a villain, depending on whose political ox is being gored, at many different times in the clinton email investigation and even now, perhaps, but you clearly were troubled by the conduct of the sitting attorney general, loretta lynch, when it came to the clinton email investigation. you mentioned the characterization that you'd been asked to accept that this is a matter and not a criminal investigation, which you said it was. there was the matter of president clinton's meeting on the tarmac with the his wife was a subject to a criminal investigation, and you suggested that perhaps there are other matters that you may be able to share with us later on in a classified setting, but it seems to me that you clearly believe that loretta lynch, the attorney general, had an appearance of a conflict of interest on the clinton email investigation. is that correct? >> i think that's fair. i didn't believe she could credibly decline that investigation, at least not without grievous damage to the

would that have been an appropriate step in the clinton email investigation, in your opinion? >> certainly a possible step, yes, sir. >> and were you aware ms. lynch had been requested numerous times to appoint a special counsel and had refused? >> yes, from, i think, congress -- members of doing had repeatedly asked, yes, sir. >> yours truly did on multiple occasions. and that heightened your concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest with the department of justice which caused you to make what you have described as an incredibly painful decision to basically take the matter up yourself and led to that july press conference? >> yes, sir. after former president clinton met on the plane with the attorney general, i considered whether i should call for the appointment of a special counsel and decided that that would be an unfair thing to do because i knew there was no case there. we had investigated very, very thoroughly. i know this is a subject of passionate disagreement, but i knew there was no case there, and calling for the appointment of special counsel would

would that have been an appropriate step in the clinton email investigation, in your opinion? >> certainly a possible step, yes, sir. ha and were you aware ms. lynch counsel and had refused? >> yes, from, i think, congress -- members of doing had repeatedly asked, yes, sir. >> yours truly did on multiple occasions. and that heightened your concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest with the department of justice which caused you to make what you have described as an incredibly painful decision to basically take the matter up yourself and led to that july press conference? >> yes, sir. after former president clinton met on the plane with the attorney general, i considered whether i should call for the appointment of a special counsel and decided that that would be an unfair thing to do because i knew there was no case there. we had investigated very, very thoroughly. i know this is a subject of passionate disagreement, but i knew there was no case there, and calling for the appointment of special counsel would be brutally unfair because it send the message, ah-ha,

operatives and opposition researchers looking for those 30,000 emails.her big narrative of the campaign, that she use the program bleach bid on her private server to delete these emails before the fbi could get to them. >> jon: candidate trump even said if the russians had the stuff, i'm sure people would love to see it. >> that may be what gets him in trouble, that is what's going to be this narrative. he said that in a very offhand way, in a joking way that he used for a lot of his campaign rhetoric, but the democrats and mainstream media and i think particularly what could be concerning his members of special counsel staff may look at that and say hey, the president was actually asking for russian help on the 30,000 missed emails. >> jon: according to the article, this gentleman who is now dead implied but never really said that he was working with mike flynn, who again, was the advisor to the campaign on national security. >> that is absolutely right, that is telling to me because a lot of opposition research firms are contractors, they create a prod

are claimed to have these emails. they identified five groups of which two of those hacker groups were determined to be russian and then they started to see if they could get the emails. >> jon: he also claims that he was working on behalf of or working with michael flynn, right? >> he would invoke michael flynn's name and say i'm talking to michael flynn, i would like to see if i could give us information, that kind of treatment, but he never directly said he was working with michael flynn. >> jon: michael flynn is the fired national security advisor, fired by the trump administration about a month into the term. he was a foreign policy advisor to the trump campaign. now you can't go back and double check all this with peter smith because he died ten days after the journal interview. >> that's right, we are not able to follow up with him, but we have been following up with other people who are working with him who had contact with him and we also heard from intel sources that they are looking at the same kinds of thi

but if you take the president's statements of, "i would like you to release emails," and then the emails get released, you could say that's sort of circumstantial, i suppose, in a court of law, but it's not nothing. it's a real evidence of collusion. there's also the fact that there were emails and news stories that were sent by the kremlin out into the social media in support of trump or attacking hillary clinton that the white house itself or that the trump campaign picked up itself and then promoted. and there was clearly, you know, moments in the campaign where there was kind of coordination going on. whether it was planned or not, i agree, we don't totally know whether that's the case. the real question, it seems to me, is whether there was a kind of quid pro quo. in other words, in exchange for russian support for the trump campaign, did trump promise anything to them? and i think that's the real question that we don't know anything about. lauren: and i wanna ask you a little bit more about the backchannel situation that we were talking about with jared kushner because there also h

