cut to 15 or 20%, and he is only going to be able to get it down to 30% that's the sort of thing the market aren't going the like. the business about jeff sessions is not playing through to the markets because it doesn't indicate that donald trump won't get things done. if republicans start turning against him on economic policy that's where you will see it go down. the type of uncertain we are seeing right now is not the type of stuff that bothers investors so much, but there can be that type of uncertainty, and the market can turn on a dime. thank you for w567ing msnbc live. right now, "andrea mitchell reports." thank you chris jansing. right now on msnbc reports, breaking news, democratic leaders calling for attorney general jeff sessions to resign. and now key republicans saying he should recuse himself. a firestorm afternoon after the "washington post" reporting that then senator sessions met with rs's ambassador while a key

adviser to the campaign despite denying it under oath. nbc caught up with the attorney general exclusively today. >> are you able to comment on the nature your meetings with the russians over the summer? >> well, i have not met with any russians at any time to discuss any political campaign. and those remarks unbelievable to me. are false. and i don't have anything else to say about that. so thank you. >> what about calls to recuse yourself from your agency's probe of the election? >> i have said whenever it's appropriate i will recuse myself. there is no doubt about that. >> do you think that time will come? thank you, sir. >> breaking ranks. top republicans now calling for the attorney general to recuse himself from the investigation into russia's election-year hacking. >> i think attorney generals should further clarify and i do think he's going to need to recuse himself at this point. >> moments ago house speaker paul ryan not willing to say that he should step aside.

>> i think he answered that question this morning, which is if he, himself, is the subject of an investigation, of course he would. but if he is not, i don't see any purpose or reason to doing this. let's take a step back for a sec here. we have seen no evidence from any of these ongoing investigations that anybody in the trump campaign or the trump team was involved in any of this. we have been presented with no evidence that an american was colluding with the russians to meddle in the election. and the democrats are pouncing. with the senate and house leaders saying that attorney general sessions needs to step down for misleading congress, they say, about his contacts with the russian diplomat. >> the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the land, and already his integrity and independence has been questioned. it could be better for the country if he would resign. >> the fact in a the attorney general, the top cop in our country, lied under oath to the

american people is grounds for him to resign. it's grounds for him to resign. he has proved that he is unqualified and unfit to serve in that position of trust. ♪ good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell. we are following the breaking news here in washington on the expanding political crisis over russia for the trump white house. this time it is at the top of the trump cabinet. the former senator jeff sessions, in charge of the fbi counter-intelligence investigation into russia's campaign hacking as attorney general, now in the political cross hairs after explosive reporting from the "washington post" about session's meeting with russia's ambassador at the height of the general election campaign even as questions were being raised in print about possible trump connections of trump advisors with russia, but

denying his own meeting under oath during his confirmation hearing. our team has it all covered. national correspondent peter alexandre at the white house. casey hundred, and pete williams. pete, let me start with you. you cover the attorney general. you cover the fi. you know the law. whether or not he misled under oath, whether or not it is a legal issue of perjury as democrats are of course claiming there is a question about the way he testified, especially in the written answers that he wrote back to pat leahy, which specifically asked him about meetings with the russian ambassador. >> about the campaign. that was the senator -- in essence's senator leahy's written question is clearer. he said did you have any meetings with the russians about the campaign? and session's one-word answer was no. the question from senator franken in the open session was

a little more general. what he basically said he i haven't had any contact with the russians about the campaign. that's what he said again this morning. what justice department officials tell us is when he was answering the question from franken he didn't think about the meeting he had in september that he was thinking in the context of trump surrogates talking to the russians about the campaign. and he continues to insist he didn't talk to russians about the campaign and that he talked to a whole bunch of ambassador last year on a range of subjects because he is a member of the armed services committee. 's his position right now is this september 8:th, the dave his meeting in his office with the russian ambassador was exactly at the peak of a flurry of stories about carriager page, roger stone, paul manafort, others from the trump campaign, and whether they had had connections. it was at a fever pitch.

let's play that confirmation hearing, the questions from senator franken. and senator franken today on morning joe, and then talk around that. >> these documents also allegedly stated, quote, there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government. if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious. and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with if trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? >> senator franken, i'm not aware of any of those activities. i have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and i didn't have -- not have communications with the russians and i'm unable to comment on it.

