ceramic bowl. >> the winner of house district number four is david yancey. >> if the decision holds, republicans will maintain a 51-49 majority in the house. but the loser of the drawing is entitled to a second recount, which means it's unlikely this is the last we'll tell but the virginia board of delegates. good night from new york. you know, i had a whole different show planned for tonight. i had -- you know, a, b, c, d, e, six blocks planned for a show tonight that's not going to happen because, if it's a day that ends in y that apparently still means that's a day when all my best laid plans fly out the window in the last few moments before i get on the air because of breaking news. tonight within the last hour there's breaking news from "the new york times" that fbi director james comey's bombshell

claims about president trump have been substantiated by the special counsel, robert mueller. now, if this reporting from "the new york times" tonight bears out, this is a big deal. these claims from james comey, these are the claims that led to the special counsel being appointed in the first place. these are the claims that are at the heart of the president's personal legal liability for potentially criminal obstruction of justice. these are the claims that have led the president and the white house and the president's republican supporters in congress to all start trashing the fbi as an organization and to start personally going after individual high-ranking officials in the fbi basically trying to pick them off one by one in terms of their credibility and their potential role as corroborating witnesses. but in this new reporting that's just been posted by "the new york times," michael schmidt says robert mueller has obtained independent confirmation of these claims by james comey

about president trump. you remember what we're talking about here in terms of the timeline. we know that the fbi opened a counterintelligence investigation into the trump campaign and ties to russia in the summer of 2016. so in the summer of the presidential campaign. james comey was the director of the fbi. he stayed on as the director of the fbi when trump became president. then trump became president and in may of 2017, trump fired james comey. initially the white house offered a sort of shaky explanation that comey had to be fired because of something about how he had handled the clinton e-mail investigation months earlier. that did not last. the president soon spilled the beans and told nbc's lester holt that, in fact, the russia investigation had been on his mind when he decided he had to fire james comey. he then also told two officials from the russian government in the oval office that firing james comey as head of the fbi

would relief pressure on him on the issue of russia. that happened in quick succession in may. james comey being fired and the white house explanation that it had nothing to do with russia completely unraveling within 48 hours. that was in may. then in june, james comey testified before congress and it was riveting and it was very important testimony, right? comey testified that before he was fired by president trump, president trump had pressured him multiple times to drop the fbi russia investigation, to let go of the fbi investigation into trump national security advisor mike flynn. james comey testified that trump had pressured him to make public statements exonerating the president in the russia investigation. when james comey didn't do any of those things, didn't succumb to any of that pressure on the russian investigation, the president fired him. that was comey's crucial testimony in june. even more crucially, comey

testified at the time that when the president pressured him to do all those things, he says he recognized those as extraordinary moments between him and the president. extraordinary things for the president to be doing and saying and so he memorialized them contemporaneously. he took notes about his conversations with the president. he shared information about conversations with the president with other senior leaders at the fbi and did it on purpose to have a contemporaneous record of what the president had done. now, the white house has since denied that the president ever pressured james comey to drop the russia investigation before they fired him. but this one crucial question about whether the president fired comey in an effort to obstruct justice and effort to block the russia investigation at the fbi, that crucial question in terms -- including the president's personal criminal liability, it may hinge in large part on whether or not what comey says happened can be

proven. well, now tonight, michael schmidt reports at "the new york times" that special counsel robert mueller has the evidence to do so. quote, mr. mueller has substantiated claims mr. comey made in a series of memos describing troubling interactions with the president before he was fired in may. the special counsel has received handwritten notes from mr. trump's former chief of staff reince priebus showing mr. trump talked to mr. priebus about how he had called mr. comey to urge him to say he was not under investigation. handwritten notes. handwritten notes. you might remember this. back in september there was a report at axios about potential liability that might attend to some copious handwritten notes from trump's top staffers in the white house. do you remember that? from axios back in september?

