can learn about "the next revolution" following on facebook, twitter and instagram, i'm steve hilton, see you next sunday when "the next revolution" will be televised. ♪. mark: hello america, i'm mark levin, this is "life, liberty & levin" and i'm here with our wonderful guest, the chairman of the house intelligence committee devin nunes. how are you? >> great to be here. congratulations on the new show. mark: thank you, thank you. you were born in tulare, california. family of portuguese descent. you emigrated from azors to california. family farm in tulare,

california. three generations, you used savings to begin a harvesting business then you bought your own farmland and now you are a congressman. >> that's right, that's right. mark: that's the american dream, isn't it? >> we have good people in the san joaquin valley. mark: let's jump right into. this as chairman of the house intelligence committee, did the obama administration spy on the trump campaign? >> i think it's pretty clear, i think average americans understand that that happened. to what degree, it's hard to know because the proper investigations haven't been done, but it started with unmaskings, unmaskings of trump transition officials that i think are still questionable. we don't know if that's been investigated or not. and if you looked at culmination now that we found out about the use of the dossier and the tracking of carter page, where carter page could have had e-mails that were intercepted that could have come from the trump

campaign, so i think there was a pretty strong effort to spy on the campaign. mark: let's start from the beginning, so i went back and i looked at several stories, fro a site called heat street back on november 7,2016, the day before the general election. the day before it. and they write two separate sources with links to the counterintelligence community have confirmed to heat street that the fbi sought and was granted a fisa court warrant in october giving counterintelligence permission to examine the activities of u.s. persons in donald trump's campaign with ties to russia. they go on, contrary to earlier reporting in the "new york times" which cited fbi source as saying the agency did not believe that the private server in donald trump's trump tower connected to a russian bank had nefarious purpose. the fbi's counterintelligence arm, sources say redrew an earlier fisa court request

around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. so it's leaked. they get this warrant in october, right before the general election. it's leaked the day before the general election, they do maximum damage to donald trump. >> yeah. mark: they say that their first effort to get a fisa warrant failed and they went back in, in october. what changed in october? was it not the steele dossier that they used with the federal fisa court to convince a federal judge to issue a warrant? isn't that what changed? >> well, clearly the dossier was used, first and foremost. it was the bulk of the application. what's interesting about that article like many of these articles is we now know they were somewhat true. we don't know if everything in that article is true, but clearly somebody, somewhere knew that a counterintelligence

investigation had been opened and that a warrant had been granted, and i remember that at the time to say, no way this is possibly true, but now when you go back, and you look at fact that they used a yahoo! news article that had been done in september to be used also in the fisa court, which is part of what we had in our memo, it really i think adds credibility to the fact that somebody was leaking as early as there, too. that mention of the opening of a federal investigation. mark: isn't it true, there's a very small circle of people who would know? >> very small. mark: there was a fisa application and a warrant grant. and most of those people would be at the fbi and department of justice? >> one of the problems i've had through all of this situation is, is that to put it simply, is the fisa court is used to track bad guys, right? guys that are --

mark: terrorists. >> that are looking to steal secrets from the united states, working with other bad regimes around the world. but in this case, to open a counterintelligence investigation into a campaign, into politics is not what the fisa court should be used for. it's not. but to your point. mark: yes. >> it has to be at the highest levels of the government to have proved a counterintelligence investigation on an american citizen. mark: fbi director? >> fbi director, deputy attorney general and the national security division. head of the national security division. mark: do we know if the presidential daily intelligence briefing included this information? i mean why would it not? why would they not reveal to the white house what was taking place if it was of such concern in the moment, that we have a candidate, according to an

opposition research dossier paid for by the hillary clinton and dnc campaigns and party, that we have a candidate with ties to russia? in fact, didn't the white house know, at least generally, what its departments were doing? >> i think in the presidential daily brief there would have been nothing, because remember, there was no intelligence out there at all. no reporting, that said that the donald trump campaign was colluding with russians, none of that existed. so it would not have been in the presidential daily brief, which is the intelligence community product, right? or else we would have known that and said we did have the information that we tied trump to russians. we didn't have that. mark: but how about the fact of the investigation? >> the fact of the investigation that is the question we don't have the answers to. mark: is it because the executive branch won't let you looked at presidential daily intelligence briefings? >> right now we have out

