asked preliminary questions and had not gotten answers. so my answer is, you know the answer to that and you're saying you won't answer that question today or you don't know? >> what i'm saying is that a decision has been made to bring in all of the relevant individuals that are reviewing the situation and make them and veilable, that getting into source and process is not the proper way to conduct this review and we want the people conducting it to understand more fully the materials, not necessarily who came in at what time and what effort. >> so just to clarify again, you asked the questions, you will not give an answer as to -- you asked that -- let me finish. you said yesterday that you asked, you didn't get the answers and so what you're telling us today is that you are never going to get the answer, you yourself, you are never going to get the answer as to who cleared chairman nunes? >> i'm saying a decision was made to focus on the process and substance and the decision was made -- >> you're not answering my question, though. >> i

president i ask unanimous consent that we be in a period of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on veterans affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 13627 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1362, an act to name the department of veterans' affairs community-based outpatient v.a. clinic. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the motion. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 33 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: which the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 83, expressing the sense

and what we're asking about. what our outcome is and i wrote this book because i felt that all of accuse incorporate into our lives better, sharper, more purposeful questions to become better, more successful, more purposeful partners and spouses and parents, and workers workerd inventors and learners and citizens. i feel, going into this, that i felt going into this that observing the world round us we are indone dated with information. no before in human history head so pa many people had so much access to so much information to rapidly but we have drive-by questioning etch going al question and get a quick answer and off we go what we need to do, believe, and what i try lay out in the book, in all of these cases, is pause, and question deeply, purposefully, sometimes tough, really tough, intense, and then listen and that's the other part i write about and that is missing so much of in america today and i know we'll get into that. how do we hissen? who do we listen to? what is the intent of our listening? what

i can ask. part of it is, there's a question of whether or not we have the ability or the right to release it. again, as much as i appreciate where it came from, i think again, i go back to, does it really matter? does it really matter if it came from the cia or the nsa or another three letter agency? or is the issue, alexis, whether or not, as i said before, whether or not there is a concern about what that information is doing, who used it improperly, what possibly could have happened. again, it's where it came from. >> what i'm asking, the executive branch, the fbi, have a separate investigation. i'm asking, the president believes he has evidence that is germane to that investigation as broad as director comey has described. >> the fbi's investigation pertains specifically to, from what the director said in open testimony to russia. what the president -- this is not what i believe they are investigating. >> i thought the fbi was also had brought the investigation beyond just the russians. >>

, what you asked, sean. he said the president wiretapped him. anyway, the charge worthy of a third-world troublemaker that somebody wiretapped him under mines the cent of the american democratic system and certainly the peaceful transfer of power between presidents in this country. republicans in the congress have a responsibility to say, aye or nay. congressman devin nunes and senator richard burr issued sort of swish she statements saying their committees, "will make inquiries or will follow the evidence." senators lindsey graham and sheldon whitehouse, however, who lead a judiciary subcommittee sent a letter to that department today asking about any wiretapping warrants against the trump campaign. good for them. senator graham said today the country needs answers on this. let's watch him. >> president trump claims that president obama administration targeted his campaign, trump tower, in the tweet. i have no knowledge of that, but he's challenged the congress to help him so let's help. not trying to compr

i'm asking you keep quiet. if you can do that we can do this together and reagan said, well, sure. >> you do that very well. >> he has hangen around with the kremlin -- they shook hands and dade deal. who will shake hand with donald trump and will they be confident the can -- cliff. great leaders ask great questions and solicit questions from people who don't agree with him to break group think. did he ask who is the republican isn't that right did he ask what dough the freedom caucus want? did he ask what dough moderates want and the american hospitalization association goes to daigh, what doctors saying? did he ask what are americans going to hear especially those who voted for me when this unfolds? i'm not sure he asked those things. so going forward the questions are, who is your coalition, how are you going to put it together? what are the pieces in? are you going to invite the experts in. last night it was fascinating, president trump want as chairman on the council of economic advisers who is not an econ

so i'm just asking that you read that report so i can ask you the same question i asked now attorney general sessions. that's whether or not he believed there is any reason to doubt the evidence. he said there was no evidence to doubt it. >> i suppose i should clarify, as a lawyer, maybe sometimes i'm too careful with my words. i have no reason to doubt the conclusion of the intelligence community. as a lawyer, as a prosecutor, the issue for me is what can i move in court, which may be a different issue, but i have no reason to doubt the intelligence community's conclusions. >> i so appreciated your open statement where you said you look at things as a prosecutor. that's what can i do, what should i do, and the last thing is how do we explain things, because i think way too much of this administration so far has been whether it's the refugee order or whatever it is just about explaining things. you don't have to comment on this, instead of first just asking what is the right in the to do and what can i legally do. i want to get to if in fact in this matter or any matter you appoint a