>> very well. in my mind jeff sessions should clarify some of this. as i said, this is now a contradictory -- these are contradictory statements. and i think that he should immediately recuse himself from any of this. i think that we should have a special prosecutor that is appointed by not only not by jeff sessions but not by anyone with any ties to the campaign. >> let me bring in adam entes, one of the "washington post" reporters who broke the story. let me get you to comment on the pushback that we are seeing from the white house. >> right. well i think the issue is, you know -- we obviously don't know what he actually discussed in the two encounters he had last year with the ambassador. they have not provided us with any information about that. i think the issue is less about them discussing the campaign, but actually discussing

policies, that an incoming trump administration might pursue, for example, on sanctions vis-a-vis ukraine. these are the kinds of thing that i'm sure the ambassador would be interested in talking to the senator about. the question is, you know, does the ambassador see this separation between sessions, the armed services committee member, and sessions the foreign policy adviser to the trump campaign? and that's something obviously we haven't heard back from the ambassador himself about what was discussed. >> but we can certainly infer that -- from your reporting is it correct that 19 of the 26 members of the armed services committee are telling you that they did not meet with the russian ambassador? there are often meetings and there was a group session. i think the one at the republican national committee is different. you had 50 ambassador there meeting with a lot of people, including senator sessions. that's not the same as the one on one interview in september at

the peak of the general election campaign. >> yeah. i mean, so in july you have basically the equivalent of a poloside, where some of the ambassadored after sessions comes off the podium pull him aside and have a discussion. i don't know how long that discussion lasted? was it a two-minute discussion? was it 30 seconds? was it 20 minutes? we don't know the answer to that. when it comes to the -- obviously the september meeting, like you said, that one is clearly for substantive, much more official. you know, from talking to some of the other diplomats who sent ambassadors to secessions in 2016 -- to see sessions in 2016 they say the ambassador went to see him not because he was a member of the senate armed services committee but because he was part of the trump campaign. they wanted to find out if he could provide any insights into what the trump campaign would be looking at doing with regard to that ambassador's country. i think it's very logical that

kisslyiac probably viewed his meeting with sessions in the same way. >> peter alexander at the white house, you and i were both covering this campaign, and we know how frantic the ambassador in washington were, from every country, before and certainly after the election, to get close to everybody who was close to donald trump and figure out what does he mean about nato, what does he mean about the european union? this was a mystery. they had no political experience with him. >> exactly right. in the final waning days of the obama administration, after then president-elect trump had won they had questions at home about this. i want to add new information. we are hearing from sean spicer on camera today. he spoke a start time ago with fox news with some of his first public comments about this latest story surrounding jeff sessions.

he told fox news that -- >> speert, we have that tape. let's play it and then ask you about it on the other side. >> okay. >> there is nothing to recuse him. he was 100% straight with the committee. i think the people are choosing to play partisan politics with this and should be ashamed of himself. >> as you heard there. >> in another part of the interview, i think you have got the transcript, he was trying to explain it without specifically giving the actual facts of what had happened. i don't think -- >> reporter: i'll read what he said. i printed it out before i ran out to the lawn the talk with you. he said i think jeff sessions did his job. he said he wa ask pointedly there had been contact with the trump campaign in his capacity of being a surrogate. there was no. he was 100% straight about the committee. most notely and striking from what we've been hearing privately and publicly from white house officials how upset

they are about what they view as another partisan attack by the democrats. it stepped on what was perhaps the best 24 hour window of donald trump's presidency so far, enjoying the afterglow as it were of what was a largely well received speech before a joint session of congress. and now he is forced to respond to this. >> kasie hunt, the other problem we have is that the republicans are not hanging tough. you have got jason chafe, et cetera, and now senator portman. who are some of the other defectors who are now saying that he should recuse himself. >> reporter: those are what i would say are the two major cracks in find of republican unity here around this issue. jason chafe, et cetera, i talked to him earlier. he said yes he needs to recuse him. the problem he has is of course the contradictory testimony, not necessarily the meeting with the ambassador itself. that meeting is not necessarily out of the ordinary.

but the fact that he contradicted himself, said that the meeting never happened, and then didn't correct the record. that's why chafe, et cetera thinks he should recuse himself at this point. that is a split from where leadership appears to be coming down. house speaker paul ryan saying if the justice department is investigating jeff sessions of course sessions should recuse himself but there is no need in the context of the broader investigation into trump campaign contacts with russia. then you have kevin mccarthy who on morning joe this morning who seemed to suesthat sessions should recuse himself and tried to adjust his comments in later remarks to fox news. a little bit of confusion there with leadership. i want to focus on rob portman for a second. this is somebody who represents the state of ohio. it's obviously been a bell weather swing state. portman had a potentially tough re-election five.