questionnaire that we are waiting for the answers on, and we're just calculating now to see how many people turned in t in and starting this coming week, we'll figure out who answered, who didn't. we're asking those very questions, when did you know the dossier was funded by the democratic party? did you brief president obama? mark: let's keep walking through this timeline, we have a guardian article, january 11, 2017, so after the election, but before the inauguration, senator john mccain passed documents to the fbi director james comey last month alleging secret contacts between the trump campaign and moscow and that russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself. and material seen by the guardian british newspaper a series of reports of trump's relationship with moscow. drawn up by former western counterintelligence official working as a private consultant, we know it's christopher steele. they go on.

official in the u.s. administration described the source who wrote the report is consistently reliable, meticulous, well-informed with a reputation for having extensive russian contacts. goes on, the emergence of the documents is potentially explosive, ten days before trump's inauguration on the eve of his first planned press conference since july last year, one more, the guardian can confirm that the documents reached the top of the fbi, by december, senator mccain, who was informed about the existence of the documents, separately by an intermediary from western allied state dispatched an emissary overseas to meet the source. has a one-on-one meeting with comey. that's not even the point, it's this: according to a source of the meeting, the documents first reported last year by mother jones are also in the hands of officials in the white house. is it possible that all this took place, that these media

reports are out here, public reports that the attorney general of the united states, the director of the fbi, presumably the national security advisory, presumably other intelligence agencies and so forth, is it possible that everybody in the obama administration or all of these senior people in th obama administration knew it, and it's public report, and the president didn't know about it and the president didn't know at least some of this? >> so, when you go back and look, so don't forget, the fbi knew about the dossier because they were working with steele to compile the dossier. so they were receiving pieces of the dossier july -- june, july, or i think july, august, september, october, november. so the fbi has the documents. by this time there's already this investigation that's been open into the trump campaign, so it's hard to believe when you have all of the people as you mentioned earlier signing off on this investigation, how would they not know about the existence of the dossier? and that's one of the things we're still trying to get to

the bottom of. mark: and a question for me is why would you keep that from the president of the united states? you know -- >> if you believe it. you also reminded me of something, let's also not forget, this was also a product not just of the fbi getting it from steele, right? but also a product of the democratic national committee and the hillary clinton campaign. they also have the dossier because they were also paying steele. now remember how we had to find that out? they were paying a law firm, hired the firm. get this in court, that hired a firm, that hired the british spy, that supposedly went and talked to russians. so you have the fbi -- the fbi has this document, you have the democratic national committee has the document, and i can't imagine that if the democratic party and the hillary clinton campaign, if they're paying for this information from steele, i can't imagine that they weren't

shopping it around places, not just to the fbi but also to various news outlets and now we know that is, in fact, exactly what happened. mark: and we have this piece from mcclatchy. january 18, 2017. right before the inauguration. the fbi and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into russian attempts to influence the november election, including whether money from the kremlin covertly aided president-elect donald trump to people familiar with the matter said. agencies involved in the inquiry, the fbi, the cia, the national security agency, the justice department, the treasury department's financial crimes enforcement network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, according to sources, the working group is scrutinizing the activities of a few americans affiliated with trump's campaign or his business empire of multiple individuals from russia and other former soviet nations who

had similar connections. this is january 17, 2017. a president's about to be inaugurated. he's still under investigation. the campaign still under investigation. members of his campaign, jr., otherwise, still under investigation. this isn't just a couple of people in the fbi. you're talking about the top law enforcement and federal intelligence agencies of the united states government. you're talking about the director of national intelligence. this is an obama administrationwide effort, is it not? >> right, three days before the inauguration. and don't forget that we don't find out that -- the public doesn't find out until march 20th when james comey, the fbi director in 2017, this is after the president's already been in office. when he decides to publicly come out and say that we've had

the trump campaign under investigation since mid last summer. the president doesn't even know that. we don't even know that. the american public didn't know this, but somehow mcclatchy knows this. mark: and it gets worse. january 19, 2017, "new york times," receiving a lot of this information, intercepted russian communications. american law enforcement intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications on financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between russian officials and associates of president-elect donald trump including paul manafort, current and former senior official said, the fbi is leading the investigations, aided by the national security agency, cia, treasury department, investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. still haven't found any in terms of collusion. here's the point.