there was -- they sent up a warning sign in september that handwritten notes taken in the oval office taken during the campaign and transition and early days of the trump administration might end up being trouble now that there was a special counsel investigation into a lot of things that happened at that time including the firing of james comey. the funny thing is, the warning flag went up in september, not about reince priebus. we thought it would be about sean spicer. do you remember this? former colleagues of sean spicer tell axios that he filled notebook after notebook during meetings at the republican national committee and later t the trump campaign and white house, that he filled black books emblazoned with the party's seal. he was so well-known for copious notes, it was joked about writing a tell-all. he said that the records were just to help him do his job. sean documented everything the source said. this surprised some officials of previous white houses because they said because of past investigations they took as few notes as possible when they

worked in the west wing. that was reported in september, that sean spicer's copious notes would be a honey pot for mueller and his investigation. maybe sean spicer's notes will eventually prove to be that. but from this crucial period around the firing of james comey, tonight, again, "the new york times" is reporting it's the handwritten notes from former chief of staff reince priebus, those notes now in the hands of robert mueller, notes that reportedly substantiate the bombshell claims made by fbi director james comey that the president personally pressured him on the russia investigation before he fired him. and there is more. also prom this reporting tonight in the "new york times", quote, president trump gave firm instructions in march to the white house's top lawyer to stop the attorney general jeff sessions from recusing himself in the justice department's investigation into whether trump's associates helped a in the russian campaign to disrupt

the 2016 election. mr. trump, sorry, mr. trump apparently instructed white house counsel don mcgahn that he should, that he should go pressure jeff sessions to recuse himself from the russia investigation. mr. mcgahn's argument to sessions is he did not need to step aside until it you are the further along and recruiting himself would not stop democrats from saying he had lied. according to "the new york times" tonight, after jeff sessions said career justice department officials said he should step aside, mcgahn said he understood and backed down. newly reported by "the new york times" that the president personally directed the white house counsel to go lobby the attorney general don't recuse yourself on the russia investigation. we don't know either how strange that is as behavior by the president or whether that's potentially a problem for the president if he is being investigated for obstruction of justice. so that's one further point tonight from "the new york times." the president reportedly instructing his white house counsel to go stop the recusal of the attorney general. we know that wasn't effective.

don mcgahn wasn't able to persuade jeff sessions to not recuse himself, but reportedly he tried. also, "the new york times" further reports tonight that his -- the president's intention to fire james comey was so unnerving to some members of the white house staff, to people inside the white house counsel's office, his intention to fire comey according to the "new york times" led one of mr. mcgahn's deputies to mislead the president about his authority to fire the fbi director. this is quite remarkable. the lawyer, somebody named uttim dillon. i don't know exactly how you pronounce it. the first name u-t-t-i-m, a deputy to don mcgahn in the white house counsel's office was convinced if james comey was fired, the trump presidency could be imperiled because it would force

the justice department to open an investigation. longstanding analysis of presidential power says the president does not need grounds to fire the fbi director, mr. dillon is a veterans department lawyer and had been so before joining the trump white house and assigned a junior lawyer to examine this issue. they determined the fbi director was no different than any other employ ne the executive branch and there was nothing prohibiting the president from firing him. but mr. dillon who had earlier told mr. trump he needed cause to fire mr. comey never corrected the record withholding the conclusions of his research. again, just remarkable in this reporting from michael schmidt tonight. he said there is somebody that worked and potentially still works in the white house office who intentionally lied to the president about whether or not he had it within his power to fire james comey, leaving intentionally an incorrect impression with the president that he couldn't fire james comey because he was so afraid that if he fired comey, the

trump presidency would be, quote, imperiled. the president's own lawyers feeling like they need to lie to him. that's a lot tonight. just breaking from michael schmidt, a "new york times" reporter who joins us now. thank you for joining us. i really appreciate you being here. >> thank you for having me. >> i'm just getting through this now, trying to understand a lot of the importance of what you have reported. i'm struck, most of all, by this report that the special counsel has substantiated claims made by james comey about his troubling interactions with the president. can you explain how the special counsel's office was able to do that and how important this is? >> on april 11th, comey testified when he testified before congress, he said on april 11th, trump called him and said, you got to help me get out the word from the justice department that i'm not under investigation. how can we get that out? have you talked to the just department about it? when the white house handed over notes and documents to the special counsel's office, they handed over stuff from reince priebus.