found the emails, extracted them this buy kwanted to get in touch with the hackers get the emails. he was telling people he was affiliated with michael flynn who we talked about so many times on this program, who was a top foreign policy adviser to trump during the campaign and became the national security adviser a and was fired about giving inaccurate statements about his dakotas with the russian ambassador. it's still murky. the trump campaign says they don't know anything about it if there is any truth to it. flynn was acting not in a campaign role. what toes that really mean? but brian i'll citizen by faying i think the most interesting here thing -- being oits a marc murky story the journal has a passage in there saying investigators are looking at intelligence reports that seem to have captured conversations among russian hackers saying that they did want to get clinton's deleted emails and transfer them to michael flynn through an unnamed intermediary. there is this sort of corroborating evidence in the intelligence reports that i think takes the story to another level of c

then, in their endorsement of may, they said, this email thing, it's like a helpdesk issue.o, it was always a hard issue to put to bed. but reported tibet in july and then it rose up again. >> tucker: okay, so, the new york time is biased against democrats, a novel defense you say? all, but got weirder from there. a lot weirder. hillary went on to deliver a narrative so complex he could barely follow it but we did. she explained how donald trump and russia teamed up to rob her of her rightful job as president of the united states. >> how did they know what messages to deliver? who told them? who told them? who were they coordinating with or colluding with? there are all the stories about guys over in macedonia who are running these fake news sites. the russians, and my opinion, and based on the intel encounter and tell people i have talked to, could not have known how best to recognize that information unless they had been guided. and here -- >> guided by americans. >> guided by americans. within one hour -- one hour -- of the ""access hollywood"" tapes being leaked, within

they probably have her 33,000 emails. i hope they do.probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted because you would see some beauties there, so let's see. it would be interesting to see. i will tell you this. russia, if you are listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. i think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. let's see if that happens. >> this was president trump on the campaign trail. russia, if you are listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. i think you will probably be rewarded mightily by the press. how can you accuse president obama of obstructing when he was egging russia on? >> he was joking at the time. >> except trump had been steadfast in his call for anyone to access clinton's e-mail. as he stated over and over again in this exchange with nbc's katie couric. >> do you have any qualms about asking a foreign government, russia, china, anybody, to interfere, to hack into a system of anybody's in this country -- >> that's up to the p

new letters from the senate judiciary committee today revealed that although those emails may or may not have been fake, that has yet to be determined, they do want to speak directly with ms. lynch. chief national correspondent ed henry here with the latest on the report date the obama administration spent months debating in the white house over how to respond to russia and in the end it did very little. >> it's one of the biggest unanswered questions, the democrats were so outraged by what they called the russian assault. why didn't president obama lift much more than a thinker to try to stop it. "the washington post" in reports that president obama and three top aides were given eyes only intelligence at russian president vladimir putin was directly involved in trying to disrupt the american election. obama aides debated about a dozen different options but then did very little on the way out the war door to retaliate. one former obama officials said it's the hardest thing about my entire time in the government to defend. i feel like we sort of choked. former obama homeland security

i want to explain the email thing.t year there were emails that surfaced that allegedly showed then debbie waser man schultz have a conversation with a political officer saying loretta lynch will have this -- whether it was made up or not. at some point were you briefed about that email and was it used as any kind of basis by then f.b.i. director james comey to get involved in the investigation? >> one, i was not briefed about the email. i don't even know if it exists. i just know what i read in the paper about the email and the reason that director comey jumped into the investigation in july of last year. but i do know this. i do know that the director briefed members of the house and the senate that the real reason he took over the investigation and decided to take the role of the attorney general was not because of the tarmac meeting between president clinton and loretta lynch but he was concerned that emails existed showing that the department of justice in a bad light and he felt like he needed to take over the in

