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." i have two great guests tonight, david linbaugh, andy mccarthy, great to see you. >> great to see you. mark: david, you are my lawyer, andy mccarthy, great buddies here. a serious subject. some of your notable cases

1995, the lead prosecutor, sheikh rahman, there are excellent books you also write for "national review" and a senior fellow at the "national review" institute. david, you've been practicing law for over 30 years, you're nationally syndicated columnist with creators. political commentator, also "new york times" best-selling author. have you eight books, working on ninth book, and in law school went to university of missouri and run law review there. now i'm nervous. two very impressive men here. we want to get into serious matters here, very timely matters. this investigation that's going on, these activities related to the president of the united states, his campaign, his transition, and i wanted to talk to you fellas about that

tonight. we know this for a fact. there was, in fact, a fisa warrant. it was extended three times. there was, in fact, a dossier that was paid for ultimately by the hillary clinton campaign and the democrat national committee. we know the dossier in part or whole was used to get an application, to file an application for a warrant in the fisa court, and extensions in the fisa court. we know as a matter of fact, thanks to the "new york times" which tried to walk it back, that there was a spy, full, a confidential informant or as the late great james comey put it, a human resource, who was in the trump campaign. i mean, professor steven was in the trump campaign, he interviewed a number of people. let me start with you, andy mccarthy. you've been around a while, prosecuted these cases we talked about. you were assisting united

states attorney. we hear media outlets and others say first of all, it's not a spy, and second of all, fisa is not a big deal and we needed to get to the bottom of this russia thing. trey gowdy said this is exactly what the american people would want from the fbi. how do you respond to that? >> i don't think so. i think, mark, all of the back and forth whether it's a spy or informant is beside the point. when i was a prosecutor, the informants worked for us so when i spoke to the jury during the case, i would call them the informants, and the defense lawyers get up and speak to the same juries involved and the guys and call them the spies, the snitches, whatever, they're government-controlled covert operatives who you send into get information regardless what you call them, and the important thing always is why you sent them in, not what you

call what they're doing, whether you want to be hyperbolic or use euphemisms about it. and i think with all due respect to congressman gowdy, i don't think the american people would be happy with the idea that the norm we've had in this country, i think from the beginning of this country but certainly since the modern era, since watergate, that the incumbent administration does not use the awesome counterterrorism and law enforcement powers that it has to monitor the opposition party in an electoral campaign. is a norm will american people would like to keep in place, and gowdy is simply wrong when he says that the object here was to monitor the activities of a few tangential players that had kind of tenuous connections to the trump campaign. it was said explicitly in congressional testimony a number of times by former

director comey that the fbi was conducting an investigation of the trump campaign for coordinating in russia's cyberespionage -- mark: wasn't trey gowdy among those members of congress on the committee listening to the testimony firsthand to mr. comey? >> he certainly was. in fact, the best known temperature is the testimony comey gave on march 20 of 2017, which is important because it's the jumping off point as it turns out for mueller's -- special counsel mueller's investigation. this is what mueller took over and what comey described is counterintelligence investigation aimed at russia's interference in the election and the extent to which the trump campaign was suspected of coordinating in that effort. mark: and david, the focus is the trump campaign. all of a sudden we're hearing no, no, no, an investigation of

the russian. so where is this argument coming from? is it because they've now been caught or had to confess some of activities that have been taking place? >> sure is very suspicious. we all start out with a presumption that the fbi and d.o.j. are honorable institutions and we, being conservatives, we support law enforcement apparatus, and that's our bias. until we see things that concern us. i think we need to remember at the outset that liberals, by and large are ends to justify the means. they politicize things they're willing to -- not willing, anxious to subordinate the rule of law to the agenda. that's what makes this unbelievable. the obama weaponized the irs to target conservatives. politicized the epa to a disgusting extent. we can go back to bill clinton

putting bill lann lee in the civil rights division of the justice department and all that activism occurring in the institution that is supposed to be objective and keep justice honest. so i start off with that presumption. then you look at all the things, regardless of whether trey gowdy, who i have respect for, of course, regardless of whether there was a technical spy or informant in the campaign. regardless whether they have condensed him that they weren't investigating trump, then why did james comey go out of his way, make a fool of himself, a jerk of himself, an unprofessional person of himself to leak, to start a special counsel investigation? you don't have special counsel against russian entities? have you special counsels to investigate higher-ups in the executive branch i.e., the president, that's the explicit purpose of it. why was it necessary if what trey gowdy says is true?

