...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. >> the republican party, which used to hold itself up as a law and order party, seems intent on destroying the credibility of our premier law and order agency. >> we're not going to become them, the republicans, because they are totally irresponsible in this regard. they're talking about the intelligence community. >> this is designed to impugn the credibility of the fbi, to undermine the investigation. >> how does it happen that you have a republican party which for so many years defended law enforcement, defended the intelligence agencies, are now turning against them? and this gets you back to the mueller investigation and the

idea of disparaging mr. mueller. neil: all right, i'm seeing this and all the rage and a lot of it can be on both sides, but, man, oh, man, to hear a lot of democrats criticizing, the harm it could do to the fbi, i seem to remember a good many of them, including the ones you just saw there singing a very different tune when it came to concerns about then director comey going after hillary clinton. take a look. >> when the director of the fbi, mr. comey, released that letter two fridays ago, he became the leading republican political operative. >> i think you should take a hard look at what he has done and i think it would not be a bad thing for the american people if he did step down. >> and this latest missive and the leaks that are now coming from the department, i think, don't reflect well on the director or the bureau and i

think is a serious mistake. >> he owes not only secretary clinton, but the american people an explanation for what appears to be an appalling action. neil: all right. so, when it comes to bashing the fbi, it can be a bipartisan affair. it depends on what hat you're wearing or what stage you are out in the campaign or noncampaign. let's go to former fbi official. terry, whithout getting into th politics of it, because it gets crazy. the next step seems to be where do we go with this memo and then the release, presumably of a democratic memo that counters everything that's in this republican memo, but stepping back, where is all of this going? >> well, to get to your first question, neil, there's two things in the memo i think are very important and if they're accurate, and i have every reason to believe they are, then they're really the focus of what we should be talking about. number one, if the fbi quotes

christopher steele as a source in 2016 because of reliability and credibility, because he was going out and talking to media organizations, that's significant. when the fbi looks at sources every once in a while we've got to validate that they and the opinion of the case agent are being truthful. and so, they closed him because they felt they had credibility issues. so, that's a problem if they then turned around and used this information in a fisa search application or fisa wire tap application and never volunteered anything to the judge, but there's another aspect of that. i worked hundreds of counter intelligence cases over 30 years, this is very important. it's totally abnormal and unusual, they would then turn around and have the source briefed and debriefed by an official of the department of justice. those people are supposed to make sure there are balance in these kinds of things.

but here they were a willing major participant in it and then they were interviewed by the fbi. that is entirely inappropriate, improper and just deadout wrong. secondly, if andrew mccabe, in his december 2017 hearing, said that without this dossier we would never have been able to get this fisa application approved, then we have a real problem. yes, you could argue that the foundation of the first application, the foundation of the entire case after that is in some sort of jeopardy. now, that's a legal issue and i'll leave it at that. for the fbi, the issue is this, they should have fronted that to the judges. there are five judges on a fisa court. it was their decision to decide how this would interfere or affect their decision. neil: but the fisa judge or judges over the course of time and repeated requests to do this, would they have been aware and why wouldn't they have asked the source of this material? >> well, you know, usually they

do ask a lot of questions and this was one of the types of information we don't have. we don't have access to what the judges deliberated and what they asked, but your question's well taken. when you talk about three 90-day extension of that fisa. when you get an extension of a fisa, you have to independently, almost, reflect in your investigation the previous 90 days, have just about everything new that is building upon what you had before. so, there should be a lot more information there. neil: right. >> but, again, what was in it? what was talked about, what was said because if we never fronted that this source was being paid by fusion gps. that lurking in the background was the democratic national committee, these are all really significant issues and a judge would want to know that. neil: as a former fbi official yourself, does it offend you, as seems to be a lot of politicians are saying, for the propriety

and the reputation of the fbi to have its motives second guessed or to have a couple of people's motives second guessed that they're on a political witch hunt. people like john mccain says it serves nobody's interest, no party's, no person only vladimir putin, i can't imagine that's the case, but how do you feel about that? >> neil, i begin by being annoyed and then more agitated. and then like just about every fbi agents i worked with, some are currently in the fbi that i know, we don't need any of these politicians to go and tell the american public that we're really upset about this because we're not. fbi agents do not conduct themselves this way and people who work cases and people who go before courts and judges, and the fisa court, we would never operate like this. neil: so you would kwelcome the scrutiny-- just to be clear you'd welcome the scrutiny that the fbi is getting now. >> absolutely.

