that, president said he had hoped that comey would drop his probe into general flynn but that he had not outright ordered it or it amounted to an obstruction of justice in the strongest terms, that it was merely a desire, a wish on the part of the president, not an order. of course inferences is everything. obviously the fact that the president raised that with comey led him to take copious notes he, something he had not done to prior presidents, president bush, right after him of course barack obama. another revelation from this, by the way, that issue, that there was not, or at least a feeling that was raised with other senators as well, a formal, sort of a dot, dot, dot, lead to obstruction of justice one of the reason why stocks are in and out of record territory right now. once that landed, and people weighed the magnitude of that, all of a suen you had stocks rebounding on the notion that

these might be embarrassing revelations, might not paint the president in a glorious light, strong-arming or whatever you want to call it, heavy suggestions, private dinner none of that reached something that would be considered a high crime or misdemeanor, that at least people interpret this to believe would warrant further action or an obstruction of justice charge. impression. much more revealing later on concerned the prior investigation that was going on before this russia thing. director comey was talking about, what was the impetus, going back and looking at hillary clinton? well apparently, the inspiration might have been loretta lynch, the then attorney general who had argued at the time that maybe the fbi should look at this as a matter and not an investigation. in other words, what hillary clinton knew and what she knew

it, an that sort of thing. the qusay grawe when president bill clinton met with lynch on an airport tarmac. that raised credibility of the investigation itself and that is when comey felt he had to come forward. let everyone know what the fbi was doing. he said it gave me a queasy feeling. now we know at least a little bit of the genesis of that investigation where he would exonerate hillary clinton, and then unexonerate her. but now we know eackstory there might have been loretta nch's actions ironically. then bill clinton's actions meeting with loretta lynch. that it certainly gave the appearance of impropriety. those are my words. that was more than just a matter. this was a formal investigation. much has been made of the fact why didn't director comey with all his doubts about donald trump speak up sooner or tell him to his face, i find that inappropriate, sir? in a rare show of humility, he was essentially saying you know,

maybe i was just a little gun-shy here? maybe that is one of the reasons why i didn't more aggressive pursue or let the president know this. he pointed out by hoping, president saying he would hope that comey would lighten up on flynn and probably not go to far, that was not, that was not the case there. of course flynn did not get a pass by the fbi or this russian investigation a pass by the fbi. something now being led in a special counsel role by former fbi director mueller. this is outside of that hearing room right now. which are expecting to hear from some of the principles there. but ahead of that we're leaking at dow where we're up about 62 points here. but i hasten to add, this could be me, folk, if there was concern this was a watergate-like event that could lead to further bombshell revelations summer of hearings, much like the watergate hearings of '73, it might be premature,

might be a jump, might be optimism on part of wall street, there does seem to b a sense, bad stuff, inappropriate stuff, for president trump but not kind of thing that would get him thrown out of office or obstruction of justice or on a worse charge. worth early going as committee and chairman and vice chairman, this was the ninth such public hearing these guys had this year, combining two different investigations. so anything is possible for now wall street seems to be feeling we can deal with this. adam shapiro with other bombshells he is following very, very closely. what do you think, adam? reporter: neil, i think a lot of people were caught by surprise loretta lynch actually went to the fbi director and director was concerned, former director mr. comey, that what lynch was doing could give the impression that the department of justice was aligning with the clinton campaign. listen to that exchange, when we the public first learned that loretta lynch had gone to the

former fbi director. here's the sound bite. >> let me go back if i can very briefly to the decision to publicly go out with your results on the email. was your decision influenced by the attorney general's tarmac meeting with the former president bill clinton? >> yes. in a ultimately conclusive way. that was the thing that capped it for me, i had to do something separately. >> were there other things that contributed to that you can describe in an open sessn? >> probably the only other consideration, i guess can talk about in open setting at one point the attorney general directed me not to call it an investigation but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. reporter: then of course, there was the purpose of this hearing which had to do with former fbi director comey's interactions

with president trump and now infamous meetings took place one-on-one and their discussions about mr. general flynn. listen to what one exchange which the former fbi director reveals that flynn was in legal jeopardy. >> i don't think it is for me to say whether the conversation i had with the president was an effort to obstruct. i took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that is conclusion i'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that is an offense. reporter: then, neil, the other big revelation today, that mr. comey himself actually orchestrated the leak of his memo, the one that was published, which led to the appointment of the special counsel. here is what he said about why he did that. >> did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the department of justice? >> president tweeted own friday after i got fired, that i better

hope there is not tapes. i woke up in the middle of the night on monday night because it didn't dawn on me originally there might be cooperation for our conversation, there might be a tape. my judgment was, i needed to get that out into the public square. so i asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. didn't do it myself for variety of reasons, but i asked himo because i thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. so i asked a close friend of mine to do it. >> was that mr. wettis? >> no. >> who was that? >> a good friend of mine, a professor at columbia law school port port neil, you might say former fbi director unmasked person who leaked the existence of comey memos which are in possession of mr. mueller, special counsel looking at all these russia issues. the committee is actually asking to get copy of these memos. one other quote or headline that will come out of this hearing

mr. comey said lordy, i hope there are tapes, referring to president trump's tweet about tapes possibly recording their conversations. back to you. neil: adam, great job, thank you my friend. that friend has been identified, only so many professors teaching law at columbia. his name is daniel c. richmond. a professor at columbia law school here. one of the reasons which kind of sort of is the backdrop of this whole drama about these memos coming out or this particular memo, that conversation he had with the president in that private dinner with just the two of them, the director, of course the president of the united states, director comey said at the time, i had all these reporters camped out at the end of my driveway and i was worried it would be like feeding seagulls at the beach. in other words if he were to give a copy of that memo, they're all out there waiting for anything and everything, but again that was the impetus for that. so, the question now becomes whether this develops into

something. again we'll hear from some principles involved speaking to reporters very, very shortly. remember they go into this 1:00 p.m. background briefing or classified briefing that will not be aired to the public here. we're also waiting to hear from donald trump's lawyer on this marc kasowitz. he put out the statement, the written testimony of director comey's came out, that it had confirmed, this is quoting mr. kasowitz, private reports that the president was not under investigaon in th russiank probe. let's see if the ranking and minority member of this committee are saying the same. >> part of our investigation, the committee's investigation, into russian involvement in the 2016 elections. it also enabled the american people to understand the massive amounts of stories that's been out there and to sort through those and to have an individual that can lay some factual context to it. this is nowhere near the end of our investigation.