if he's not going to, i asked you several weeks, senator mccain sent a letter asking for this, if the president doesn't want to do it, is that because he would rather focus his efforts with russia on partnering to try to defeat isis? >> well, i think ambassador haley noted at the u.n. that any attempt to undermine sanctions that currently exist because of the annexation of crimea will remain in place until that -- to that issue is resolved. i'm not going -- the president when it comes to his overall negotiating strategy has made it very clear in a variety of circumstances that his philosophy is not one that says, i'm going to tell you what i'm going to do. he holds his cards close to h vest to maximize his -- >> why not -- >> i'm not going to get into the president's negotiating strategy. i will tell you that as he continues to engage with the president addition with the president of russia and secretary tillerson -- >> will you -- >> brian, it's your birthday up. got a question. >> going back to, my staff, we've got about several thousand e-mails. we talked to congressmen this mornin

rubio: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. rube roberts-stabenow i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to enter into a colloquy with the senator delaware. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, i am here today to discuss along with the senator the issue of russia. i know it's been at the forefront of much of the debate that's on-going in this country, and about -- and i wanted to begin by commending the vice president and secretary of defense and secretary of homeland security, secretary of state for their strong message of support for nato. that includes the president last night, and their strong support, by the way, for the trans-at l.a.n. be particular alliance that these individuals outlined during their respective visits meeting with allies in february. at that munich security conference on the 18th of february, the russian foreign minister said, quote, i hope -- he means the world -- will choose a democratic world order, a post-west one in which each country is defined by its sovereignt

>> you're asking me forget about the legalisms. that's what we ask people to do is follow the law. you can't forget about the legalism. that's what we did. they consulted a lawyer, which everyone who had something is advised to do. that lawyer consulted the transition lawyer who said it is your job to consult the appropriate lawyers -- >> beyond the legal issues i'm saying moving beyond the issue of the papers here, talking about the judgment of the president, the vice president and your team made to select this man as a national security adviser when you had information he had these dealings with turkey. >> what dealings are you referring to, the fact that he had a client, also head of the defense intelligence agency, unbelievably qualified impeccable credentials, what is exactly are you getting at? because so far he had impeccable credentials, stellar career in the military and widely respected and for you to impugn -- >> he wouldn't have -- >> but again there was no disclosure at the time and the question is if his counsel determined that he didn't, that's up to him, but it was

>> i want to ask about the substance. it's sort of unclear what you guys are telling the chairman and the ranking members. is it information that would validate the president's claims about surveillance during the 2016 campaign, or is it information about the russian investigation? >> i'm not here to share that. that's why we invited them to view that in a classified setting, an appropriate setting. it's not to be shared with people that don't have the appropriate clearances. >> you're not intending to imply this is the information that chairman nunes has been talking about. >> what i'm suggesting is that there has been information that has been -- material that has been made come to light and that we want to make sure that the people who are with conducting the review have that information, have access to it. >> they gave the bankruptcy yesterday. i'm wondering if there is any effort within the administration to sort of help them navigate this bankruptcy, considering that -- >> i'll have to check on that. obviously there

for people to write in on twitter, asked questions. "if we pass no plan and left the obamacare stand right now, contacts reform still still happen?" stick oh, no, it makes it extremely complicated. puts us a trillion dollars further down the path from doing tax reform. we can't get to the next budget either which is where tax reform is done. it really would gum up the works and make tax reform that much harder to achieve because we would have these obamacare taxes to deal with. >> bret: i want to ask you about one of your members of your caucus, congressman steve king tweeted out abouters. >> he understands culture and demographics our destiny. we can restore our civilization with somebody else's babies." he tried to explain that today for your thoughts on that in your reaction to it. >> i disagree with that statement. i haven't seen the context but i disagree. we are a melting pot. my families here because the potato stopped growing in ireland. this is what's beautiful about the american idea. we are a melting pot where people come fr

>> asked and answered. the president has been very clear about his tax returns and his position on that. the governor requires every federal employee at a certain level to file these financial disclosure forms that anyone in america can go onto. it will be the first time, i believe, and i don't want to get ahead of the background briefing and give away the good stuff. but i believe this is the first time they're on the white house website. we're making them more accessible and more available than in history. >> why not just supply them? >> these areequired by law. these lists, for everyone not familiar with them, t financial disclosure forms, i think it's called a 278, reveal every asset you own, every debt that you have, your spouse's income, your spouse's employment, holdings you have, credit card debt. it is a fairly comprehensive undertaking of every asset that a person owns, every debt that they have, and i think that that is a very clear understanding of the assets that people have, the value of those

