we go live now to the brady press briefing room at the white house for today's briefing with sean spicer here he has been away for a couple of days. "the wall street journal" writing for the past few days he has been working in a back office under a different title, navy commander. as a navy reservist totals his duties working a few weeks in the year in the press office of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. sean spicer expected at the briefing this afternoon. there was some doubt other that would happen. it's now possible for my surrogates to stood up podium that she said one thing would be to cancel all future press briefings and handout written responses for the sake of response which drew a from the white house correspondent association, jeff doing away with

briefings would reduce accountability, transparency, and the opportunity for americans to see that in no -- that in the u.s. system no political figure is above question. that is from jeff mason, the president of the correspondents association. reefing should get underway shortly. the president at the white house today. the president also traveling to lynchburg virginia to deliver the commencement address at the graduation at liberty university. live coverage on c-span saturday morning expects to start at 10 a.m. eastern. and the white house briefing one starts. we will take a look at this morning's washington journal.

is there a difference and if so what is the difference? >> there really isn't a difference, it is a matter of labels. historically we have had councils in the wake of the watergate crisis in 1972. when they were dismissed by presidents nixon and, they were replaced eventually with someone bring president nixon to the end of his presidency. law thatenacted a created something called the independent counsel. it was a new label for the same thing that had been done on an informal basis through the period of nixon's presidency. had a independent counsel

mechanism created by statute and would involve the executive branch and actually evolve this court as well. that anyonewas could seek the appointment of the council but it was up to the attorney general decide whether was presentednce that gave reason to believe that a high-ranking executive official may have violated the law. general agreed that threshold may have been met and then they went forward to a special court. to select an independent counsel. that worked for a period of many years. wake of the whitewater investigation and independent counsel, members of congress of the lengthy investigation and the inconclusive outcomes and eventually the law was simply allowed to lapse. the only way an

independent counsel are special the only way that could happen is through the justice department. the attorney general sessions has recused himself from the russian matter, it would be up decide whethero or not under justice department rules the special prosecutor is appropriate. could go back to the drawing board and create the mechanism they had before, or something like it. the partisan divide in congress and having to overcome a white house veto, that is highly unlikely. is a specialoption congressional committee. explain the difference between a special congressional committee and a special counsel.

what could a special counsel to and this congressional committee not do. they do not have the constitutional authority to prosecute. they should call for commission like the 9/11 commission but can't prosecute short of passing a new law that the president signs, it would create a mechanism that has existed before. >> what about pursuing criminal indictment. >> finally, an independent

commission. they could be granted the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. >> the house lost investigations in january. the house investigation got off to a rocky start area cooperation between the parties in leadership positions there.

there is some precedent for that. the committee that has a special expertise and intelligence and expertise in foreign relations or u.s. russia relations. i daresay the investigations going on now are made up of fully capable members who are working forward. i believe those investigations will do an effective good -- effective job. congress would establish the commission but it would remove any real influence from partisan lenience so like the 9/11 commission you would appoint distinguish members of society to such a commission, it may be a mechanism where republicans and democrats may appoint an equal number. people who are thought to not have been involved in partisan politics in any significant way.

and those distinguish members would be given a budget, a staff, subpoena power and they could can talked a thorough investigation. whether or not there is any significant involvement for the campaign or the trump administration. i think the justice department is inclined to go forward. the deputy attorney general ,ould be easily influenced

especially to take them out of the hands of the justice department. the justice department prosecutor, the continuing investigation in the senate and the house. >> do you all agree there should be a special counsel or the congressional can meet, or the independent commission that looks into this russian let's go to? houston texas. you are up first. >> thank you for taking my call. i do think it should be a special counsel for that.

he does need to be a special counsel because something is going on with this. this is the first time in we need a special counsel up there that is not for the democrat and not for the republican. to have our constitution right. i thought it was so terrible. have the professor take the first part of your comments. this needs to be independent because the president can just fire people. >> i think she makes an important point about the need for independence. it is partly about perception.

don't think anybody would distrust an independent commission but the justice department through a special counsel would be viewed as above the political fray. to gather facts objectively. we will take you to one historical point, she said this is the first time in history something like this has happened. the historical example is president nixon, who did appoint special counsel when the watergate burglary was revealed. and many attempted to fire those prosecutors because he didn't like the direction those investigations were taken. they weren't protected by any mechanisms in the justice department or laws passed by congress. he was able to fire special prosecutor archibald coxe. settled on the appointment of a new prosecutor, a man who turned out to be a very independent prosecutor who

later uncovered evidence that led to president nixon's downfall. rosenstein, who is now the deputy attorney general, because the attorney general has recused himself of this investigation has to make that decision. is washington post says it clear they will have final say. attemptedey general to pen his firing on him. so would be to do the appointment of a special prosecutor. your reaction to that. >> i agree with that tire late. president trump attended use his memo for the basis for firing director comey when mr. trump yesterday heted