i mean, this is-- not only do we welcome it, i mean, my message to the public is loud and clear, this has to be cleaned up and we have to find out who was at the bottom of this because you know, we could talk forever, but as an old counterintelligence type agent, the indications of an intelligence operation were written all over a lot of this stuff from day one, but not from the russians, from, it turns out the democratic party. neil: fair enough. >> and we need some answers. and that's how i feel. and that's how many of us feel. neil: terry, that's very interesting. and your perspective, carries a great deal of weight. stepping back from this, if it means you're compromising this institution, go back to the vietnam war and the pentagon papers and a lot of people were upset about the body counts and the administration, had there not been the zeal to get to the

bottom of what the pentagon was reporting we would have never known. it did a lot of good and something in retrospect would say, it's good for america. doesn't the same apply here? after this. intimates has pro-skin technology designed to quickly wick away moisture to help maintain your skin's natural balance. for a free sample call 1-877-get-tena. for a free sample my healthy routine helps me feel my best. so i add activia yogurt to my day. with its billions of live and active probiotics, activia may help support my digestive health, so i can take on my day. activia. now in probiotic dailies.

>> all right, you've heard about the release of the republican memo. devon nunez releasing that of the intelligence committee. the has hour and ten minutes said, what about that democratic memo? there is one of those that sort of counters everything in the republican memo. well, we had the house judiciary committee chairman on earlier advocating its release, too. maybe get it all cleared through committee and get the president to write off on it and let people in the daylight of day kind of decides themselves. members of the homeland security and appropriations subcommittee

coming to us via skype. congressman, what do you think of that. get the democratic memo out. you've got the republican memo, let people decide. >> first of all, let me take the politics out of this. first of all, we had the fbi director, you know, the department of justice, hand picked by president trump, they're saying that they had grave concerns about the release of this first memo, number one. number two, when you provide information to the fisa court, keep in mind that those judge-- that judge or those judges are well-seasoned jurists. they're going to ask the questions and we don't know what was given to them on that 50, 60 pages whatever that initial fisa application. neil: what if it was just the dossier, would that bother you? if that's the case, would that trouble you? >> we're assuming that's the sliver of information provided. neil: granted. the republicans say it is.

you obviously argue it isn't. what if it were? what if those judges were not apprised of the fact that this was a democratic party paid for operative who had this material and based the investigation on that? >> well, you're saying what if. i'm not basing this on what-if. neil: you don't know what is any more than i do, right? >> no, no, no, again, this is why we have to have a bipartisan investigation to know what was given to those judges. i'm not going to answer a what-if question, neil. we need to know what was given to those judges. and remember, everybody is forgetting about those judges. those judges are well-seasoned jurists that are going to ask the questions. i mean, do they know that this dossier was started by the conservative group and then passed onto the democratic party? i mean, this-- these are questions that need to be asked. if this is only a sliver of

information or was there more information. neil: it sound to me like you're a pretty straight, upstanding guy. it would seem to trouble you, i would think, that if it was only this, you've got to hope that maybe they based it on other things. if it was only this, you could make the argument yeah, this did start out as a political kabalance and -- k kabal. it's good to get out if the fbi slipped up, it's not bad. it's got to get that out there. >> and i'll go to the president trump's hand picked leadership and the department of justice. they started out saying, they went to the white house and they said we have, quote, grave concerns about this. so, i mean, there's something else there that i think they're telling us that i've dealt with people in the administration in terms of law enforcement and they say, hey, hold on, i think