he is always very careful in how he approaches these things. he has not had much to say about president trump since the inauguration. i think it's significant that he came out to say, hey, sessions needs to recuse himself here. >> pete williams let's just complain the importance of recusal. according to the "wall street journal" today, the fbi has been investigating sessions' contacts with the russians. that would fit that they are doing the counter-intelligence investigation into all sorts of contacts of anyone connected to the trump campaign with the russians. this would fall into that basket. how can he then -- the question democrats are asking and some republicans as well, how can he not recuse him since he has now been swept up in this? >> if he did decide to recuse himself it would be up to the deputy attorney general the take over here. we've seen this before. john ashcroft recused himself on the vallerie plane investigation. and there was a special counsel

appointed by james comey who was then the deputy attorney general. recusal would meaning he would be in the dark on this investigation. he wouldn't be briefed on it. he would be a complete stranger to it, wouldn't be making decisions. that's how recusal is supposed to work. there are justice department guidelines that guide this decision-making process on when to recuse, when there is a potential conflict, when it would be in the public interest and so forth. but it is going to have to be his decision on whether or not to recuse. >> or the political climate would make it such. it is ultimately his decision but it could ends up being a white house decision as well. >> that's true. >> pete williams, adam, peter alexander and kasie hunt. >> angus king joins me now. senator, have you met with the russian ambassador? >> no. i was in a meeting in 2015 with about 20 other senators where all the ambassador from the p5+1

were at the table on the iran deal. but no, no one on one meeting. i have met with a number of ambassadors. not russia. >> and we of course know in a the russian ambassador, all of these ambassador report home, whether they are as this russian ambassador did, according to some reports, involved espionage, spy -- spying on officials here or not -- but their job is to report back to the capital, back the home base. so he is reporting back to vladimir putin about this meeting with sessions? >> absolutely. >> and presumably that report may have been picked up by u.s. counter-intelligence. >> it's possible. i can't really comment on that. andrea, init's really important to clarify. there are two issues now swirling around. one is recusal. and one is resignation. recusal, your reporter mentioned the guidelines. i don't like to read things, but this is the department of

justice guideline on recusal. no department of justice employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation. and it talks about an adviser or official, personal relationship, political party. there is no question that jeff sessions should recuse himself from any involvement in any investigation conducted by the fbi or the justice department. i think that's completely clear from this -- it looks like this was written to describe this situation. resignation is a whole different issue. that involves what he said to the judiciary committee. in my view he should be given an opportunity to come back before the judiciary committee and clarify and expand his kmebts. there was some big out a whether he was acting as a surrogate or not. and we can talk about what hat

he had on when he had that meeting. but i think the recusal piece is absolutely clear. >> wasn't the opportunity given to him already by senator leahy to clarify in the follow up written interrogatories? >> as i heard those questions, they still involve as in your capacity as a surrogate. you know, that's where it gets fuzzy. that's why i think it does knot need -- it does need to be clarified. this is very serious, to charge an attorney general and a former senator with perjury is pretty serious stuff. and i think we don't want to just jump at it. as i said, i think the responsible response would be for the judiciary committee to have attorney general sessions back before them, talk through this, and get some clarity on this. >> do you have confidence that the senate and house intelligence committees can

independently investigate this? or has their credibility already been damaged by the reporting of white house pressure to push back against media reports that there should be an independent commission or an independent prosecutor now looking at all of this? >> i can't speak to the house, okay? that's a different -- i'm on the senate intelligence committee. i do have confidence. i think we had a little problem back last weekend, but i think the committee -- both sides of the aisle on the committee are commitmented to a non-partisan, straightforward, follow the facts where they lead. i like what marco rubio said the other day. he's not going to participate in either a whitewash or a witch hunt. that's exactly the way i feel. this needs to be a straightforward factual investigation. i think we can do it. if we can't. if it starts to break down on partisan lines i'm going to be one of the first ones to say it ain't working we have got to do another option. the problem with an incommission is that will require probably congressional action, perhaps

signature by president. then who gets appointed? how is the makeup of the commission? you have got do clearances to -- security clearances. it would be six or eight months before such a group got to where we are today. so i think the burden is on the senate intelligence committee to do this in a thorough, thoughtful way. and that's certainly my intention in working with members of both sides of the aisle. >> just to button it down from what you read to us and what you said afterwards, you think recusal should be without any doubt the next step? >> no. without doubt. i'm surprised frankly that attorney general sessions has waited this long. i moon you can read that rule -- as i said, when i first read it it sounds like it was written for this situation. if you are an associate of someone in a political campaign and there is an investigation of that campaign -- i believe he was. he was the first senator to endorse mr. trump. he spoke at rallies for him.

i think he was listed as the national security adviser to the campaign. he cannot -- this is why it's so important. not only is it important to get a straightforward full-blown investigation but it's important for the public to have confidence in this process. people are anxious about this. they are worried about it. they are upset about it. they are angry about it. and it does no good to have an investigation that's tainted from the beginning by the guy who is in charge of it having an obvious conflict of interest involving his connection with the campaign. so in order to maintain the credibility -- and the trump administration juwan do this. if they don't believe there is something to hide here they should want to get it out and have it not tainted by having one of their guys ostensibly in charge of it. >> thank you senator. good news from the trump white house today. dr. ben carson was confirmed this morning by the senate as the secretary of housing and urban development.

the senate vote, 58-41 mostly along party lines. up next the top democrat on the house intelligence committee will be joining us. stay here on "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. like what? like a second bee helmet with protective netting. or like a balm? you know? or a cooling ointment for the skin. how about a motorcycle? or some bee repellant. i'm just spit-balling here. nothing stops us from doing right by our customers. ally. do it right. told you not to swat 'em. ally[kids cheering] [kids screaming] call the clown! parents aren't perfect but then they make us kraft mac & cheese and everything's good again.

everything your family touches sticks with them. make sure the germs they bring home don't stick around.

use clorox disinfecting products. because no one kills germs better than clorox.

welcome back. joining me now is john mclaughlin, the former acting director of the cia who is now at johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. good to see you. >> thank you andrea? your reaction to all of this.

you know how a russian ambassador works and what they are trying to get when they meet with someone as important as one of the closest advisors for the republican candidate for president. how could jeff sessions not realize what the russian ambassador's game plan was? >> it does strain credibility. i've -- i know ambassador kisslyiac. he is a veteran of russian diplomacy. and he's a hard guy to forget if you have met with him. and so i understand what attorney general sessions is saying here. but i think he's got a real problem at this point, which is it's inevitably going to lead to recusal or something else. >> why duo you say he has a rea problem? >> well, when i look at this situation and i try to get above all of the noise we are experiencing in washington now, what it tells me is that this administration is not going to be able to investigate this

problem itself. nor do i think actually that congress will be able to. i heard what senator king said, and i respect his view, and there are some very smart people with high integrity on that committee. but when you look at the political heat this is generating -- my experience in washington tells me they are going to have trouble. it's not going to be impossible for them to get beyond the partisan dimension of this. there is too much at stake politically, particularly for the republicans for them to -- either in the senate or in the administration through the justice department. so i think just a matter of time here before everyone converges on the idea that you need either a 9/11-type commission where a bunch of people who are widely trusted look at this dispassionately or a special prosecutor with the same dispassionate approach. >> from your knowledge -- >> and by the way, i think there is an important thing at stake here for both the republicans

and the administration. i mean, for the republicans, throughout their modern history, they have carried the flag of skepticism about the soviet union first, and then russia. well, the democrats now have that flag. and the republicans are on the defensive about it. >> isn't that because of all of the opportunities that donald trump has had during the campaign and since to be skeptical, to say the least of vladimir putin and instead he has been exactly the opposite? >> precisely. and if it turns out, and we don't know. there might be nothing here. that's why an investigation has to be done dispassionately. but if it turns out there is something here the republicans are going to have a huge political problem. i think that's why we are starting to see a number of them now take this quite seriously and say we have to get to the bottom of it. because they know if there is a problem here, et cetera a going to wound them desperately. >> what from you know of the

ambassador, is it credible that he would not be engaged in what we would broadly consider espionage, intelligence gathering? >> you know, i don't think he's a spy literally. he's a veteran diplomat. i knew him when he was head of america's desk in the foreign ministry. he speaks fluent english. very clever. very experience. he would certainly be collecting information. that's what diplomats and spies do, yeah, absolutely. and he's very experienced at it. you know, when i was in russia in october i met with people in both the kremlin and the foreign ministry as part of a group that was there. >> an academic group. >> academic group. and i came away realizing we really are close to cold war two. we really are. that's another reason why it's important to get to the bottom of this thing for the administration. because in truth the president has a point when he says we need to think about whether it's possible to have a better

