a former justice department official named j.t. smith. j.t. ith searched at the cia and defense department and that fall of 1973 he was serving in the justice department and one of the closest advisors to the attorney general elliott richardson and the executive assistant. and j.t. smith was there, was there when richardson asked the head of the olc robert dixson to come up with an official justice department answer to the suddenly very pressing question about whether a sitting vice president could be indicted. and what j.t. smith told us in an interview for bagman is that robert dixson, that pressure packed fall of 1973, robert dixson really wasn't sure what the right answer was to that question. listen. >> he was asked by the attorney general as one should do to write an objective legal opinion on the amenability of the vice president to criminal process. >> right. >> and his office dug through 200 years of constitutional deliberations and opinions and ended up being in sort of a head scratching place where the opinion could come out either p

one of the people who we interviewed for "bag man" was a former justice department official at the timed served at the cia, he served at the defense department. in that fall of 1973, he was serving in the justice department. he was one of the closest advisers to the attorney general and j.t. smith was there, was there when richardson asked the head of the olc robert dixon to come up with an official justice department answer to this suddenly very pressing question about whether a sitting vice president could be indicted. and what j.t. smith told us in an interview for "bag man" is that robert dixon, that pressure-packed fall of 1973, robert dixon really wasn't sure what the right answer was to that question. listen. >> he was asked by the attorney general, as one should do, to write an objective legal opinion on the amenability of the vice president through criminal process. >> right. >> and his office got through 2 years of constitutional deliberations and opinions. i think they ended up being in sort of a head-scratching place where the opinion could come out either pro or con crimina

>>'s bruce or still employed with the department of justice? to answer your question is currentlyce orr employed with the department of justice. >> is there any process at this point or personnel issues -- are you aware of the discussions and also the implication, investigations from congress and surrounding bruce orr's involvement in many of the problems we have seen over the past years at doj? >> i am generally aware of mr. orr, questions being raised about his behavior at the department of justice. knowing what you know and seeing what you have seen and using your past experience and prior knowledge, do you believe that mr. orr is operating outside of normal and appropriate channels, which has been publicly reported? >> this is a very important question for many people, both in this body and the general public. the office of inspector general is currently looking at the carter-page fisa application, and it is also being reviewed at the same time simultaneously by mr. john hubert, the u.s. attorney from utah who is asked by attorney general s

the justice department oversees the federal government's compliance, so that is why we discussed it with barr. as critical as the nominee have confirmed to leave the justice takes transparency seriously. when you talk about presumption of openness, it ought to be this simple, that any of the public's business ought to be public, and you presume it ought to be and let the government give a justification why it ought to be kept secret or not open to the public under the freedom of information act. i asked mr. barr if he agreed that it is an important tool for holding government accountable. naturally he said yes. i also asked the nominee if he would commit to ensuring faithful and timely implementation of the 2016 amendments. we will quote, yes, work hard on that. i also think that the entire freedom of information act process would be improved if americans did not have to fight or disclosure in the first place. let me repeat that. fight tooth and nail for disclosure. that is why we have a presumption of openness when it comes to freedom of information act, getting the public's information

they've given him a different job at the justice department.ice department official tonight, that means he is still under the oversight of the house judiciary committee in congress. that committee could bring him back in if he lied to them, pur purgered himself under oath pur purgered himself under oat >> tech: at safelite autoglass we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids... ♪ music >> tech: ...every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why at safelite, we'll show you exactly when we'll be there. with a replacement you can trust. all done sir. >> grandpa: looks great! >> tech: thanks for choosing safelite. >> grandpa: thank you! >> child: bye! >> tech: bye! saving you time... so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ burning of diabetic nerve pain these feet raised a bouncing boy and climbed the ladder in the hardware business. but i couldn't bear my diabetic nerve pain any longer. so i talked to my doctor and he prescribed lyrica. lyrica may cause serio

rosen apparently does not have justice department experience.deputy attorney general is really the person that runs, as a day to day thing, the justice department. they are the chief operating officer of doj. so having somebody come in and day that job with zero doj experience, not unheard of but an unusual choice. >>> that does it again for us tonight. now it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." good evening, lawrence. i'm very excit