one official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretap communications have been provided to the white house. the white house keeps coming up here. the white house. >> the 19th. >> this is january 19, and everybody believes the "new york times," don't they? >> this would be a leak, by the way. >> this is an illegal felony leak. mark: illegal felony leak, that exposes what i argue is the conspiracy within the obama administration to take down that campaign. this is march speaking, to take down the campaign, to tarnish a president-elect and to continue the campaign against the president-elect when he becomes president of the united states. we even have a "new york times" piece january 12th. nsa gets more latitude to share intercepted communications. right before they leave, the attorney general signs off, the rest sign off on raw intelligence information, spread it more widely throughout the government. they didn't do it at the beginning of the obama

administration. they do it at the end knowing donald trump is coming in as president. they don't want the information destroyed. i want your response when we return. don't forget crtv.com, you can watch levin tv, our digital tv program each and every week night. we'll be right back. ng & crying] ♪ [screaming & crying] [phone ping] with esurance photo claims, you could have money for repairs within a day... wow! that was really fast. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. click or call. can make you feel like noyour day never started.st get going with carnation breakfast essentials® high protein drink. it has 21 vitamins and minerals with 15 grams of protein to help you be your best. try our high protein drink.

. mark: we're back with the chairman of the house intelligence committee, chairman devin nunes. chairman, here's the thing, i just went through what, three, four, five articles of leaks of felony leaks of what is supposed to be secret information, and they leaked this information to try and affect the general election, then the transition and now the incoming administration. i don't know that anybody's been charged with anything at this point, but what's interesting to me is when i pointed this out about a year ago, you did too. media pivoted. suddenly it wasn't look how bad trump is, fisa and all this other stuff. it was it's a right-wing conspiracy to attack the fbi. >> attack the media. mark: to attack the media. are you not shocked at the lack of curiosity by the vast

majority of the mainstream media in this country, what i would argue is a historical violation of the rule of law, abrogation of our secrecy requirements, and domestic political surveillance that took place? are you shocked that you're the target of attacks rather than people encouraging you to pursue this? >> i'm shocked and i'm scared, not personally, i'm scared for our country. all of the leak us that just showed, it floors me that no serious investigation has been done on any of this. the most serious felony that occurred was the leak of the flynn kislyak call where you had, if you believe the newspaper, the mainstream media, nine sources supposedly corroborated that information. this would not be complicated for the fbi or d.o.j. to figure

out who the leakers were. mark: and speaking of that, here it is. february 9, 2017, "new york times" article. >> i remember this well. mark: weeks before president trump's inauguration national security adviser michael flynn discussed american sanctions against russia, against cooperation with the country's ambassador to the united states. throughout the discussions, the message mr. flynn conveyed to the russian ambassador that the obama administration was moscow's adversary and relations with russia would change under trump was unambiguous and highly inappropriate, the officials said. here you have obviously obama officials. they had just signed and placed an order to spread raw intelligence around more broadly. this may not have been part of any fisa application, maybe it's part of an ongoing surveillance with a russian ambassador. they pick up michael flynn, and

what they're supposed to do, under our statutes, our fisa statutes and so forth, is to only unmask under very extreme circumstances and even then to keep that name protected. and instead, it's leaked. and even go further, the accounts of conversations raise the prospect that mr. flynn violated a law against private citizens engaging in diplomacy. they're talking about the logan act. >> it's ridiculous. mark: here's my question to you. sally yates, the former deputy attorney general under the obama administration, she would become the acting attorney general for a short period under trump. she kept pushing this logan act as an excuse to have a widespread investigation of trump world. >> if you go back, there's actually an article that was written so it was david

ignacious who first broke this at a legal league. a few days after there was another story where they leaked specifics of the call. this was before the -- i believe this was before the inauguration, and at that time for there not to have been an immediate investigation of where that leak came from, that should have been fire alarms going off everywhere to go and figure out how that leaked out? because this was a very sensitive intelligence capability that we have in this country that nobody seems to be worried about that this jeopardized anything. why? because they were going after the logan act? something that's never been used before? a statute that's never been used. it's a 200-year-old statute? this is really bad stuff that they were up to, and they were willing -- shows they were willing to use any piece of the law they could find including

