alfinished .. you woul't wa your painteto quit part way. think you mi at.

put up witjustpartf day? aleve,e whole t part painr: y want this colorover t ? i'm joy reid at this hour donald trump is scheduled to hold his second rally of the day in northern california. he's hoping to capitalize on the abc tracking poll that has him one point behind hillary clinton with nine days to go before the election. trump is keeping the focus on newly discovered e-mails in fbi investigation of clinton's use of a private e-mail server. here is trump at a rally in vegas earlier today. >> hillary has nobody but herself to blame for her mounting legal problems. her criminal action was willful, deliberate, intentional and purposeful.

we never thought we were going to say thank you to anthony weiner. >> nobody is saying thank you to anthony weiner like ever. joining me associate professor, director of latino studies at new york university, republican strategist and nbc senior political reporter. thank you all. that was my editorial comment about anthony weiner, not anybody else. you're new to the panel so i want to talk to you a little bit about latinos for trump. there is latinas for trump representative, i guess, this is a woman at a trump rally in vegas. let's listen to her talk about why she supports donald trump. >> yes. i'm a latina for trump, and i'm very proud to vote for mr. trump because he's for law and order. he believes -- he wants things to be right.

for americans, for veterans. mr. trump, i learned this from you. >> vamping like vaudeville. >> coming from an immigrant family i'm familiar with the fact there are conservative immigrants that said, look, it took me 11 years to get my green card and have a certain rese resentment against people who don't do it that way. he has about 17% less than mitt romney but he does have support. >> they are part of the community. romney got 17% and i thought that was the floor, then trump

was like let's take that down a notch. there are latinos, he'll get about 17% of the latino vote. people forget how diverse the communities are. there are latinos third and fourth generation. latino is not synonymous with immigrants. puerto ricans have citizenship, they are u.s. citizens. we have other population that is have been here -- long-standing populations that have been here quite a while. some communities with immigration really identify with communities and identify with immigrants and have friends and families and co-workers. they feel a sense of solidarity with undocumented in general. others feel disassociated with immigrants and make a lot of the same arguments you're going to see in other communities or certain kinds of nativist logic. that's part of what it looks like. it's on the margins, it's a minority but they are there. >> having lived in colorado and florida, i can tell you latino communities are extremely different than cuban-american communities and mexican

american. john carl okay, there was an article a little while best and i probably won't be able to site where it is. used to be immigrants, white, italian or irish american, define the experience, a lot of irish catholics wound up democrats, italian community, rudy giuliani, et cetera, et cetera. does this immigration narrative resonate with white ethnic voters the way it does with -- >> i think it does. you talk about how your family is an immigrant family as is mine. my father who waited in line for his green card has a very difficult time with this issue. he doesn't like what donald trump says but sympathetic with the argument that there are those who came the right way, waited our turn, et cetera. why do we have this crisis and what can be done about it. as a republican i think we have a unique opportunity to remind our friends in the immigrant community, latinos of all stripes from a cultural

standpoint, economic standpoint, there's so much we agree on. we have to get the tone and tenor of the way we speak to all new americans. right? because if we don't, we're going to be in big trouble. >> perry, it's interesting. you covered a lot of the sort of weirdness around affordable care act where you had people in kentucky who loved connect and hated object care, it's the same thing. the way you describe things changes people's experience of them. i wonder if you can imagine a republican policy -- set of policy ideas that might have been able to come at the immigration issue in a different way or does rubio just teach us that it can't be done? >> just looking at this primary i thought jeb bush and rubio and to some extent other republicans talked about it in a different way, talked about minority communities in a different way and they all lost to donald trump. it came down to donald trump and ted cruz who did not speak about these issues in a particularly -- the word bush used, particularly optimistic

way. i don't know the current republican party we're in has a lot of people who maybe their parents several generations back were immigrants but they don't view their experience as being the immigrant one. they view themselves, we belong here, other groups don't belong here. why have you not learned english yet. that's how they view the issues in a nativist tone. i'm not sure this republican party in this moment could have been moved in that direction. >> i think it says it all. for republicans the peril of trying to do immigration reform was made clear by marco rubio's experience, getting elected to solve the problem. going to washington, being smacked down by far right, changing his mind about his own bill and ending up in this muddle he's in now. >> senator rubio has had all positions, some work, some don't. the problem is our culture failed to remind americans -- i'm from an immigrant family as well -- we all come from immigrant families.