between the justice department and the judiciary committee.one paragraph precisely from jerry nadler. if you appear before the committee tomorrow morning and if you are prepared to respond to questions from our members, then i assure you that there will be no need for the committee to issue a sp on or before february 8th, tomorrow. to the extent you believe you are unable to fully respond to any specific question, we are prepared to handle your concerns on a case-by-case basis, both during and after tomorrow's hearing. there's a little ambiguity there and i guess the justice department could come back and say we need more clarification. >> i hesitate to say this might be the start of a series of letters but it's true. it sort of depends on what it means. what does nadler mean exactly when he says your willingness to answer the questions. laura noted this, subpoena or no, i didn't think and don't think it's likely that matt whitaker is going to go into any detail necessarily in response to how -- some of the questions that democrats are going t

they may refer this matter for prosecution to the justice department. now in terms of whether or not the president can be indicted and can be prosecuted for a crime, the somewhat shaky justice department internal policy is based on part in the agnew justice department guidance that said that a vice president could be indicted but a president could not. and i described that as somewhat shaky justice department policy because of the evidence we've turned up, which suggestions that people involved in the initial creation of that policy in the agnew era never intended for that to be the last word on whether or not a president could be indicted, even if you ignore the historical origins of this justice department policy, which suggestion it should have never led to any permanent policy that the president can't be indicted, even if you ignore that interesting history about the or g origins of the policy, look at what is going on with president trump and that policy now. if this "wall street journal" report tonight is correct and michael cohen is in fact going

and i describe that as somewhat shaky justice department policy. which suggest it should have never led to any permanent policy that the president can be indicted. even if you ignore that interesting history about the origins of that policy, you should also just look at what's going on with president trump and that policy right now. i mean, if this "wall street journal" report tonight is correct and michael cohen is in fact going to hand over financial documentary evidence tomorrow of the president's involvement in that illegal campaign finance scheme, which cohen has pled guilty to already, i mean, think about it, this is already a case where federal prosecutors right now are butting up against this idea that a president has nothing to fear from the criminal law, right? this idea that a sitting president just can't get in trouble for any crimes he committed, either before or during his presidency. i mean, on these specific issues, on this specific set of facts about which cohen is reportedly going to testify tomorrow and about which he is reported

so now the fbi and the department of justice are really worried about it. this is something that bill barr even talked about when he was on the hill. take a listen. >> if you're not going to indict someone then you don't stand up there and unload negative information about the person. that's not the way the department of justice does business. >> but that doesn't mean that people aren't going to try. certainly we expect people, members of congress, the public, the media to file all sorts of legal challenges to this to try and obtain as much information as we can. >> there will be other investigations, even if the mueller investigation is over. the president's got to worry about other investigations that are ongoing. >> absolutely. you have that handy graphic that shows sort of the litany, everything from the trump foundation, the trump inaugural, southern district. they're all over it. and part of the issue here is that mueller recognized i think early on to have u.s. attorneys, federal prosecutors across the country to be on the cases. people even outside

the department of justice who was president? t there is in the media paparazzi chasing barack obama unwittingly did he know about this otherwise what kind of administration was he running this was his department of justice brennan worked for him susan rice worked for him. a record number of unmasking of individuals and citizens of the last year by the obama administration did we hear nothing about barack obama harry truman says the buck stops here but that's not the case in the obama administration. >> the book needs to be written so there is something that needs to be done what was the obama administration doing? what they knew was going on was the russian interference i have to note the obama administration with the campaign as the approved winner to take out netanyahu. >> anybody indicted for that quick. >> not to my knowledge i'm not sure there was an investigation. it could not be a violation of federal law but it is for the russians to do what they were doing so i'm glad these indictments were returned. there was strange si