i'm not saying anything he says is not true, but i'm saying in terms of how he's emphasizing this. why did they need to dummy up the fisa application? if they had a bunch of stuff to make them suspicious about trump campaign and the fbi, why did they use the dossier which was all bogus, 50% of it wasn't corroborated and we know the litany of facts of it paid for by steele and people in the clinton campaign, they would go out of their way, if they were neutral, go out of the way not to present that to the court. if they did present it to the court, they would disclose to the court that steele had been fired as an informant by the fbi, that it was funded as opposition research by the clinton campaign and would have made all those connections, but they didn't. you have to wonder why? why did they lie about the redactive material? why did they play hide the

ball? why did they leak? something makes this not right, that what's makes this suspicious. there is a bunch that is still wrong, not just what trey gowdy said. >> not to pile on what david said because this is important. i'm very sympathetic to congressman gowdy's impulse to be protective of the fbi and the justice department. i love the fbi and the justice department. i worked most of my professional life there. like you. you were chief of staff to an attorney general. these institutions are crucially important to us. i think the difference is i'm convinced that the best way that we preserve these institutions is get accountability for what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. my sense of things is that congressman gowdy is concerned, and a number of people are concerned that maybe the sunlight, the best disinfectant isn't the best disinfectant for

this institution because it will be damaging to other institutions. i think we have to find out what happened. mark: david limbaugh? did comey leak? >> he admitted he leaked. mark: did mccabe leak? >> yes. mark: is there suspicion ? >> you classified adult, somebody tweeted me. that not at the time we're talking about that. they maintained that lie way after it was classifyed. >> who is besmirching the foib, when you have the deputy director as a leaker, criminal referral to the u.s. attorney's office by the inspector general of the department of justice agreed to by the concomitant office in the fbi. i mean that's not you, me and

donald trump trashing the fbi. that is the leadership of the fbi trashing the fbi? >> moreover, i agree with that. i started out with a neutral opinion with him, a person i respect said nice things about him early on. look how he's besmirched himself and thus by extension the fbi that he had. going out and doing these interviews, saying these things that are untoward, unprofessional things, saying that donald trump was morally unfit for office. talking about things out of school to all these msnbc and all these mainstream media outlets, and to seidl up with the democratic and leftist apparatus, comey disgraced himself and as a result somewhat tainted the picture of the fbi during his tenure. mark: andy mccarthy, as a seasoned former prosecutor and

you've seen the worst and the best, devin nunes comes under attack all the time. he's led the house intelligence committee. he helped unmask the unmasking that was taking place. he's plowing into a lot of. this a lot of the preemptive leaks like "the new york times" because nunes and others are on the tail of some of these folks. what do you have to say about devin nunes in all of this? >> i really think he's been heroic, and it's been very brave, i think, to go to a place where you had to know you were going to take flack from very powerful, very entrenched institutions and interests. i think a lot of people, well, just to be clear on what i think was going through the minds of people who conducted these investigations. they know that counterintelligence matters are classified. in my experience, counterintelligence agents are

liable to take outrageous chances and measures that you wouldn't expect criminal investigators to take because they don't expect their work is ever going to be checked. it's never going to be taken apart by defense lawyers. it's never going to be in a public courtroom, so they go about their business with a little bit of an edge that they just don't think what they're doing is ever going to be reviewed. if you put on that the overlay that everybody here was ripe dead certain that hillary clinton was going to win the election, and this was never, ever going to be spoken of, i really think, mark, that they thought they were playing with the house money in a lot of ways, and what happened was -- mark: meaning that they could do pretty much what they want to do and never get caught? >> correct. and that's when you get reckless about norms like the