some of them were illegal immigrants or not quite so legal or suspected of being illegal. there's a terrible epithet, initials are "without papers." what does that mean? what does that mean there was so much prejudice against irish and jewish immigrants in the past. there were attempts to restrict immigration of those groups many times in the past. so it would be great if people were reminded, hey, our forefathers and mothers were in those positions as well. maybe a little more sympathy is warranted here especially because, you know, so many people came to this country lured here by employers. >> that's right. >> not because they wanted to break the law in the united states or even thought about that. they are trying to feed their families in very dire circumstances. the employers wanted people who would take lower wages and they would employ them. so it's better if we could have a broader view of this problem rather than -- what the real solutions are. deporting 11 or 12 or however

many people is not a viable solution for our country. >> i've been wanting to talk with somebody about this question, whether or not because the power within the republican hispanic caucus is so cuban-american. really the power in terms of who has been a senator, united states senator. i think six out of the seven we've ever elected hispanic senators were cuban-american. because you do not have mexican american center base of power, other than martinez distanced herself from donald trump and wanted nothing to do and sandoval mexican american, the idea you don't have mexican american face of the politics, having cuban-american awkward as well. >> it's a really interesting question. it speaks to the political empowerment of that community and they have a totally differed -- we'll see what happens now that we normalize elections with cuba. it's a completely different relationship as far as their

status to gain citizenship immediately. the point you're making is right. there are larger issues around global capital imand the long history how immigration works that we don't tend to talk about when we talk about immigration. i do think if you really try to get in the weeds about these different communities and the fact different communities are agitating for different kinds of policies and different communities within the caucuses and they try to speak for all these communities. the other things interesting cuban americans are really dominant. the real problem they have now, republican primary electorate is so disproportionately white that it can perform a white racial dominance in their primaries that i think you saw with donald trump where they got to perform nativist policy perry was referring to. it's deeply satisfying in the primary but then they have to appeal to new electorate. even they have rubio and mayor jindal they couldn't get over their own primary base and i think that's a real interesting

challenge in the future. >> members of congress, i think studies have shown fewer than 10% of elected republicans in the house have more than 10% in their district. very white districts, very white primaries, then try to make the pivot in the general election. >> my continge, certainly my hope that the fact, the statistic you just cited is particular to this election. the donald trump rhetoric and the fact republican primary voters in the cycle were clearly fed up. i think there's a conflation between being fed up and seeing nothing happened on immigration feeding into your appeal for the guy who says something that no one else is saying. i think those two were really married in this primary to the degree they won't be once mr. trump exits. >> i think we see donald trump entering the stage. there he is in northern colorado. loveland, colorado, not far from greeley where my mother used to teach at university of northern colorado. this is a very white community. it's an interesting choice for a

candidate to go who is down enmost of the polls in the state of colorado. colorado looking like a state hillary clinton will win but donald trump is no stranger to going to states that don't seem likely for him. his wife melania will be giving a speech in philadelphia, suburbs of philadelphia, which doesn't seem like the best use of campaign resources. i was asking you, giancarlo, because even before donald trump came along, you had a party that had a vicious backlash against immigration reform before donald trump was running for president. this existed. that nativism was there, he took advantage of it. >> hopefully the political reality will set in. we won't have to live what californians are living under wilson. we learned a difficult lesson in that state. when you take a position, pete wilson was a moderate, when you take a position you're going to alienate a generation of voters.

we can't afford to do that. >> do you see evidence of hill republicans beginning to worry that the trump effect on the party -- we already saw mitt romney, 47% cascaded over the party in terms of the image and made it difficult to appeal to voters of color. they did horribly with not only latinos, african-americans, asian americans fastest growing new group of immigrants. do you see any sense republicans feel they can get themselves out of this nativist state even if donald trump loses. >> not in the immediate -- you're seeing pieces of republicans -- let me break out. definitely george w. bush, mitt romney, kind of people out of politics, they have already been against trump for a while. the people who are in politics, the capitol hill aides i talk to, their view is more or less this is a long-term process. they don't think it's a view -- they don't think trump came out of nowhere and go back out of nowhere. they realize now unlike 2012 they wrote the autopsy, they thought they figured it out. they now realized deeper problems. you have some republicans now saying we have a party that's