we asked, should the department of justice appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the clinton email scandal, the clinton meeting with loretta lynch, lynch's collusion with the f.b.i. director. 96% of you said yes she should be investigated. joining me, steve forbes and the founder of american majority ned ryun. this president is presiding over an economy that was moribund before the election. but thing are turning. meanwhile he's the subject of a special counsel investigation that nobody seems to be able to define. explain its creation or what it achieved. the investigations in congress that have been going on for what, nearly a year. >> it's the on thing they can do. they don't want to fight him on figure policy because they can lose that debate. they still havenecovered from the loss of the election, so they are scrambling around trying to find something. by appointing a special prosecutor, crown now they call them. they are going to search him until they find something. they want to bring him down, and they will conjure up whatever they need to try to do it. lou: we are not talki

google said it never scanned the email of corporate commerce.hey are spanned expanding the pols processless to all free consumer email accounts. the change is set to happen sometime this year. the company says you will still see ads in g mail they won't be targeted to you based on the content of your email. >>> when we come back we'll be checking in with mindy with sports she has the latest after this. pinder going on the d-l due a am >>> well the a's picked up another piece with chad pender going on the disabled list. the team added their top prospect franklin buretto. he was inserted right into the lineup in second base against the white soks by the third inning he was part of major league history. we'll go to the south side of chicago for game 2 between the a's and the white soks. what a day for the rookies in green and gold. matt olson second in the lineup first pitch he sees, turns it into his first career home run. the next inning, another rookie, jacob brewingman, takes a an 80 impair four seem near the sweet pot another home sfwleer the

email.ing out an would you make that email available? atty. gen. sessions: i would be pleased to do so, and i think i have it with me now. >> have you had any interactions with the special counsel robert mueller? atty. gen. sessions: i have not. with regard to the email i sing out, director comey indicated that he did not know that when i recuse myself or did not receive notice, one of those emails went to him by name. a lot happened in our offices, i'm not accusing him of any wrongdoing, but in fact it was sent to him. >> as you said, mr. comey testified at length about his interactions with it president, highlighting your presence at those meetings, and you addressed the meeting where all were asked to live -- to leave except for director comey, and he had a private meeting with the president. and you said he did inform you of how uncomfortable that was and your recommendation was that the fbi and doj needed to follow the rules limiting further correspondence. did director comey ever express additional discomfort with conversations that the presi

no intent by destroying 30 plus thousand emails?ey testifies again that there wasn't any attempt -- yesterday, he said something entirely different. watch this. >> the clinton campaign was using all kinds of euphemisms, security review, matters, things like that what was going on. we were getting to a place where the attorney general and i will both going to testify and talk publicly and i wanted to know if she was going to authorize that we had an investigation. she said yes, but don't call it that. call it a matter. i said why would i do that? and she said just call it a matter. >> sean: just call it a matter? so it looks like comey may have committed perjury on top of everything else. we will have much more on all of this with our legal panel in just a few minutes. comey's revelation about lynch is just one of his many massive double standards. he kept quiet about former obama attorney general loretta lynch trying to influence his investigation into hillary clinton. which is the very definition itself of obstruction. but now he's

these came through email. take a look at some of those.bad that you want mike weren't on second base." it goes on from there. you did a collection of all of these. "now we are a family, he wants someone to -- why did you decide to put these together on these page and put them on facebook for everyone to look at? >> as a christian, i have a belief in the biblical principle that the best way to expose darkness is to show the light. i think in many cases, people look at our facebook, the congress man or woman's face book, and use it what they post. but you don't see the comments underneath it. i want to bring a few of those after the shooting, these are comments after the shooting, to present them to be able to say this is what is going on in the dark underworld of social media. because to bring light to darkness is how you disinfect the darkness in the first place. >> martha: that's a great point. i commend you for doing it. all of us who are in any way in the public sphere experience things along these lines, but those are particularly roug

an email indicated lynch told the clinton campaign the email investigation wouldn't be a problem. but the committee is looking into it as a whole new rink toll this story. trish: rank and file democrats are calling for new leadership. but house minority leader has one very powerful voice back her. president trump says it would be a sad day for republicans if pelosi ever see sides to step down from her post. > reporter: the house democratic caucus shows no sign of wayneing in their support of pelosi. >> i'm a master legislator. i'm a strategic politically astute leader. my leadership is recognized by many around the country. reporter: many democrat saw yesterday's remarks as smug and self-serving. one observer said she would be out if there was a clear plan in place. >> the defender said she would never do anything to hurt the caucus. >> nancy pelosi has been through this before. this is not her first time at the rodeo. just like paul ryan had to deal with th the freedom caucus. reporter: central to pelosi's fate is whether her fundraising skills are outweighed by how she is unitin

