jim baker a pleasure. what we witnessed today from the white house from this president, just, was that illegal? >> it's unconstitutional. so, therefore, it is illegal because it's directly in contravention of the president's duties and responsibilities under the constitution of the united states. he is not taking care that the laws of faithfully executed and not living up to his oath of office. this was a dramatic day for america. in my opinion, a very sad day, too. i think it's a sad day, and one that all americans should be troubled about. the president, if he actually thinks that joe biden or any member of his family broke a u.s. law, right? that's the president's responsibility to enforce u.s. law, refer the matter to the attorney general and tell the attorney general to ask the fbi where i used to work to investigate. that's the way this is sdudone. you don't invite a foreign power especially an entity like the chinese government to start investigating americans let alone americans who are potential p

yes that jim baker because he has a television show now but for $45 you can buy a coin. y-letter king cyrus? why is at the way that the evangelicals flock to trump? is like he is a new king. >> and they feel not netanyahu but he mentioned king cyrus ashley don't feel that many times over he was calling trump a new king cyrus he was just saying it is as big of a moment for us as it was. >> and when they were to leave for the temple and go back to their homeland and to do something that this was god's move so the comparison with trump since he was not a jew doing god's will in line with the prophecy and everything else could certainly be to have donald trump. that's what separates the vessel so that is that these guys say yes a little prophecy. so now they have referred to it as the 45th president which is interesting because those numbers were not there when they were living. [laughter] those chapters and then to go read at the prophesies for myself go this is definitely a more fringe aspect and yet it is still embraced to a degree and talked about the fate of donald j. t

i want to talk to our legal analyst jim baker. jim, you listened to this with mick mulvaney. what did you think? >> so the idea that any of this is normal is just absurd. this is just not normal. the question, i think, for the country and for congress is whether the activity here for a number of individuals was illegal and unconstitutional. mulvaney was right, the president does have broad authority to conduct operations of the united states, but that authority is not unlimited. he has a lot of power but he shouldn't abuse that power, and he shouldn't abuse that power in order to serve his political opponents, past and future, and not abuse his power in order to stay in power by investigating his most likely opponent in the upcoming 2020 election. with respect to other people -- >> sorry, go on. >> i was just going to say, the focus on the president's conduct should be whether his conduct was unconstitutional in the sense that it was an abuse of power. that's what congress should be focused on. with respect to all these other people involved in these activities, diplomats, gi

joining us the former top lawyer at the fbi jim baker now a cnn legal analyst. jim, thanks very much for coming in. do you think that mulvaney's attempt to do some clean-up changes potentially the president's vulnerability in all of this? >> i think the key word that you just said a second ago was "mess." this is a big mess that mulvaney pead last week and i think the efforts over the weekend to try to clean it up didn't work and people are responding to that and the president didn't seem to be supportive of him today at the cabinet meeting, we're left to guess what that means. but this is stressing because the chief of staff is such a critical role and for that person not to have the complete trust and confidence of the president and the rest of the country and congress is really significant for all of us. >> and for the president not to say anything is -- >> it is shocking really. >> when asked by reporters today over at the cabinet meeting about mick mulvaney, that says something. >> that says something significant. it is unclear whether they have a strategy t

so we're joined here on "primetime" by andrew mccabe and jim baker.heir big time pedigree with the fbi is very valuable right now as we try to understand from an objective, investigative perspective what things mean. from a political perspective, these two guys, i'm giving them an education on how politics is always what you expect in the courtroom. if mark wayne mullen, a congressman from oklahoma, republican, wants to say it's okay if it's one biden, not both, it's okay because the president is supposed to do it, and the process stinks and i don't care what comes out of it, it's a hard bar because he's the jury on the house side for articles of impeachment and then you have the real try in the senate. this guy with vindman, taylor was the most impressive guy i heard to date on the issue. now vindman will be. why? because he heard the call. he is a ukraine policy expert, he heard the call and here are his punch points we made up for you in the break. first white house official to testify who listened. so forget about the hearsay b.s. complained inter