been defined by white nativism. we have to change that. there is a more realistic in my sense more realistic view about where the republican party is that is dominated by white older voters, some of who are wary of multi-culturalism. you hear republicans talk about that. they don't know how to fix it. they are aware. after trump not a fix, much more gradual process to redefining the party. >> joe, you also had republicans after the '90s throw everything but the kitchen sink at the clintons, lose and supposedly decide that politics of personal destruction was not the way to win. you had compassionate conservatism, bush era conservatism something you can win with but back to the clinton wars. >> you think what president bush was like. he was happy to speak spanish. he wanted to be seen as a compassionate conservative. he came in with a whole set of

ideas and sort of feel good messages that are not in the trumpian mold at all. this is why the bushes, among other republicans are so upset about what's happening in their party now. it would be very good for the country if we had republicans seriously reexamine their position on immigration. one of the few things trump has said, which is true, the president has deported a lot of illegal immigrants. he's done that. if you'll excuse the expression, the illegal immigration has fallen. so the idea that nothing has been done is incorrect. unfortunately it's so easy to propagandaize and republicans have to decide if they want to do this or not. they have talked out of both sides of their mouth for a long time. >> giancarlo i've had republicans say there is a potential for the party to split, give it to trump and form a new party and split.

you're shaking your head. >> no. in the lifetime of people voting democrats -- as bad as donald trump is likely to lose in the election he will not lose as bad as jimmy carter, walter mondale, dmts democrats for completely different set of circumstances faced the same situation. they pigd themselves up in 1992, decided to nominate someone perhaps they didn't love, certainly not the person they would nominate in the prior three but they wanted to win and this person, william jefferson clinton provided the path. that's what republicans will do by the time -- >> when democrats nominated jimmy carter in '96 it was because he was a conservative, not a liberal. >> how did that work out. >> in '76 he won, he just wasn't able to sustain it. there's a whole lot of reasons for that. >> i was thinking, one of the things that's interesting but different now used to be when the republican party decided they were going to win elections

without the black vote, like in '64 they decided that was a possibility for them. they could find a different kind of electoral coalition. today what the real problem is, one segment of the republican party that sees latinos as a demographic threat and another section that sees them as a political necessity. so that dynamic of threat and necessity is, i think, incredibly difficult to maneuver. for the group that sees them as a threat, they don't see them as win overable population but actively destructive to the future of the party. the other sees them as absolutely necessary. i don't see how that's going to play out without some serious decision making. >> this is playing out in realtime what we have in florida, for instance, a race that is dead even, 45-44, clinton up by razor thin margin. north carolina, growing latino population as well as sizable african-american population. you look at that spread, i don't know if people believe there's a six-point difference between hillary clinton and donald trump but certainly trending in that direction. to christina's point, are

republicans after this election is over going to begin to look at latino voters the same way they look at african-americans as an unwinnable population. it's better to maximize the white vote because they are more of a threat than an opportunity. >> you're seeing two different views here. you've heard steve bannon, who is managing trump's campaign now in this article in bloomberg talked about the future of the republican party moving in this white identity politics i would phrase it direction. he was essentially saying we're going to write off minorities, a big enough white working class vote. people forget white working class people -- whites without college degrees are 45% of the electorate. they are a giant part of the electorate. so talking about the fact you don't necessarily need too many more minorities to win, in his view. then you have the more traditional mitt romney view we should be more inclusive and so on. i do think this is not agreed upon -- after 2012 the

republican autopsy was agreed to by most republicans in the establishment. i don't think that view is universal anymore. there's now much stronger faction of the party. if trump wins iowa, ohio and florida, which is all realistic, if trump wins a couple states romney did not win, it's going to be hard to tell people in the party who already don't -- already want to move to a hard right direction this cannot win electoraly because trump will have done better than mitt romney did. >> very interesting. we will find out whether that strategy can work inch petri dish of african-american population but donald trump is heading into the belly of white part of colorado, loveland, colorado and speaking to supporters. let's listen to him for a minute. >> this corrupt system in every way. this is your last chance to change it. i really believe this. this is your last election where you're going to have a chance.

if we don't win between supreme court justices and all of the other things that are going to be so important, it will be very, very sad, very, very sad. i think most of the people in this room believe that this will be your last chance to win. and not going to happen again. by the way, we're leading in so many polls. we're leading by four points in flori florida. of all people "the new york times" put us four points up in florida. they have lines in florida, early voting stretching four and five blocks. they have never had lines before. people walk in, they vote. we're leading in iowa. we're leading in north carolina. we're leading in the great state of ohio bigley.

we're leading all over the place. and we're leading numerous national polls. those polls are all before the bombshell of corruption. additionally exposed. these were before bomb shells came out. i don't know what that means. i'll tell you, i wouldn't be voting for her. we can speak for days, weeks, months about hillary's many crimes against this country and its people and her efforts to conceal those crimes by destroying 33,000 e-mails.