one that's centuries old in order to justify their illegal leaking because somehow michael flynn was going to be an agent of the russians. and this is a guy who had -- a three-star general who had a storied career. mark: let's recap. they get a fisa warrant, a probable cause under fisa is that the targeted individual is suspected of being an agent of a foreign country. so they pick this guy carter page who had been an fbi informant, a few years earlier, against russia. a minor player in the trump campaign. they target this guy, and they use a dossier to target this guy who denies ever having any of the meetings mentioned in the dossier with any of the russian officials in the dossier. the dossier is funded by the hillary campaign and the dnc launderred by a law firm and the fusion gps.

person on the deputy attorney general staff sally yates pushing the logan act which is preposterous, a top official with ties to fusion gps and his wife works for fusion gps and working on the trump opposition research. you have a fisa warrant that is issued by a federal fisa court, based on opposition research, paid for by the opposition campaign, pushed by the fbi under mr. comey, pushed by the attorney general under loretta lynch. now you have the leaking of an individual's name, a three-star general, retired general, mr. flynn, who had conversations with the ambassador to russia, which is not atypical an incoming administration talking to ambassadors, what are you going to say we're not talking to you? no evidence on the substance of that discussion that he violated anything.

you have the same deputy attorney general, yates, who has this guy on his staff pushing to the staff and others, the logan act, nobody's tried the logan act in decades it's preposterous, are they not looking for reasons to investigation, excuses to criminalize the election that took place? >> you make a lot of great points. point out a couple that you missed they think are very important. mark: i'll tell you what. i want to save time for your full answer since we only have a few seconds. when we come back, i want to hear what you have to say about that. we'll be right back. does this map show the peninsula trail? you won't find that on a map. i'll take you there. take this left. if you listen real hard you can hear the whales. oop.

you hear that? (vo) our subaru outback lets us see the world. sometimes in ways we never imagined. (avo) get 0% apr financing on all-new 2018 subaru outback models. now through april 2nd. oh thanks. say, yeah, i took your advice and had geico help with renters insurance- it was really easy. easy. that'd be nice. phone: for help with chairs, say "chair." phone: for help with bookcases, say "bookcase." bookcase. i thought this was the dresser? isn't that the bed? phone: i'm sorry, i didn't understand. phone: for help with chairs, say "chair." does this mean we're not going out? book-case. see how easy renters insurance can be at geico.com. ♪look into my eyes ♪you will see ♪what you mean to me ♪don't tell me it's not worth trying for♪

♪you know it's true ♪everything i do ♪i do it for you ♪yeah, i would fight for you♪ ♪i'd lie for you ♪walk the wire for you ♪yeah, i'd die for you ♪you know it's true ♪everything i do ♪i do it for you ethat bring us closer to thew dismomentes when all cancer patients can become survivors. some days they take small steps. others, huge discoveries lead to giant leaps forward. this progress, both small steps and giant leaps, happens with the help of clinical trials.

clinical trials are a fundamental path to progress and the brightest torch researchers have to light their way towards better treatments. and if you've been diagnosed with cancer, they may be your brightest ray of hope. clinical trials introduce new hope in addition to the current standard of care by allowing researchers to provide participants access to cutting-edge and potentially life-saving treatments. so if you're interested in exploring new treatment options, while helping to light the path for other patients, clinical trials may be the best choice for you. speak with your doctor and visit standuptocancer.org/ clinicaltrials to learn more about clinical trials. together we can stand up for all of us.

>> live from america's news headquarters i'm kelly wright in washington. china will increase military spending up to $173 billion. the country has plans to launch a second aircraft carrier, add stealth fighters to air force and develop a wide array of advanced missiles weeks after admiral harry harris commander of u.s. forces in the pacific said could soon challenge the united states across every domain. one of the most grueling endurance races kicked off in alaska today. the 2018 iditarod is under way.