relationship with russia. because when i was there, it felt like we were just one mistake away from a shooting war. given the level of tension that you could feel and you could see in the media. so for the administration, if they really want to engage russia with that objective, they have to get this cleared away or anything they do with russia will be viewed with suspicion. they won't are the freedom to maneuver that any president needs in dealing with a potential adversary. >> there was also a report in the "new york times" that former obama officials in the closing days or weeks of the obama administration were so concerned about this, and so concerned that it would be covered up by the incoming team that they were secreting information about the ongoing investigation, archiving it in different agencies so there was no one master file that could be burned. >> yeah, no, i have never seen in a happen before. this is again an extraordinary

situation. we don't have the details of that. but i don't doubt that it happened of it's logical given the atmosphere we had at that time. given the reluctance of trump ever to say anything critical about putin, it's logical they would have done that. there are some other things here that i think -- you know, you and i talked about this half, how things happen, and they happen so rapidly that they move downstream and you are onto the next extraordinary thing. well the thing that really caught my attention as a former intelligence officer was this report last week that the administration had actually asked members of the senate and some part of the intelligence community to speak to the press and knock down some of these stories. it's not unusual for an administration to push you that way. what's really unusual is for you to yield. and both the senate and house committee chairmen acknowledge they had done that and tried to pass it off as kinds of normal.

it isn't. and i think that really dents their credibility. you now, some members of the senate said well they are getting past that maybe they are. i'm skeptical. >> always good to see you. acting director the cia. coming up we will hear from a member of the judicialary committee. senator klobuchar joins us next on "andrea mitchell reports."

did you make that? i did... n't. hey, come look what lisa made. wow. you grilled that chicken? yup! i did... n't. smartmade frozen meals. real ingredients, grilled and roasted. it's like you made it. and you did... n't. [car[clicking of ignition]rt] uh-- wha-- woof! eeh-- woof! wuh-- [silence]

[engine roars to life] [dog howls] ♪ dramatic opera music swells from radio ♪ [howling continues] it's your tv, take it with you. with directv and at&t, stream live tv anywhere data-free. join directv today starting at $35 a month. no extra monthly fees.

what you are seeing now is air force one landing at langley air force base near newport news, virginia. president trump is going to be going to view the construction

of the gerald r. ford aircraft carrier. air force one on the tarmac there. joining me now is democratic senator from minnesota, amy klobuchar, member of the judiciary committee, who has called for jeff sessions to recuse himself. senator, why? why have you take then stand against jeff sessions? >> i think first all we need to get to the bottom of this immediately. i believe jeff sessions should come before our committee to answer the questions that were left unanswered, to explain at the very least why he misled the committee. and more than that, if he lied to the committee. beyond that this is so much bigger. when he had that meeting with the ambassador back in september, that was only three days, andrea, three days after -- three days after the president of the united states, president obama, had met with vladimir putin and had done a public press conference at the g 20 saying he did not believe that sanctions should be rolled back. three days later, the now

attorney general of the united states who is in the chair of the trump campaign was meeting with the russian ambassador. so i think that smells. i think that we need the facts out. i want to know, did he communicate with the trump campaign back then, before or after, what was said at the meeting. because we've already seen the chair resign, man fort, over russia. we saw general flynn step down over his contacts with the russia. the day president obama announced the sanctions. this seems to be a pattern and i want to see the facts. >> senator, was that also the g 20, where he, president obama, told vladimir putin to knock it off regarding the hacking? >> i wasn't in all of those conversations, andrea. but what i know happened there was there was a discussion about that as well as all of the sanctions and the need -- the fact that obama was not going to

be rolling back the asanctions. that was the same time period which in china, when three days later senator session is meeting with the russian ambassador. i would like to know if other senators meeting with him that day -- it appears a of the will of the other armed services members did not meet with the russian ambassador do you remember that time. to he moo it looks like it could have easily been related to senator session's roll with the trump campaign. >> do you think senator sessions was confused or deliberately misleading the committee when he answered senator franken? >> at the least he was misleading. very least he said i did meet. when that is three days after president obama's announce men when he met with him at the republican convention, it does make you think this may not in fact be the truth.

those are the answers we need t have. >> senator klobuchar, there are some democrats -- i mean you know that senator schumer and nancy pelosi calling for a resignation. do you think they are jumping the gun here without as you have suggested giving him a chance to explain himself? >> i don't know so much giving him a chance to explain himself because i think resignation could well be on the tablely. but what i want to see is i want to got if facts for the american people before that happens. we have a right as the committee and senator grassley and senator feinstein lead that committee. our committee has a right to call him before the committee and ask him more questions under oath. i think that would be important not just for the issue of should he resign. but it's even more important for the bigger picture. i want to find out if this is part of a pattern and what he said or didn't say to the trump campaign. because we are trying to get to the bottom of the fact our intelligence committee is, the incommission that i want to see put together should be getting to the bottom of what kind of