>> i'll be honest, i think that washington, d.c., sees these rallies we have, the biggest ever. it's one of the great movements of all time, even the dishonest media, the world's most dishonest people, they say it. they say it. it's considered one of the great political phenomenas. i'll tell you -- to me, if we don't get there, we don't get there in november, i don't remember consider it. a couple say it doesn't matter, what you've done will go down in the history books. maybe for you, not for me. i've spent tremendous hours and energy and tremendous amounts of money as you know. i think i'll be in for could be over $100 million, which is nice because that's $100 million we don't collect from donors and special interests. where we have had tremendous support. where we have had the best

support, in all fairness, is the small donor, the $61, i think it averages like $61. no republican has ever been able to do that. to me it's an honor. now, i'll tell you if we lose, i will say, it was the greatest waste of time, energy, and money of my lifetime. okay? forget going down in the history books. we're going to win. i think we're going to win. i think when you read wikileaks, when you see that podesta -- i'll tell you what, i would fire him so fast. he speaks so badly about her. she's got bad instincts. i won't even say it. he says things about her that i won't say about her. do you believe it? i would fire john podesta so

fast, whoever he is, i don't think i ever met the guy. he says such bad things about her, and others say such bad things. it's amazing what you learn from looking. i'll tell you what, if she never heard the word e-mail, do you think she would be a very happy woman today? now, it was just learned, by the way, that they found 650,000 e-mails on the current investigation of somebody else. you know, in the diamond business, the coal business, don't worry, we're putting miners back to work. clean coal, clean coal. they call, this could be the mother lode, you know. this could be the 33,000 missing. this could be the 23,000 that are missing. this could be the 15,000.

three weeks ago they are missing a big box of e-mails. think of it, 650,000. what do you have to do for 650 -- if you sat and did one, two, three, you'd be there for weeks. how can you have 650,000 e-mails. anyway, they have 650,000 they found. it was just reported. i would think they have some real bad ones but we're going to find out. i don't know, look, maybe not. maybe not. no doubt in the next nib days, hillary and her special interest will say and do something to detract from her crime and to distract, and also distract from the issues facing our country. as the obama campaign once said, hillary will say anything and change nothing. you know who said that about her, right?

it was president obama. you remember, you know, she's supposed to be everything is so nice, the hugging and the kissing -- by the way, president obama should not be focused on hillary clinton getting elected. he should be focused on bringing you jobs back, on beating isis. and for years i've heard the nastiest quote -- >> you are listening to donald trump. he's in colorado and giving a speech to his supporters, firing them up with such gems as john podesta who the vast majority of americans have no idea who he is but using that as a talking point while he's getting tv air time. he talked about 650,000 e-mails and he says these could be the 30,000 that are missing. these could be all the missing e-mails, the 650,000 e-mails, your fact check, sir? >> when i was listening just now, he said there are 650,000 e-mails that are pertinent -- pertain to this investigation or something like that.

that's absolutely inaccurate, of course. these are all the e-mails discovered on that computer that was used by two people over a number of years. if you look at your own phones or e-mail accounts, that's not an unusually large number. if it were a large number, it wouldn't mean any of them pertain to this investigation necessarily. as we were talking about earlier, the fbi director and fbi agents involved in this case don't know if any of them pertain to this, how many of them are duplicative of the ones they have had already. but this is what he does. >> just to read to you from "wall street journal" which has a great one over feud over fbi probe they mentioned investigators recovered a laptop with 650,000 e-mails, many were accounts from miss abedin, for those familiar with the matter. those e-mails stretched back years, these people said. a laptop both mr. weiner and

miss abedin had used that hadn't come up with the e-mail probe. talking about e-mails sent by one or both of them for years and years and years. >> independent. two points here. first, as we're susbjected to this rant, earlier in the show donald trump said it should be the seminal message. hillary clinton has no one to blame, this new wrinkle, turn in the investigation is proof of that. she can't be trusted. two sets of rules. hit those points and move on. >> why is he talking about john podesta. >> because he's a fundamentally undisciplined candidate who has built a fundamentally undisciplined campaign, which is why he won't win. >> that's what confound and frustrates republicans, even with what seemed like a bombshell, a little less bombshell now since it wasn't specific, he can't give a simple message. he begins talking about people most americans don't know.