and there was handwritten notes from a conversation that reince priebus had had with the president on april 11th in which the president discussed with him the conversation that he had had with comey and how trump said comey said that the white house needed to reach out the dana bente, athe acting attorney general. these substantiated what comey was saying in the memos that led trump to have a conversation with reince priebus about it. that is what the evidence that mueller has that shows that these events that comey has described indeed occurred. as we know, the white house has said that comey's a liar and he made these things up. so in terms of substantiating, understanding whether what comey said is true, this gets mueller closer to that. does that get you closer to an obstruction case? that's a much more complex legal question but in terms of the facts, this bolsters comey's claims. >> michael, let me be specific with you about that. in terms of what reince priebus'

handwritten notes corroborate in terms of comey's testimony. the president told james comey that he should make public statements exonerating the statement in the russia probe. is there any other specific thing priebus' notes attested to? >> what trump was trying to do is get his name cleared publicly. comey, when going before congress, would not say that trump was not under investigation. he wouldn't answer the question. but privately, comey had told trump he wasn't under investigation. trump was trying to get this out. comey wasn't going to say it. he said to the president, you really need to go through the justice department. trump turns around and tells priebus and priebus takes down notes from the conversation and priebus was supposed to follow up with don mcgahn about it. i don't know if that happened. this shows that this conversation that comey described in memos on the other side in the white house, trump is having a conversation about it with priebus that shows the same thing that comey was saying in his memos. >> in terms of these notes

from reince priebus, i mentioned it had been previously reported by axios back in september that sean spicer was known for taking copious handwritten notes in all of his jobs, when he was at the rnc, in the trump transition, in the trump white house. that was raising eyebrows among people that previously worked in other houses saying that could be a dangerous thing if you end up under investigation. was it known before your reporting tonight, that priebus' handwritten notes in fact existed, that's something he kept during his tenure as white house chief of staff and did we know before tonight all of his notes had been handed over to the special counsel? >> this is certainly something i didn't know anything about and hadn't read anything about. the white house produced an enormous amount of documents to the special counsel's office, whether that's e-mails, whether that's memos or handwritten stuff. i don't know if they handed over every single thing that reince priebus wrote down. the white house has not exerted

executive or attorney/client privilege on any document. the strategy from the trump's lawyers has been let's give them everything that we have, that's the quickest way to clear our name. now there is a real debate among lawyers whether this is a smart move. one of the blowbacks of it is it allows for embarrassing things to end up in mueller's hands. maybe it may not show illegality but shows things that were going on in the white house that may not reflect well on the president. >> michael, you report that the president personally directed his counsel, his white house counsel don mcgahn to go to the justice department to talk attorney general jeff sessions out of recusing himself. i don't know enough about how these things work in terms of how recusals are decided and how it works between the white house counsel and the office of the attorney general. how unusual is that sort of entreaty from the white house counsel? >> i think that the trump presidency is testing some things that we never thought would be tested before about

sort of what are the rules of the road that govern recusals and can the white house lobby and attorney general not to recuse himself? my guess is that in the balance of the justice department, there are guidelines that apply to these things, but these are things that don't come up often. we're looking at a question of trump asking comey on february 14th to end an investigation. is that legal? is that illegal? these are things that the trump presidency has resurrected as questions in washington that are thins that we have to do a lot of thinking and research and reporting about because they're not things that we've seen previously, at least not in recent times. >> so that point, you further report tonight that a deputy operating in the white house counsel's office, mr. dillon, essentially the way you describe it, deliberately misled the president, allowed the president to continue to believe at least for a time mistakenly that it might not be within his power to fire the fbi director. that's a remarkable anecdote, a

remarkable story. is he still working in the white house counsel's office. >> he still works in the white house counsel's office. he believed that if the president fired comey, he would imperial the presidency and cast a shadow because the justice department would have to look whether this is obstruction of justice. he turned the out to be right. but in the process, what he did was he initially told trump you need a reason to fire the fbi director. you need cause to do that but what happened is when he turned around and asked the white house counsel's office to do research on it, they came back and said, you don't need a reason. but dillon didn't do anything about it. he didn't go back and tell the president. he never had subsequent meetings with him. he never came back and corrected the record. eventually the president was able to figure out he would do it without cause and you get to the firing of comey. this is a way that dillon believed that he could delay the president until the president found something else to fixate his attention on. >> the president has to think