we need to hold on and listen-- >> didn't you have grave concerns? didn't chuck schumer have grave concerns about the fbi and nancy pelosi and james comey, whether he was going too far into his investigation and they made that very clear in public statements elsewhere, even advocating his removal at times because he was going too far. so what is the difference now? going too far is going too far. slipping up is slipping up. screwing up is screwing up. the potential exists whether you're going after republican or democrat, right? >> again, i'm not-- i can't speak for schumer, i can't speak for pelosi, i'm speaking for myself. neil: not too long ago-- i want to be clear, not too long ago they were criticizing the fbi for going beyond what it should be doing. which is essentially the argument republicans are making right now, right? >> well, again, you need to bring schumer and pelosi on your show. you've got me. you've got me. neil: by the way, we tried repeatedly. i don't know if it's my

deodorant, but they don't come on. but go ahead. >> we've got to give the judges credit, these are well-experienced jurists. they're going to ask questions, they don't just get a piece of paper and sign it. keep in mind, that was the original paper work. what happened on the subsequent renewals, something new must have been-- they must have found something new that kept going that renewal over and over again. so, again, this is what we need to have a bipartisan-- >> i'm not a lawyer, congressman, told by judge napolitano that 99% of the time they do write off and a fisa request. >> with respect to the former judge, but i know that the fisa judges are going to ask the questions and again, especially if you're talking about american citizen, they're going to ask the tough questions. we're not giving credit to those judges that got the information.

neil: you're right on that. the only thing i'm asking you, what's fair is fair, right? obviously, when it's going after hillary clinton, you had every right to feel the flip-flop back and forth from comey's office because your party. wait a minute, many in your party urged his head. ironically when the president gave it to them, then he was st. paul. having said that though, what's fair is fair, going too far is going too far. there is the possibility that the fbi went too far here based on a political agenda championed by those who didn't want to see donald trump elected president. that turns out to be the case, would that deeply trouble you? >> again, you're basing it on what other democrats said. you've got me on the show i'm answering your request he. neil: no, i'm asking you outright would that trouble you if that were the case that an investigation was launched based on a political bias and hating trump and any of his surrogates who might get anywhere close to the white house. >> if i can finish your first question 'cause you asked me, two, three questions after that. neil: they're very simple.

>> if you're saying if that was the case. i'm just saying what we ought to look at is what we have before us. the fbi, the department of justice had grave concern, number one, number two, we don't know what was presented in the fisa application, that's number two. number three, we've got to give those judges credit and the agents that went before it, and the renewals that went on. all i'm saying, i don't want to speak for other democrats or republicans, as an attorney i'm just saying this, you've got to look at what's before you and you've got to give those jury t juryis juryists, instead of saying they were given a paper. neil: you're working under the assumption, a good lawyer, that they're not going just something on a dossier that was politically motivated and by the democratic party. you're hoping that's the case, if it were-- >> the assumptions by you and i, because there was no bipartisan

investigation. if there was an issue that this was the only evidence the dossier was the only thing given, let's find out. but when you have the republican party go and put out the memo and then the democrats, that's not good for our country and not good for the men and women that serve in the department of justice and the fbi. neil: congressman, thank you very much. that's it, we're dealing with competing memos for the time being. we'll sort it out one way or the other. how could any of this affect your money? it seems crazy. what if i told you it's not? and history proves itself after this. ve. it's fine. because i get a safe driving bonus check every six months i'm accident free. and i don't share it with mom! right, mom? righttt. safe driving bonus checks. only from allstate. switching to allstate is worth it.

hey ron! they're finally taking down that schwab billboard. oh, not so fast, carl. ♪ oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

>> all right. what is it with all of these prominent republicans who are getting out of dodge? congressman rdowdy on the list.