i cast no aspeakers on john podesta, he's a swre important person but most americans don't know who he is. going on a five-minute rant about him doesn't seem like the smartest politics. are republicans continuing to be frustrated, this is a rhetorical question, by the fact donald trump spends so much time on extraneous information. >> look where he is. the odds of him winning colorado are fairly low. it's not necessarily the smartest -- he was in washington, d.c., earlier this week opening his hotel. there are questions whether he spends his time in the right place even. that's the first critique. this speech, donald trump likes to talk -- his speeches are his narration of the news. this is not unusual for him. he won the primaries by doing this. this is what i most learned when i watch his speeches, he won the primaries by reading the news and reading his poll numbers and basically told you accurately there's a "new york times" poll out shows him leading in florida, leading in north carolina and ohio. his method as he tends to read

the news and announce what he thinks about it, rallying his supporters to yell and scream and be excited about it, this worked for him in the primary. he thinks it will work again. i assume it will not. he's going with the same strategy as before. >> perry, you have delighted the entire table. we were laughing silently. >> when you tune in you can tell within seconds if he's reading from t from the prompter. if he's reading from the prompter -- >> what is the campaign trying to tell us. what is happening? he's not doing anything. not only will trump not saying anything, he'll say everything. there's no commitment to consistency. there's this weird aspirational thing of i will say what i wish were true. like i wish these were the facts. i'll say these things because i would like they would be true. so if i say them -- >> the problem he has is he's in

a hermatic world. he won't go before the media anymore. his truth is the truth. people in front of him don't care about trump university. they don't care about any of his problems. they are there to believe what he says and it's a feedback. >> to joe's appoint, the most frustrating talking point his surrogates use time and again, trump campaign has a problem with women. no, we don't. there are women at our rally. >> in this world he has no trouble with women. >> giancarlo, i have to ask you because you've worked in politics. everyone has had a frustrated candidate that doesn't listen or do what they say. at what point in a campaign do you let go and say this person isn't listening to me. do you have a sense the trump campaign, such as it is, there aren't that many on it that are professional campaign managers, do you get the sense they have given up? >> i do.

i think press denying campaign is fundamentally different from the rest. we have all been on campaigns where we see the writing on the wall. we hold our head up high, try to help the candidate and fax our resumes. these men and women are working on a presidential campaign. they have to pick themselves up when it's over and figure out what to do next. i can't mj. kellyanne conway after the last debate, the frustration were evident on her face. some are smart people. they see the writing on the wall. i'm sure there's frustration. >> did you get that same sense, perry? obviously in washington if those resumes are sent around one or two reporters may start to see them or, hey, let me know if anybody is hiring, are you getting that sense. >> mention kellyanne conway, she's been saying he's an adult. i don't manage his twitter account. i'm not going to tell an adult what to do with a twitter account. she's been very explicit in saying he's not able to control. i am done trying to control him.

i think she's been open about it as other staffers of his. another thing about what he said just now i wanted to mention. donald trump literally said, he said this before, he said if i lose, this will all be a great waste of time. i actually think, to donald trump's credit, he's actually run a pretty powerful campaign that's shown a lot of -- he's gone from nowhere, beat 16 republicans and will nearly be president. he's exposed a lot of issues along the way. i don't agree with all the stands but i find it strange to tell your audience essentially this has been a great waste of time unless i win. i've never heard mitt romney or anyone else that lost ever say this before. >> he's honest. >> that's true. >> we are having a lot of fun with this, but donald trump has -- let's give him credit for a couple of things. he has exploded the myth you need sophisticated tv advertisement and consultants to win a campaign. he beat 16, most of whom were professional politicians.