relationship was there between the trump campaign influencing the election and then we can move on as a democracy. but we cannot move on as a democracy when a foreign power is trying to influence our democratic process. >> senator, of course you have seen what the white house has said, that this is politics, that this is an attempt try to undercut the president right at the moment when he was on a high from a widely well reviewed speech, whether he didn't give details on programs -- i mean, you can take the other point of view about the speech, but they certainly feel that they can argue that this was the best speech he has given in a long time and the first speech that was shall we apresidential and not like speaking at a rally. is there a lot of politics also driving this? >> you know what, look at what president obama had to deal with all the time. he was constantly balancing foreign relations issues and you

know, whether or not it was osama bin laden raid, domestic work. i would say to the people making that comment in the white house, gro up here, you have got to balance lot of things. sure you can talk about an infrastructure package and the work that can be done on that on a bipartisan basis but you better be explaining to the american people where one by one the people that worked for our campaign or administration turned out to have been meeting with the russians at the same time they were trying to illegally influence our election. >> thank you so much senator klobuchar. we're going switch quickly to the house intelligence chair who has just come out of the briefing with the fbi director. >> with that we'll open it up to question. >> after meeting with the fbi director, are you still confident there is no evidence yet of contact between the russian officials and the trump campaign through the election season? >> we still have no evidence of

that other than the ones that we -- other than general flynn. >> was that a topic in today's discussion? >> i am not going to get into what was talked about in the hearing today. >> what about jeff sessions and his meetings with the russian ambassador. should he recuse him? >> we have got to be careful. it is a slippery slope. all the countries in the world have embassies here. at love those countries are adversaries. we all meet with those -- many senators and congressmen meet with those ambassadors on a regular basis. i have only read the press report that said that mr. session has a meeting. and so i think at this point it would be up to if attorney general i guess clarify with the senate if there is some disagreement. i don't know if there is because i haven't seen what the senators

who attended those meetings said. >> has jeff sessions come up at all in your briefings as part of the investigation. >> we are not going to talk about what was talked about. >> [ inaudible ]. >> i have no idea because we have no idea what he did or didn't do. i think it's up to the attorney general to like i just said, i think he needs to talk to the senators if there is some disagreement there. >> senator, senator graham told some of us this morning that he wented director comey to tell him whether or not there was an ongoing investigation. is that something you asked of the [ audio problems ] >> if there was an investigation of a signature senator i think that would be pretty rare for them to tell us. or any elected official for that matter of the legislative branch. >> -- about how the investigation --

[ inaudible ] contacts between trump surrogates and russians. is an ininvestigation needed at this point? >> i think this is the appropriate place for this to be done. the legislative branch has the house intelligence committee that has broad jurisdiction over the intelligence agencies. it's bipartisan. we have a bipartisan agreement. as i have always said this is a long ongoing investigation and concern that we have had into russia, russia activity, not only in the cyber realm but involving elections and other elections across the globe. >> now that you set the scope of your investigation what's the time line and the next steps? >> look, we have -- there is a lot of information we need to get as it relates to the document that was produced by the obama administration, the i.c. in the early part of january. all of those -- all of that intelligence that went into building that document.

we are still awaiting some of that. and we are setting up -- we'll also be looking at what the fbi can provide us. then also waiting to determine if we can figure out who may or may not be part of these leaks that have occurred. >> you said you meet with ambassadors all the time. but the real issue here is failure to disclose that when he was asked about this during the confirmation hearings. -- oversee this investigation into the campaign contact with russian officis if he did not disclose it himself when asked by the senate? >> yeah, so i don't know what has been said or not said. i only just read the press report. i know there is things that the senators believe they asked him and that he responded. at this point i think there is a agreement between the attorney general and some united states senators and the best thing to do here is i think for them for

level heads to prevail and for them to discuss this just to see if this can be solved, if there can be any agreement. look i'm in the house of representatives i'm not in the senate. >>. [ inaudible ] >> i won't be talking to the attorney general. >> [ inaudible ] -- campaign officials talking with russian officials? >> yes, that's correct. [ audio problems ] >> devin nunes there after the briefing with fbi director comey. you can see the president has arrived at langley air force base near newer port news. he is accompanied by james mattis, defense secretary. they are going the fly to the construction area where the joirld r. ford aircraft carrier is being built. he is going to be reviewing that construction. this all happening of course as this controversy over his attorney general is blowing up.

