives to meet with the fbi and provide important information an a terrorism case. i asked why didn't you provide this information to your country law enforcement? and he said you're the fbi. i trust you. i can't trust our corrupt officials. so what i'm wondering is how many of these people will take that risk provide information to the fbi this this doubt about the organization continues to seep into the national dialogue. >> if there's bad apples in the leadership or criticism is warranted. the impending inspector general report will raise questions about plitization within the senior ranks. >> criticism is warranted and extremely necessary. we cannot police ourselves. fbi agents have power.

we have the power to deny someone's liberty. and our investigation. so with that great power we have to have great accountability. i concur with that. over sight is important. when i'm distinguishing is chris schism for the sake of pointing out those in leadership who may have done wrong and krichl criticism that's political. they may have the long lasting impact on public trust. >> i want to ask you about the firing of james comey. fbi leader appear to express shock and sad bsness in the immediate after math. as the white house attempted to portray a bureau in crisis. how do you describe the reaction to remove comey? >> obviously i'm a bias party. i had the honor of working for director comey. i say the support within the organization was very thorough throughout. he was widely respected. and some cases loved. and i saw it on a number of levels. the first being the person honored to be his special

assistant i saw him interact with thousand of employees and i got to see their face. how they interacted with him. it is very positive reception. even those who disagreed with him. even those people respected him and respected his position. i got to see in a document that was by a news organization and released regarding his climate survey. an anonymous document where fbi employees rate their government officials. and he received wide marks throughout the organization. by those who are providing anonymous surveys. if i can, i was there with him on the day he was fired. i can tell you the faces of the employees and the response, it's been reported by some how the day went down. i remember it very vividly. he's sitting there addressing employees, in the field office. and it was actually fox news who came first.

we two tvs in the back. and the banner said james comey resigns. and he thought it was puzzling. maybe someone was pulling a joke. he would know if he resigned and cnn came on and said he had been fired. it was like the oxygen was sucked out of the room. the last thing is we pull him aside. he was able to make phone calls to determine what was going on. i asked, sir i don't know where you are mentally. but you have only seen a small portion of the people in the field office. is it okay if we ask if people gather around. he said of course. i stepped out and talked to the head of the office and said don't compel anyone to come here. if people want to see him before he goes they can come down. in about five minutes the room was full. standing rom only with people applauding. some people crying. i'm a bias party. but i can tell you he was extremely well loved within the organization. i don't work for the jims comb

or the fbi. i'm here to give you facts based on my e experience. that's what people thought of james comey. also ahead. treason. a strong word. with deadly consequences. president trump used it today referring to democrats who didn't like his state of the union speech. and called then un-american. details ahead. rom meeting mr. adderley. it's a calling to not only everybody in this neighborhood in miami, but to the nation how great we are. and how great we can be. ♪ ♪ i'll stand by you. ♪ i'll stand by you. ♪ and i'll never desert you. ♪ i'll stand by you.

the more you know the the commute is worth it.me, for all the work you pour into this place, you sure get a lot more out of it. you and that john deere tractor... so versatile, you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive. but just like a john deere, it's worth it. nothing runs like a deere. now you can own a 1e sub-compact tractor for just $99 a month. learn more at your john deere dealer.

president trump had a complaint about the reaction by democrats to his state of the union address. take a look. >> you're up there, you have half the room going totally crazy, wild. they loved everything. they want to do something great for the country. and you have the other side even on positive news, really positive news. like that. they were like death.

and un-american. un-american. somebody said treasonous. i mean, yeah i guess why not. can we call that treason? why not. they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much. >> may have used it lightly. treason is serious. defined by levying war against the united states or giving aid. the penalty is often death. the crime is rare. the most famous man in america is benedict arnold. and never charged. john brown. convicted and hanged in virginia for treason. many convicted were spared. the radio announcer convicted in 1949 for her radio broadcast. she was pardoned by president ford. convicted of espionage not treason. more on that shortly.

more breaking news on who will or won't be talking in a russian probe. former white house chief strategist steve bannon will not appear tomorrow. risk being held in contempt to failing to comply with a subpoena. we learned president trump is likely not to testify or wanting to testify. steve bannon not testifying. reporting is that he is his attorneys are still waiting for the clarification over whether or not executive privilege can be used for thins that happened during the campaign. does it make sense he would not testify? >> i think it's a frivolous legal argument that executive privilege could attach to anything before the campaign. or during the transition. privileges are all construed narrowly. >> during the transition. >> right. we have people who are president. and we have people who are not

president. you don't get to be assigned executive privilege as far as i'm aware until the person is president. i don't think it's a crazy argument. that you would want that you shouldn't at least raise it and have it resolved before he testifies. it's a wrong legal argument. by it's not a crazy one. it's reasonable to get it resolved before they haves. >> his attorneys were saying this was a direction of the white house. general kelly chief of staff said they didn't have communication with bannon. i don't know if he was just parsing his words and yes the communication was not with bannon but his attorneys. >> this has been are peted thing we have seen. people are invoking executive are privilege. even though the president hasn't invoked it. it's -- i don't know how they can deep doing this. it seems like the president wanted to invoke executive privilege he could do it. >> who is this bannon that you