back with us, joe lockhart also joining us former fbi general counsel jim baker. e or false. president trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not be charged while he's in office? >> he could not be likely indicted whale he was in office, that is true. >> even for murder? a president is above the law for murder? >> president is not above the law for murder, absolutely not. >> but what was extraordinary yesterday is this lawyer wasn't making the case he couldn't be charged, he was making the case he couldn't be investigated. >> and that's wrong. he could be investigated. the murder, the crime could be investigated. the president could be investigated. and that information then brought to the congress of the united states and the way it should work is he would be quickly impeached, convicted, removed from office, and then prosecuted, and then jailed. that's what -- if somebody murdered somebody and it was clear beyond a reasonable doubt. that's the standard. >> but his lawyer was saying you can't even begin the process of investigation. >> that is just clearly wr

also jim baker, former fbi general counsel and cnn legal analyst. jeffrey toobin is both a great guy and legal analyst and so is jim baker. also bianna golodryga. just to put a button on what we saw yesterday with the republicans stopping that hearing and the significance you think of what it says overall. >> i think this whack-a-doodle act of storming a hearing to which many of them were entitled to go in the first place was an act of frustration about what's really going on, which is the damaging testimony is coming out about the president. they are trying to protest about the process. the process is perfectly routine for congressional hearings. there are often private nonpublic depositions before there are public hearings. the republicans did it when they were in charge, but it is away of throwing things up in the air that gets us to talk about the protest rather than the substance of the hearings which have proven to be, i think, even more damaging substantively to the president than many of us had expected. >> i think there's something more tha

also jim baker, former fbi general counsel and cnn legal analyst.n is both a great guy and legal analyst and so is jim baker. also bianna golodryga. just to put a button on what we saw yesterday with the republicans stopping that hearing and thefi

andrew mccabe, jim baker, fbi vets are here.ndrew, what do you see in that statement that ends the analysis for you? >> well, chris, as you mentioned, they don't need proof of a quid pro quo. we are not trying to show the elements of an offense here. it's not a legal case, but the hurdle that the democrats have to get over here is presenting a convincing case, a convincing argument about the malfeasance and the bad acts that the president and his supporters were engaged in. taylor helps them enormously. his statement is incredibly detailed. it's got dates. it's got phone calmls. >> what else do they need? >> it's hard to imagine what else they need. every witness they have had now has kind of outdone the witness before, but taylor takes them to a new level, and he obliterates a lot of the defenses we have seen coming from the republicans about, well, there was no real quid pro quo and that sort of thing. taylor eviscerates those defenses. >> would you ask for an indictment on these facts if they were delivered to you? >> confide

andrew mccabe, jim baker join us now. thank you, fellas.admission, assuming it stands as fact, that it was about the dnc server, that was the quid pro quo. >> it's further evidence of the president's violation in my opinion of his constitutional responsibilities and he just didn't do what he was supposed to do. he is not living up to his oath of office because he is abusing his constitutional power to try to stay in office. and the evidence that he -- >> i hear that on biden, that's a clear case. but why couldn't they argue on this one? this is why i liked the argument when rudy first made it a few weeks ago. i know andrew doesn't like the argument but i got to make it. which is, corruption is legit. you care about 2016 interference. i know a lot of people think it's a conspiracy theory. i don't. so i want them to look into it because i think they were out to get me in 2016 and i'm not going to give money to a country that does that kind of corruption. is that a good faith argument against corruption? >> i don't know but i'm not buying that

we've got the perfect guests to talk this through, andrew mccabe and jim baker.along. it's just my experience, 20 years, no facts. you go after the person when you don't have the facts that's not new. the idea of. a.g. saying, jim, i want to make sure this investigation was on the up and up, i think there was spying done on the president, i'm going to the foreign powers who are allies and looking for help. what's the plus/minus on that? >> well, the plus is, look, and i've said this before and i've offered to cooperate with the attorney general and john durnan investigation they're doing right now. if some number of the american people have a question about the origin of the investigation, fine, investigate it. there's nothing they're going to find in my opinion. at least i know what was happening at the fbi and we weren't doing anything improper, in my opinion. so investigate. the down side, the negative, is that this will put a chill -- it already has, i think, puts a chill through the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the united states because peopl