>> if you're already a tv star. >> that is a good point. maybe that's the point. >> if you're a tv star in people's heads with a certain image crafted that doesn't resemble anything about his life or who he is as we've discovered in the months since he turned "the apprentice" guy into a political candidate. that imablg, idea of him has been pounded into people's head for 12 years, i don't know how many years the show was on. a certain population that corresponds to where his support is coming from in large degree, that's the image that was created for him. i don't think this campaign really proves anything about what campaigns will do in the future. we'll see what happens on election day. the theory of the trump campaign is you don't need to get out the vote operation. >> more money. >> for both sides. >> his money. i'm sorry. >> go ahead. >> i was just going to say i think money is obviously important in politics and will be for a long time. the rise of bernie sanders, elevation of bernie sanders, what donald trump was able to do

with little month that both candidates had to me proves the point that money is increasingly less important. >> sanders campaign is much more significant in terms of what it accomplished because bernie sanders was nobody. he was an interesting figure to a lot of us that follow politic. to american people this is miami beach like john podesta, he was a u.s. center but they had never heard of. >> this is funny on a show like this, pundits want to reinvent this, it's always historical, nothing new, it's the realm of the political. the new always emerges. remember when obama couldn't win because he's a senator and snow senator could win. always an interesting story something could never happen until it happens. that's what's exciting about the political realm new things can occur. a way it's like distinct, that will never happen again. >> one of the things this has proved to joe's point about brand, your brand can fundamentally change.

what people thought of donald trump if you were to free associate about him a year ago and what people think now is 180 degrees different and not in a good way. not good for that brand. much more after the break. using 60,000 points om my chase ink card i boht allhe fruit.. veies... and herbs needed to create a pop-up pick-your-owjue bar in t middlof the city, so now everyone know.. we have some of the freshe juicin town. lemoret che.com/ink we have some of the freshe remeer when you id men e superiyeah...ers juicin town. yeah, then how'd i g this. ...allstate sa drivbonus check? ...oallstate sds you a bonus check for every x months you're accident free. since. it good toe ingoodan.

you leara loabout whike people want.cheese honey, d d he like sup crcrmy cheese th to spice already t? , thanks. boappe-cese!already t? ay.

under fire for suggesting they found more e-mails that may or may not pertain to the investigation into hillary clinton's private e-mail server. richard painter, former ethics lawyer for george w. bush said comey may have violated federal law. i spoke had him earlier this evening about the possible violation of the hatch act. >> a hatch act prohibits a government official from using their official position to influence a partisan political campaign. in this situation we have no legitimate reason for writing this letter to members of

congress whose only interest in this, at this juncture, is political, knowing that it would be leaked within seconds of arrival on capitol hill. there's just no reason to have written this letter in this context. members of the house oversight committee do not have the right to be updated constantly by the fbi on investigations of their political opponent. that's a misuse of fbi. if members of the committee thinks that's what the fbi director ought to be doing, they are very, very much misled. that's not the way our country works. >> you describe in your op-ed it would not be required for jim comey to him self want to influence the election, it would only require he take action that would cause those who do want to influence the election to do so. could you describe why his own

intent would not be required. >> because it's quite clear what congress wants to do in the hatch act is address the situation where the political people at the top of the executive branch agencies or members of congress put pressure on people in the federal government to use their official position to influence elections. that's not an appropriate use of the official position. that was the whole point of the hatch act. we can't have a situation where an underling goes and does something on behalf of superior and say no hatch act, i didn't give a hoot about the election, makes absolutely no sense. >> jim comey in his letter to fellow members of the fbi, his staff, fbi staff, seemed to express a concern if he didn't update congress on this new finding, it would render his previous testimony on the matter of hillary clinton's e-mail server inaccurate essentially because he testified they had gone through all of the e-mails.

is there any validity to the idea comey essentially felt he had to do the update because he had testified he had already reviewed all the e-mail. >> when he testified he reviewed all the e-mails, his testimony was true. they have discovered another computer, which is not hillary clinton's computer, which is a computer of someone who worked for hillary clinton. i believe they may not even have a search warrant yet to go through it. i don't know how that's relevant. but the key point here is that when you get testimony, you don't have an obligation to constantly update the committee particularly if what the subject matter is is an investigation of their political opponent. no committee of congress has the right to use the fbi in that way. that's the understanding the member of the that committee have, they are in serious breach of their duty as american people