importance of an incumbent administration not using these awesome powers to investigate its political opposition. i think they got reckless about it because they believed they would never be found out, and nunes has been adamant that they will be found out. >> yeah, and not only were they confident it would never be found out. they proactively tried to ensure that it wouldn't be found out with strzok and page talking about when trump and hillary became the clear nominees, strzok texted page saying now this makes -- this will make us have to accelerate the mid-year exam, mye, and she said of course, i concur. which means they had to make sure that hillary won and trump didn't win, obviously. mark: when we come back, i want to continue with this point and also want to discuss the big meeting, january 5th, before

the obama administration left office. ladies and gentlemen, i hope you'll join us on levin tv on crtv every week night, just check us out on crtv.com. if you enjoy what we're doing here, enjoy it every night. levin tv on crtv.com. upon the first survivor of alzheimer's disease is out there. and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

♪ rawwggwwrughh! well, i told you they wouldn't have it. rawwggwwrughh! it's ok, it's ok. we've got time. ♪ [impact collision] rawwggwwrughh! [impact collision] ...ughhhh! what!!! seeing your real-life millennium falcon get damaged is painful enough. filing your insurance claim shouldn't be. esurance makes it easy. so you can get on to your next adventure. oh, we gotta pick up my mom. ...ughhhh! ♪ esurance. see solo: a star wars story now playing.

. mark: andy mccarthy, david limbaugh. january 5, 2017, a big meeting in the oval office. the president, joe biden, sally yates, who's the deputy attorney general, becomes acting attorney general at some point. jim comey and susan rice, national security adviser. what do we know about that meeting? >> well, we know, mark, that about two weeks after the fact, as she was packing up her office after president trump had been inaugurated, susan rice, the national security adviser for obama, wrote a memo to the file to cover that meeting and cover in the sense of cia. mark: minutes after trump is inaugurateed?

>> correct. what she says in the meeting is two things that are important. one is that president obama stressed that everything in connection with the russia investigation had to be done by the book. because when you've been doing things by the book for eight years, it's important to constantly remind each other it's important to do things by the book. mark: and get it in writing. >> the other thing that is more important than that is she said that president obama raised the question of whether they needed to withhold information from the incoming team, meaning the incoming trump administration. and i think there explains virtually everything we need to know about what happened afterwards. mark: so what does that mean? >> well, the next day after this meeting, comey and the intelligence chiefs go up to new york to brief then president-elect trump on the russia investigation and to give him a very brief sliver of

a briefing on the steele ssier. and what clearly happened is when they briefed hi they did not tell him about the fact that they were investigating the trump campaign for coordinating in russia's cyberespionage operation. they tell them a bunch of stuff about the cyberespionage and with respect to the steele dossier, give him the salacious piece about the prostitutes in moscow but don't say a word about the principal allegations in the steele dossier, which is that the trump campaign is in a conspiracy with russia to sabotage the election, and i'm convinced that the reason they did that was in order to preserve the investigation, to keep it going, the investigation had, as we've seen, a great promise to hamstring the incoming administration, it was important to put trump at ease that he was not a suspect and

that his campaign was not the focus, and i think that by -- mark: so he wouldn't kill this ongoing investigation of him? >> right. mark: of trump world? >> right. mark: did they succeed? >> i think they did. what ended up happening was soon afterwards, they leaked out the briefing on the dossier even though it was abbreviated, was enough of a cover for the intelligence community to leak to the media that they had briefed it, which was the trigger for getting the whole dossier out into the public domain, and once that was out there, i think this thing had a momentum of its own. mark: your thoughts? >> you know, to add to that, the idea that trump and his campaign were not being targeted is undermined by the ea that they've never -- they

didn't plant anybody on the hillary clinton campaign. they bent over backwards to protect hillary and we went through the litany of things supporting that. but didn't go to trump and defensively brief him. that would have been routine. if they're trying to stop, if their goal is to stop russian interference in the election, then wouldn't they have warned trump that they suspected something was going on, and didn't do that. we -- there's so many facts. mark: are you saying enlist to support? >> enlist to support. they tell us now he wasn't under suspicion, they should have briefed him on that, and also i think it's important that we remember this salient fact. in the strzok-page e-mails, they shared with each other that obama wants to know everything. this guy is a hands-on, community writing writ large activist. he micromanaged to the extent he could in all things, especially things that would advance his agenda.