i remember going back and telling my team at fbi headquarters, that included jim baker and other senior leaders -- the deputy attorney general offered to wire up into the white house. the fbi's lawyer jim baker, a wonderful guy and a very good lawyer, but also has a tendency to be stressed out -- he was like, oh my god, you are not doing that. i was like, i'm not asking you, jim. i'm just telling the story for comic effect. that is not something we considered doing. the comments about the 25th amendment and whether the president was capable and who would be inclined to support such an effort, i never considered it seriously in any way. it is not a process that the acting director of the fbi would have a role in. carl: who was in that discussion? mr. mccabe: rod brought it up, probably not in our first meeting, but a second or third meeting. myself, his chief of staff, another woman from his staff, and a third meeting would have been one or two other people. carl: the reason for it invocation being the firing itself or some temperamental -- mr. mccabe: it is hard for me to say. i can't r

the fbi's lawyer, jim baker who is an incredibly wonderful guy and a very good lawyer but also has a a tendency to be a little bit stressed out, he was like, oh, my god, you're not doing that, you're not doing that. i'm not asking you. i just telling you the store for, effect. that's a son to ever consider doing. similarly, is, it's about the 25th amendment and whether or not the president was, was kind of capable of, and he would be inclined to support such an effort, which really i never considered it seriously in any way. so first of all it's not a process that the acting director of the fbi would have a role in. >> who was in that discussion about the 25th amendment? >> brought brought it up, probably not in our first meeting but in a second or maybe third meeting. this is very small group of people, , myself, his chief of staff, another woman fromof the staff,f, and then a third meetig what it in one or two other people. >> and the reason for its invocation being a firing itself? or some temperamental -- >> it's hard for me to set exactly. i can't really fully describe for you h

i remember going back and telling my team back fbi headquarters included the general counsel, jim baker and some of their senior leaders who were working the case. negatively this, but the deputy attorney general offered to wired up to the whitey house. [laughter] the fbi his lawyer jim baker, is incredibly very goodguy, and a lawyer, but also in its intensity to be a little stressed out, he said oh my gosh, you are not doing that. he said i'm not asking you, i'm just telling you the story for a comic effect. this is something we ever consider doing. similarly rods, about 20 for the movement both of or not the president was kind of capable and who would be inclined to support such an effort. was really, i never considered it seriously in any way. first of all some process that the acting director of the fbi would have done. >> was in that discussion about the 25th amendment. >> rod brought it w up. probably not enough her spinning bloody and a second and maybe third meeting. so this a very small group of people. myself, his chief off staff, another woman from his staff, and then in the

and the fbi's lawyer, jim baker, an incredibly wonderful guy, good lawyer and also has -- seemed to be a little stressed out, he was like, oh, my god, that's -- you know, you're not doing that, you're not doing it. i said, i'm not asking you, jim, i'm just telling you the story for comic effect. no, it's not something we ever considered doing. similarly rod's comments about the 25th amendment and whether or not the president was -- was kind of capable and who would be inclined to support such an effort was really -- i never considered it seriously in any way. first of all, it's not a process that the acting director of the fbi i would have any role in. >> who was in that discussion about the 25th amendment? >> rod brought it up, probably not in our first meeting but in a second and maybe third meeting. this is a very small group of people. myself, his chief of staff, another woman from his staff and then in the third meeting would have been one or two other people. >> and the reason for its invocation being the firing itself? or some tempermental -- >> it's hard for me to say. i can't

let's bring in the fbi insiders to make sense of this, andrew mccabe and jim baker. thank you so much. there's too much to just bandy about here. so we got the wall going tonight. just to show, you know, a little bit of a flow chart of what we see as the spoke coming off the hub that is obviously giuliani. and now just to bring people up to speed on what we're looking at, these highlighted references, counterintelligence is different than criminal. it's not just about looking at statutes, it's about looking at the nature of behavior and what it could mean from a national security perspective. you now have iran and speeches. let's leave that aside for now. the state department, what was going on with ukraine, how that dovetails with his work for turkey and now one or more dlien clients that needed something from the united states government. was he their lawyer? hasn't been clear. there are a lot of big concerns. andrew, let's start with you. when you look at the new information about what giuliani was trying to do for people involved in turkey and the meetings that w

and senior american officials - the vice president, secretary of state jim baker, secretary of defense dick cheney -- were sent around the world to raise money to pay for the liberation of kuwait. i remember they felt a little embarrassed by it. it was sort of hard to say, ok, japan, your share is however many billion it was. they called it the tin cup exercise because, as i say, they were a little embarrassed by it. but i think the historical record will reveal that we made a profit on the first gulf war. small profit, small profit. we had our costs reimbursed. some people would say, well, that's just mercenary. i suppose it is. but kuwait's a free country today. and saudi arabia was not invaded. , it's nots inappropriate to ask for people to pay a fair share of the cost. and in particular now, we are having a debate in the nato context over appropriate allocation of defense expenditures. and here's it's really - it's interesting. in 2014 in the obama administration, the nato countries voluntarily agreed that their target for defense expenditures would be 2% of gdp, a target they woul