about that when he engages in his white house counsel's office now as one of the factors at work. just remarkable reporting. michael schmidt, reporter for "the new york times," i know you're in incredible demand tonight because of this piece. thank you for spending time with us. >> thanks for having me. >> if there is a lawyer in the white house counsel's office who right now is reported to have deliberately misled the president in order to hopefully maneuver him out of doing something he legally could do because that lawyer thought it would imperil the presidency for the president to take that action, how does that stand? and if you're a lawyer, are you allowed to do that? are you allowed to mislead your client and are you more or less allowed to do it if your client is the president of the united states and you work in the white house counsel's office? hold that thought. if you've been diagnosed with cancer,

searching for answers may feel overwhelming. so start your search with our teams of specialists at cancer treatment centers of america. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts

you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party.

continuing to report on this breaking news tonight from "the new york times." we first learned about the comey memos back in may. michael schmidt at "the new york times," this is the one that broke the bombshell story that james comey had written detailed memos in which he documented how the president had pressured him to end the russia investigation, which he refused to do and that all preceded him being fired. tonight we got the very important follow-up on that story also from michael schmidt. our previous guest, the same reporter, has added to his previous reporting. he said robert mueller has independently substantiated the claims that james comey made in those memos describing the pressure he faced from the president on the russia investigation before he was fired in may. joining us now is chuck rosenberg, a former u.s. attorney for the east district of virginia and worked side by side with james comey

serving as chief of staff at the fbi. real pleasure to have you with us. i know you joined us on short notice. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> let me get your top line reaction to the news story from "the new york times." the headline they have put on it is obstruction shows trump's struggle to keep grip on russia investigation. from the details of this story, do you feel this advances our understanding of the status of the investigation involving the president and his potential liability? >> it advances both of those things. we know more about it and the stuff we know now that we didn't know before corroborates, not conclusively but corroborates the notion there was a plot, an attempt to obstruct the russia investigation. >> when mr. comey explained first to reporters that should be said and soon thereafter under oath to a congressional hearing that he took those

detailed notes, he wrote them up as memos and shared the information about the president's best hav your contemporaneously with other fbi officials, can you explain from a legal standpoint, from an fbi standpoint, why he did that, why he would have done that and how that might have helped any legal proceedings going forward? >> sure. both of those things make a lot of sense to me. here's why, rachel. and i've done it, too. you come out of a meeting, you have a phone call. somebody mentions something to you. and it strikes you at that time as important although you don't know all the dimensions of its importance. it's just something you got to remember. so you commit it to writing. you put it down in an e-mail or a memo to file and you hold on to it because you just don't know where and when this thing will become important again. i can tell you government officials and i assume people in the private sector do this all the time. i mean, journalists make notes of conversations for the exact same reason.

i think the second part of your question is a little trickier. how does it matter in a criminal case? something i write, if i am available to testify as a live witness at trial, the thing i wrote isn't evidence. the thing i say in court is the evidence. so if jim comey, for instance, is available to testify at a trial, then it's the words that cam out of his mouth as a witness at the hearing or at the trial that matter. and the thing he wrote isn't in and of itself evidence. it doesn't get marked as an exhibit and doesn't get entered into evidence at trial. i hope that makes sense. >> absolutely. what about another person's notes, another aspect of corroboration, in this case, what the "times" is saying that the white house chief of staff took handwritten notes based on a conversation with the president in the white house in which the president described doing, described saying what comey described him saying from

the other side of that conversation. >> let's talk about mr. priebus' notes. and here's how those might matter. he would be called to testify probably first in the grand jury and maybe later at a trial if one is held. and he would be asked all of the questions that the prosecutors want to ask him but they already know in large part what he's going to say because, "a," he has a set of notes, and, b, he's testified as to the accuracy of those notes before the grand jury. so once again, his notes in and of themselves don't get marked as an exhibit and aren't admitted into evidence at trial but all the stuff in the notes, this is stuff he's going to say. and by the way, if he forgets something, you know, an innocent failure of recollection during trial, then a prosecutor can use those notes to refresh his recollection. so they tell the mueller team, they tell the investigators they have the right guy. he knows what he's talking about. he made contemporaneous notes,

he's believable. we can corroborate him. but the notes themselves are not an exhibit at trial. >> there is one other aspect i would like to ask you about, but i'll have to ask you to hold for us a second while we take this quick break. through there is remarkable news the president directed the white house counsel to lobby jeff sessions to not recuse himself when we come back. if you can stick with us. >> sure. >> chuck rosenberg former u.s. attorney he'll be back with us in a moment. now you can join angie's list for free.