i don't think it's conceivable that obama didn't know. it's way more likely that nixon didn't know about watergate than obama didn't know about all the dirt that they were doing, in all respects. because we see it throughout his administration. we have to believe by circumstantial evidence alone and by obama's activism in his attitude that he was in charge or very well apprised. mark: why wouldn't he know? the attorney general knew, the fbi director knew, the head of the national intelligence knew, the head of the cia knew, the only person that didn't know was the president of the united states? >> as we just covered, everything important done in the way of an important decision about this ongoing investigation was done the day after they met with obama and the oval office. mark: and it's hard to believe that's the first time that he knew what was taking place unless they had an all-day

meeting, suddenly start telling him what's taking place. >> we know what we heard recently and goes to the nunes house intelligence report then-director comey briefed the national security council in they call it the late spring of 2016, that's very early on after page, this is long before page goes to moscow, long before many of the important things in the investigation happened, they're already giving the obama national security council a briefing on people who were in the trump campaign. mark: and remember -- >> in terms of obama's attitude and what he wanted to know and willing to know, remember him preannouncing hillary's innocence? i know we're talking about the trump administration, but these things are necessarily interrelated as andy has also written about. and we brush over just the degree to which, the extreme degree to which they've bent over backwards not to pursue

hillary. we could go through the writing of the report before he interviewed him. not taping her interview. it's really disgusting. let's say if the shoe were on the other foot, and some anti-leftists were planted in high positions in the fbi, like strzok and page, talking about how they needed to -- how they couldn't stand this trump guy, and how they had to protect clinton and incriminate trump in so many words, reading between the lines. mark: investigating the russians, the russians were interfering the election during the obama administration. seems they would be interviewing barack obama, biden, clapper, brennan, comey and all the rest of them about what they did and what they didn't do. seems to me, also following up on your point, you have a human resource person as comey put it, informant or spy at the dnc, where e-mails were hacked, or in the hillary clinton

campaign or the jill stein campaign, you wouldn't be focused myopcally on the trump campaign and the special counsel who i want to get to in counsel who i want to get to in the next happy anniversary dinner, darlin'. can this much love be cleaned by a little bit of dawn ultra? oh yeah one bottle has the grease cleaning power of three bottles of this other liquid. a drop of dawn and grease is gone. the kayak explore tool shows you the places you can fly on your budget. so you can be confident you're getting the most bang for your buck. alo-ha. kayak. search one and done.

so we know how to cover almost we've anything.st everything even "close claws." [driver] so, we took your shortcut, which was a bad idea. [cougar growling] [passenger] what are you doing? [driver] i can't believe that worked. i dropped the keys. [burke] and we covered it. talk to farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

[♪] reporter: pro and anti-trump demonstrators squaring off in

portland, oregon. con fran taitions with antifa began almost immediately. police officers using pepper spray on multiple occasions. this isn't the first time patriot prayer has had confrontations with antifa. the international space station soyuz spay craft bringing three astronauts home. returning with them a soccer ball that will be used in the 2018 world cup. . mark: andy mccarthy, comey's fired, comey leaked. soon thereafter, we get a special counsel by rod rosenstein. the democrats were pressing for

a special counsel appointment. chuck schumer pressing from day one for special counsel. they know how these guys or gals get carried away with themselves. was the appointment of mueller based on any criminal statutes or based on any rational basis other than go investigate this stuff? >> i don't think so. i think he's an unguided missile. appointment was outside, and to my mind flouted the regulations that govern when the justice department can have a special counsel, so the regulations say that you're supposed to -- as the justice department articulate what is the basis for a criminal investigation that the justice department is conflicted from investigating in the normal course, and the factual basis, the articulation of that is what is supposed to become the parameters of the jurisdiction. mark: so a statute, a person, a group, something, he's not just this general prosecutor looking