court evangelicals that come to the court and flatter him and one of these guys, lance, was on the jim baker show and he has a television show now pitching a king cyrus coin. i don't know if you saw this for $45 you can buy a coin with king cyrus on it. why king cyrus? what is this have to do with the terms evangelicals -- i've heard this and written about this too. they see him as a new king cyrus? >> they do. part of it they feel is fulfilled as a result of not benjamin netanyahu mentioned king cyrus when he was talking about how thankful he worked for trump moving and i don't personally feel like having read it many times over i don't feel like it benjamin netanyahu was falling from a new king cyrus both the saying it is a big a moment for us as it was when they were able. king cyrus allow the israelis or jewish people to rebuild the temple and the homeland and more importantly his doing this is something to have been prophesied so this was god making clear profit so the comparison with trump is that cyrus was doing god's will into line with everything else that would be true of donald tr

two great investigative and legal minds, andrew mccabe and jim baker are here.ccabe, i gave you credit for both of those. you owe me on that. the idea of what we've seen in history, at what point does a decision to not comply wind up getting added to the wrongs you have done to the articles of impeachment, brother baker? >> very good. it was one of the articles of impeachment with respect to president nixon, and it is something that congress can say is unacceptable because it's obstruction of congress, right, not obstruction of justice per se. it not a violation of a statute. that's one of the important things to remember here. we're in the realm of violations of the constitution directly. so that's where people need to focus on and think about, whether the president, through his actions, through his words and through the actions and words of his sub ordinates have violated the constitution itself with their behavior. and, yes, the more they stonewall, the more they refuse to cooperate, the more likely there will be an article of impeachment with obstruction of

you also worked in a very senior capacity, when republican congressman came in and suggested that jim baker, the secretary of state, ask russia to help get some dirt on bill clinton, and it was actually just factual, not even dirt, but clinton had visited russia, soviet union, and essentially baker threw him out of the office, he thought it was such an inappropriate demand. have you ever, in the administrations you've worked with, applied foreign pressure -- pressure on a foreign government to try to provide political information or advantage for your president? >> you know, in the two presidents i served, both president george h.w. bush and president george w. bush, their mantra was, we're going to keep domestic politics out of foreign policy. i remember, when karl rove wanted to attend the nsc meetings on foreign policy matters, i thought it was fine. president bush, george w. bush said, absolutely not. i want to make it absolutely clear to the american people that domestic politics don't intrude on foreign policy. so this is something that shouldn't have been done. it is not the norm. it

so, jim baker, democrats are saying that secretary pompeo's attempts here to shield the state departmentfficials from depositions or, quote, illegal and will constitute evidence of obstruction. what do you say? >> i think that is a little strong. just reading the four corners of the secretary's letter from yesterday or today, that is seeming a bit much to me. i think they opened the door by making some significant demands on timeliness and how things will happen and excluding agency counsel from the depositions and it opened the door for him to make claims there was something wrong with the process and trying to comply but you're being unreasonable so i think it is -- look, i think congress has to be diligent, i think she shouldn't be alarmist about what the secretary is doing but keep the pressure on and get the information they need and he's going to i suspect resist at every turn. >> you've seen democrats open the door. >> i think so. and allowing him to make the procedural arguments that he's been able to make. >> gloria, what do you make of this aggressive tone that house democrats

thank you very much, andrew mccabe and jim baker, appreciate it. important night to have you. >> that he cannk, chris. >> those are the facts we see them from mr. taylor. what is the argument for the president? you see me making it to these two big shot investigators. we'll see it made to you bay member of congress. how do you see that nothing wrong happened here? how do you see this as not just a question of consequence? what is the best defense? next. (amber jagger) if we don't give students from an underserved background the technology that they need in school, they're not going to be competitive in the workforce that's waiting for them. since verizon innovative learning, students have hardware, connectivity, and quality curriculum. the jobs of tomorrow will involve technology. now students are truly hopeful for what they may achieve. performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that'