67 mushers and dog teams set off on the nearly thousand--mile race from anchorage to the city of nome, a week to ten days depending on trail conditions and weather. i'm kelly wright, now back to "life, liberty & levin.". mark: we're back with chairman nunes. you were talking about fisa and flynn, what did you want to add there? >> what i say on the situation on general flynn, he was doing exactly what he should be doing, to talk to ambassadors as they're coming in. reports say that sally yates went and briefed the white house about concerns about general flynn and what i'd like to know, was she really -- sally yates, the deputy attorney general really telling the white house at the time that we have general flynn under investigation for the logan act? did that really happen? i'd like to know the answer to that. mark: unbelievable. >> the other issue you were talking about the fisa court,

and you walked through what the fisa court knew, what was used before the fisa court in order to get the warrant on mr. page. let's also not forget that the court was never told that the democratic party and the hillary clinton campaign had fully funded the dirt that they were using to get the warrant on mr. page. mark: and we know the justice department knew that, because they'd been working with mr. steele. we know the justice department knew that because the associate deputy attorney general of the united states, mr. rohr, his wife worked for fusion gps. mr. comey knew it, when mr. comey would meet president-elect trump, i believe he called it salacious and something else. they used a salacious document. >> unverified. mark: unverified document, not just to get the first warrant but to extend it several times.

do you know, mr. chairman, through the extensions, did they ever tell the fisa court the funding source for the dossier? >> no. they did not. and not only that, they used the word, very bizarre, they used the word in a footnote at the end of the warrant application, they say we speculate that this could be opposition research. i'm paraphrasing it. speculate. nobody was speculating anything. they knew who had paid for it. they knew it, they had the information, and they didn't provide it to the court. this is black and white, that the court was not told everything about this. and look, maybe a judge would say, hey, this is fine if the hillary clinton campaign paid for this dirt, and maybe he would have granted the warrant anyway, but i find that hard to believe. mark: you know, article 1, congress, article 2, executive

branch, article 3, the courts. when the nation was founded, congress created all the other courts. there's no circuit courts in the constitution, no district courts in the constitution, there's no fisa courts in the constitution. we had judiciary acts. you determined how many circuits there are going to be, how many courts are going to be. congress determined that. the house of representatives. shouldn't the house judiciary committee or some committee in the house or the senate find out who the judges are? we know who the judges are? i don't care if it's in closed session initially but in open session ultimately. find out who the judges are. we're talking about the most egregious case of domestic surveillance of an opposition candidate by a president of the united states and his opposition, hillary clinton, i don't care what the media have

to say or mr. schiff have to say or any of the others have to say, you have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see what's been taking place and still taking place. look, we have an article from the business insider from friday before last, and it's susan rice's lawyer saying this meeting susan rice had on january 5th before the inauguration, it was no big deal. as a matter of fact, the attorney representing former national security advisory susan rice says rice memorialized that january 5th meeting and said on january 20th, 15 minutes after trump is inaugurated, you know what we call that? we lawyers call that? fixing the record. that's what i call that. manipulating the record. but her lawyer says she made the assertion in the letter, in other words, that obama said do this investigation by the book, because white house counsel told her to do that. to me, that doesn't make it better, it makes it worse, and

they have this meeting on january 5th and say rice was not aware of the russia investigation at the time of the meeting on january 5th, 2017, according to the lawyer's letter. mr. chairman, i just read you three or four articles about the investigation in the newspapers. how could the director of national security advising the president of the united states not know about the russia investigation when anybody off the street reading a newspaper would have known about the russia investigation? why did she write that memo on january 20th, after president trump was inaugurated? they had this big meeting with obama, and obama says in this meeting basically, i paraphrase, be careful what classified information you share with the trump people, especially flynn. my argument to you, sir, is this goes right to the top. president may not know all the particulars but had to know a

hell of a lot from the public record and his own people. what do you say? >> it's hard to believe she didn't know that. the letter she writes to herself on january 20th, so this is hours before the trump administration comes into power. it doesn't make any sense other than to say it must have been some type of way to justify whatever actions were taken or cover something up. and you know, this is somebody who has a long history of covering things up or never knowing anything, if you believe her, including the time where we had proven that unmaskings had occurred by senior officials in the obama administration and she claimed she didn't know anything about it. so all of this is taking place at the time, so you'd have to really give the benefit of the doubt to the extreme level to believe that she didn't know about this investigation. but you brought up a point what you started with, mark, which is important and i think -- and

it's historical. congress not only created the court, congress created the fbi and the department of justice, and congress has had a tough time reining the executive branch in. mark: i want to pick up on this very, very important. i want to pick up on this when we return. we'll be right back.