at stuff. >> right. and instead what they did, mark, and this harks back to comey's testimony before the house, they assigned to mueller a counterintelligence investigation, which is irregular because in the justice department, counterintelligence investigations don't get prosecutors. the design or the aim of such an investigation is not to build a criminal case. it's to divine the actions and powers to the extent they bear upon american interests. it's not even lawyer work, it's intelligence analytical work, but the big problem with it in the context of an investigation is that it's really just an intelligence gathering or information gathering exercise and the exercise guys will tell you they never have enough information. if i tell you go investigate a bank robbery, you're a lawyer, you're a prosecutor, you know a bank robbery is a set

transaction. there are certain core elements of the offense as we say in the prosecutor biz, that you know you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. it's got a finite set of boundaries around it. if you give someone a counterintelligence investigation and tell them go off and find out whatever information you can find out, and by the way, if you find crimes along the way have, at it. that never ends. >> is that equivalent to united states attorney or bigger? the authority that mr. mueller has. >> it's bigger in the sense he technically answers to rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, but rosenstein committed to chuck schumer and the other democrats, he made a commitment to them, certainly reported in the press, that mueller would be able to take the facts wherever they led him, and also be able to decide which facts to chase after.

mark: david limbaugh, he had several staffers with bill of appointments with the power of sifting united states attorneys, not just assistant special counsel, giving broader authority from the eastern district of virginia we've now learned. so this is a very, very broad-based investigation where the prosecutor has enormous power. >> you made that point that may well not be constitutional to give them that kind of authority. and that's great work that you did on that. but i want to -- mark: that's calabrese, but go ahead. >> the appointment memo was so odd, it leads me to believe that they were on a fishing expedition. watergate and whitewater both specified crimes and they had -- they specify the evidence that suspected -- made them suspect crimes had been committed. here as andy says, this was set up as a counterintelligence investigation so, if they find anything along the way and staff with prosecutors, if rod

rosenstein is such a hot shot and so good at specificity and legal matters, why did he draft that appointment memo that initial memo so sloppily and why did he surreptitiously amend it hoping to retroactively correct it and won't reveal the appointment memo to devin nunes and others to see. whitewater was available. watergate was available. why all the cloak of secrecy in everything these people are doing if all they're doing is trying to find out about russian interference in our elections. it's very suspicious to me. mark: let me just briefly point out the issue with article 2 in the appointments clause, for me, and professor calabrese and several others. it's quite simple. you are principal officer of the federal government or you're not. if you're not, we pretty much know who that is. the vast majority of the people who work for the federal government, you don't need to be nominated by the president

and voted in by the senate. they spent a lot of time on this. you have cabinet secretaries, deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries and justice, every u.s. attorney has to be nominated and confirmed by the senate as does an assistant attorney general or assistant secretary or so forth and so on. the argument, is the professor made, wait a minute, this rosenstein appointment is different than all the other appointments, it's unconstitutional. you cannot appoint somebody with the power effectively of almost united states attorney general or u.s. attorney without the president's involvement or the senate's involvement. a subordinaft the president of the united states can't undermine the president's authority when it comes to prosecutions, even in this case. do you think that's off the wall? >> i don't think it's off the wall, and i tnk aside from the legal theory behind it, which you've just set forth, as

a practical matter, nobody in the justice department, including the attorney general, is supposed to be unsupervised. the attorney general answers to the president, everybody else in the justice department has a boss, at least one, right? it's very dangerous to have a guy who's off without any supervision. mark: all right, folks, you like what we're doing here? we do it every night on levin tv, check us out, crtv. or give us a call,

are you done yet? does it look like i'm done? shouldn't you be at work? [ mockingly ] "shouldn't you be at work?" todd. hold on. [ engine revs ] arcade game: fist pump! your real bike's all fixed. man, you guys are good! well, we are the number-one motorcycle insurer in the country. -wait. you have a real motorcycle? and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog! champion.