. >> jim baker, you are the former fbi general counsel.he house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff confirmed reports that the whistle-blower did approach a committee staffer before filing the formal whistle-blower complaint and the president leveled a serious and unfounded accusation. listen to this. >> i think it is a scandal that he knew before. i would go a step further. i think he probably helped write it. okay. that is what the word is. and i think it's -- i give a lot of respect for "the new york times" for putting it out. >> there is no evidence that schiff helped write this whistle-blower complaint. but what is your reaction when the president levels a charge like this, word is that blah blah blah. >> well he should be speaking the truth and not just some supposition or just making things up quite honestly. we know and we've heard that the whistle-blower's attorney has said that no one helped him write this complaint from the hill. so those are the facts that we have to rely on. we don't know exactly what the content was o

. >> jim baker, the former fbi general counselor. the ambassador testified that rudy giuliani's associates, these two guys associated yesterday, igor fruman and lev parnas, may well have believed her positions were stymied by our anti-corruption campaign in ukraine. was president trump aligning foreign policy to benefit these two? >> it seems to indicate that's what they were doing. whether the president news it, i was thinking the old question from watergate, what did the president know and when did he know it? proving intent is tough in fraud, corruption cases like this. so i expect everyone is going to be trying to dig into it, asking questions of witnesses, looking for documents, text messages that might indicate that. giuliani saying something like that. >> the administration made a last-ditch effort to prevent ambassador yovanovitch from testifying today. they had to produce a subpoena. she showed up and has been speaking for hours. what does it tell you about this process moving forward? >> it's striking how quickly the proces

i don't care if it's jim baker or leon panetta or mick mulvaney. as gloria says, no chief of staff can really function if the president doesn't want a chief of staff to tell him hard truths. it just can't work. >> so none of those -- he just -- you can't contain him because of who he is? is that what you're saying? >> i wrote the book on the white house chiefs and the subtitle was how the white house chiefs define every presidency, except this one. i was wrong about this one because this is a president who is determined to be unleashed, who doesn't take advice and we've now seen the results of letting trump be trump. >> wow. go ahead, gloria. >> and worse than that, chris, is that i don't think he know when is he needs to take advice. i think early on he was interested in taking advice and then as he continued as president, he said, wait a minute, and this is my reporting to people who talked to him he said, you know, i got this. it's okay. i don't really need a chief of staff to tell me anything because i know how to do things, i'm counterconventi

let get a good take on the state of play from andrew mccabe and jim baker.better looking in person. it's good to have you both. here is the first part of the argument here. this comes from john dowd, that will be a name familiar to everybody here, now representing these people in private practice. parnas and fruman assisted giuliani in connection with his reputation of president trump. that's just a pause right there. can you believe guys like this had access to working with an american president? they've also been represented by giuliani in connection with their personal and business affairs. thus certain information you seek could be protected by attorney client, attorney privilege and other work practices. rudy was their lawyer. you can't mess with that privilege. that's doable, right? >> yes. >> so giuliani had a real arrangement with these guys, a real business arrangement. it wasn't just figurative. executive privilege. what argument is there for parnas and fruman getting executive privilege? >> they would have to be arguing they were conducting the of

. >> jim baker, you're our legal analyst and former fbi general counsel but assuming this passes on thursdaysume it will pass and the democrats clearly have the votes, will it give them more legal leverage to get the documents or testimony or documents they are seeking. >> it helps to some degree. i don't see this as a legal issue. this is a political question. the sense is that the republicans are making some -- some hey in the public and so this is an effort to take that off the table but legally speaking, the house has the sole power of impeachment and the majority gets to call the shots as long as the actions are consistent with the constitution and so to me this seems like an effort by the minority to try to run the show and the speaker has assessed this is the appropriate thing to do at this point in time. i'm not going to question her political judgment in terms of houf this is playing across the country but it strikes me as political, not legal. >> i'm sure the administration, john kirby will say there are national security considerations and intelligence considerations and you can't

jim baker, his last ditch efforts to try to stop the first gulf war by meeting with the iraqis. you know, how do you ignore the fact that the secretary of state is doing what looks like domestic politics? >> one challenge you have is that there was at least until sunday negotiation going on between the americans and the turks. >> sunday a week ago. >> that's correct, a week ago. they were very much involved and told the u.s.-backed forces, destroy these positions along the border because we are going to protect your security. and turkey did not take its own nato ally's word for the fact that the americans had their back. and so instead, what they did wasiveoffensive. they've taken people out of their cars and an executed them. a mom i knew at a camp for the displaced just had to flee to another city because they were getting shelled by turkish-backed forces. all this diplomacy we thought we had really has been challenged by this turkish offensive. >> what one words, there was a status quo ante situation there. it was a stalemate, assad was certainly not gone, he was leveraging m