dumped the john podesta emails. i inherit nothing from the democratic party.bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency. its data with mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. >> this is the dnc. >> he never took the blame for herself. donald trump quickly responding, crooked hillary clinton blames everybody but herself, refuses to say she was a terrible candidate, hits facebook and even democrats and the dnc. this is how people fight these days, people in covfefe houses shouldn't throw covfefe. joni goldberg and charles krauthammer are saying enough with the excuses. >> short of 5:00 shadow and wearing wink keeps on the beach, the transition to bitterness is complete. the idea that literally every single possible variable is to blame except for her and her actions is remarkable, she launched a humiliating election that was almost unusable and because she never knew why she was running. the thought of sending emails to her staff in the middle of a campaign after essentially being on the road for eight years and begging them to come up with the theme. if you don't

of emails, oh, you can run a few algorithms . but real law enforcement means looking at the evidence line by line. i've known people that did it. i've done it in a civil setting. until you find the smoking gun. but you've got to go through the monotony of reviewing each of those, they had no time to do that. . and yet director comey came out, clean bill of health, it could not have been discerned in that amount of time like that. so it appeared pretty clearly the reason he said we're reopening the case is so he could say, we closed it, eliminate any chance of somebody, even a nonf.b.i. person, who comes forward and says, you know, there are classified emails that ended up on anthony wiener's computer . at came from hillary clinton there were crimes here. in the f.b.i. director's -- and the f.b.i. director is covering for them. that would likely have brought downhillry clinton much worse than the defeat she suffered. so it's just interesting but mr. speaker, the irony with which director comey's testimony drips this evening is tha

if you look at an email, our target will be in that email. we don't know our targets are talking to. you can't tell whether badg uy@hotmail.com is a u.s. person or not based simply on his email address. we know our targets are foreign or overseas but cannot identify with out significant research more. sen. franken: claim out of time, but i would ask if there is possible to come up with an estimate in those specific numbers. it seems to me we are already capable of coming up with the estimate. a 2011 opinion by the fisa court revealed that the nsa previously reviewed a random sample of "internet transactions." the number of those communications that were wholly domestic, i think we can come up with an estimate. thank you for your indulgence. andhank you mr. chairman thanks to the witnesses for being here to talk about the crown jewels of the intelligence committee when it comes to keeping america safe. thoughthelp but offer a on the questions my friend senator franken asked about wanting to identify the number of americans incidentally collect

the body of the email. even though neither the sender or receiver are themselves targets. is that correct? >> yes senator feinstein that's correct. >> thank you. >> can i add is very important to remember that at least one of those centers or recipients is a non-us person outside the us. >> that's helpful, thank you. the nsa has noted the intent is, and i quote, to retain the upstream collection that provides the greatest value to national security. while reducing the likelihood that nsa will acquire communications of the us persons or others who are not in direct contact with one of the agencies of foreign intelligence targets. and nsa statement about upstream activities. now, comment on that approach . and would the nsa work with us on trying to work something out that covers this issue properly? i don't know that we can do that with legislatively but i like your comments. >> ma'am, from nsa's perspective, we would be very nervous about the legislative prohibition about the collection for a couple reasons

this is true for one category of communications, foreign to foreign emails that is are stored on u.s. soil. but they were making surveillance easier, not harder. and also on the government's ability to acquire, store and process all of the communications. the government has unprecedented capabilities today to tap into communications which have exploded all kinds of communications and to store them in sophisticated computer analytics to sort through them. this is truly the golden age of surveillance and there's another aspect to this, in past decades, international communication versus purely domestic was relatively rare because it was difficult and expensive. today in interconnected world it's cheap and easy, sometimes free and it's necessary. let's have a show of hands who has communicated with a foreigner overseas at least few times in the last year? okay, i think that's everybody. what this international communication means that the amount of information about americans that the nsa intercepts even with targeting foreigners overseas has increased dramatically and yet instead of inc