and i think it is safe to say today that next week we hope to work with special counsel mueller to work out a clear pathways for both investigations, his and ours, to continue, to work on deconfliction of witnesses and potential testimony but we're more confident today that we can, through this process, work through a very bipartisan and thorough investigation that at the end of it, answers many of the questions that the american people might have today. >> i will simply add i was very proud of how all of the members conducted themselves today. i thought it was very important that the american people get a chance to hear jim comey's statements about what all has transpired. the one thing, even if we may have different views on where some of these questions may lead, the one message that i hoped all americans will take home is recognizing how

significant the russian interference in our electoral process s, howt goes to the core of our democracy, that we've goto be prepared to make sure we're in a better defensive position in 2018, 2019, frankly my home state early as next week where we have a primary. [shouting questions] neil: no new updates outside of what they had said in the committee hearing room. i do want to pass along something interesting that senator dianne feinstein had asked, democrat from california, why comey was sounding so brave now and why he had, when the president had very much urged him, strongest way possible to let this whole investigation of flynn disappear, why he didn't respond dramatically to the president and more forcefully to the president. he was essentially saying that probably, it was the environment and that maybe, quoting here, if i were stronger i would have.

i was so stunned by the conversation that i just took it in. maybe if i did it again, i would do it better but obviously many republicans including john mccain, who had alluded back to his tripping up on hillary clinton investigation, the back and forth seemed to indicate that you seem to show greater inclination to go after donald trump than you did by extension to go after hillary clinton. obviously mr. comey disagreed. he regrets the fact he wasn't more forceful in responses to predent trump at the time, but again, this comes down to a h said, he said thing here. so it depends what you make of magnitude, what, for example comey said today. former department of justice official robert discontrol on all of that. you know, robert, i i pounce on market reaction on this. if you indulge me, i read markets, you read law. the markets seem to be saying there is no there there so there is nothing impeachable here.

are they getting ahead of reacts appropriate. i don't think anything happened today more likely there will be some kind of grand action against president trump. in fact to me, what inherently political. there is pressure coming from all sides. and you know he, it is hard in my mind to distinguish some of trump's actions from some of the obama justice department actions that comey testified about. he was directed by loretta lynch to, to use the word matter instead of an investigation, which is clearly an attempt to minimize. neil: that one did surprise me. she is obviously trying to say we don't see anything here. comes not too, too long after we

had learned that we learned there was a great deal of concern on part of director comey at the time on that to have the administration, the obama administration, either put out something on this or say something on this. they opted not to. i guess what i'm asking is, whether it is that matter or this matter, whether there is anything here that would warrant continued, either investigations, protracted summer-long events like we saw with watergate in 1973, in either case? >> it ends up being a political question. neil: yeah. >> legally, the beginning end, trump is the president. he could end the investigation if he wanted to. might not be politically wise to do it but not like there will be some grand jury that will indict donald trump. real question becomes does this raise the public's ire or in the political sphere, enough to warrant someone to move forward on impeachment that would have traction in a republican house, then a trial in a republican

senate. what was seen now, things have probably gotten if anything marginally better for president trump today so far thanl: so whu heard today about the president making it very, very clear he would prefer a lot of this go away, what, where is the distinction between talking like that and something that could be deemed obstructing justice? where, i know they call it a smoking gun but where would you draw them. so i think, innocent or more

innocent way, probably poor judgment ftrumpto rise it at all, more innocent way to characterize, as lawyers would. selecting that it is muddled enough that to me, this does not seem like the kind of thing that

is going to get much traction in terms of a serious charge like impeachment. drinks are interesting. thank you comments are very, very much. they might of discussion with danny colson, who essentially you are looking at the fact that comey could have done more, they did not. and that is telling you. explain. >> i think it says volumes by the fact of what it did not do. if he thought there is obstruction of justice here from his duties to go to be a teen attorney general or the attorney general or the oversight committees and tell them that. it is kind of humorous to me that a sixoonine director of the fbi was tidated by anybody. >> you are in the white house. you are in the oval office and maybe you are taken aback. that's how he viewed it. if he had to do it again, he

would do it differently. not a line, he claimed that something like this in his desire to take copious notes after exchanges either on the phone or in-person with president trump, this is something that he never did or had to do with barack obama or george bush. what did you make of that? >> well, it's difficult to understand exactly what he meant by that. i cannot imagine anybody go in and interviewing the president of the united states and not making some notes about it. i have to believe him when he said he didn't typically do it. what we are talking about bottom line here is maybe some misbehavior. there is not a crime here as far as i can see. based on what we are presented with today in the testimony, it there is a crime chance to comey would've done something about it and gone after it appropriately. he has the fbi behind him in oversight committees that would've love to talk to them

about that. neil: the anytime it was in anyone else's hands is after he was fired. the conversation was after he was after it. let me ask you a little bit, we are waiting to hear shortly going into the classified briefing. i don't know if he is going to speak to reporters. any audio on that, guys? you are right, he is a very tall guy. if there is intent and something that orders on impeachable offense, chris christie, you know, whose lawyer is now the president candidate, to be the next fbi director had said of donald trump on this whole matter and the language that might be deemed inappropriate to some, quote, what you are seen as a president publicly learning about the way people react to what he considers to be normal new york city conversation. blogs may be inappropriate, not illegal. what did you think of that?