. >> let me ask you about it. it was reported by david ignatius that the incoming national security adviser michael flynn was in touch with the russian ambassador on the day the united states government announced sanctions for russian interference with the election. did that contact help with that russian -- kind of moderate response to it? that there was no counter reaction from russia? did the flynn conversation help pave the way for that sort of more temperate russian response? >> i talked to general flynn about that conversation. they didn't discuss anything having to do with the united states' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against russia. what i can say is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time the united states took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions. >> but that still leaves open the possibility that there might have been other conversations about the sanctions. >> i don't believe there were more conversations ant -- >> okay,

for a show of hands, not about the question you asked, but about the following question -- and i ask it of everybody, how many of you have had questions like this asked of you in the employment environment? an inappropriate question about your family planning, and i am shocked every year, senator, how many young women raise their hand. it's disturbing to me. i knew this stuff happened when my mom was a young practicing lawyer, graduating law school in the 1960s. at age 20 she had to wait for a year to take the bar. i knew it happened with justice o'connor, couldn't get a job as a lawyer when she graduated from stanford law school and had to women, not men, raising their hand in that question. thank you for the opportunity to clarify that, senator. >> and i wanted to give you that opportunity. i told you yesterday we'd get to the bottom of this and i'd give you your chance to tell your side of the story. you made a point yesterday of talking about your four heroes and one of them was justice jackson and i went back to look at some of his cases, just know of him, i don't know much abou

has he asked him? >> no, the president has not and we've gone back and forth there's clearly a role that congress can make. they made it very clear they have the staff, resources and the process, that's the appropriate place for this to handle. if we were to get involved you would then write stories how we were getting involved and it's a no-win situation, the smartest way is to ask the house, senate intelligence committees to look into this and other leaks of classified information. as the president said in the statement sunday we believe that investigation as well as the investigation as over classified leaks and other important information that threatens our national security be look into by the house and senate intelligence committees and encourage them to report back. >> do you believe the president obama ordered this. >> i get that's a key question asked. my job is to represent the president and talk about what he's doing and what he wants and he's made very clear what his goal is, what he would

i can ask.in, part of it is -- there is a question of whether or not we have the ability, the right to release it. as much or as -- as i appreciate where it came from, again, does it really matter? does it matter if it came from the cia or nsa or another agency? is the issue of alexis, whether or not as i said before, there is a concern about what that information is doing, who used improperly, what could've happened? it is where it came from. the executive branch, fbi, separate investigations. i am asking u, does the president believe he has a stricter, has described? investigation pertains specifically to promote the dictor said an open to estimate -- testimony, to russia. this is not what i believe that -- with therapist getting. alsothought the fbi brought the investigation beyond russ. >> i'm not aware of that. fbi.an call the i'm not going to call the fbi and ask them what their investigation is. i'm asking you a separate question. does the president believe it is important for the fbi to

what ru asking you are asking i weaponization of this community. do we get to weaponize the process and look at them. be careful at what you ask for because this can go down to an ugly path and the fact the matter is so much of what w we -- saying it is already out there. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. schweikert. >> the president has nothing to hide. yet, wie have a president takin no eshs of breaking 40 years of presidents refusing of his tax returns. this action not only shrouds his business holdings and mystery that makes the american people in the world wondered what he's hiding. in the last three months we have seen how the president continuous use of the trump's property is riddled with conflicts of interests. one out of three days he's president, he visited a trump's property. he flown down to mar-a-lago and spending seven days and he brought prime minister abe to mar-a-lago. next we learned that trump's organization decided to double mar-a-la mar-a-lago fees for people would pay more to get an audience with the president. >> it

let me ask you this. the average cost of the president's trips to mar-a-lago are about $3 million a weekend. that's $150 million a year. should we ask a coal miner in west virginia to pay for the president to golf every weekend? >> well, i've never criticized presidents -- democrat or republican -- for the security arrangements that are necessary to move them about the country. but i do think that it's very helpful -- >> that's the question, though, isn't it? >> i think a helpful rule of thumb is every billion dollars we talk about here in washington is about $8 from an average family's budget so that's a good way of putting these figures into family-sized numbers that have a reference point in the real world. >> but to go back to the way of thinking about this that you just endorsed, should we be asking a coal miner in west virginia or single mom in detroit to pay for the president to choose to play golf at his resort every weekend? >> well, again, we've done that for many, many years with presidents of

what i was troubled by, and i asked you then, i will ask you again. when we are setting out as the court did to protect their religious liberties and freedom of the green family, the corporate owners, and their religious belief about what is right and wrong when it comes to family planning, in the court says, that is what we will decide what the green family decides when it comes to health insurance, you made a decision that thousands of their employees would not have protection of their religious beliefs and their religious choices when it came to family planning. you closed the door to those options in their health insurance, and by taking your position to the next step, to all those who work for closed in corporations in america, 60 million people had their health insurance and their family planning and their religious beliefs denigrated, downsized to the corporate religious belief, whatever that is. did you stop and think when you were making this decision about the impact it would have on the thousands and thousands if not millions of employees i