which means everyone has access to our real reviews that we actually verify. and we can also verify that what goes down, [ splash, toilet flush ] doesn't always come back up. find a great plumber at angie's list. join today for free. of the season' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. does your bed do that? right now our queen c4 mattress is only $1199, save $400. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

joining us once again is chuck rosenburg, former u.s. attorney and worked side by side with former fbi director james comey. he was the chief of staff at the fbi. chuck, thank you for sticking with us. appreciate it tonight. >> you bet. >> so the opening anecdote, the opening, what is it, recounting the opening in this bombshell "new york times" reporting tonight is this. i'll read it the way michael sh mig -- schmidt wrote it. trump gave firm instructions, stop the attorney general jeff session from recruiting himself in the justice department's investigation whether they helped the russia campaign to disrupt the 2016 election. white house counsel don mcgahn carried out the orders and lobbied in charge of it. i don't know how it works with context whether or not like the attorney general should be

recused. for the president to effectively lobby against his attorney it is improper for the president to effectively lobby against his attorney general's recusal this way? >> well, the president can express a desire that the attorney general stay in a case, but you shouldn't be surprised by what i'm about to say, rachel. the department of justice is full of lawyers. there is a bunch of rules written down about when you must recuse yourself and should recuse yourself. so the must category is really easy. let's say you would have a financial stake in the outcome of the case. you must recuse yourself. or it involves a family member, you must recuse yourself. but there is also a whole bunch of instances where you should recuse yourself. where, for instance, your participation in a case would give rise to an appearance of a

conflict of interest because for the justice system, appearances count for a lot and so in my view, this is really a pretty simple call. the attorney general had at the very least an appearance of a conflict. in fact, he may actually be a witness in this case. at least, there is the potential for that. he had to recuse himself and there is nothing the president or anyone else should have done or could have done really to stop that from happening. >> the president getting involved in this way personally directing somebody to go intervene in the process to stop the recusal, could that be construed as a form of obstruction or interference with the work, with the proper workings of the justice department around an issue like this? >> the answer to that is maybe. here is why i'll be a little weasely on my answer to you, rachel. the context really matters. if the president said for instance, find out if he really needs to do this because if he

doesn't really need to do this, i would prefer he not. that's not obstruction of justice. but if on the other hand, the president says, hey, i want you to move heaven and earth to make sure this guy doesn't get out because i need him to protect me, he's not being loyal, that's a little bit closer to the flame. so context really matters. >> the context in "the new york times" reporting tonight said that mr. trump said he expected his stop law enforcement official, the attorney general, to safeguard him. >> yeah. >> ahem. last question for you, chuck. it's another point raised in the reporting tonight is that a deputy working in the white house counsel's office reportedly intentionally misled the president about whether or not he had the legal authority to fire the fbi director, believing it would be a bad move politically for the president to do so. and according to michael schmidt, this lawyer in the white house counsel's office, let the president persist in a temporarily wrong impression

that he couldn't fire james comey because he hoped the president wouldn't figure out the legal truth about that. are lawyers allowed to do that with their clients? >> they're not, rachel. lawyers have an absolute duty of candor with their clients. now a highly technical point, although i don't think it changes the answer one bit, if you work in white house counsel's office, your client is not the president of the united states. your client is the office of the president, the institution. the president, of course, represents that office and so you have a duty of candor to the institution and of course, then to the man who represents the institution. so again, sorry to be a lawyer on you. this is what happens when you invite us on your show. but there's a duty of candor, and i don't think there's a way around that. >> even when your client is the presidency. >> that's right. >> chuck rosenburg, i asked you here because you are not just a lawyer but because of your

history in working in the upper echelons of the just department and the fbi and also because you're so clear spoken with us about these matters. thank you for being here tonight. >> my pleasure. >> thank you. former u.s. attorney, former head of the dea and the chief of staff and fbi. remarkable reporting from "the new york times." much more to get to, believe it or not, stay with us. steyer: the president's national security adviser -- guilty. his campaign chairman -- under indictment. his son-in-law -- secret talks with russians. the director of the fbi -- fired.

special counsel robert mueller's criminal investigation has already shown why the president should be impeached. you can send a message to your representatives at needtoimpeach.com and demand they finally take a stand. this president is not above the law. when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking.

tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

no one burns on heartburn. my watch! try alka seltzer ultra strength heartburn relief chews. with more acid-fighting power than tums chewy bites. mmmmm...amazing. i have heartburn. ultra strength from alka seltzer. enjoy the relief. the trump white house has developed this pattern that we have come to recognize easily

at this point. in fact, it's kind of fun to watch for whenever somebody gets in trouble. whenever one of their former administration or campaign officials gets in really, really hot water, suddenly they have never heard of that guy. national security adviser mike flynn, a campaign volunteer. campaign chairman paul manafort, i think he worked on the campaign for a short period of time. foreign policy adviser carter page, that dude, nobody has ever met him. today it was white house chief strategist steve bannon's turn. >> how close were they when they were in the white house? one of the claims in the book is you frequently dined with mr. bannon unless he was already in invited. >> the book says he had been sidelined by april, which i think goes further to indicate he had very little credibility to give much information particularly after that point, which most of the book is based after that timeframe. again, this book is mistake after mistake after mistake. >> were they not close by the time --

>> i'm not aware they were ever particularly close. >> close? steve bannon? who? steve nebben? the guy that ran the president's campaign and then was given a job in the white house equal to the chief of staff? why would you even think they were close? they definitely didn't dine together, they definitely didn't speak. if they were in the room together right now, would the president recognize him? everybody says loyalty has always been super important to donald trump. don't let anybody tell you different. the white house isn't the only place steve bannon is being disavowed today. the billionaire benefactors who have made steve bannon a rich man who have underwritten his website at breitbart.com to a million dollar tune and supported his advocacy group. those billionaire benefactors are cutting him off in the wake of this new book by michael wolff that continues to generate lots of gossip and buzz.

but beyond the astonishing purported dialogue among administration figures in which they insult one another and insult the president, beyond all of that stuff that has driven so much chatter about this book, i think there are two next-step questions about what will happen with this new book. the first is whether or not beyond the gossip and buzz and reported insults and swearing and fighting that this has all started, beyond that, are there important new allegations in this book that should be pursued as matters for further reporting about the fate of the administration? as we talked about last night, there are two important references that i can see in the book for potential obstruction of justice by the president or members of his family. one has to do with the july meeting on air force one flying back to d.c. from germany. the president and his staff on that flight cooked up a misleading statement defending a meeting that the president's son and members of his campaign had taken with a whole bunch of

russians in trump tower. we know that meeting was called to deliver russian government provided dirt on hillary clinton but michael wolff reports in "fire and fury" that on that air force one ride, the president ordered that no one should let on to the more problematic discussion at that meeting about hillary clinton. that flight and that effort by the president to craft that statement is described by wolff as a realtime example of denial and cover-up. he then continues. mike corallo was instructed not to speak to the press, indeed not to answer his own phone later that week seeing no about outcome and privately confiding that he believed the meeting on air force one likely represented obstruction of justice, mike corallo quit. so according to michael wolff in this book, not only did the spokesman for the president's legal team quit his job in part because he worried about what happened on air force one might have constituted obstruction of justice, that spokesman told other people at the time that that was why he was quitting.