>> i totally agree with that. i was an fbi agent in new york city for many years. he certainly is a top new yorker and he was expressing frustration. i don't think he believed he could intimidate the fbi director to close the case. first of all, the agents would rise up if that happened. he's got to know that. i think chris christie, i don't normally agree with him, but in this case he's right on the mark. neil: you've been very patient listening to my idiotic questions. we are waiting to hear from danny the full year. he had died soon after the written testimony was released that a confirmed private report that the president was not under investigation in the russian pro mountain site in the president turned out to have been right when he said fin comey yet be exonerated three times. i'm paraphrasing here. do you think that is still the case now? >> i think so.

we won't know the answer to that. mueller is doing investigation. i worked with bob mueller. he is tenacious, tough, not a lot of fun to be around, but i would say was as good as it gets when it comes to the bottom of a complicated serious issue like that. right now the answer is he's not under investigation. neil: i know these things are hard to time, but a lot of people say the longer this drags on, i see things through the prism of my greedy little market guys. they are worried that this disrupts all of the stuff they like him and that this is a soap opera that could go on and on. what is your gut telling you? >> bob mueller will not let it go on and on. as long as they're sending to investigate. they probably take three months or so. first of all he has to digest what has only been done. he's going to bring the same agent in to work for him than the initial thing i'm pretty sure. that's what we did on iran-contra.

it will be about three months. that can be maybe a little long, but not how these things work. it is like watching paint dry sometimes and it takes a long time for the paint to dry properly. neil: you mention this earlier. i know you've got to go. this notion the president notion the president of the united states is meeting with the fbi director of him dinner in a room, would you do that if you knew that was coming obviously they serve at the pleasure of the president, he could fire you at any time. obviously, mr. comey said he was priced at that, that there would be more people in the room. what do you think of that, at the appearance of that? >> the appearance is that weird first of all, the director works the attorney general and there is a chain of command. i would've requested the attorney general be here. he was taken off guard. train to the attorney general already refused himself.

at that time he had appeared >> no, no. that is right. he had at that time. however, he does work the attorney general. it is more appropriate for the director of the fbi to be in the company when he talks to the president unless there's some tactical situation, or the director of the fbi talks to the president about a tactical resolution and international terrorism investigation. other than that, i don't see a reason for a private conversation frankly. we need to keep the fbi independent and that's really important. neil: by the way life come it wasn't my last question. the other issue that might have motivated the multiple briefings by director comey comey had at the time on the whole e-mail scandal with hillary clinton that the genesis for a lot of that might have been with the justice department saying treat this as a matter, not an investigation. the follow-up with the clinton at the time meeting with loretto nsch at an airrt -- an

airport tarmac. he said it may set later on to discuss grandkids, kids and all that. what did you make of that now if that is a backdrop for what seemed to be a couple different briefings? >> here is the big issue for me. the way the department of justice treated the comey investigation of hillary clinton was totally inappropriate, making the matter of the fact they would not give them it or injury on the most important investigation on the fbi's late at that time. back to me totally controlled the investigation. it limited with the agents could do. it hampered his so basically the director of the fbi was forced to make a decision based on an incomplete investigation. there's only one way to manipulate the fbi administer the department of justice cutting the water off. quite frankly. neil: on that matter and on this matter, anything that gets resurrected or drawn out again,

and that his they are both started to be fired. the >> they do. and it's politics. we saw it today, beautiful politics. that's why you guys were there and that is why i watch. neil: all right, danny. thank you very much. good stuff. we are waiting for the president's lawyer to respond to all of this. blake burman is live at the white house with all of the above. reporter: hyder, neil. a lot from the white house and the president on this day as it relates to the hearings on capitol hill. the president might like to read his response to this. as we know, that did not hpe at all. the last week was yesterday at 8:00 a.m. at the noon hour today, for half an hour the president went down the road to the northwest part of the city to speak with faith and freedom coalition. gave a 30 minute or so speech, no mention of jim comey whatsoever. he said on the topic of religious freedoms and other

things that wrap around that. what we are waiting for at this moment is the personal attorney to the president mark katz awaits. he will be giving statement sometime soon here within the next hour. the guidance we were given was after the comey hearing and that portion has wrapped up. at the white house, the press secretary sarah sanders had a briefing with reporters that was not on camera but on the record. she deferred just about everything to this park kasowitz statement. however, she did relate to a couple things as you know jim comey testified one of the reasons he wrote down his nose and what was discussed as he put it in these meetings, in his memos was because he was worried that the president might lie his words. sanders was asked about that, whether or not the president is a liar.

this was her response friend sarah sanders saying now, i can definitively say the president is not a lr and frankly i think it is insulting that question would be asked. neil, question after question got put before sanders at the briefing put on kasowitz's play. all eyes turn to him for the response from this white house and more importantly, this president. neil: play, thank you very, very much. if you step way, way back, whether it influenced the result quoting mr. comey, i see no indication of that whatsoever. this is a response to the committee chairman richard burr of north carolina and that while he was concerned about the pressure he was receiving a national security adviser michael flynn and going light on it, that there is not aimed to indicate even when the president said he hoped you could let this go, dad did in any way was indicative of something far

broader or more far reaching that russians might affect the election result, that they will almost be certain involved in the election but as to whether it turns the result and hillary clinton would've won without their role, that he did not say. and that was a key point that the committee chairman, richard were wanted to raise and wanted to clarify. one of the many reasons you see what is going on, stocks that are up, they do not think this makes the president look good, but it does not make him look like a president about to be impeached. that is their impression of this. markets can be wrong because they take advice and views from lawyers who oftentimes are wrong. neither has an impeccable track record. the street is pouncing on the notion that this is not watergate and even though we are talking about the kickoff of a summer hearing and a lot of people compared it to the somerset victory in the watergate hearings and howard baker, what did the president know and when did he know it

that this does not seem to be rising or maybe stooping to that level depending on your point of view. let's bring an intel report host, my friend trish regan. we've got market watcher lives. our daybreak to react the way they are? >> absolutely. in other words, this doesn't make trump look od, but it doesn't make our president look as though he's going to be impeached. i'll tell you it makes look really bad and that is james comey. to a certain extent, there is a built-in, you know, sort of dissent that donald trump is not that familiar with procedure and maybe a little too off the cuff, et cetera. james comey should've known better and yet he's out there writing is there writing a stylus, leaking them to his friends, the columbia law professor and telling them go ahead and link this to the press. neil: i doubt that he was the leaker. now we know why of course. what did you make of his argument that this was something

he felt compelled to do because the president was lying and he had to get his story out. >> i think he doesn't like the fact he got fired and he doesn't like how he got fired. we are see that i'll come forward now as a result. but, i will tell you this, if you feel as someone is you once you to basically block an investigation, don't you do the necessary thing at the given time? i really am challenged by the sense you don't confront the situation head-on. he say and i wasn't strong, was sent brave enough. that is what i say, neil, he does not look good in this. neil: the president? >> no, no, james comey peered neil: adult tank the president looks good either. not impeachable. >> the president does not look good either. neil: that's a very good point. go ahead. marco rubibrought it up and i

think he made a very valid point. how is that all this stuff got leaked except for the fact the president was not under investigation. everything else is getting leaked except the president. neil: the irony being what the president claims that ever went down and had been saying he had been especially exonerated through different times turns out to have been true. to your point companies place to a trish was saying and what was mentioned here. that might've been one of the reasons that stocks advance that maybe they sense that they dodged a bullet here where they want to see the tax-cut that they like that stuff. what do you make of that argument? >> well, i buy into it but i don't think anybody in the marketplace quite frankly has james comey having much credibility at the end of the day. look at the shenanigans that he was the main character on all of

last summer with the hillary clinton investigation. we never expected that there is going to be a bombshell that comes out in testimony in his statement was released last night we were able to parse through that. they dipped down a little bit -- neil: there were no bombshells in it, the kind of thing that makes you say this is a long summer. >> i'll tell you the biggest bombshell in it for me is that it was theater of the absurd. people were worried about donald trump to strain our institutions that we have. when we see things like thisey t is likely a committee meeting and testimony that will lead to nowhere, that is when people lose faith in our institutions. this is the absurdity of washington words become. quite frankly, the market bounced back. not only were there no bombshells, but we are accustomed to this. this is not going issue as long as donald trump as president.

people want to destroy him and there's an investigation every other month. the market doesn't care. he just doesn't care. neil: you think that the point? one thing they were raising piracy thanks fbi director mueller and chief counsel to get to the bottom of this is going to move quickly. maybe the next three months have a report that once and i'll put this to bed. it sounds like a timetable to me. what do you think about? >> if that's the case, you will love it. that is a big sign that it's going to be behind us. the most disturbing thing i thought of the meeting was the long awkward silence after donald trump asked for his loyalty. it sounded like a bad romance novel. it would be a pity. whether that's impeachable. >> and that is the point. but then, i think we are getting a little bit of a reality, but we are disappointed we didn't

have to go through this. there's going to be more headlines and stuff. the president is probably not very tactful, but this is not obstruction of justice. wiping your e-mail server is an obstruction of justice, this isn't anywhere close to that. at the end of the day, the markets want tget on the desk of a focus tax reform in the future as posed to political sideshows. neil: one of the things chris christie said if explaining the president a lot forced behavior and conduct that people react to what he considers to be normal in new york city. >> quite possible to the president thinks he saying one thing and james comey is taking a different way. i need your loyalty. neil: and not knowing the mechanics of how it looks. >> i get back to this. i think donald trump to a certain extent roper people. this is the way he talks. did you really think he meant

that because what he thought is he's got a little room, for whatever reason. it's just his first holiday type and america has afforded him that room. james comey is the more serious type. he doesn't have the same kind of room. i really do think that this may be confirmed in everyone's eyes but they already suspect dead. that is by james comey has a credibility problem. the fact that he was writing the stuff i've been giving it to his friends at columbia law school who has been leaking into the press, that causes me to be concerned. neil: did so after he was fired. thank you, guys, very, very much. so making going on simultaneously. we are waiting to hear from the president's lawyer, mark kasowitz. he had already said that this exonerates the president, that there is no watergate era. the fact that this event goes on with promises of more hearings

would be a waste of time. we have not heard anything from the president this. no trees from the president. nothing for the president at all. more after this.

will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away.

ask your doctor about cialis.

>> the clinton campaign at the

time was using all sorts of euphemisms, security review, matters covered things like that for what was going on. we were going to both have to testify and talk publicly about it. was she going to authorize us to have an investigation. don't call it a matter. it gave the impression that they would align the way we talked about her work. the way the political campaign was described in the senate candidate. whittaker moments additional pin. neil: i will say this about jim comey. he offended democrats and republican -- the operation were this not so much in a lot of the press, but the fact that you have it. the attorney general of the united states urging that the clinton e-mails to be relegated to a matter they were pursuing. and then president bill clinton at the time on an airport tarmac was that attorney general.