increasing that they don't want to be in washington. >> it seems that everyone is headed for the doors. a lot more than we see. ray dowdy says he's going back to the justice system. in a statement he said, quote, whatever skills i may have are better utilized in a courtroom than in congress. i enjoy our justice system more than our political system. dowdy is not the only lawmaker headed out the door. the same week he announced his retirement at least two others in the house did as well. so as you said, neil, the question is why are so many stepping down? in all, 41 house republicans say they will retire, run for state office or simply not seek reelection. for democrats, that number is 17. these lawmakers all serve as house committee chairs. there are term limits for championship, sometimes

lawmakers decide to leave altogether when that's done. others like pat meehan have been accused of sexual harassment or misconduct. a few lawmakers have already left office for similar reasons, including democratic senator al franken and republican representative tim murphy. but, for others, the reason is a whole lot less clear and like many things in washington d.c., the question of why or the answer to why depends on who you ask. >>, but you know, congress is supposed to be something that you don't necessarily make a whole career out of. we're just seeing that from a lot of members right now and they're ready to go back to their regular life. >> and also, nancy pelosi and oth other-- she says that the idea behind so many people are retiring is because of the president's numbers are low and she says their prospects for success were lower and even if they won, there was a really good chance they'd be serving in the minority, perhaps, she says

that's why they are leaving office, neil. neil: all right, it is weird, whatever is going on. thank you, alison. in the meantime, the republicans are helping to win a special election in pennsylvania. the vice-president visiting the state on friday. president trump was there only last month. we've got pennsylvania, rick. and we reached out to connor lamb and drew miller. we haven't heard back from the democratic candidate and the libertarian candidate will be on "this is your world", we don't bite or anything like that. sir, very good to have you, thank you very much. >> good to be on, neil. big fan of your show. neil: what's happening with some of your colleagues, maybe they're just tired or maybe they're worried or maybe they see the fall and they want to get out before the ax comes down, but what's happening? >> it's hard to tell. it's an individual decision when someone wants to leave office or go to another job. i think it's true that many

republicans, you know, don't look at this as career. they want to get in there, do it for a few years, make the changes that they came to make and move on. if we could only get nancy pelosi to believe that we'd be in great shape. neil: could i ask you about what role and how you want to play the tax cut? because you know, all democrats voted against it and some of them are getting a little concerned how popular it's become, especially the way it was branded as chump change or you know, chintzy by nancy pelosi, and even steny hoyer corrected her on that. when it's the individual rates it's one thing, but the corporations sharing the loot and bounty and the latest this morning, and what do you make of that and how do you campaign on that. >> it's been a great success, even in my district. we're already seeing, everywhere i go people are coming up to me, individual employees that are getting raises and bonuses. having a little more input into their health care plan or a little more going into their

401(k)'s, small businesses are telling me how they're going to expand and reinvest money and blow out a wall and this wall and expand into the next room of my business, those kinds of comments. i'm going to hire a few more people. everyone's excited about it and we see the reinvestment coming from the bigger companies. apple announcing, what, 350 billion dollars over the next ten years, even though it may or may not have happened with the tax cut. it's a heck of a coincidence. a lot of companies bringing money back into the country and reinvesting it here. it's a great success and it's just getting started so we have a lot to look forward to. neil: this memo that's out now, sir, and i mean, talks that the lone survivor, if you will, is rod rosenstein and he might not be long for this world in his present job as the assistant-- as deputy as attorney general. would it be a mistake, would you think, for the president to fire him? >> well, i haven't even taken a look at that. i'll be honest with you. the people in my district have not asked about that they're

worried did-- they're reaping the benefits of the tax reform bill and they're worried about rolling back some in the business world and worried about health care and national security issues, what's going on with north korea and isis and taking care of our veterans. those are the things that people talk to me about. i spoke to veterans the other night and they want to know about the veterans accountability act and the veterans choice act and how it was working and the care. neil: nothing about russia? >> not one person yet has mentioned it to me. neil: all right, rick saccone, thank you very, very much. running for pennsylvania congressional seat. we'll keep a close eye on that. in the meantime, we've been telling about the market that was soaring until suddenly it wasn't. while it was soaring, the president was mentioning it, it seemed every hour on the hour. he can do that. does he own it on the way down. why a selloff is raising questions just like that just after this. when it comes to playing with fire, nobody does it better.

he's also a volunteer firefighter. (low-pitched yelling) but when it comes to mortgages, he's... less confident. fortunately for teddy, there's rocket mortgage by quicken loans. it's simple, so he can understand the details and get approved in as few as eight minutes. apply simply, understand clearly, mortgage confidently. rocket mortgage by quicken loans.