had already made up his mind and he was simply looking for some sort of paper justification. trump doesn't need investigation. here he made up of a justification on the back of a justice department official who's going to want to do to make sure can his reputation and professional integrity is not tainted by misuse of presidential authority. >> what about this interview sayslester holt where he he is going to fire mr. comey. so with or without that , and that he also makes the connection between that decision and the russian inquiry. one analyst says the implication

of his statement is severe. the comey may have tried offer --t insurance to ingratiate i have a hard time imagining that. he also didn't think answering the question would come close to a criminal act of trying to obstruct the investigation. the fact the president asked director comey, is that obstructing justice? >> there is a very good argument he is. there is an ongoing investigation conducted by the conducted byas one counterintelligence officials, and the implication that the , by being asked that question could influence the direction of the investigation or to very continuance i think -- particularly when the person is asking the superior.

comey -- heard mr. i'm not sure mr. comey would corroborate. as it appears to us death mr.r. trump's trump asks that on three separate occasions. three trump asks that on separate occasions. >> is it because he says i fired him and he makes the connection to the russian inquiry? >> that's an important part of it. if the basis for the firing was going to be mr. comey's performance, his supposedly misdirection and dealing with .linton emails and the like he wouldn't have made reference

to his point or the letter. they had other things in mind when they fired mr. comey. >> let's hear from robert in texas. specialo we need a prosecution collusion before proof? of people protecting clinton and getting the fbi guy to protect her. why is there such a prosecution on that? don't have thee evidence yet is the investigation is ongoing. a lot of the evidence of russian influence in the investigation remains classified. it took our intelligence agencies nearly half a year to

come to a conclusive decision that it indeed was russian state toolvement in that effort influence the election. as one of your earlier callers indicated it is possible for any number of hackers to enter into systems like the dnc or the rnc or something else to spread false information or misdirected resources and staff. after careful investigation, not only technical forensics but the kind of human intelligence that our agencies are used to collecting all the time, that the direction of these campaigns was from the highest level of the russian government. how much involvement, where did it come from, and was there any connection between persons in the united states, whether part of the trump campaign or trump

transition or elsewhere in other efforts to derail the election as we would have it. >> independent. >> thanks for taking my call and putting out interesting things. why wouldn't an investigation by an investigative journalist or mass media organization be just as good. some government effort investigating this. i know the government would have some pull in retrieving classified information.

the fourth branch of government. the caller makes a good point that at times at stress in our public life, when the government is being called into question, more than one part of the government is incumbent upon a free press to bring the story to the american people in multiple ways. we heard various points of view this morning and indeed there is inmuch media attention now part because the trump administration has been so in stylelly different and tone. not to mention substance from what we are used to here in the united states. the press has a fundamentally important role but the

government has to check itself. one of the most important lessons of our constitutional system was it was created so no one part of the government -- the executive can check and overreaching congress. the congress can do the same with the executive and courts. can we become involved in these matters as well. >> there would be a special counsel. the asbestos need to get involved to because of all the propaganda that happened with , print, radio,v everything that could get out there and say this is the guy to vote for and this is the woman

that had the emails. the emails are a really small part of this. i would say forget the emails, contact and collusion with russia, that is a puzzle piece. the shallowremember state voters that just skim information such as radio and social media. they are not looking for the truth. they only want to magnify their own belief. thank you for taking my call. an important point. it magnifies the intrusion in our electoral system is fundamentally different because of the electronic means that were used. nation has tried to influence the outcome of another nation for as long as nations have then around. the united states has indeed done that as well. of theseavailability technical means and the capability to spoof or deceive

the readers come as her caller calls shallow readers, on the real source of the information, making it appear as it is coming from -- as if it is coming from some domestic source -- that is a threat to our domestic system. we need to not only understand it but think about how we can make our systems more secure so less what is coming in. >> we will hear from joe next. question or comment here? >> i am republican but very independent and liberal in many ways. bring alike to different perspective pre-it in my 86 years i have seen more laws on the american public at every level there is. it hasn't helped anything as far as criminal activity goes. legislation has a penalty with every law that is created.

do not understand where the legal system is going and why it is called legal because there is no morality in it anymore. there has to be an awaking in this country. withd trump doesn't put up the scrap anymore. this man is a builder. you people are destroyers with this legislation that goes on. morality and when you talk about the truth you mock the truth with the media, with the legal system, with the political system. you have to move america, god plus this country. god bless this country. god bless you all. a law are talking to professor, say you are not likely to get me to agree that the law -- full house today. good afternoon, it's good to be back with you. one week out for the