sources say the justice department is preparing to announce as early as next week that attorney generall barr has received mueller's confidential report and soon after that announcement barr will review the findings and then submit his own summary to congress. we have crime and justice reporter shimon prokupecz, justice reporter laura jaret and evan perez with us. we know that the timing could change on this. walk us through what, by regulation, the attorney general has to do once he receives this report from robert mueller. >> so the way the regulations work for the justice department is that the special counsel submits a report to the attorney general, it's a confidential report to the attorney general and then he reviews it and decides what he can report publicly or to the members of congress. now there's a lot of discussions going on inside the justice department about exactly how to handle this. we don't know how long the mueller report is, what it's going to contain, per se, what the contours of it are and the findings, but we know that's what the justice department is prepared to

is it correct the department of justice provided no advance notice to those departments? >> congresswoman, the department's policy -- >> just yes or no? did you provide advanced notice? >> we conducted a press conference in san diego with the head of the immigration customs enforcement when we announced the zero tolerance policy. all the zero tolerance policy does says we will take all referrals from d.h.s. -- >> i will stop you there, it is my time. according to the gao report, the gao, the government accountability office report on family separation, d.h.s. and h.h.s. officials told us the agencies did not take specific planning steps because they did not have advanced notice of the april 2018 memo. it went on to say ccp, ice and oor officials stated they became affair of the april 2018 memo when it was announced publicly. so before or after the zero -- actually, let me go back, are you saying cbp, ice and lied to the gao and they were given advance notice? >> i'm not going to suggest anybody was not telling the truth, i'm say whenning we publicly announced the zero tol

attorney's offices, to the justice department and other parts of the justice department that will be doing more of this investigation. we have also seen some of the prosecutors that have started leaving the office. again, another indicator. we have seen some of the u.s. attorney offices have started showing up to take over for the prosecution of roger stone which is being handled by the u.s. attorney in washington d.c. all of these little signs we have been picking up for some time now. >> it is for regulations. the attorney general to say to congress. it is to but take a listen and let's remind ourselves. it is how he will try to thread the needle here in terms of offers transparency. >> when it comes to you we share it as much as possible. >> will you provide. >> i will try to get the information out there that is consistent with regulations. >> i'll exercise that discretion to do that. >> they have signalled they are not interested in his summary. lawmakers will want to hear from robert mueller himself. >> what might be held back by barr once he submits the report to congress and

department of justice. according to "the times" quote, mr. trump called matthew whitaker, his newly installed attorney general, with a question. he asked whether jeffrey berman, the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york and a trump ally could be put in charge of the widening investigation. mr. whitaker, who had privately told associates that part of his role at the justice department was to jump on a grenade for the president said he could not do that. he complained about his inability to pull levers at the justice department that could make the president's many legal problems go away. that report appears to somewhat contradict what matt whitaker told the house judiciary committee nearly two weeks ago. >> the president did not ask for and i did not provide any commitments, promises concerning the special counsel's investigation or any other investigation. >> later at that same hearing, whitaker was specifically asked about the southern district of new york. >> did you ever have any conversations with the president about firing o

lou: he's untrustworthy, so is the fbi, so is the department of justice. as a nation because it is such a foul stench emanating from the department of justice, the fbi, their rancid, rotten, corrupt leadership. and they've been in place for years there. they -- what are we to do? we have a new attorney general, with but we've had so many, and they seem to all result in precisely the same thing; that is, continued deep state control of the very system of justice in this country. >> well, lou, first let me say i've got a lot of dear friends whom i knew from my military years who have gone to over to the fbi, and they're doing great work. there are a lot of great americans in the fbi. now, at the leadership, we've seen almost 30 people get either relieved or demoted, you know -- lou: not one of them is in jail, not one of them has been prosecuted or charged. >> absolutely. we need to get all of those guys in front of congress, and we need the leadership to support that. lou: yeah, i -- the leadership in congress was, i believe, fellow by the name of ryan and

and i was aware of everything that was going on at the department of justice, that i obviously -- that general sessions wasn't recused from. i think the president was comfortable that to continue the momentum at the department of justice, that we had established, in addressing these important priority issues like reducing violent crime, combating the opioid crisis and others, that the president felt i was best positioned to do the duties of attorney general. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll just say to mr. whitaker, my questions in a normal oversight committee would be vastly different than the direction i'm going to go because we've kind of wandered into this other stream over here. so i'm going to ask you some questions. the longstanding constitutionally based department of justice policy holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted. and that's based on the last review which happened under the clinton administration. is that still in effect or has that changed? >> that is still the policy of the department of justice. >> have you spoken to deputy attorney general rosenstein abou