gop fundraiser for the strategist michael starr hawkins. no well, you are seeing and hearing this. the end result is whatever you make of either or, in the prior investigation with hillary clinton or this one on the russian role in the election and donald trump's role with that at all. it shows a guy who alienates both. >> is good on, is part because he will go on both sides and say what he needs to say. the headline needs to be about to read a lynch. this is pretty big. she gave an order on how she should handle it and it was deceptive to the american people. the big word of the day on all of this is the word hope. i think that when donald trump

and comey were in a room together and i think that esa, and my under investigation and comey says no, i felt like in a comfortable report which made him sit her there. that is kind of like man to man. if new york city, maybe they will understand the way donald trump are people from new york city to the net than they are hustlers. they ride the line, but they don't cross the line. a lot of people are getting introduced to how donald trump does business. neil: hope can always be in the eye ofhe beholder. it can always be like a tony soprano dame. i hope this disappears. i'm joking. go ahead, finish that. >> the meal, i hope after angelina jolie and brad take a divorce, i hope brad pit asks me out. it is what it is. neil: that's a very, very good

analogy. a scary one, but a good one. michael, what is the fallout from this? i don't imagine newspapers pleaded with that aspect of the story of loretta lynch and this shall they could be a matter on the investigation. they will lead with the inappropriate behavior at donald trump, even though it is not at least -- i've talked to plenty on the show was a non-impeachable action on the part of donald trump that there might not be anything else to go on here. what do you think? >> let me say i am an attorney in new york city. i've been a public defender and a prosecutor here. it will be interesting to see whether there are actionable charges filed against donald trump for obstruction. neil: du is a lawyer for your policies notwithstanding that would be an actual impeachment high crime misdemeanor action? >> the high crime and misdemeanor is a political thing. when it comes to obstruction of just this, i do.

when you look at the intent required under obstruction of justice, you look for is whether the individual himself is trying to obstruct the investigation. when you look at what donald trump said on the campaignrail for months, criticizing loretta lynch from speaking wi bill clinton, and it shows that he knew what he was doing was wrong. hillary clinton criticized the clinton for the meeting on the tarmac and democrats like myself has criticized them. what is problematic now as you have republicans began as a character battle between donald trump and james comey. neil: watergate was a progression of events that deteriorated quickly into a cover-up scandal. that was undeniable. the only thing i see here, no well if they could play semantics hoping something goes away for a friend and loyal nsa director who was forced out. but not saying shut his thing

down. make it go away. maybe it is just in the tone of the language. the hope word is going to come out. that is a great significant distinction. then again, i'm no lawyer. what do you think? >> nor am i. i will tell you i see this then look at the markets. i think that people are saying what the market is at an all-time high that this is not something that will be a continuation. but is there a sense

>> yeah, i do think the investigatn will wrap up in a couple months. this investigation has been ongoing for 10 months. by the time it is done and wrapped up -- neil: what if it is wrapped the way i outline here. >> at end of the day we want to find out truth what is happening, if the president is exonerated good we find out what happened and mueller was allowed to come to a conclusion but i want to go back to the word hope. very rarely in any criminal case i dealt with did a defendant say i would kill a witness. i hope that witness, i hope that witness doesn't show up to trial. same is true here. what you had president trump, president trump, telling his subordinate, james comey, that he hoped he would stop the investigation. it wasn't a direct comment but it didn't need to be. when nix con made his comment during watergate. he didn't say stop the investigation.

he simply said yes, that was enough to have -- neil: there was a little minor issue of payments goings back and forth to make sure -- >> absolutely. but a statement caught on tape. caught on tape ended up being the final death knell. neil: doesn't look there are tapes. even if it gets to point you think it would, noelle, pick up on this, could be a he said, he said thing and could advance from that, right? >> it could be he he said, he s, you're really right. going back to the root of it, will come back down to the adjective of hope. hope, if you want to be clear on it is not a order. a hope is hope, it is a wish, not an order. it is not an instruction to tell comey what to do. neil: thank you both very much. listen to comey talking about how he believes the trump administration then and since has defamed him. >> the administration then chose to defame me and more

importantly the fbi, by saying that the organization was in disarray. that it was poorly-led. that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. those were lies, plain and simple. and i am so sorry that the fbi workforce had to hear them. neil: i think that the president was referring pretty much to comey, in his disparaging remarks but i could be wrong. here to jog my memory, charlie gasparino. charlie, where is all this going? >> we should point out comey, some maybe not your air, but on fox business, but fox, rank-and-file were upset with comey and needed to change. i don't think that was accurate to be honest with you. i talk to fbi agents all the time. he has great respect within the rank-and-file. i'm not saying he has done a good job. neil: whatever you make, i hear you on that but the real problem was the president's real problem

was with comey himself? >> yeah, butere's where -- listen, i don't think there is obstruction case here. i'm not a lawyer. i don't needo be. i talk to lawyers every day. you have to get inside his he head to figure out his intent which they will never do. try unraveling that one. neil: what do you think christie said, this is new york city conversation? >> this is where i think the pro-trump side goes too far this is not a legal case unless the democrats control congress and they impeach him. this is a political issue. it is very damaging politically. we have a president clearly does not understand boundaries or understand how to comport himself with the head of the fbi. did something really reckless. think about it this way. promotes. him. i want to keep you. i think you're doing a great job. if you believe comey, that is what he said. the minute that -- this is after comey essentially helped him win the election by doing this stuff with clinton. the minute comey turns on him he fires him. that optically that looks so bad.

here is where else it looks bad -- neil: the president would have had to know he, he is not an idiot, that move alone would not make it go away. >> who knows? listen, donald trump is very complicated guy. he acts -- neil: aren't we all? >> i can figure -- give you a pumpkin spice latte -- neil: i'm yours, absolutely. >> but i'm just telling you that is riddle wrapped in a conundrum. the other thing with him is, if you know him he acts impulsively a lot without thinking. that is where this came down. this was so reckless for him to handle it this way. quite frankly, i was like struck by the fact that trump never asked comey about specifically if he ever thought the russians re really infiltrating. neil: it was all about -- >> it was just about him. neil: we had a guest, i think you might have overheard, the mueller will have it wrapped up by three months, end of summer. what do you think of that?

>> i think he should. sooner rather than later. that is what he should be doing. neil: i don't see impeachment hearings. final report, embarrassing to the president, should no better but i don't think they lay a glove on him. >> impeachment is impossible. with be republican controlling congress. neil: they could have carryover. >> obstruction of justice will not happen. legal bounds bringing a charge against a president is very difficult. i talked to lawyers, i'm possible to charge him with obstruction even if you have a smoking gun. they would charge nixon after he left the presidency. when you're the president, from what i understand, under the constitution, the ability to charge someone with a crime like that is very difficult. you have to go through the process of impeachment which is political process. neil: you said one of the houses in another party's control. >> right. neil: i mentioned relief rally

in stocks. not as much of a relief rally now. thinking that the president will be embarrassed. president is wincing here but use to do so that. there is no watergate here. nothing approaching iran-contra here. some of the more memorable hearings up on capitol hill. so everyone just calm down. it will not get into that. agendas ck on, what do you think? >> listen, markets, in the short run are not perfect as you know. they're theoretically perfect in the long run when all information is gathered. we don't have all the information. >> and they're often wrong. >> often wrong, just before the financial crisis, dow 13,000. what the market, john coffey, no trump backer, he is smart guy, really understands obstruction and white-collar crimes, he is columbia law professor. he lays it all pretty simply. lemm impossible to bring an obstruction case against him. he will not be indicted.

by the way evidence don't show obstruction. hope, i would like you to do this. he didn't impede the investigation. he can fire comey for any reason. the real issue for me and for the country right now is politically. this is pretty embarrassing. just underscores a recklessness on part of the president. does this somehow impede his agenda going forward. neil: do you think it does? i don't think it does. >> i don't know. i hope not. he has a republican congress. screw it, full steam ahead. get the tax cuts. neil: behind the scenes you have the kevin bradys, all the others house ways and means still working on tax cuts. >> deregulation. think of the worst case scenario. i know traders think this, please don't tweet at me when i say this, i'm not saying this is going to happen. if trump had to resign, what do you get instead? you get pence. i'm telling you traders, investors think that, what they feel more rational guy. and possibly a republican congress. this is not an existential

threat to the economy right now because the alternative would be hillary clinton who is, who is, let's be real clear, she he was very far left during the campaign in her economic policy. anything would be better than that. neil: let me ask, his lawyer, donald trump's lawyer mark kasowitz we're waiting for him to speak. >> know him well. neil: what he said here would confirm that is comey's written testimony at the time would confirm ere is no investigation of donald trump himself in this russian probe. now assuming he is right, if that is the case here, is he getting ahead of himself? is the administration getting ahead of itself? play this out for us? >> we know people close to kasowitz, someone i know very well for a long time, he planned to go to war with comey until he saw the statement yesterday. when we reported that last night, i urged anchors, liz claman, liz macdonald, charles payne, that is what he

is saying now. wait for the testimony. if you look at written testimony it was pretty bland, i thought somewhat benign and somewhat exculpatory as kasowitz did. under questioning comey was much tougher on trump. let's see if kasowitz goes back to plan a. neil: call him a liar? >> called him a liar. see if this go back to plan a to start to roast comey personally. neil: that in past distracted and fed media beast and tweets and getting off topic. >> maybe. neil: he has not tweeted. he spoke earlier today in washington. everyone was on this hearing but we have not from the president. closest sentiment revealed from the lawyer but what do you think the president does now? >> you know. here's the thing, kasowitz has been channeling donald trump for years. this guy and trump are very close. neil: really? >> yeah. he is a legal version of donald.

that means he is a tough hombre. he will go, my gut says, after hearing comey, that he is going back to plan a. that he is has talked to donald, rip his you know what off, right now. let's go after this guy. that is my gut. neil: weren't you left with in a sense of couple my, that he -- comey, he dripped away, a bit of a bombshell to report on this meeting, the best he had was that the president hoped he would go light on flynn, going back to hillary clinton, no less than the former torn general had said, we see this as matter, not investigation. and, that he was much, much more concerned about bill clinton meeting loretta lynch on that tarmac. so if you buy the argument that he is sort of dropped his resolve and investigations, he really sluffed off the clinton one but has not since the trump one. >> well, i took it differently.

neil: that is my impression. >> i took it differently. i took it, that he didn't like the optics of clinton meeting with loretta lynch. he didn't like the fact that live lynch tried to tell him how to frame the investigation. you know, what did he call it, euphemism for investigation that she tried to get him to use -- neil: matter. >> a matter. and i took it -- neil: refer to you there is the gaspo matter. >> by the way that usually means fired. see that is not a euphemism. here's the thing, i think he could walk away saying he didn't put up with her stuff. he said, okay, that is why i'm taking over the investigation, do what i want because i didn't trust her. neil: imagine, had she not done that, he would have had no reason to update the press. >> yes. neil: on an investigation, almost ironically it was the obama justice department -- >> that caused hillary clinton the election. neil: that tore pea he owed her. the same department that that

nix him making a public statement. >> right. neil: if i'm hillary clinton, watching it at home, those sons of -- right? >> those idiots. here is the thing we keep saying it, bob woodward and carl bernstein came up with it, it is cover-up, not the crime. when i covered -- neil: we're ping-ponging, i don't see a cover-up with the trump thing. i certainly did and do with a lot of hillary clinton stuff but here, maybe i see a little sloppy, strong-arming -- >> stupid stuff. neil: yeah. >> it is so dumb, some of this stuff you wonder why somebody that is smart enough to get he elected president -- neil: but in the world of business that is not surprising right? >> what trump saying? if you're head of -- the problem with donald, he ran a family branding business when came down to it. used to be real estate. he never had a board of directors to report to.

if you're a ceo, jeff immelt, jamie dimon -- neil: he is new to the washington way. >> he deals with lawyers all the time. neil: yeah. >> you don't say to the fbi director what he said. neil: disavow of notion, just could be me speaking, i could be wrong, i often am, i don't see anything advancing -- >> your last guest said he was a lawyer or not. there is no obstruction case here ta tjudge napolitano. he would be really good on this. there is, you can't, you can't sort of, how can you figure out intent from anything that donald trump did? you don't have emails. probably. maybe donald trump sent an email that shows intent but even there, it is really, really difficult to pull out intent from those factors. neil: we're trying to use his tweets. >> good luck on that. what is going on in donald trump's head at 3:00 a.m.

in the morning afterketful of kfc. that gets you intent. neil: that is me. hang on. don't wander away. we're waiting for president's lawyer. meantime former investment banker carol roth, fox business network's nicole petallides, last but not least, connell, i haven't slept in days, mcshane. connell, end with you, begin with you, i could be wrong, i just don't see this accelerating beyond what we saw today, unless mueller is getting something we're not aware of. is that is the case, play out the markets if this doesn't advance. >> kind of a big yawn. they're making same bet you're making. i think we're premature, significant part of today such as it is, comey essentially put this in mueller's hands. people may be right and assessment of investors may be right, that he doesn't have anywhere to go with that but there were multiple occasions

today, former director was asked about obstruction of justice, but he never ruled it out. he never ruled it in was up to mueller. early answer to senator burr, mull letter would look at it. does that mean he is looking at it? i don't know. he seems to think, obviously maybe there is axe to grind there, there is somewhere else nor it to go. but a big yawn, 25 up on the dow. neil: carol, one of the things we learned that the president was proven right, three times, then fbi director james comey said he was not being investigated. others were, flynn included but the president was not being drawn into this russia thing. that was then. it is possible now that he could be or that it's not over, but what then, flipping it around would be the impact if mueller, even if he wraps up in a few month as one guest predicted he would, uncovers more here? >> i think from a market

perspective the biggest issue is perception of uncertainty. we know he there is always uncertainty, but the market perceives uncertainty in a different way andthey think this is going to drag out for a very long time that is almost worse coming to either conclusion regardless what that conclusion is. if this comes to mueller and he seems to think there is something else there, that is going to drag out that could be a issue for the market. because it means congress will not be focused othings le tax reform and health care reform and the financial sector. maybe financial regulatory reform. those are things market cares about right now. so i think that their perception of what the uncertainty is today, we saw as soon as testimony was over, that the market really liked at that, if anything else came out that could change minds pretty quickly. neil: interesting, nicole, you were on the floor as hearing going on, stocks holding up

pretty well, i don't want to make this immediate connection, but they reached their highs almost pegged to that discussion about hoping an investigation will go away and ordering it slapped down, when senator burr raised that distinction, the president never ordered anything slapped down, seemed to take the wind out of the balloon here. am i right about that. and what does this market do with that? >> traders moved this slowly higher as they saw no huge bombshells, no huge revelations, no obstruction of justice. they're not getting anything that is bad news. no news is good news ultimately. i will say we talked to so many traders looking at markets closely and the uncertainty what happens, that is going to be there, that is going to be there, the traders seem to have this theme, they know people are trying hard to get trump out one way or another over next four years. that is what they expect.

so they know that uncertainty remains but big picture, they like that the banks acted well. they, the small caps acted well. the dow moved to new highs. we're looking at possible 35th record close since the election, up 16% since then. they're still feeling pretty good on this. trader says if they're selling on the bell, because markets are really at highs. don't take it that we're interpreting it like something's wrong because that is not the case. neil: connell, one thing you also have to ask about where this goes from here. you know, there are a lot of people looking at this, and it doesn't make the president looks good, doesn't mean that he will be impeached, he is blunt as chris rist said, sort of a new york style, but that is not worthy after fox alert, are they right? >> maybe. i mean let's say that they are. that creates political problems even if it doesn't create legal problems for this president. then big picture, whatever you

think of what is going on in washington, if you're on the side of it being a witch-hunt or something very legitimate happening in if this investigation, what does it do? this is larger question, we talked about for weeks, what does it do to the president's agenda? this conversation and wall-to-wall coverage providing today, everything else that follows it, continue very best stall that agenda. where will we be a few weeks or few months from now on health care and tax reform and what are the timetables for those things? that is effect of all this. the fact it will remain in our collective conversation no matter whether he like it or not, or support it or not, it will still be out there, that is a threat to the president's agenda from a political perspective. neil: carol, if you had your, looking at markets, looking at those in the investment community, they like the trump agenda. they might have problems with trump personally but like his agenda, if it is delayed,

nothing to do with the whole russia or elections, are they worried if it's a 2018 event rather than a 2017 event? >> i think absolutely they are because it really brings into question whether congress can execute and certainly as we've all sat by and watch congress not execute on a lot of things over the years, i ink that is ry legitimate concern. so if it is pushed into 2018, then the question becomes, do they continue to kick the can down the road and that becomes problematic and all the wonderful things businesses have been doing because they are optimistic about that agenda, investing in capital and thinking about hiring more people, small businesses getting to work on main street, those things there could be potential pause. i don't think it would so much cause any sort of recession but we could end up in this sluggish growth phase we've been seeing when we hoped there would be a fuel or accelerant to move things to higher growth. neil: you know, nicole, one

thing lost in this, what was the impetus for the thing in the beginning was role russians might have played, if mr. comey is right, most certainly did play in our election last year, even he stressed, not that it influenced the final results. taking very dramatically here, just for the point of editorial here,. >> right. neil: what if they did influence the final results? what if they find proof they swayed votes? it escalates from the president and when he knew it, it is possible that comey is wrong about that, this influenced results, comey himself didn't believe so, but all bets are off, right? >> right now everybody believes the russians are out of this for the near term. there was no collaboration, there was no vote-fixing and they like that and market moves to highs. i would have to think there would be some sort of a knee-jerk reaction to a headline. that gets me to my point if