. >> going back to jim baker's state department in the late '80s, early '90s, through the various state departments we've had up until this one. i'm trying to think back. how many decades of sort of american policy in the middle east has been set back by this one decision? >> a fundamental element of what our policy has been all along was to ensure that the united states was the main outside power who could try to promote stability on the one hand, ensure that the russians didn't become a source of instability and also ensure that the iranians couldn't extend their influence against american friends. what we now have is a posture that makes the u.s. largely irrelevant. not only are the russians act i have active in syria, but putin is in saudi arabia and the uae, united arab emirates today. >> dennis, don't forget israel. they have felt compelled to go running to putin. >> they have, because of the russian presence in syria. but you can imagine what's going on right now when he visits saudi arabia and the emirates and he says, well, the americans couldn't protect you, in fact the americ

and i want to bring in jim baker and thanks for being here and elliott let me start with you.ment for not holding a formal vote on the impeachment inquiry. they don't want to give the republicans more power including subpoena power, the democrats. and cloud everything up. they don't -- they want to protect the vulnerable members. those are politic arguments and i don't have a legal argument or a principle beyond wanting to control the process. am i wrong. >> you're right. there isn't a legal argument here and they're trying to do two things, number one make it about process. if your talking about process, you're not talking about the substance. and if you're talking about the process, you're not talking about the president's conduct. and number two, what tear trying to do is put vulner democrats in the position of having to vote on whether they proceed with impeachment. the democrats in trump won districts. there isn't a legal basis here. what happens is when an article of impeachment is introduced the house of representatives will vote on it but you don't have to have a vote

>> no, secretary jim baker, who was i think the best chief of staff any president, president reagan,ould have done a slam dunk on this if it came to his desk and i hope i would have done the same thing. so no, this wouldn't be something that i would even have permitted people to talk about. >> we earlier in the show talked about the republican response to some of this. on the one hand, people like for example senator susan collins, who are concerned about the president calling on china to investigate the former vp. on the other hand, you have people like senator ron johnson, jim jordan, for example, who are defending the president. are republicans cohesive enough in their messaging here? do you think that's going to help or hurt the president? >> well, i think it's the president's duty not to speak in high per bowly. i took his comment about china frivolous, i didn't see that as a serious request. >> i don't know many people who read it the same way, because the president seemed awfully serious when he made those remarks. >> i think the president speaks far too much. he wants you to

senior american officials, vice president and secretary of jim o baker, sick cheney, center of the world to raise money to pay for the deliberation. they fell a little embarrassed by it. it was certified to say in your shares how many of her billion was. they called it the tin cup exercise because as i say, they were a little embarrassed by it but i thank the historical record would reveal that we mayday profit. a smallha profit. we hadad our costs reimbursed. some people would say that's just mercenary. i suppose it is. the coit is the free country today. in saudi arabia was not invaded. my.is that it's not inappropriate to ask people to pay a fair share of the cost. in particular now, we are having a debate in the nato contacts over appropriate allocations and expenditures. here is very interesting, and 2014, and the obama administration, the nato countries voluntarily agreed in their target for defensive expenditures would be 2 percent of gdp. the target they would all commit by 2024. ten years later. when the top administration came in, that commitment came at a much higher sale than