he's had sraee from president trump but trump has taken aim at over people who have left the justice department. james comey. rod rosen semifinal. he's been all over twitter talking about the department of justic it's created an awkward position for bill barr becae he'srying to lead this agency to establish someom insurance he white house and the big test is going to be when mueller presents that report. what does he decide to do, how many information does he share with congress and therefore with the public and he's going to be under a lot of pressure from direction difference directions. robert: molly, do u see a seasoned man of institutions or the man who wrote that 19-page memo unsolicited to the deputyt ey general talking about protective attorney general. who is the real bill barr? otlly: it's obviously but looking back on his confirmation hearings, he was corned 54-45, almost a lartynel vote with many democrats showing displeasure in what they thought was a lacf transparency but behind the scenes you heard even a lot of democrats feeling he'd done a very goo job of assuring his people of

mcca mccabe confirming publicly ha high level meetings were held at the justice department to remove president trump from office. mccabe was fired from the fbi last march. he says he also ordered an investigation to determine whether the president obstructed justice by firing james comey. sarah sanders saying he has no credibility and is an embarrassment to the men and women of the fbi and our great country. more now from cnn's laura jarett. >> good morning, as a new attorney general takes the reigns at the justice department, the former acting director at the fbi laying bare the ghosts of 2017. that period that rocked the justice department and the fbi, and in a new interview with 60 minutes, andrew mccabe says why he felt the need to open an obstruction of justice investigation after the president fired fbi director james comey, and confirms reports that the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein discussed recruiting cabinet members to possibly invoke the 25th amendment to remove trump from office and wearing a wire to record his conversations with the president. in a fresh statemen

is it correct that the department of justice provided no advance notice to those departments? >> congresswoman, the department's -- >> it's just a yes or no. did you provide advanced notice to the -- >> we conducted a press conference in san diego with the head of the immigration customs enforcement when we announced the zero-tolerance policy and all the zero-tolerance policy does is says that we will take all referrals from dhs -- >> i'm going to stop you right there. it is my time. according to the jao report -- the gao, the government accountability office report on family separation, dhs and hhs officials told us the agencies did not take specifically planning steps because they did not have advanced notice of the attorney general's april 2018 memo. it went on to say, specifically, cpb, i.c.e. and orr officials stated that they became aware of the april 2018 memo when it was announced publicly. so before or after the -- let me go back. are you saying that cpb, i.c.e. and orr lied to the gao and that they were somehow aware and given advanced notice? >> no, i'm not going to

because the department of justice oversees the executive office for immigration review, will the department of justice ensure that asylum-seekers have access to counsel in mexico to prepare for their hearings? yes or no? >> we will continue to follow the policies currently in place. >> will you facilitate, assist, help, ensure that asylum-seekers have access to legal counsel in mexico? yes or no? there's aswoman well-defined process for asylum-seekers to obtain counsel , and we will continue to follow that. >> even while they are in mexico? assurance, make an especially regarding what happens in a foreign country. i know you understand that. this is part of the reason why this is such a terrible policy. another question. about a week after the policy was announced, reports surfaced human rights activists and entry intoad denied mexico. reports indicated this was not an issue on the mexico side, but on the u.s. side. did the department of justice have anything to do with lacking these passports? i'm notesswoman, familiar with the situation you're describing. i am happy to get back to you. >>

why is the justice department drawing this line in the sand?l, brianna, the justice department really views this as a breach of the agreement they had with whitaker to voluntarily testify tomorrow morning. and in their view, they've gone around that process, the democrats have, by issuing a subpoena preemptively before any questions have been asked. of course, the democrats are very focused on whitaker's conversations with the president, questions he may have exchanged with the president and the white house about the special counsel's russia investigation as well as his ethics of recusal. and on all of these issues, the justice department has a point by point letter i got my hands on, and i want to read to you one of the things they say that whitaker would be willing to testify on here. they say the acting attorney general will testify that at no time did the white house ask for or did the acting attorney general provide any promises or commitments concerning the special counsel's investigation. but they go on to say, brianna, we do not believe