now, that's important in terms of the reporting here in substantiating these lurid allegations because that's something that can be followed up, right? you can question mr. corallo, speak to people he talked to at the time about his belief that what he was seeing was obstruction of justice realtime by the president and his advisers. then there is jared kushner's father reportedly involved in the pressure to fire james comey reportedly because of an interest in protecting the family business from scrutiny by the fbi. that suggests potential obstruction of justice, not by the president but by the president's son-in-law and the kushner family more broadly. let's get the fbi director fired in order to protect us from fbi scrutiny. if that happened, that's a potentially very big deal. that's another thread that needs pulling and presumably could be reported out. in addition to that, now michael wolff in promoting his book has published a new piece in the

"hollywood reporter" where he makes two new claims that are also salacious but could be potentially important jumping off points for further reporting. one is this about keith shiller who was very close to the president. he left the white house this fall after serving trump for nearly 20 years. according to michael wolff, quote, trump's loyal longtime bodyguard, keith schiller, for reasons darkly whispered about in the west wing, was out. so describing keith schiller leaving the white house, he says that the reason schiller left were darkly whispered about in the west wing. that seems worth following up. keith schiller is described as closer and more loyal to trump than anyone. it seems like it should be reportable what is being so darkly whispered about his exit since we had no other extensive explanation why he left. the other claim in this piece today from michael wolff again promoting this new book has to do with worries about the president's cognitive state,

which is something that's very awkward to talk about but does have constitutional implications potentially. michael wolff ends his new article today with this, quote, at mar-a-lago just before the new year, a heavily madeup, meaning wearing a lot of makeup, a heavily madeup trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends. and yes, that's just as buzzy and salacious as the rest of the book. but if the president isn't recognizing people he's known for years that could speak to his cognitive ability as he's serving as president. it's salacious, it's buzzy, and has a lot of people talking about the president in a way that none of us want an american president to be talked about. but these things have the element of being potentially really consequential and have the advantage of being reportable out, being reportable. if the president encountered multiple people in the new

year's eve celebrations at mar-a-lago and couldn't recognize his old friends, that implies there were people around who may have witnessed that or been those old friends that experienced it who can corroborate that reporting and it should be corroborated if it can be. and we're trying. we spent the last 24 hours since we got our hands on the book trying to report stuff out. that's one of the next big things that will happen. what can it lead to in terms of verifiable reporting other than just gossip? the other big question in terms of what happens next is the remarkable announcement by a president's lawyer they will try to stop publication of this book. they will try to stop the book from being published. the fact i have this book in my hand shows you the likelihood that that will succeed. here it is. we are faced with the prospect the sitting president of the united states may be filing a lawsuit against his former campaign chair and top strategists. we're four days into the new year. buckle up. stay with us. jimmy's gotten used to his whole room smelling like sweaty odors.

yup, he's gone noseblind. he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this... luckily for all your hard-to-wash fabrics... ...there's febreze fabric refresher. febreze doesn't just mask, it eliminates odors you've... ...gone noseblind to. and try febreze unstopables for fabric. with up to twice the fresh scent power, you'll want to try it...

...again and again and maybe just one more time. indulge in irresistible freshness. febreze unstopables. breathe happy. get ready for centrum micro-workouts. the bottle curl. the twist n' turn. the stretch n' grab. the gummy squish. centrum micronutrients fuel your body from the inside out. grab a centrum and join in. repeat daily.

a new era started today. after decades of the war on drugs, almost a million marijuana-related arrests every year, possession is now legal in washington state. >> in the 2012 election, voters in washington and colorado decided that their states should legalize recreational marijuana. 19 states had already declared pot legal for medicinal purposes but in november 2012, washington and colorado expanded the map and became the first in the country to legalize pot for fun.

no prescription required. just a few months later, the obama justice department issued a memo instructing u.s. attorneys from essentially pulling back from prosecuting pot growers and users who were clearly in compliance with the laws in their home states. that became the new policy for federal prosecutors. for the justice department. basically, let the states experiment with marijuana laws. marijuana was still illegal under federal statute, but federal prosecutors wouldn't chase down cases in states that had some form of lawful pot. then in 2016, another three states vote to legalize medical marijuana and four more states approved recreational use. legalization undeniably popular and undeniably the trend. even the republican nominee for president sounded like he would be just fine keeping the obama administration's hands off policy on pot and letting states decide how to go with it. he got asked about it by a colorado reporter. >> you think colorado should be able to do what it's doing? >> i think it's up to the states, yeah. i'm a states person. i think it should be up to the