[laughter] went to work in the white house for jim baker. you were the first political director. frank: i was the last political director. the firstguest was political director. craig: where were you? i started off in intergovernmental and public liaison. i did that in the first term. i left the white house when baker laughed, but i came back the last two years as political director for intercontinental affairs. that was during iran contra. they wanted people who had been there. craig: some stability. frank: so i tried to do that. we finished up pretty strong. , hisn finishes his term second term, as one of the most popular presidents, so -- with: some polls had him an approval rating of 76%. under 30onically voters, higher than it was for the rest of the population. frank: that is true. believe it or not, a plurality of youngest voters, i think, was under 25, considered themselves republicans. craig: as a result of the reagan presidency. frank: one of the few times that has ever happened. i went around the country with him in 1988, where he was not running himself, but you know,

to help us do this today we have jim baker, director of national security and cyber security . former general counsel of the fbi and a number of years at the fbi as senior strategic adviser and other positions. we're really pleased to have him today. we have mary mccord, who serves now as senior litigator from practice -- for practice at the institute for constitutional advocacy and protection as well as a visiting professor of law at georgetown university law center. she was acting assistant attorney general for national security at doj and served as the principal deputy assistant attorney at nsd from 2014 to 2016. she worked 20 years at the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia. we also have steve stransky. steve is a former colleague from the department of homeland security where he was for ten years, including seven years as the senior counsel in the intelligence and law division. at dhs and oversaw a lot of these relevant issues. he was also deputy legal adviser at the national security coun l counsel. and harsha panduranga, who is counsel to the brennan cente

submitted and thatted, and i pray to god in the senate, senate republicans, there will be some white jim baker, some like senator irvin from north carolina, and others, that will have steel in their backbone, calcium in their backbones, and a compass that points towards moving ourss and from this failed apprentice presidency. and my last comment is this, when we get a new administration, all of the candidates that are lying now, and i agree with the previous caller, it may be elizabeth warren who was the presidential candidate, but i think that in all of the democratic individuals that are vying to become the nominee, you have the best interviewing process for the next administration made up of stellar candidates that will fulfill cabinet positions, where we now have just acting directors. host: i will leave it there so we can hear from marion and burbank, california. you say no. caller: definitely, definitely no. this president is the most amazing president in my lifetime. host: we are listening. caller: hi, how are you? host: you have to talk and listen through the phone. please turn down yo

putting up with this but in particular lauriston lem ella, janie higginbotham, greg scott, jim jones marion bakerkennedy. lisa stebbins and esther jory, robert kahn and on my own staff this could not have happened without sarah rosinski Ãb who's been handing the microphone around to everybody and wallace. thank you to you and everybody else working for the fcc. what spencer was saying a few minutes ago about things that co wrong reminds me of the people hypothetical peace about the perfect storm of things that could affect the next election. if you really want to terrify yourself even more than a conversation with tara go read the alex stamos piece. this is so important this conversation that we been having is so phenomenally important i'm so grateful for the interest and for all of you for coming and participating in this. i warned you at the beginning we were going to come up with all the answers. we raised a lot of really difficult questions. how do we reconcile our democratic values and love free speech with an information environment that no longer distinguishes between truth and falsity or

rhetoric is eugene scott from the plig"the washington post"'s the fix and also jim, author of the book "impeachment. peter baker and jon meacham wrote that book with him. you wrote about the civil war rhetoric in "the washington post" and point out trends in his rhetoric. what did you notice? >> craig, we noticed this is not the first time the president suggested that if things don't go the way he likes, if he's not allowed to govern or lead as he sees fit, there could be an uprising. his words infer that it could be led by his supporters. there's been some concern about that because this has been interpreted as perhaps the president affirming or encouraging those who feel victimized and disrespected to rise up and act out and push back even if violently by any means necessary to protest what they believe is injust. >> jeffrey, as a historian, what goes through your mind when you hear phrases like civil war and treason invoked by a president of the united states not in war times? >> two things in particular. i think the first thing is we don't really like to associate anything with the civil war. though there a

andrew, jim, thank you very much. appreciate it. baker and mccabe. all right. the testimonies are corroborating what we knew as obvious from the call. something wrong happened. how wrong? let's do this. another attempt at the wall. we're going to go back and connect the facts of what we know and the questions that remain. next. you don't let a cold ruin your day. you take dayquil severe liquicaps and crush it. dayquil severe. the daytime, coughing, aching, stuffy-head, fever, sore throat, power through your day, medicine. t-mobile's newest signal reaches farther than ever before... with more engineers, more towers, more coverage. it's a network that gives you... with coverage from big cities, to small towns. introducing t-mobile's 600mhz signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. and it's built 5g ready. want your skin to glow? like "woah". try new b3 powered serum sticks and new overnight gel masks with b3. cleanse with 5 in 1 daily facials. get glowing, with olay if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock i