♪ ♪ ♪ ♪. let's do this on this friday. the white house is defending chief of staff reince priebus following reports he asked the fbi to push back against media reports on the trump campaigns ties to russia before the election. this is one of our top talkers tonight at 6:30, we want to know what you think, it's friday we've had a long week and a lot of news. according to associated press, reince priebus asked deputy director andrew mccab to publicly dispute the media reports. the fbi represented that request. tonight, democrats are

foul. they say the communication between priebus and the fbi is violation of justice department rules and may even be illegal. now they're calling for an investigation. >> here's seth wax man former federal prosecutor. how bad is this? >> it's an interesting question. really two parts to it. one is whether there's some sort of illegality that went on or policy or procedures, on the illegality side, there does not seem to be any cause of action criminally for the chief of staff's conduct. i'm reaching out to the fbi. does not cause or violate a criminal rule or statute. these are executive department employees talking to each other. on the other hand, there's been a longstanding policy going backing decades that prevent or call for these types of conversations not to take place

circumstances to avoid the appearance of impropriety. >> you're talking about the law where, i guess, technically only four people in the white house are supposed to be able to reach out to the department of justice. so if reince priebus did not break any laws, what do you think the democrats's position here is nancy pilosi said she has created breach of the fbi of independence, not only damaged his reputation but tainted the partiality of the fbi. does she have a point. >> that may be from a political end, i would be looking at whether there was a rule or policy that was violated. there was a policy where communications should only go through certain channels and people. and this seems on its face to possibly have violated that policy. >> so you're talking about violating that policy. you said it doesn't appear to be anything criminal

this point. what else could happen moving far here? anything? >> there could be, as i understand it, they're calling for investigations congressional investigations, there's calls for a special prosecutor to look into this. it really is all about the independence of the fbi, wes a country want the fbi to have their investigations to be independent, not subject to undo influence or pressure from the white house or others within higher level administration -- in the administration, so it's that specter that's been raised and that's why i think there are these calls for further investigation >> i know you look at these with the federal prosecutor eyes but we're hearing now the democrats come out and say, hey, this is terrible, there needs to be hearings. if you remember back during the election, president clinton met with attorney general loretta lynch. on the tarmac, and reince priebus called that a breach and called for investigations there. is this just really mor

politics than actual substance and someone did something wrong? >> it could be a lot about politics in the sense these -- this policy has been on the books for decades. on occasion, it has been violated. you bring up the instance with loretta lynch. . there was times during george w bush where albert toe gonzales supposedly had contacts having to do with u.s. attorneys terminated. these are tollses. to be clear, when there's a policy, the administration has to approve that, and as i understand it now, jeff sessions has not opined or spoken on that particular point, so i guess there can be a question as to whether this administration is going to honor that same policy that the been in place decades. it is the president's prerogative to set his policies and procedures >> if there was, in fact, a violation of policy, does it rise to the level of a punishment >> not on a criminal level. whether there could be some sort of

or admonishment, that's possible. but criminal charges sanctions, no. >> we know that is your specialty. we do appreciate you coming and talking to us, former federal prosecutor. the president took center stage this morning at the conservative political action conference. he spoke on several issues from the media reporting fake news, the affordable care act and his executive order on immigration. he told supporters people have the wrong idea about the order that caused massive protests at the airports across the country. >> people whether it's drugs or murder or other things, we're getting bad ones out. they're the ones that go first, i said it from day one. basically all i've done >> the president also said the planned border wall is coming along and

schedule. the president previously said that just over 100 people were detained at several airports after he signed his executive order on immigration. the federal government said 746 people were actually detained. a judge ordered the justice department to turn over a list of all of those names who are planning to file a lawsuit. white house for the hill is here with us. no one disputes the fact that when the trump administration ruled out the policy, it was chaotic, it happened quickly. we're just learning now, originally they said under 100 now 746. how could there be a discrepancy >> they first said 100 now it's seven times that, saying that i don't think the discrepancy will necessarily change either the public's mind about the law or

whether it's 100 or 700, people will come to their own conclusions as to whether that chaos was justified and obviously judges will come to their conclusions as to whether the law can stand or not >> that's the thing as we look forward to next week. looking a the these lawsuits. how does this revised executive order that is planned from the trump administration play into this with what these lawsuits >> one of the key issues in these lawsuits, sarah, pertains to green card holders and that is a big issue with the revised ban with some suggestion that the revised ban could formally exempt. and that would make it somewhat less vulnerable to legal challenge >> i understand in this new information that has come out as you were just mentioning some people who were detained some of the 746 were actually travelers who are approved refuge applications valued visa holders