and party emails and spreading fake news stories.ell us what you learned in your reporting. michael: it is important to make the distinction, there are 2 different missions of russian hackers and russian intelligence agencies. one is the influence operation, to change the narrative around the campaign. they did that by hacking the dnc and clinton aides and releasing the emails to wikileaks, according to u.s. intelligence agencies. but they were doing something else, where they were hacking into the voting infrastructure of u.s. elections. it doesn't look like what they were trained to do is change the vote. but the obama administration was pretty convinced and very worried that what they were trying to do was undercut the election by creating a lot of chaos. they were attacking voter registration rolls, databases, they were attacking local election officials who run systems where the votes are counted and transferred up to the state. if you can imagine, if you showed up at the polls and suddenly your information to be able to vote wa

in an effort to target ads, led many customers to say wait were you looking through our emails too? >> i don'i don't like. that will that's invading my privacy. >> alexander, ceo of security score card. >> it is not actually somebody sitting and reading your emails, but it feeds into this giant algorism, and they analyze different type of key words, they analyze what type of sentence structure you use. >> he said google's decision to stop scanning emails is a smart one likely based on growing concerns over internet privacy brought on by widespread, highly publicized hacking scandels. >> i think there is increased scrutiny from legislators, there have been court cases, where some of the companies have been considered guilty after they looked through the courtesies tell, many customers don't understands what's in them. >> that doesn't mean google ' days of watching are you over t still plans to get your info through search and youtube history. >> there are ways to make sure that doesn't happen as much, google chrome has incognito mode, brouse in private. best defense knowing when it c

facts. >> based on a reporting in july of 2016, she declined to answer questions about the clinton emailase more than 70 times before she went to congress. tucker? >> tucker: excellent for that. john daniel davidson is a senior correspondent over at the federalist and he joins us now. thanks for coming on tonight. it seems like there is evidence and we should just stress again, the letter that catherine was referring to comes from a bipartisan assortment of lawmakers. they seem to have reached a conclusion that loretta lynch may have attempted to squelch the investigation into hillary, you think that's a fair conclusion? >> yeah, the main reason i think it's a fair conclusion is what james comey himself said before the senate intelligence committee earlier this month. one of the most remarkable things about his testimony was the part where he talked about how loretta lynch told him not to refer to the clinton email investigation as an investigation, instead told him to call to matter. why would i do that? just do it. then he did it, he complied with her and called it a matter when clearl

the same day, we got an email said, ither woman who was the girl sitting to people over from you. reached over to you, and she said, i know of another girl sitting next to you. we reached out to all of them. we got together with sarah ludwig and tova friedman, and it was exactly like you said. it was the next chapter in this book. this is a book filled with miracles, and this three me feels like one more miracle. soledad: when the first call came in, and the person said, i'm on the cover with you, what was your dad's reaction? >> they had an instant connection. i don't know how to describe it. they did it together, and they came through on the other side, and all three are optimistic and positive and share a similar spirit. there's a photo of the survivors standing together with kids and grandkids. it's an impressive picture of what they created two generations later. they have created a world of happiness. it's the best revenge, honestly. soledad: was there a special moment in all of that joy that was particularly moving for your dad? .> i don't often see my dad cry there was a m

none of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system. but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal service, not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at eight seasoned departments of the united states government. >> sean: comey literally explained that hillary clinton broke several laws and committed several felonies but then what we saw him do what he started to play politics instead of doing his job. for the record, if you or i set a fraction of what hillary clinton did, we would be sitting in a jail cell like the guy behind bars for a year -- he took six pictures inside the submarine he was so proud of working in? the pay to play scheme, the uranium one deal. hillary clinton gave away 20% of america's uranium. by the way, here's a real russia scandal. why didn't comey bother to investigate or look into any of these things? the answer is simple and continues to be exposed. sadly, james comey is nothing more than a partisan and political hack as i said