to not use the fbi for political purposes. >> you start your op-ed piece in the "new york times" citing the fact is probable fbi looking into russia top aides, current or former top aides to the republican candidate for president to donald trump and that you're saying essentially that if the reverse were to p has, if the fbi were to then go forward and publicly announce that they were investigating donald trump's ties to russia or his aides ties to russia would be the same thing. do you think that in and of it's self is proof this is political? because the fbi is investigating essentially both -- something to do with both candidates but only updating the public on one. >> i don't know for sure what the fbi is investigating with respect to trump and russia. but given the fact we do know what trump has said and his business dealings in russia and the fact these e-mails are hacked almost certainly by

russians and leaked selectively to help the campaign, i would certainly expect that the fbi would be investigating. they certainly should. we've had this problem before. franklin roosevelt had to get rid of his vice president, henry wallace. these ties are too close to russia and kgb. this goes to election, if fbi is looking into ties between any of these candidates and a foreign power, that should be done privately and not leaked to members of congress who only have a partisan political interest in fbi investigations at this point. >> lastly, sir, to those who would suggest you are writing this op-ed and making claims about potential hatch act violations of the fbi director because you are a supporter of hillary clinton, what would you say to them, sir? >> i have chosen hillary clinton to support because the first three candidates who i supported in the republican primary were

not chosen, bush, rubio, kasich. we had some very good people, we had excellent people who did not run. donald trump is unacceptable for obvious reasons that have been talked about over and over again. you know, i've got three children. i don't want him anywhere near the nuclear button and that's just the beginning of it. so as an american, i have to support clinton. i do not have a choice in this election. >> richard painter, thank you so much for joining us by phone. really appreciate your time. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> my all-star political panel will be back after the break. [ gearstopping ] wh your pain liever sto working, yohole day sps. try th has the rength too st. but just one aleve tylenol d adl can quit after 6. try th live your ole day, not part... with 1 hour ave.

you's why yourink ensure.ep u delid. with gra of protein and 26 vimins a minals. for the strengthnd energy to get back to doing... ...what you ensure alwayse you. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ lyho who dare ive ewod foard. [ rumbling ]

whkids tliberty did what?e yeah, th liber mutual all i need to doo get an estimate ys sn a photo omutual all i thdamage andoila! wait! ld it. hold it boys...t... ila!(sig ie ere's s ed to behreef you... where's your broth? where's your brother? hey, where'schare?!e? you clibey ands with yoind wh liberty stands th you. lirttu insurce

joining me on the phone, former u.s. attorney coffey.

thank you for the quick turn, we called you on the break. senate minority leader harry reid sending a letter to comey saying he may have violated the law. the clear double standard established by your actions strongly suggested your highly selective approach to publicizing information along with timing was intended for success or failure of partisan candidate or group. please keep in mind i've been a supporter in the past when republicans filibustered your nomination. i led the fight to have you confirmed because i believed you to be a principled public servant. with deepest regret i see that was wrong. putting aside that part, the suggestion director comey may have violated the hatch act. your thought as u.s. attorney. >> i think it's a stretch. there's a lot of reasons to criticizes comey's judgment and the backdrop to that judgment

and stood way he took over both decision making and the communication in this case in july, which was carried over in october. i don't think he's trying to get anybody elected or not elected. he's concerned about one thing, he, james comey put it on himself to tell congress and american people that no further investigative steps were being taken. and in his view things changed in october and he's been scrambling to figure out how to deal wit. is it good judgment? is it the finest hour of the fbi? no, it's not. i don't think it's potential part of them manipulating. that essentially is what would have to be established to prove the hatch act violation. >> intent has been a huge part of the e-mail story whether or not hillary clinton intended to somehow evade foia laws or putting them on private e-mail server at issue whether or not she commit add crime having the server rather than poor judgment. we'll leave that aside.

richard painter, former deputy white house counsel during george w. bush administration, what he said is an official doesn't actually have to have a specific intent or desire to influence an election themselves to be in violation of the hatch act or of government ethics rule, that the rules are violated if it's obvious that the officials actions could influence the election. there's no other good reason for taking the action and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election. so kendall coffey, what we have here rlecs like jason chaffetz who clearly want to influence the election. you have knowledge sending a letter to jason chaffetz would be immediately leaked and knowing the effect would cause controversy that impugns the reputation of only one political candidate. don't we have, even if it's not comey's intent to do it, he knew the people he was sending it to would do it, right? >> there's going to be some issues he has to explain.