the problem with the justice department is mueller is still running the justice department effectively to uncover what went on behind the investigation, this is what went on behind the investigation, runs into the mueller juggernaut. the attorney general bar needs to step up and defend the president. the argument again about bars will he stand up against trump. the question is will he stand up for president trump, for the rule of law, against the deep stators who don't care about our constitution. president trump may have survived this attack on him, but maybe another president want. we will lose our republic and we will not even know it came. >> lou: i guarantee he will survive these attacks. he has already demonstrated he is stronger than the entire lot of these extraordinary venal, vicious actors in the justice department. what may not survive is his justice department and the fbi. tom fitton, should they survive? they are the root of the corruption and the malignancy of the others that want to subscribe to this administration. when, in point of fact, they have been the perpetrators

they asked the department of justice, the committee went to the department of justice and said, what kind of questions can we ask him? what are you okay with us asking him. and they gave a list. really is all about the money, there are some campaign questions, but it looks like the oversight committee will be looking more at trump's business practices and what michael cohen, as his former personal attorney, knows. >> shimon prokupecz, thank you, i appreciate that. i want to bring in a congressman a tennessee democrat. who is from the justice department. congressman, we are in the last several days, it looks like. what's the minimum you will accept from bill barr when it comes to a summary of this investigation? >> we'll have to see most of what mr. mueller has come up with. the american public has paid for the special counsel work and for the report. and the american public deserves to see the product of what they paid for. the person public deserves to whether or not the president is a crook. as nixon said he wasn't and was. and american public needs to see it for themselves and the

you cover the fbi and the department of justice. is that a view that was shared -- i won't say widely but beyond mccabe? is that a small minority view of a danger with this president? or is that concern shared well beyond him? >> it was shared with the small group of folks mccabe describes in his inner sanctum making the decision about whether to open these investigations on president trump in the first place back in 2017. so mccabe outlines how he had a whole recommendation from folks who looked at the cases, people working on the russia investigation and they came to him and recommended this so there were at least more than one including the former general counsel of the fbi, james baker, who described he thought there was a perfect possibility the president was completely innocent but they thought it was the fbi's obligation, duty, they thought to get to the bottom of what happened in case the president was, in fact, working on behalf of the russian governme government. >> since you're so tapped into the doj, is there concern tha

because the department of justice oversees the executive office for immigration review, will the departmentm-seekers have access to counsel in mexico in order to allow them to prepare for the hearing? yes or no. >> we are going to continue to follow the policies of currently in place. >> will you facilitate, assist, help, ensure that asylum-seekers have access to legal counsel in mexico? yes or no. >> congresswoman, there is a very well-defined process for asylum-seekers to obtain counsel and we will continue to follow that. >> mr. whitaker, even while they're in mexico? >> is the acting attorney general i cannot make an assurance, especially regarding what happens in a foreign country, i know you understand that. >> this is part of the reason why this is such a terrible policy. another question, about a week after the policy was announced, reports surfaced that immigrant rights advocates and attorneys were denied entry into mexico. the attorneys set their passports had been flagged and reports also indicated that this was not an issue on the mexican side but on the u.s. side. the departmen

let's get to the justice department. andrew mccabe putting his book out there. confirming a lot of what your reporting had seen over the past months going on behind the scenes. >> confirming it for the first time on the record. the interview is stunningly candid. one of the most eyebrow raising parts hasn't aired yet. confirming mccabe will say that there were discussions about potentially recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment to try to oust president trump from office and that rod rosenstein had discussed wearing a require to potentially record conversations with the president. the justice department is pushing back hard on these characterizations calling them inaccurate i want to read to you a new statement this morning. they say the deputy attorney general again rejects the events as inaccurate. the deputy attorney general never authorized any recording that mccabe references. based on personal dealings there was no basis to nor was the d.a.g. in a position to consider invoking the 25th amendment. a war of words between mccabe and the deputy