we danced in a german dance group. i wore lederhosen.man. when i first got on ancestry i was really surprised that i wasn't finding all of these germans in my tree. i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. the big surprise was we're not german at all. 52% of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com. we know the great outdoors. we love the great outdoors. this year, show dad he's special with great gifts from bass pro shops and cabela's. like bass pro and cabela's flag t-shirts for only $5. an igloo 120 quart cooler for under $50. and this knife and tool sharpener kit for under $80. bass pro shops and cabela's.

i'm all-business when i, travel... even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro.

yes or no? do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? do you want $4.95 commissions for stocks, $0.50 options contracts? $1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team of trading specialists? did you say yes? good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online. . mark: welcome back, david limbaugh want to get back to the issue of supervision? >> yes, andy made a great point, there are few checks and balances against special counsel. they have carte blanche authority. i want to make the point, that makes it all the more important they reveal things to the

specially situated people like devin nunes in congress on the investigatory committees because congress is a co equal branch, and we have to have some accountability even if it remains secret to the public. also want to make the point, special counsel is so broad based and can do what they want under the umbrella of investigating anything, and the whole time it put a cloud on trump's agenda for a year and a half. that's another reason why we need to have its parameters tightened in the future. mark: as a matter of fact, on the issues of the prarameters of the special counsel. i read two memos, it's been the position of the united states department of justice, half a century, really, pretty much, it's been the position of the united states department of justice, regardless of my opinion or yours or yours or the worlds that you cannot

indict a sitting president and provide in exquisite detail why. one them is this, you are dragging down a president of the united states doing something like this. and imagine if he has to defend himself. we all have rights to defend ourselves under the constitution, look at the bill of rights. the president trying to defend himself is an impossibility, among other reasons. apparently, that's been the conclusion reached, we believe, giuliani said by the special counsel's office. and we get into the issue of subpoena. no president has ever been physically pulled in front of a federal grand jury. no president has ever been indicted. no president has ever been removed by the united states senate. that's the only way you can remove a president. they pointed out in the memos to give the prosecutor a power to indict and force a president in a trial is in effect the quasi removal where the prosecutor and the jury replace the senate, if a president is

impeached. so let's go to the subpoena issue. how far can they take a subpoena, if, in fact, they conclude, as the department of justice did, you cannot indict a sitting president? how does the subpoena process work? >> see, i think this goes back to david's point, mark, you know, these guys are not an independent fourth branch of government, right? mueller technically is an inferior executive officer. i don't know on what authority, if the president doesn't want to be subpoenaed, how does the inferior executive officer tell the chief executive, we're going to subpoena you anyway? and i think this goes to two points. one is this is more of a political issue than a legal issue. you know, trump could terminate this whole thing now if he wanted to as chief executive. he doesn't do that because of the political fallout, not because legally he doesn't have the authority to do it, and

secondly, it becomes clearer and clearer. if you think about it, we didn't have a justice department until 1870. didn't have an fbi until 1908. the federal framers didn't intend federal executives were going to rein in congress. issue has always been since no one of mueller's sophistication could have thought they could indict the president of the united states, this has been about impeachment from the first day. >> and if they can't indict, they shouldn't be able to subpoena to examine him for the express purpose of incriminating him. you look at questions that go to his state of mind. it was all designed to find out what he knew in a criminally culpable way. and i also want to say something, mark, you and i go back some 20 years, during the clinton impeachment. you have been consistent on your position whether a sitting

president could be indicted. that was against our political interests because we were not for bill clinton, and you have been consistent throughout on that. mark: you have said from day one, and we've always agreed, this is always about paying too much for insurance that isn't the right fit? well, esurance makes finding the right coverage easy. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance, an allstate company. click or call.

cliberal gavin newsom from knows becoming governor. they also know chicago lawyer john cox has thirteen losing campaigns under his belt... and cox supports bad ideas like a 23 percent sales tax!

california police officers and police chiefs stand with antonio villaraigosa. as mayor, he worked with law enforcement, and cut violent crime in half. antonio for governor.