states, absolutely. >> i'm a states person. it should be up to the states. absolutely. this was the position of presidential candidate donald trump. today his attorney general jeff sessions rescinded the obama era guidance about pot giving states leeway to produce it -- sorry, to prosecute it in their own way. the attorney general's instructions pave the way for more federal pot prosecution in states where it has been declared legal. what does this mean for the 29 states where marijuana is legal under local law for either recreational or medical purposes? what happens to the people in those states who, under state law, legally sell it or legally use it? do states have the means to protect their own it is accepts from prosecution now that the attorney general has made this decision a t the federal level? joining us is jenny durkin, mayor of seattle, washington, and former u.s. attorney who helped craft the obama era policy on marijuana in the states. mayor durkin, really appreciate you being here. thank you for your time.

>> thank you, rachel. great to be here. i'm with you, i can't believe it's only four days into the new year. >> yeah. feels like a number of years under the belt already in 2018. let me ask you about your role in crafting the obama era guidelines in the first place. what was the thinking within the obama era in the justice department about how to manage the fact that marijuana's still illegal under federal law and states had taken steps to legalize it? >> you know, we had to weigh a number of factors, and i think looking at what the department of justice's role is in a federal states is one we had to ensure public safety. and you have to balance it against the states rights and the 10th amendment and look at what are the things that the federal government really cares about. and how do we let states within the chalk lines continue to do what they're going to do? and i think we reached the right

balance. it is shown that it's done away with a lot of the black market. it's helped many, many patients who are facing just debilitating illnesses and it's been embraced by a majority of the states. >> what do you think will happen with attorney general jeff sessions changing this federal guidance now? what do you think the impact will be? >> you know, i think it's going to be a series of battles, unfortunately, again. i think it's very telling that they did not try to get a court to issue an injunction or to say that states were preempted because i think they would lose that legal battle. and i also know from being u.s. attorney, you don't have the resources to put legal marijuana out of business, and nor shoe try. i mean, if you look across this country, every day people are dying because of the opioid crisis. that's where the federal interest should be, that's where jeff sessions should be focusing his interests. and i think that mayors and governors know that because we see it on the streets of every city in america. >> mayor, you said today that the police department in your city in seattle will not

participate in any enforcement action related to legal businesses or small personal possession of marijuana by adults. do you see yourself as essentially picking a fight with the justice department? picking a fight with the federal government on that? do you expect backlash from that decision today? >> you know, i would normally say no but with this department of justice and this president, i think we have to assume there will be a backlash. we have staked out the position on immigration to make sure that we're true sanctuary city and they have already told us to they will deny the funding. we will have to fight that. but we'll protect our legal businesses. but we can also protect public safety at the same time and folks on large criminal organizations, on violence, on kids and have an approach that's really holistic and have a public health harm reduction model for this war on drugs. i hope we don't have the backlash, but i'll tell you, we're ready for it. >> jenny durkin, former u.s. attorney, mayor of seattle,

thank you. >> thank you so much. >> stay with us. we'll be right back.

i tried hard to quit smoking. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how. you can switch and save time. it pays to switch things up. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.

these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com just got a few seconds left. i'll take a point of personal privilege for a sec. nine states activated the national garl today because of the huge winter storm that hit such a vast swath of the country today. this is a dangerous storm. for real. so if you are somebody who works outside or who had to be out in the elements today in this heavy weather, a firefighter or a cop or utility worker or a letter

carrier or a plow truck driver or just somebody that drives for a living and had to work today, god bless you. this was a serious thing. but here's the corollary for the rest of us. you had the nerve to order pizza delivery tonight, i here by declare in effect the terrible weather relative good fortune tipping rule of "the rachel maddow show." 50% min fum tips for pizza delivery or any other kind of delivery to you. 50% minimum. you have to factor that in to your dining plans. deal? i say this as a former bike messenger. deal? all right. that does it for us tonight. stay safe. see you tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." good evening, lawrence. >> good evening. watching the storm coverage of boston and went underwater basically, one of the items of the neighborhood mentioned by bill who runs the local newspaper in dorchester, where