or trying to put pressure on what the justice department is doing.u know that they have done that one way or the other? and do you think it has had an effect on what the justice department or even the special counsel has been able to pursue? >> i don't know the answer. you know, he will say this, though. this is someone who has refused to follow the advice of ethics lawyers. so, you know, you start out with a great skepticism about whether you're getting the full story from someone like that. this is someone who obviously auditioned for the part by showing his hostility to the investigation. and i think that the judiciary committee needs to demand answer, and if there is credible reason to believe he has not been truthful, they need to do everything necessary to hold him accountable. and the fact that he's leaving the justice department doesn't make him any less accessible to the congress. indeed, in many respects, it makes him more accessible. it's less of an issue of pulling him out of his responsibilities as acting attorney general. so we need to

sasse also wrote to the justice department and yesterday evening, the justice department informed senatortly because of his concern and the "miami herald" series, the department is going to look into this. now this is not a criminal investigation. this is an investigation by the justice department's office of professional responsibility. and it will review the role of all the prosecutors in this case including alex acosta who at the time was the top federal prosecutor in miami, the u.s. attorney. a couple of notes about opr investigations. they don't have subpoena power. obviously, alex acosta is no longer an employee of the justice department. so their ability to force him to answer questions is very limited. he can always say no, but he says he welcomes this investigation. and acosta has said over the years that the nature of epstein's offenses became more clear after the conviction in state court. that's partly been his explanation for how the case was handled, and he also said the decision to proceed this way with just state charges, not federal charges, was reviewed by the justice de

the obama justice department ended it. i understand that it has been reinstated during the trump administration. i'd like you to inform us about its progress as well as any other measures or programs or enforcement priorities of the department of justice with respect to reducing gun violence in this country. >> thank you, congressman. as you know, we served as united states attorneys together until you went into politics and i went into private practice. i want to talk specifically, and it's a really good question about project safe neighborhoods. in 2017, attorney general sessions announced the expansion of project safe neighborhoods which encourages u.s. attorneys' offices to work specifically with their unique communities to work to develop a customized crime reduction strategy. a study showed it reduced crime overall by 4.1%, and with case studies showing reductions of up to 42% of violent crime. we had the project safe neighborhoods national conference, as i said in my opening statement, and i can tell you that especi

and the justice department has a statement out today saying none of this was ever pursued. so you have somewhat of a difference between mccabe and doj over that. the other thing the justice department says today, by the way, is that after mueller was appointed special counsel, mccabe was out of the picture in terms of running the investigation, that he was formally taken off of it. that's a little more forward leaning than we've heard his role was. it was certainly diminished but woe haven't heard it quite put that way. >> a very quick response from president trump but also from the justice department as well. >> of course they had been contacted whiby "60 minutes," s they knew it was coming. >> andrea, remarkably, you were sitting down for an interview with the vice president really as this was all unfolding and you had a chance to ask him about discussions about the 25th amendment. what did he tell you, andrea? >> i asked him about it and whether he had been aware of this conversation at doj in real time or even knew about it. and this is what he had to say. what's your r

want to begin my remarks by commending the tradition of independent law enforcement at the department of justice. as you and i both know it's the career officials at the department, the fbi and the u.s. attorney's offices whose commitment to the rule of law protect our democracy. given the focus of this hearing, i therefore feel compelled to single out the career ethics officials who help you transition into your role of acting attorney general. on december 20th in a letter from the department meant to justify some of the decisions we will examine here today, congress learned the following, quote, in the meeting with the acting attorney general senior staff, ethics officials concluded that if the recommendation were sought, they would advise that the acting attorney general should recuse himself from supervision of the special counsel investigation because it was their view that a reasonable person with knowledge of relevant fact would likely question the impartiality of the acting tonk closed quote. even though you apparently did not ask for their advice on this topic these career officials wen