you heard house intelligence chairman nunes saying he believes they can continue with their investigation. you heard from the former acting director of the cia and others saying credible has been compromised by their willingness to concede to white house pressure and try to shape the political reporting of their ongoing investigation. joining me now chris sill ia and sarah fagan, who served as white house political director for white house george w. bush. we have seen this before. we have both seen in democratic and republican administrations when a firestorm like this develops, how do you handle it from inside the white house perspective? do they continue to push back and say it's all politics? or do they try to deal with what

the loss is and how distracting this could be? this could go on for month and months. >> i think that's the biggest challenge. we are talking about potential contacts with the attorney general, one at an event, another in his office. we don't know the facts aren't those. but you are right. and the fact that this administration has spent so much time on the russia topic -- this just adds fuel to that. now you have this other large distraction. and the problem here is we are focusing on what republican members of the senate are saying and members of congress are saying. and the more this guess on and the more republicans that engage, the bigger the problem this is for both jeff sessions and specifically donald trump's administration. >> portman was a real tell today. to have senator portman, from ohio who has been very close to this white house saying he thinks there should be recusal: it seems to me robert costa they have got their back up.

sawn spicer said today on fox this is all trying to take away from the president's speech to congress. they have an out here. they have credible democratic members of the judiciary committee saying come back to the committee, explain yourself rather than dealing with the calls for resignation and the claims of perjury, they can have him come back and say look i should have been more specify. i should have been said you know, i did have a meeting with the russian ambassador but it was not at all about what you are talking about, it was not politics. if he had said that then, this probably would not be an issue. >> this is a fast moving story. i spent the morning on the phone working my sources inside and outside of the white house. there is a development in the sense that chief of staff reince priebus and chief strategist steve bannon did not travel today with president trump to that virginia event i'm told by my sources they are thinking

through the next steps of attorney general jeff sessions. and you have steven miller, a long time adviser to session in the senate. they are now in the white house in senior position. a senior white house officials tells me dearborne, who was chief of staff to sessions at the time during this meeting in september was not at the meeting d did not meet the russian ambassador. what we are trying to find out who else knows more about this meeting that happened in september, what was discussed. how it was arranged. >> senator klobuchar was saying this is a very suspicious time frame, it was three days after president obama was in china meeting with vladimir putin and refusing to back down on the sanctions and also giving him a wa warning, we later learned about hacking. >> context is not attorney general session's frep here, as sarah noted. a lot of smoke. not a lot of evidence here i can see yet of fire.

but lots of smoke. it feels eerily like mike flynn. did you talk to them? what did you talk about. bob is right, the big story right now is who else knew about the meetings? what happened in the meetings? but i would say the most difficult thing for jeff sessions to get around, even if these meetings were banal and nothing was discussed, then why didn't you say, you know what, i don't recall, i met with a lot of people -- why offer up -- you didn't need to -- offer up a full sort of broad scale denial to that al franken question. >> chris, let me interrupt you. >> if you were muddy about it. >> we'll get back to this in a moment. adam schiff, who is heading our way has stopped at the camera to speak to the rest of the press after the comey meeting. let's listen. >> on his own or making in consultation with the department of justice. both in the gang of eight seth. and we had our quarterly

intelligence briefing this week -- [ audio problems ] -- that can't persist. if we are going to do our job, the fbi is going to have to fully cooperate with us. that means they can't say we'll tell you about this, but we won't tell you about that. so we are obviously going to persist. the director will be coming back. we hope to get a different answer from the director next time we meet because this counter-intelligence investigation that we are undertaking is among the most serious we have ever done and we cannot represent to the american people that we are doing a thorough job if the department of justice is unwilling to tell us what leads they have looked at, what leads they have followed, the substance, and where they have not. i'm disappoind to have that briefing today. and it's going to be vital that we get the full coprayioperatio

the fbi. not just retorically but that they share with us the length and the breadth of what they might be doing. >> what was the rationale that director comey gave for not giving that information today? >> i don't want to go through specifics but he made it clear that there were questions we were asking that he would answer and others that he would not. >> you can hear that we have a lot of transmission difficulties from that area. that is a secure area in the basement of the capitol where they brief the intelligence committee. but very clearly what we've heard from adam schiff is that the democrats at least are not happy with the fbi director's briefing. they want the know more. obviously the fbi director has to worry about a counter intelligence investigation robert costa. this is the committee investigating this on the senate side. if it is a not going to be there, where is it going to be?