. >> andy mccarthy, impeachment. this is always about impeachment? >> i don't know a prosecutor as experienced as mueller would have to know there's no way to indict the president. what's the point of the whole investigation? doesn't necessarily mean he wants to impeach him, he's trying to find out if there's a basis to do it. >> all the leaks about obstruction of justice and so forth, some of them truly absurd, like firing comey. fire the fbi director five times if he wants to. this is to suggest the leaks, going to write the so-called confidence report, rosenstein is known to buckle under pressure. isn't that what we're talking about is impeachment report? isn't it unseemly that a prosecutor is writing an

impeachment report? >> yes, comey's motivation and leaking, he wanted a special counsel to be appointed. why would he want a special counsel to be appointed if not to ultimately lead to the impeachment of donald trump. >> go ahead. >> the other agenda, mark, is he wants to protect the justice department and the fbi. so i think one mission of a report like this is to say that while there may have been investigative excesses here, it was trump who brought it to his campaign, people like manafort and gates and page and that the bureau and the justice department and the government widely had a basis to be concerned about -- mark: why is rosenstein so involved in this? rosenstein recommended comey's firing? rosenstein is buddy's with

comey, rosenstein worked for mueller years ago. isn't it interesting rosenstein is overseeing his appointment and work? >> rosenstein is one of the few guys i don't know for 30 years in this investigation, but what i find odd about the situation with rosenstein is, if the removal of comey is part of the investigation, he's in the middle of it as a witness. if the fisa warrants are any consideration of the investigation, he signed off on the last one. it seems to me that he's got a bigger conflict here than sessions had and sessions conflict gave us mueller in the first place. i kind of don't get it. >> that's right, you don't have a special counsel unless there's a conflict of interest, and yet the special counsel's quasi department that is set up is more riddled with conflicts of interest than the attorney

general was. in fact, sessions, he was talking to a russian at a party. that is so preposterous. mark: invite every democrat in america. >> shows you how politicized democrats are to make a thing of that. >> mark, if i can, just to be clear. i'm not accusing rosenstein of misconduct, it's an ethical obligation of lawyers, if they are witnesses in the facts that are under investigation, they can't be so, what's new? we just switched to geico and got more. more? they've been saving folks money for over 75 years. a company you can trust. geico even helped us with homeowners insurance. more sounds great. gotta love more... right, honey? yeah! geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more.

the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight. that's confident. but it's not kayak confident. kayak searches hundreds of travel and airline sites to find the best flight for me. so i'm more than confident. how's your family? kayak. search one and done.

♪ now that i'm on my way ♪ do you still think i'm crazy standing here today ♪ ♪ i couldn't make you love me ♪ but i always dreamed about living in your radio ♪ ♪ how do you like me now?! ♪ applebee's 2 for $20, now with steak. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. mark: andy, how do you see this ending? >> i thank you have to report no impeachable offenses. i doubt the democrats are going to have the blue wave they need to have to make a viable impeachment run a trump. i think robert mueller's investigation and report that he writes is also an attempt to

protect the justice department and the fbi. mark: it goes away. >> i do. mark: do you see it that way? >> i think it will not leave the individual offenses but not be in a way to cast the doj and fbi and to make trump look bad and any billionaire they can find crimes they will imply that trump had the various financial dealings and appointed drawing kind of people in the make him look bad. unless they get him under subpoena to testify they won't have anything. even if they do, it will lead to anything because they can't indict him, as you said.

mark: i have a different take on this. i thank you will see the word obstruction pop up from time to time. i don't think they worked this hard to aggressively to go home quietly. i could be dead wrong and i hope i am. it also explains why people out there need to make sure they vote because this is a political question in the jury could be decided by the american people. than >> i am chris wallace. the summit between president trump and kim jong-un is on. but what about a trade war with our closest allies? ♪. >> i think the relationship we have right now with north korea is as good as it's been in a while. >>chris: the pushback from canada, mexico and europe to the president tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum. >> let me be clear, these tariffs are totally unacceptable. we have to believe at some point common sense will prevail. >>chris: a live intvi