speak in we don't know anyone by that name. >> it feels like legal posturing to me. a move to try the reporting seems to indicate he's trying to control what questions they'll ask him. how long he'll testify. it feels like he starts with the executive privilege piece. i a gree with jeff. i don't think he'll be covered by executive privilege. it is the president's privilege to invoke. >> this is the part i don't understand. the white house never invoked executive privilege on any case. you have witnesses saying it's like if were charged with something. i'm not taking the fifth. i'm just not answering questioning in case i want to take the fifth. >> attorney general sessions and director of national intelligence have all said we're not citing executive privilege but we're not answering anyway. >> read the comments about >> what do you think of the

president's comments of treason is not american so? >> i think the democrats have a big problem here. the way they reacted in the state of the yunion was unseeml. winning the war against isis. i think the bigger point here is the democrats are coming off as being just rooting against america. by the way, just to even see not just democrats but liberals in general who hate trump. even news the last couple days about the stock market falling so dramatically, it's almost like liberals were joyous about this, that people were losing money, because it cast negative aspirations about trump. i was watching tv all day and people were like, oh, you know, this proves that trump's policies are a failure. >> that's not making joy, that's saying -- >> they were triumphant about it

because finally they had something negative they could say about trump. >> finally one negative thing to say about trump. i think they actually have several. >> steve, i don't think that's what was happening. i think what people were reacting to was the fact that president trump has taken credit for something that he never should have taken credit for. he never should have taken credit for the stock market. >> the stock market has gone up 7,000 points. of course he should take some credit for it. >> the stock market was better under obama. i mean, he's not just taking credit for it, he's also acting like there was this hellscape under obama with the stock market, which is not what happened. so i think what people were reacting to was, okay, so you're going to come out and own this. i don't think people are unhappy about the stock market go up, but there are people unhappy about the stock market going down. i'm unhappy about it. let's take a quick break. i want to talk about the

comments in ohio. we'll have reaction to the state of the union speech when we come back. 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

coming at you with my brand-new vlog. just making some ice in my freezer here. so check back for that follow-up vid. this is my cashew guy bruno. holler at 'em, brun.

kicking it live and direct here at the fountain. should i go habanero or maui onion? should i buy a chinchilla? comment below. did i mention i save people $620 for switching? chinchilla update -- got that chinchilla after all. say what up, rocco. ♪ say what up, rocco. we have a question about your brokerage fees. fees? what did you have in mind? i don't know. $4.95 per trade? uhhh and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee? guarantee? where we can get our fees and commissions back if we're not happy. so can you offer me what schwab is offering? what's with all the questions? ask your broker if they're offering $4.95 online equity trades and a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. we're back with the panel talking treason and the president accusing the democrats of it. that and the allegation that

this time was somewhat different than state of the unions in the past, much like the very recent past. let's take a look. >> the reforms i am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. each of these proposals deserves a vote in congress. [ applause ] >> rich, isn't this just what happens every time? >> yeah, i think the democrats were particularly stony. i don't think if they were like death, but they were stony. >> was that unamerican? >> you can be the president that

made texas unifying, or you can be the president like at the rally who is enjoying himself and playing to the crowd. you can't be both. if he was just the state of the union guy, he would be at 40%. that's pretty high in politics, but instead he's constantly stirring the pot, angering the other side, riling them up for no good reason, in part just because he enjoys it. >> we should point out these comments were off the cuff. there were the prepared comments today about the tax cuts and the economy, which is what the whole thing was about, and he clearly went off on this. >> it's not just that he enjoys it, he enjoys when people enjoy it. why do people need to hear about this?

sometimes it's hateful, and i think this would fall into the hateful category calling democrat unamerican, but he's just riling his audience. why does that rile an audience? why is this what they need to hear? >> maybe he's spending too much time thinking about north korea, and he's adopted kind of a north korean approach to how he should be portrayed, that the dear leader has to have applause at all times from all people. i mean, it's outrageous what he said. think about if another president had behaved this way. we have become so inured to his violation of norms that this becomes, oh, yeah, another crazy thing he said. it's just outrageous to say it's un-american not to cheer. it's treasonous not to cheer. i'm tired of being outraged at crazy things he says, but you know what? it's outrageous and we shouldn't be afraid to say it. >> i don't defend when he uses crazy language like that, but

most americans, especially conservatives, don't think trump is given a fair shake by the media. >> what does that have to do with democrats listening to a state of the union and being called treasonous? where is the connection? >> he shouldn't have said that. i think it's just as appropriate to say why did the democrats sit on their hands -- >> because that's what you do in the state of the union. >> there is a difference between policy -- look, you know, the partisans aren't going to applaud, but they didn't even applaud -- >> did the republicans get small businesses? >> i think the president is thinking north korea, and the democrats where they are right now would sit. >> to answer your question, anyone who spends time on line would know one side would accuse the other side of being treasonous.

the difference is that the president of the united states actually talks like a youtube comment section rather than like a traditional president. >> we have to end it there. i want to thank everybody on the panel. thank you so much for watching tonight. "cnn tonight" starts right now. this is "cnn tonight." i'm erin burnett in tonight for don lemon. the president versus his lawyers. the "new york times" is reporting tonight that the president's attorneys are counseling him to steer clear of a sit-down with robert mueller. president trump, though, may have different plans. >> do you have a date set? >> no. i guess they're talking about two or three weeks, but i would love to do it. i have to say subject to my lawyers and all that, but i would love to do it. also breaking, the house intelligence committee voting unanimously to release the democrats' memo. it is a rebuttal to the