the other thing that i can share with you just now is that senator collins has become the next republican to call for recusal and also to call for attorney general sessions to come back and explain himself. robert? >> andrea, there are a lot of swirling questions here, and different kooins kinds of investigations. the main fault line as of early this afternoon is republicans who are talking about recusal. what they mean is recusal from the attorney general's involvement in any kind of fbi investigation of russian interference in the election or any kind of russian work with the trump campaign's associates versus democrats who are in many respects calling on attorney general sessions to resign. and that's for now the fault line. but the question is will any republicans go beyond the call for the attorney general to stay in his position but recuse himself from the fbi investigation. >> i can't imagine that any republican is going to call for him to resign. nor should they. i mean, this is a complicated

situation which adds another headache to the trump administration. but there are two separate issues here. there's what he said before the senate in his hearing and what impact that has on his relationship with the senate moving forward and then whether or not he is the subject of this investigation. speaker ryan i think laid it out right. which is if he is the subject he should recuse himself. if he is not a subject he shouldn't necessary low recuse himself from this. having said that all that, sometimes when you are in the white house or administration key roles it's easier just to be from what might happen, and to take the steam out of the issue, just to step aside and recuse yourself. even though maybe he doesn't need to or shouldn't have to that may make some of his headache with the senate go away. >> although senator king pointed out the fact there is a protocol and given the fact that so many of his colleagues are being investigated or are a part of

it, he should recuse him. we want to go back to adam schiff. hopefully the transmission is better now. >> may lead to referrals to justice department or not. that doesn't obviate our need to do our jobs. you know, i'm certainly very pleased that the chair and i have reached bipartisan agreement on the scope of our investigation. we are going to look at the hacking and the bumping of documents. we are going to look at -- dumping of cunts. we are going to look at the use of paid media, the slick russian propaganda campaign. we are going to look at the fbi response. we are going the look at the issuof collusion with u.s. persons, including anyone afill atiated where a campaign. and we are going the look at the issue of leaks. and so we have a now detailed scope of investigation that we have agreed to. and i think that's a very positive step. >> why was it necessary to ask the administration to preserve the records? did you not trust them in any way? >> well, i think that -- and

this is not uncommon in any investigation -- you want to make sure that the administration and the department is on notice that these are the subject of congressional investigation and that any destruction of records will be a violation of launch so i think it helps clarify if there is mig out a that there should be a complete preservation of evidence. >> do you have any reason to believe that they have destroyed evidence in the meantime? >> i -- i don't want to get into any of the facts of our investigation. but the request to preserve documents is made prophylactically at the very beginning of an investigation is he we don't have any issue like that come up in the future. >> are you aware of any evidence of contacts between russian officials and people tied to the campaign during the election season? >> i'm not going into the specifics and that would go into

the specifics of the investigation. i'm not going to comment on that. >> [ inaudible ]. chairman says there is no evidence. but that the fbi didn't say whether they do or don't have evidence or the committee doesn't have any evidence or -- >> all i can say is that the director made it clear on this he would discuss and this he would not. and we can't do a complete job unless the director is willing to discuss anything that they are investigating. and i hope that that will take place. we are going to need it to take place. otherwise i don't know that we can represent the american people that we have done a thorough job. >> [ inaudible ]. >> oh, i would say at this point we know less than a fraction of what the fi knows. >> the goal of today's meeting was to learn more about the fbi's investigation into connections between the trump campaign and the russians? >> i'm hot going to go into the

contents of the testimony, but i can tell you the director spend three, three and a half hours with us. on the areas he was willing to discuss we had a very in-depth set of questions and answers. but there were very large areas that were walled off. those walls are going to have to come down if we are going the do our job. >> is there a standard for the fbi director or intelligence director to withhold information when talking with the intel committee? is that normal for them? is he following routine procedure here? >> i would say certainly there is a cultural as well as a policy framework for when individual members of congress approach the department and want to know about investigations and when committees do. what the department has to look at is is this within the scope of the committee's responsibilities? clearly it is. is this in the public interest? clearly it is. in this case it's the subject of a bipartisan agreement.

this is not an investigation that is being you undertaken by only one party party or the other. it's hard to imagine something of greater public interest. more than that, i'll say, and i don't think the chair and i are in agreement on this -- [ audio problems ] quarterly counter-intelligence briefings. >> i think i need to point out -- you just heard adam schiff make it very clear, throwing down the gauntlet saying they are not getting the information, they have only a fraction of the information from the fbi. if they don't get the information they cannot do their job. so the democrats are drawing a line in the sand there. that's all for us. craig melvin, you pick it is up. this is a busy day in washington. >> busy indeed, andrea. thank you so much. craig melvin in new york city at msnbc headquarters. fast moving events on capitol hill as you just saw there,