there is some real evidence of that. which brings me to my point when carol was speaking, tax cuts if they go into 2018 what happens, brings uncertainty, but if there are headlines go with it, give us an education, this is certain, this will happen at this time, likely going to be this amount, if those, if the rhetoric out of washington remains positive and on point, that will give at least fodder to the market. neil: well-put, guys, thank you very, very much. i want to clarify, was only using that extreme example what could dislodge the market momentum, proof that the russians not only interfered with the election, seems to be a given, but to the point that it did influence and switch results. no one is not saying that, clearly director comey, not a fan of this president, but i hasten to add the only variable, the wild card we're not seeing to be clear. mr. comey said today the president was not under investigation. also said multiple times in fact

that neither president trump nor anyone on his staff had asked to stop this investigation, or, you know, to do anything that might be untoward or in that case, outright illegal. on the phone with us right now is james kallstrom, the former fbi assistant director. james, you heard a little bit of this back and forth he, barring that, the president making very clear, coming from comey him seven, no one asked him to stop a russia investigation, that is at the heart of this entire thing. if the president didn't do that, and at best said hoped would go light, go light on his friend general flynn, is there anything there? >> no, there is nothing there, neil and i have no issues with comey on any of that stuff he talked about. my issue with comey is, you know he didn't act, he didn't have this attitude when he was told

by lynch he couldn't call the investigation an investigation. or he couldn't have a grand jury. neil: that only came to light, i just heard about that today. >> or, neil, even worse, he didn't investigate the irs after they violated the, the fourth amendment, and the freedom of speech and everything on thousands of people, did nothing. did nothing on the perjury of benghazi. did nothing on guns going south. he never wrote any memos on any of that stuff. but when obama publicly said on national television during the clinton investigation that there was no evidence there, and also he did nothing when they made him shut down the investigation on the clinton foundation. so that is the problem i have with comey. neil: what did you make of the fact that, again and again, comey kept saying, and quoting the president saying at the time, this dinner, i guess, this one on one dinner, hoping for

something, hoping that he would ease up on general flynn? but again under questioning from a variety of senators including one democrat, there is a a big difference hoping from something and obstructing something, right? >> without question. he was put off by the mere suggestion, but he had no issues with the other things i described. neil: so where do you think this is all going, jim? >> nowhere. although they will keep beating bushes as long as they can, until somebody in leadership, in the democratic party says this is over with. i don't know when that will be neil. hopefully soon. neil: we heard one guest talk about the fact it could be over, that is, mueller's investigation could wrap up in a matter of months, three months. they're working pretty fast and furious to do that. hopefully would be by labor day. what do you make of that, what does that tell you? >> here is the other point with mueller. i know bob mueller well.

i was on his advisory board for eight years. he was the director obviously, when i was not too long out of the fbi but bob mueller and jim comey have been close, close friend or over two decades. and you know, i don't understand why nobody in washington i asking the question about the clear conflict of interest he has on any issues comey. now unless they focused his investigation on just a very narrow thing to do with russia, fine. but if it has anything to do with comey and his actions with clinton foundation or clinton, he has a clear, huge conflict of interest. neil: what did you think of what lindsey graham was sort of saying to take oxygen out of this a little bit? the very fact that comey testified today means, obviously had to be run through mueller had serious concerns or doubts about it or even entertaining obstruction of justice or would get that sensitive, he wouldn't have let comey speak, would that

be the case? >> well you would think so but i don't know. would you think that would be the case, yes. clearly i go back to the conflict of interest issue. it is preposterous here that i don't hear that coming from anybody. neil: well-put, you're right about that. i doubt it will get much headline coverage manana. james kallstrom. still with me, connell mcshane, charlie gasparino. connell, that will be issue here, whether anywhere to go here. much depends on mr. mueller and if he wraps things up by by labor day, let's say has tough admonishing report on president trump an inappropriate behavior, strong-arm, whatever you want to call it, it doesn't become a high crime and a misdemeanor. then what? >> well, yeah, especially with republicans controlling the house where any impeachment

proceeding if you're alluding to high crimes and misdemeanors would have to begin. neil: unless it is carried over to 2018, democrats take house or senate. >> even more important next year we'll be covering. where does it go? the conversation that presumably mr. mueller will have to have with president of the united states will be the most important conversation in all of this because at the end of the day this is he said, he said situation unless there are tapes. lordy, i hope there are tapes whatever the quote was from jim comey at hearing. mr. comey laid out his side of it. what donald trump said to him is not obstruction of justice. and, you know, you have to show a level of intent that he wanted to end the investigation into the russian

meddling and his aids and whether his aids were part of that, he wanted to show that he wanted to end that. and other than firing comey and pulling out from the firing of comey that that is the intent, there's not much intent there, and he can predicate firing comey because he doesn't like him. >> the only thing i would say, and i'm certainly not a lawyer, what about the pattern of the conversation. >> good luck. >> with other officials besides comey. >> well, if he said to those other officials, and you have them on the record saying donald trump told me he wants to end this investigation because it's going to put him in jail, then maybe you have got it. but we're not even close to that yet. of all the leaks, you would think something like that might leak out at some point, and it hasn't. i just don't see an obstruction charge here. what i see is something politically damaging, and i see the president being incredibly naïve. neil: but if you're looking for something politically damaging, then best to get out of the way earlier rather than

later. we're toldhat this is running late, that the president's lawyer is going to address reports. he is expected to respond to this allegation on the part of former fbi director comey that the president repeatedly that they don't like that's the way framing donald. that the president has been proven right on the three times comey told him he was not part of that investigation. what do you make of that? >> and sarah huckabee sanders says right away when the -- it was off camera. but when she briefed reporters after that at the white house, not a liar. so i mean, that was probably -- and, again, to charlie doesn't point, if this is a political story, one of the more politically damaging parts of this. i mean, think about it from the democrat's point of view if you're going to be working with the president on his agenda infrastructure or whatever it is and you have this guy being called a liar. is this the kind of person you can work with? and that even further stalls. i think that's the biggest part story. >> he went out -- didn't h