the central question was did he have a law enforcement justification for concluding this investigation in some fashion needed to be resolved -- resumed. we don't know the answer to that, joy. we're doing some pretty intelligent speculation about what's in there but we simply don't know the answer. what's exceptional about this case with comey, unlike situations somebody initiating the investigation on a clean slate and all of a sudden dropping new dynamic, his explanation would have to be he did not want voters, or the congress, to be misinformed by his silence. he's already told them there's a completely clear way on this. all of a sudden that is not true. he's got enough of a rational, even though you and i might not agree with it, he's got enough of a rational for a hamp act charge. >> kendall coffey, i always grab

you whenever i have something like this that comes up. i appreciate you taking our calls today, really appreciate it. >> thank you, joy. >> i'm going around the horn, if there's going to be consequences in your view for james comey that go beyond criticism. john carl okay, what do you think? >> democrats take over the senate, yes. >> you think so. joe. >> i think there would be some urge on the part of the democrats to look into the circumstances of this should they take over the senate. i also think i wonder how james comey serves if hillary clinton was clinton, not that she would fire him, because she can't, but wouldn't he want to resign? if i was james comey i would want to. the new president has expressed a lack of confidence in him. he has done something that a lot of people in the country, more than half if she wins, think was wrong. that's a real cloud to continue to operate the fbi under. >> unprecedented for fbi director to have contentious

relationship. >> christina, do you think there's political consequences for comey, there until 2023. >> very interesting. how is she going to perform -- try to be balanced and sustain him, if possible. i think this has spoken to the politics of ambiguity. what he offered provided an enormous amount of political energy where no results. we don't know anything. it allowed chaffetz to go one way, the democrats another. it muddied the water. gave us no information. that's what happens when someone goes rogue. >> i'm wondering about the politics for comey but next attorney general for united states who would be in supervisory position. not listeneded to. politics for comey, what kind of ag might be next in line to have to deal with him. >> for comey he's already getting criticism from people, i

think he's already got criticism. hard to imagine hillary clinton wins the election and in the first year decides to purge who she doesn't like. hard if he doesn't resign. he has a ten-year term. people don't leave jobs like that in washington, so i don't think he'll move on. >> second question, what about the new attempt to choose a new attorney general. you'll have another person who knows the fbi director has a penchant for not listening to the ag. >> it seems to me from what i've read and talked to people lynch has make -- in this particular case once the bill, whatever happened, lynch does not feel like she can involve herself in this case like she would other matters. if there's a new attorney general, i do think that person technically james comey's boss may weigh in and may more

strongly oppose him or manage him than the way loretta lynch could. >> we do forget a lot of people believe an active investigation going on with the other presidential candidate. should donald trump win the election you could have the same fbi director investigating aides to the republican of the united states for ties to russia. >> this is why we have two candidates that a majority of americans don't like and why people are sick and tired of politic and we want to hide under our beds. >> you would agree one is much more dangerous than the other. russia ties versus e-mail use. >> i think it's both a mess. >> giancarlo. >> leave it there. >> exiting gracefully. the graceful dismount by our friend giancarlo. christina, joe, our friend here and perry. thank you guys. that is our show for today. "am joy" will be back next saturday 10:00 a.m. eastern.

up next, original series "in other news." bot it's about mingd not ba. not down up fli up livingp.p it beingn motion. inritn by in t now. boost. it's t st nutrition, itntelligent tritn. with 26 vitamins anminerals and 10 grams of protein. all in 3 delicious flavors. it's choosinto g in one dir... up t. bep r .

[ rock musiclaying ha fun wi your replaced windows run away! grunts ] leave him! leave him! [ music continues bricd mo, wh?! [ music coinues ] [ tires screech ] [ laughs ] [ doorbe rings ]

when bundle home and ao inrance with proessive, you get more than . that's what you ge for bundling home and auto! jae! u t snky-goocoverage. than. we're nnliveorev! michael jackson died today, he was only 50 years old. >> this is equivalent to elvis passing away. >> this was a huge international story. >> the stories you're about to see reported in the news january 25th and 26th, 2009. >> influence and power to stop world news. >> king of pop's death across the world and other stories buried in its wake. >> so many things got overshadowed today. >> past three days some of the most violent in iraq since the protests began. >> actress farrah fawcett lost her three-year battle with cancer. >> mark