one of our viewers emailed this article with an eye popping headline for '90s fans.says if you have any of these seven beanie babies, you may as well retire right now. it claims rare beanie babies are valued up to $10,000. the article claims one of the rarest ty toys is the first edition princess diana beanie baby, which became available 5 months after princess diana died. some princess bears are valued just shy of $100,000. but david, from david s appraisals is setting the record straight about the value of beanie babies. >> not in turns of valuable, certainly, they just felt with pvc pellets inside of them. what you see is people putting crazy listings on ebay, and banking that someone foolish enough is willing to come along and spend 25,000, or 300,000, or some insane number on something that's really worth about maybe 30, 40, maybe $50. >> people thinking they'll get rich off selling their childhood trove of beanies, think ai false. beanie babies are not valuable, and they're not going to get you rich quick. if you've got any questions about whether or not you th

the email scandal. it was an illegal enterprise i was going on.senate intelligence committee that want answers to questions. those questions focus on a significant development. where they are memorandums or statements made by the attorney general or members of the democratic committee, we will not let this investigation of hillary clinton go too far. if that proves to be true, and there's a lot of evidence starting to swirl, both republicans and democrats sign this letter saying they want answers to these questions. this is how investigations start, it needs to and it goes a step further than that. there's a lot more play than just this. >> hannity: i've been saying that mueller needs to recuse himself and get out. and now there are numerous relationships. he even sees this as bothersome. listen to what the president said. >> he's a very good friends with cold meat which is bothersome. we'll have to see the people evan hired are all hillary clinton supporters. some of them worked for hillary. the whole thing is ridiculous. >> hannity: this is the

james comey revealed that she had influenced him to soften the language surrounding the whole clinton email matter. plus more questions about when the former fbi director began leaking his side of the story to "the new york times." does it actually go back a lot further than he has so far admitted? outs to tonight, but let's dig in with a preview of how the administration intends to handle this whole thing tomorrow. i'm joined by senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano. top of the show, big story, a lot of preparation to get ready for what we will see tomorrow. first of all, what do you expect, and do you think it's wise for jeff sessions to be doing this in open testimony? >> as much as i want to hear him and is much as i know the public wants to hear them, if he had asked my advice i would say it's not wise for you to do this, you will be attacked personally and you will have to defend yoursel yourself. you are the head of the justice department and you will have to defend it, that includes bob muller. we were close to the president and the president expects you to give his versi

the nothing burger was the emails, how she handled her emails and the coverage of it. she went into great detail about linkage and russian bots and into the weeds of the mercers and the funding of republican data efforts and then turned the guns on the dnc and democrats. >> now the nominee of the democratic party, i inherit nothing from the democratic party. >> what do you mean nothing? >> speak on the unit bankrupt. it was on the verge of insolvency. its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. had to inject money into it. >> the dnc? >> the dnc to keep it going. >> bret: this was president obama's dnc. in essence she is pointing the blame at president obama there in the election. this is something. if you look at the last three democratic nominees running for president, all three of them believe they were cheated out of an election. hillary clinton talking about it more than al gore or john kerry at this point. let's start there and bring in the panel. jonah goldberg, senior editor at national review. susan page, editor in editor-in-chief of lifezette laura ing

from another media outlet i have received this in my email inbox, you probably did too. not everyone is convinced and that includes you i think. here's a bit of his exchange. >> the president of the united states with me alone saying "i hope this" i took it as him wanting me to do that. i didn't obey that but that's what i thought he wanted me to do. >> you don't know of anyone that has ever been charged for -- >> i don't as i sit here. >> you want to talk about -- "have you ever heard of anybody being charged on the basis of hoping for something?" >> in the universe of fake lawyers that have come to populate washington, d.c., to answer the constitutes obstruction. what i heard a comey very clearly saying was that he was not in a position to say whether or not trump obstructed justice. he pointed a long finger down at robert mueller and said if anybody was going to find obstruction, it was him. and if he was going to find obstruction it would be on the basis that trump knew he was concealing something. if nothing bad happened, if trump knew no wrong had been committed, i

dumped the john podesta emails, my email account was turned into the biggest scandal since lord knowshen. they covered it like it wasai pearl harbor. men paid for the speeches they made, i got paid for the speeches i made. it was used and i thought it was unfairly used, i have my complaints about former director comey. >> tucker: think about the wrath you have heard against the president. he's narcissistic, he won't accept information he disagrees with, he betrays friends and allies for his own personal gain, based on what you just saw and her behavior the last few weeks, do any of these criticisms not apply to hillary clinton? she can't accept explanations for her defeat, she's accusing the trump campaign affording specific hacking efforts to the minute and is so narcissistic, the only person she can't blame for her defeat is herself. even her biggest handicaps were self-inflicted. charles krauthammer is a writer and columnist who joins us now. it does sound like what people make of trump. >> i know i'm in a minority wit. conservatives, but i feel sorry for her. it could be because i