cheru has no choice. she, and millions like her, mustalk miles evy day for dirty water. but together, we can end their walk ...by providing clean water - close by. instead of spending hours walking to get water that makes them sick, girls can be in a classroom that expands their minds and moms will gain back time to care for their families. sons and daughters can grow up strong ...finally free of sicknesses caused by dirty water. at world vision, care about clean water runs deep, deep enough to reach one new person

with clean water every 10 seconds. because every child, every person, everywhere, deserves clean water and the chance to rise to their full potential. it's true. when you just add water ...you change a life. learn more at worldvision.org. . mark: chairman nunes, we were talking about congress' role in overseeing the court us and were mentioning yes, and the executive branch, and you had great difficulty in getting information. explain, please. >> this is going to be the challenge, this has been the challenge historically for congress once they create something, it's hard to oversee it. it's hard to shut it down. it's hard to control it. and i think what our committee has done, what the house intelligence committee has done

for the first time in a long time, with the help of all of our members on the republican side at least, who want to get to the bottom, to get to the truth. this is the first time in a long time you've seen congress really use our authority, use our power, go all the way to the courts to get information to rein in out-of-control bureaucracies, and i just think that moving forward this should alarm people that what it's taken for us to get to the bottom of this fiasco that's occurred. mark: your problem is you're not a reporter to the "new york times," they'd be leaking it to you left and right. you're an official of congress, and they're much more resistant. speaking of that, you've come under a lot of attack. there was an ethics complaint filed against you last year where you had to basically step aside for half a year and you were completely cleared. now there must have been two weeks of reporting on the ethics complaint and two seconds reporting on the fact

that you were cleared. by an organization seeking to take you out as chairman, correct? >> no one on the left-wing organization. mark: then i looked at the attacks on you, the memorandum that you put out which essentially says what we've been talking about, and we have the "washington post," democratic memo discredits nunes, tantalizes dossier, then we have the democratic memo undercuts key complaints about the fbi. then we have new york magazine, nunes memo is fake and the russia scandal is very real. must be very disconcerting and frustrating to you. you know a hell of a lot more than us because you get confidential and secret information. to see what has taken place in the executive branch under the prior administration and frankly continue in the bureaucracy in this administration and to see one newspaper after newspaper. one opinion writer after

another defending it and attacking you. >> and don't forget, everything that you have in this pile, at least what you read. mark: pile is the right word. >> pile of something, i guess. this is part of the democratic party's network. i said this at cpac the other day. the media in this country is dead, no longer exists and the american people need to understand this. i don't know how it's going tend to, i don't know if it's dead forever but 90% of the media is far left wing and totally reliant on getting cliques and playing to their base and to their owners to support what their owners want, and there are very few outlets that are going to give anything that is even -- i wouldn't even say conservative point of view but a conservative to mainstream point of view, those outlets don't exist and masquerade, they use the

storied names of these great institutions or these great companies like the "washington post," i mean, it's been around forever. a lot of historic work for decades. but it no longer does. that just the fact that they would cover the logan act as if the logan act should have been something that was used and ate that up from the obama administration who said we're looking at the logan act, it was a leak. just the fact they would use that and not call them on that should be pretty alarming. >> appears that the media woke up with the hostile election of donald trump and dormant during the obama administration. they're going to protect the obama administration no matter what that administration did or does. and if the shoe were on the other foot, if this were a republican administration that did this to a democratic candidate, it wod b the greatest scandal in american history. >> my gosh, you can imagine if it was george w. bush and karl rove doing this to the incoming

obama administration? who by the way had, people that were over in russia back in 2008. mark: unbelievable? >> if they said they were investigating people from the obama campaign talking to russians and investigating them for the logan act, they would have burned down the department of justice. >> i agree. we'll be right back. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur.

otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. this one's below market price and has bluetooth. same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value.