authorized to be here in the u.s. do you know what happened to them? do we know if they were sent back? >> it's a great question and one of the key points is that we don't know how many were actually deported. now, on its face, it would appear that those people would have a pretty clear cut legal case. of course, the whole point is that these people were detained or engaged by border officials after a judge had improved a restraining order on the ban. so in that -- basic level, they seem to have a pretty strong case to sue the government. >> what are we going to be looking at? thinking of all of these lawsuits that could be coming out of this, how much is going to be tied up in court for how long? how long are the ramifications going to continue from this? and it does depend on what comes out of the revised order >> it could certainly go on for a long

there's the possibility that the supreme court could weigh in on this another aspect worth mentioning is clearly, liberal or activity groups see courts as a right or method by which they could delay or frustrate president trump given that he has not just the white house but republican majorities in congress. liberals definitely see court action as a way to stop his intended action >> no doubt the media, folks at home, all the different civil rights organizations will be watching. when this new executive order comes out. now it's great to have you here, have a great weekend. thanks for joining us. let's get a check of weather with gwen tolbert. it has been so nice. i can't believe it >> it's been a change. >> yes, it is changing, sooner than we may want it to today was absolutely fabulous. take a look at the daytime

three airports. unbelievable because it is february. we should only be in the 40's. we have a really, really nice treat. things will change. we actually have a marginal risk of severe weather from the storm prediction center, we got the cold front heading our way and that's going to trigger a chance of seeing storms, very, very gusty winds by saturday afternoon. and on the back side, we're talking colder air. we're going to have a reality check we're going to get back to where we should be in terms of temperatures here be a look at tomorrow. we're going to get the warmer air first part of day, so we'll be in the 70's and 60's. cooler to the west and it's northwest. that's because going to be closer to the frontal system and as it moves through mild changes by the time we hit

on saturday, no the bad sunday, seven-day forecast cooling down for sure after saturday afternoon, back to you. >> we can deal with that 20 degree cool-down >> pretty nice. >> like in the 70's. 50's is even nice this time of year. >> we'll take it president trump spoke to conservatives at c pac. he's got another one on tuesday >> he will deliver his message to a joint session of congress. we'll take a look at what we can expect to hear when we come back.

for all those pokers, prodders, shuckers and sniffers, [ inhales ] all giant produce is triple checked. farm, crate, and store. we're focusing on fresh... ...so you don't have to guess. my giant.

president trump will be delivering a speech to a joints session of congress and the nation. newly inaugurated presidents often deliver this kind of speech instead of a former more common state of the union address. white house correspond with

role call is here, thanks for joining us. today we saw the president on stage at cpac last weekend we saw him on the stage. sort of in campaign mode. tuesday he'll be talking to a joint session of congress and the american public. what donald trump will we see and what does he need to say to our divided country? >> that is the trillion dollar question, which donald trump will show up in the house chamber on tuesday. earlier this week, we saw more states man like donald trump at the new african-american history museum. but then, you know, today, at cpac, he was back to kind of >> complain mode >> the more bomb bass tick elbow throwing president. his top aids are talking about a speech that will not be -- this isn't a

will be less, something like bill clinton might have delivered with a lot of policy description and talking about where the country is and where he wants to take it. some goals. i do think it will in a lot of ways it will resemble the memorable inauguration speech from over a month ago. >> that's the thing. is he best do you think when he's more scripted and stays to script versus this kind of off-the-cuff saying whatever he wants? is this something we will see in this scenario >> we've seen speeches, even right before election day, where he did stay on script. he has gotten better. it looks like to my somewhat trained eye with staying on the prompter. that said, in some moments where he has been, you know, more on message and staying on the procter with the prepared remarks, he loves to

he clearly loves to feel the energy of the crowd and react to the crowd. so i think he will -- i think he will definitely attempt probably to stay more on the prepared remarks and more to the script. but i really expect that we're going to get really genuine donald trump moments, you know, if he sees -- if democrats boo, for example, in the chamber or if republicans don't respond the way he thinks they should, i think it's just, you know, just human nature, his personality. i think he will react. and that's something we really haven't seen a lot from past presidents >> will he react in real time do you think at that point? is that the danger that, you know, his anger will get to him he'll want to say something so bad we could see that happen in a sense the train falling off the tracks during the speech >> i'm not sure the train will fall off the tracks, but i do

least one or two, maybe more probably more of these very donald trump moments. i think early on, he likes to tease people when he sees them in public. there can be teasing early with someone like chuck schumer who he's known for a long time, i think the democrats at some point will react. when they don't stand in the other side of the chamber when the republicans are cheering and the democrats are sitting and the no even applauding i think those are the moments when trump personality will be tested >> people will certainly be watching to see that. i got to ask you a quick question. former governor steve bashire has been tapped to give the democrat response, do you know why they picked him and say they didn't pick whoever they will chooses a the new dnc chair >> i think the democrat party is

this is something that even president obama and some of his aids talked about on the way out the door. i think this is a way to elevate kind of a new face that might not be known across the country. >> happy friday to you. >> same to you. more than a dozen lawyers file a complaint against members of the trump administration >> we're going to tell you who and what the lawyers hope to accomplish when 5at630 comes up.