because the department of justice oversees the executive office for immigration review, will the departmentm-seekers have access to counsel in mexico in order to allow them to prepare for the hearing? yes or no. >> we are going to continue to follow the policies of currently in place. >> will you facilitate, assist, help, ensure that asylum-seekers have access to legal counsel in mexico? yes or no. >> congresswoman, there is a very well-defined process for asylum-seekers to obtain counsel and we will continue to follow that. >> mr. whitaker, even while they're in mexico? >> is the acting attorney general i cannot make an assurance, especially regarding what happens in a foreign country, i know you understand that. >> this is part of the reason why this is such a terrible policy. another question, about a week after the policy was announced, reports surfaced that immigrant rights advocates and attorneys were denied entry into mexico. the attorneys set their passports had been flagged and reports also indicated that this was not an issue on the mexican side but on the u.s. side. the departmen

iranian government with the identities of authorities operating covertly. >> reporter: the justice department worked to target eight computer departments to deploy malware that would provide access to computers and networks used by the u.s. intelligence community. the u.s. also alleges witt created target packages for iran to identify and track down u.s. government agents. this week, iran marks 40 years since the islamic revolution brought the current regime to power. and the rhetoric from the trump administration is getting hotter. >> i don't think you'll have many more anniversaries to enjoy. >> reporter: the hawkish language from national security adviser john bolton is at odds with the pentagon, according to a senior military official. the official said the military is seeking to avoid open conflict with iran and rely instead on economic and diplomatic pressure. but in an exclusive television interview, the top navy commander for the region says the threat is real. >> they have a growing capability in cruise missiles, in ballistic missiles, they have a growing capability in unmanned surfa

in charge of the department of justice. are you convinced to your satisfaction based on the knowable facts that there are adults in the room to protect what's going on? >> i think so, brian. let me tell you why i'm hedging a bit. i don't know the first thing about mr. rosen but i do know a little bit about mr. barr. and while i don't share his politics, i believe he's an institutionalist. he knows the department. to the extent that the new deputy attorney general is an outsider to the department, he will be paired with somebody in mr. barr who's very much an insider to the department. mr. barr, the new attorney general, should be able to put together his own team. he obviously would have confidence in mr. rosen. and so let's wait and see on that score. but i will say this about bill barr. people in the department know him and trust him and generally like him. and i think the president may have severely miscalculated if he thinks in mr. barr he's going to get somebody to do his bidding. he is i believe a strong and good atto

the justice department granted that recusal. matthew whittaker knew there was no way that was going to happen and didn't happen. my reporting suggests whittaker knew he was under a microscope in this job and walking a very fine line and knew whatever he did he would be accountable for to congress. i think we're seeing that play out. it doesn't surprise me this ultimately did not happen. >> berman has pulled no punches at all in the southern district of new york since he's been down there. donald trump is misreading geoffrey berman and his character anyway protecting his own ethical lapses on somebody else. from everything i've heard, geoffrey berman doesn't look like or seem like the type of guy that would pull punches. >> you know, katty, yesterday, we were reading this story, mika and i commented, just one of those stories, if that story dropped in the obama administration with nothing before it or after it there would be immediate investigations and calls for impeachment. if it had dropped in the middle of the george w. bush

the obama justice department ended it. i understand that it has been reinstated during the trump administration. i would like you to inform us about its progress, as well as any other measures or programs or enforcement priorities of the department of justice with respect to reducing gun violence in this country. >> thank you, congressman. as you know, we served as united states attorneys together until you went into politics and i went into private practice. i want to talk specifically -- and that's a really good question, about project safe neighborhoods. in 2017, attorney general sessions announce the expansion of project safe neighborhoods, which encourage the attorney's offices to work specifically with their unique communities they served to develop a customized crime reduction strategy. one study showed that when you and i were doing psm, a reduced crime overall by 4.1%. with the case study showing reductions up to a violent crime. we have the project safe neighborhoods national conference, his image mentioned in my

the department of justice, there are always reforms that we can make. 've made some reforms in the department. we're always modifying policies. we're eager to look at things that have gone wrong an how to address them. one of the challenging issues we face in the department is the question of whether transparency is a good thing. it was a knee jerk reaction to suggest we should be transparent about what we do in government. there's a lot of reasons not to be transparent. judge webster is sitting in the front row. just because the government collects information doesn't mean the information is accurate. it can be made leading if you're overly transparent. i think we need to be cautious about that. not to comment on any particular case. there may be reasons for exceptions. as a general principle my view is the department of justice is best served when people are confident we're going to invest in american citizens. as i mentioned, when we charge somebody with a violation we need to be prepared to prove it by evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. the guidan