. mark: welcome back america. don't forget crtv.com, conservative review tv.com, that's our wonderful digital platform. you can watch my show, levin tv and many other wonderful conservatives throughout the week. call 844-levin-tv. 844-levin-tv. chairman nunes, where do you and your committee go from here? >> we're in phase 2 of this investigation. look at the state department. we had two former high-level state department officials who came in and said that we knew about sidney blumenthal and corey sheer. mark: who is that? >> you know sidney blumenthal much better than i do. they are former clinton

well-known clinton confidants. mark: hacks. we call them hacks. >> who were giving information. mark: yes. >> to the state department, also giving it to christopher steele, so somehow what they said publicly is there appears to be this additional dossier and this information supposedly was given over to the authorities. mark: there may be another dossier. does the fbi have this other dossier? >> well, all we know is what they're -- this is what we're investigating week only know so far what these people have said to the media, okay? that they got this information, received this information, we're dealing with christopher steele, it was something that appears to be another dossier that they got to the appropriate authorities. telling you what they said after we announced we were looking at the state department. and never named this person by the way. the next person was this guy named liner who went to the "washington post" and wrote an

op-ed a week later and said this is why devin nunes is investigating me, which i find hilarious because we never started to investigate him. in fact, was senator grassley who had mentioned his name who had an interest in him. but i was glad he volunteered for me to investigate him because he made many of the same comments about mr. blumenthal and mr. sheer, we are preparing that piece of our investigation because we want to find out was the state department giving information on american citizens and feeding that over into the justice department? mark: it conceivable sidney blumenthal would know something and hillary clinton and campaign wouldn't continue? >> he was a close confidant to clinton and involved with sending e-mails possibly classified and sensitive information back and forth while she was secretary of state. mark: this is widespread. this is widespread, this effort, using government

resources, law enforcement, intelligence services. the fisa court. the unmasking of american citizens like general flynn, as you point out earlier. haven't gotten to the bottom of this unmasking either. we'll be right back. [thud] [screaming & crying] ♪ [screaming & crying] [phone ping] with esurance photo claims, you could have money for repairs within a day... wow! that was really fast. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. click or call.

... we all have many rights. rights protected by law. and you've got the power to make sure those laws are followed.

take fair housing. it's illegal to refuse to rent to you because of your race, color, religion... sex, national origin, disability or familial status. and you have the power to stop housing discrimination. to file a complaint, go to hud.gov/fairhousing or call 1-800-669-9777. mark: you have adam schiff on tv, he's on tv, i feel like he is on sonar, like he's on airport radar, he's everywhere. and he is constantly trashing what the committee is doing. he's a special police are for what, i don't know and do you get along with him? do you talk?

devin: i don't make it part of my job whether i get along with these people are not. there's nothing that surprises me in washington, in this. politicians will beoliticns and i just have to deal with them. and the chairman that i deal with these folks. it is amazing that, you know, some people joke and call them the pathfinders because they're always looking for a new path to find the russians and the irony is it was the republicans, me specifically, who warned them about the russians in april of 2016. essentially, i told him this was coming and no one seem to be interested in it until after they lost an election. mark: when it comes to the russians do they have any interest in all about the russian relationship, fusion gps and the clinton campaign? devin: you think that was the obvious evidence we have of collusion in this case that no one seems to be investigating. christopher still got his information from russians, that's a pretty good tie between

the clinton campaign and russians. mark: congress, thank you for everything. devin: it's been a pleasure. they keep having me on. mark: ladies and gentlemen, that is it for "life, liberty and levin" this week. see you next time. shocked becai believed him. what mr. clinton did to me was wrong. >> he was the most powerful person on the planet, and she was an intern just out of college. >> if the president's genetic material was on that dress, there would be no denying that the president had not been telling the truth. >> a lot of people thought he was toast. you couldn't survive a scandal like this. >> after investigating the president for 4 years, ken starr's office has finally delivered a report to congress. >> we had no inkling that there was going to be as much graphicness. >> the president has shown to be very evasive, to have very tortured and legalistic definitions of sexual relations. >> it depends upon what the meaning of the word "is," is. did i want this to come out? no.