the way the director handled the conclusion of the clinton email investigation was wrong. the f.b.i. is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust it in has a director ounces the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. having refused to admit his errors, the director cannot be expected to implement the necessary directive actions. rosenstein testified his memo to congress. he said notwithstanding my personal affection for director comey, i thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader. it was rosenstein who then chose comey friend and former colleague robert mueller to be the special counsel which is clearly a breach of requirements that there be no appearance of conflict of interest of any kind, including being colleagues and friends of the appointed special counsel. now rosenstein dares to warn us about leaks. urging americans to exercise caution on left-wing news stories attributed to anonymous officials which is just about the bulk of their political reporting. i believe the deputy attorney general now has only one honorable path in the mess

operative flynn tie saw clinton emails. he reports before the 2016 presidential election, a g.o.p. researcher mounted an independent campaign emails he believe was stolen likely by russian hackers. conversations with members of his circle and others he tried to recruit, the g.o.p. operative peter smith complied he was working with retired flynn, t general mike at the time a senior advisor to then-candidate donald trump. in an interview with "the wall street journal," mr. smith, the g.o.p. operative, said he knew mr. flynn but never said mr. flynn was involved and mr. flynn didn't respond for request for comment. mr. smith died at age 81 on may 14, about 10 days after the journal interviewed him. the operation he described is consistent with information examined by u.s. investigators probing russian interference. they've seen reports from intelligence agencies that describe russian hackers obtaining how to obtain emails from mrs. clinton's server and transmit them to mr. flynn via and intermediary. according to u.s. officials with knowledge of the intelligence. tom in clinton, maryl

the way the director handled the conclusion of the clinton email investigation was wrong.lt the f.b.i. is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust it in has a director ounces the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. having refused to admit his errors, the director cannot be expected to implement the necessary directive actions. rosenstein testified his memo to congress. he said notwithstanding my personal affection for director comey, i thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader. it was rosenstein who then chose comey friend and former colleague robert mueller to be the special counsel which is clearly a breach of requirements that there be no appearance of conflict of interest of any kind, including being colleagues and friends of the appointed special counsel. now rosenstein dares to warn us about leaks. urging americans to exercise caution on left-wing news stories attributed to anonymous officials which is just about the bulk of their political reporting. i believe the deputy attorney general now has only one honorable path in the mes

an hour later, wikileaks published its first batch of emails stolen from john podesta.o some, obama's determination to avoid politicizing the russia issue had the opposite effect. it meant he allowed politics to shape his administration's response to what some believe should have been treated as a national security threat. should the obama administration have done more in the wake of disclosures about russian meddling with the election directed by vladimir putin? republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can reach us on twitter, @cspanwj. some responses we have gotten, of course they should have done more. as usual with him, he looks the other way. it is easier to ignore problems. -- no matter what obama or his administration did, it would have appeared to only be for the purpose of helping hillary. sheilarepublican line, is calling from oklahoma. what do you think? not do the reason he did more is because everybody thought hillary was going to win. there was no reason to do anything like that. i don't know how you could s

we got a lot of emails pushing back on congress. saying why aren't the republicans in congress getting on board. giving the democrats credit. they are on board. they are loyal to one another. they are attacking republicans and it's working. what does the president need to do to get congress on board. >> absolutely right. been so much accomplishments, pushing legislation. saw the president in miami just on friday rolling back cuban policies that president obama put in there that really benefited cuban regime. not the cuban people. we stand with the cuban people. we don't want u.s. money to go to the cuban regime. military and intelligence. repress their own people. on friday we had the first white house meeting of the opioid commission. if you filled up every seat in yankee stadium, ainsley, that's how many people i do of drug overdoses a year 33,000 of them opioid abuse no. demographic has been spared and no state untouched by. this you are talking about economic numbers. confidence numbers. rolling back the regulatory framework. ge