he gets to run the justice department. doesn't have to be a justice department. a president. that's the way our executive branch is. politically it's foolish for the political people in the executive branch to get themselves insinuated into the day-to-day running of how we enforce the rule of law. there's nothing illegal about it. >> charles: we have less than a minute. michael flynn's name is in the mix. comments about him and his relationship with saudi arabia. you know, again, feels like names are resurfacing. feels like an attempt in my mind to confuse folks out there, sell a few books. what do you make of this? >> i have to say, charles, this is not even -- not just names resurfacing, this is stories resurfacing. the "wall street journal" covered this in great depth during 2017, i believe. the question is there was this big push to get civilian nuclear energy plants in saudi arabia. they thought that there was an argument that it would be parody with the iranians. would be good for american business. it would be good for diversifying their economy and securi

because the department of justice oversees the executive office for immigration review, will the departmentm-seekers have access to counsel in mexico in order to allow them to prepare for the hearing? yes or no. >> we are going to continue to follow the policies of currently in place. >> will you facilitate, assist, help, ensure that asylum-seekers have access to legal counsel in mexico? yes or no. >> congresswoman, there is a very well-defined process for asylum-seekers to obtain counsel and we will continue to follow that. >> mr. whitaker, even while they're in mexico? >> is the acting attorney general i cannot make an assurance, especially regarding what happens in a foreign country, i know you understand that. >> this is part of the reason why this is such a terrible policy. another question, about a week after the policy was announced, reports surfaced that immigrant rights advocates and attorneys were denied entry into mexico. the attorneys set their passports had been flagged and reports also indicated that this was not an issue on the mexican side but on the u.s. side. the departmen

the justice department is in pursuit of people who break the law. this is -- we're going to find out how many laws this guy broke. but to not hear from the justice department is kind of astounding. >> by the way, willie, no condemnation from nancy pelosi's counterpart in the house of representatives, kevin mccarthy. not a word from chuck schumer's counterpart in the united states senate that i've heard, mitch mcconnell. not a word from republicans attacking this plot to kill democrats and journalists. and, again, as mike pointed out, nothing from the justice department. not a single word. and again, this is more of the same. we saw the pipe bomber who, again, targeted all of trump's political opponents. this is actually -- this is something that i guess since he's not saying anything about it, this is something that donald trump does not want to discourage. >> as you say, the threats here and we won't go through all of them, are very specific, including searching where people live and zooming in on their houses and figuring out where people would be

and the career people at the justice department. you also see a deputy attorney general who was straining and trying to figure out what he should do going forward. >> which brings to you no love loss between mccabe. trump fired him 26 hours before his retirement kicked in. what is it going to be like when the president has to endure -- this book tour has not started yet. it kicks off on "60-minutes" he's going on a number of broadcast on this network for starters. >> the president is trying to under cut mccabe's creditability from the start. he called him disgrace on twitter today and what he's referring to is the predicate for mccabe being fired was finding by the justice department that he was not candid with investigators looking into leaks of information to reporters prior to the 2016 elections. because the cause and effect, he was fired for not being honest at his own credibility. i think you will hear a lot about that from the president and also focusing on the fact that mr. mccabe's wife ran for office and in virginia ran for

but that's not the justice department's concern. the justice department doesn't have any concern about that case. they have a concern about keeping the country safe. and the way you keep the country safe is when you arrest these people you alert the people so they know how to be on the lookout for others with warning signs. i could see@coast guard would have this concern and i know why the white house might have different concerns, political concerns. but there's no reason, no legitimate reason the justice department shouldn't be talking about this case. >> matt miller, who worked at the justice department, thank you for joining me. >> thank you. >>> just ahead, so what was donald trump's lawyer doing on capitol hill today? one of the members of congress who is about to question michael cohen has some answers, next. rst >>> mr. cohen, why were you on the hill today? sir, were you meeting with the senate intel team? >> we're answering no questions. >> what's your message to the president ahead of the mueller report? >> michael cohen