[000:18:32;00] ♪ ♪ a group of law professors from pretty prestigious university we're talking georgetown yale duke have filed against kellyanne conway and it

brings shame upon the profession. joining us via skype is one of the professors who signed the letter. and director of the ethics bureau at yale. thank you for talking with us. specifically -- tell us what's at the heart of the that is complaint. >> at the heart of this complaint is the principle that the lawyers of america are obliged whether in a representation situation or in their private life to not engage in dishonest conduct. >> let me ask you. >> go ahead. didn't mean >> if lawyers generally are regulated as to the their representation of clients, but this is in their all of their roles, lawyers are to avoid discomfort >> kellyanne conway will say she

misspoke and didn't mean to use it and she uses the term alternative facts. after kellyanne conway, there have been plenty of lawyers gone on tv and not necessarily told the truth all the time. why go after her >> going after kellyanne conway is a response to the fact that she has the loudist mega phone at the moment and she has the greatest responsibility. it's one thing for a lawyer to say something in private. it's quite another to go into the public arena and speak dishonestly and we think that principle is so important it has been enforced and it's not always enforced for sure but in this kind of a situation, with all of the, that is riding on everything she says these days, it is incredibly important, particularly in a world of alternative facts when we, as a profession want to be remind our students, colleagues at the bar, judges and everyone else, that

we have special standards that apply to lawyers and they even when you're a public citizen? what is it you're hoping comes out of this letter? you know, perhaps disbarment but what can happen to her when it comes to punishment via the white house? >> she is suspended because she hasn't paid her bar dues. what can happen is a range of penalties, everything from private reprimand up to disbarment. we didn't begin to suggest what the appropriate remedy should be. what we wanted to do was highlight the importance of this principle and how important it was for lawyers wherever they are, whether working for the government or private practice, they have to model their lives and their activities around these principles that are contained in one rule of barring

dishonesty conduct, misrepresentation and fraud because we hold lawyers to a higher standard >> i want to ask you one more quick question. some people say this is about politics, you guys are going after her because of, you know, her support for president trump, what's your response to that? >> my response to that is we believe the rules of professional conduct apply to democrats and republicans, and we will call to account lawyer whose violate those rules in our obligation to report such conduct to the disciplinary authority >> lawrence fox, thank you so much, we appreciate it. and of course, we will see what sort of response comes from this, check in with kellyanne conway, appreciate you joining us tonight. >> good-bye. companies overseas trying to cash in on members of the first family. we have that story and a new neighbor for ivanka and president obama.

5at630 will be right back.

bomb it just got a little more political. secretary of state rex tillerson just bought a house for $5.6 million. he bought it from former executive richard had an lynn. he joins first daughter donald trump in the neighborhood. they both moved in recently. speaking of ivanka trump. the race is on to cash in on the new first daughter >> according to the "washington post" companies filed 258 trademark applications under variations of ivanka, ivanka trump and similar sounding chinese characters for products of all sizes and shapes, makeup, wallpaper, diet pills, under where. she has her own family line and her company registered several trademarks for a variety of products

>> she's hot in >> people are -- there are plastic surgeons advertising come get your ivanka look. >> first it was the kardashian, now ivanka >> thanks for joining usually

we'll see you tonight at 10:00 and 11:00. >> today on "tmz" -- harvey: usain bolt celebrated the first day of carnaval by getting a gift. >> a woman. >> i love this country so much. >> this woman comes out, she has on this costume with this huge butt and they go to town. >> what's the over-under for how many women he's had sex with this weekend. >> his girlfriend's there, isn't she? charlie: my question still stands. jaden piner at l.a.x., the little kid from "moonlight." he gets one ticket to the oscars and his whole family's there and i say who are you taking? he goes, i'm taking my mom. >> mom likes to take my pictures. >> that's reverse sophie's choice. child, pick one of your parents. backwards sophie's choice. >> people speculate who's replacing beyonce at coachella. everyone on the internet thinks daft punk. >> that would be terrible.