president clinton asked one to leave immediately. president bush in 2001, we did it in stage removals. it just depends upon the president and the other priorities with respect to the office and counsel's office. i think people need to understand that while this is about the enforcement, these are political. that's understood and accepted. and sometimes the removals very apply. the only possible way i think a president might get into trouble with removal is if, for example, if mr. bharara was investigating donald trump or the trump family and the removal was based upon that investigation, that would be a questionable removal. but i must reassure your viewers that even if that were to happen, the prosecutors in that office would continue the investigation. to try to obstruct justice in that way would be a fool's errand. as a general matter, the president can remove any u.s. attorney for no reason, for a bad reason. he has a great deal of discretion making this kind of change. >> after a u.s. attorney does leave their district, their po

this is the first time someone asked for immunity. a lot of names that came up in the investigation seem to have gone to the committees and said i will come in and talk, roger stone, manafort, kushner. this seems like a separate category, that think s he has much more exposure than the other names so far. >> we do know the investigators were looking at his contacts not only with the russian ambassador in december but earlier contacts. we're not sure how far they go back. we wrote right after the inauguration those contacts going back through the campaign were also being looked at by versio investigat investigators. >> sorry. >> go ahead. >> sorry. go ahead. >> matthew, go ahead. >> sorry. >> we've spoken to people on the senate side in the last hour and they told us, yes, the conversations have been ongoing in recent days. the senate is not interested at the moment. they may at some point be interested in being granting immust im must immunity but not interested in the offer. >> the two sources were in the white house and we have the

after he read whatever he read, he could pick up the phone, call the people that asked for him and ask them. has he done that? we don't know. they won't answer. president trump's counselor, kellyanne conway, whose previous words have been up for debate, says she doesn't have evidence of wipe tapping and she's clarifying, she says, a comment that she made during an interview with a new jersey newspaper, the record of burgen county. listen to the q&a. >> do you know if trump tower was wiretapped? >> there's a lot of ways to surveil these days. you can surveil through their phone, television sets, any number of different ways. microwaves that turn into cameras, et cetera. >> shepard: so she expanded it. the question is not just about wiretapping but other things. the camera in your tv is watching, whether the microphone in your phone is listening. was she suggesting that about trump tower? and microwaves that turned into cameras? microwaves don't turn into cameras. fox news cannot confirm microwaves heat food, cameras take pictures. microwaves don't have cameras. microwaves cannot turn in

so, i am just asking that you read that report said that i can ask you the same question that i asked our now-attorney general sessions and that is whether or not he believed there was any reason to doubt that and he said doubt it.no reason to mr. rosenstein: i should clarify, as a lawyer maybe i'm sometimes too careful with my words. i have no reason to doubt the intelligence community. as a prosecutor the issue is, what can i prove in court which may be different from what i believe. but i have reason to doubt the conclusions. senator klobuchar: i appreciate your statement where he said he looked at things, what can i do, what should i do, and how do we explain things, cause way too much of this administration so far has been whether the refugee order, it is about explaining things. instead of first asking what's the right thing to do and what can i legally do. and so that is where i want to get if in fact you, in this matter or any other matter, and up appointing a special consulate -- special counsel, but in this matter you would be the one to make the decision. anyw says the scop

you asked a question about cbo. now conflating it with a question -- >> reporter: we talked about wiretapping. the question in simple terms, when he says something, can we trust that it's real -- >> yes. >> reporter: -- or assume it's phoney? >> it's real. >> reporter: how can we say it's real when you say -- >> i did not tell you that. >> reporter: the president said, you didn't, the president said the numbers were phoney then but very real now. >> there's a big -- >> reporter: he will later say actually -- >> hold on. i think the difference is the president was talking then and now about job creation. the number of jobs, the issue that he brought up in the quote you're talking about was the percentage of people who are unemployed. and there is no question that no matt how youook at this, whether he's talking about4.7 or 4.8 or whatever the number is, that number is -- fluctuates by how people calculate who's in the workforce. peter, let me answer the question. >> reporter: i'm listening. >> you're not. the bottom

john asked me to support him for president. you know why i did? because he asked. no one ever asked me before. so over that between then and now, i've been all over the world with him. and the worst -- let me tell you. if he reads in the paper 5,000 people slaughtered, he said we got to go there. i say why. but john, to me, has one quality that is really special. he will fight for his friends. in 2014 i had six primary opponents from mildly disturbed to completely crazy. john came down and stood by me because i dared work with people on the other side to solve an immigration problem. i'm a good conservative, i think, but i don't mind working with the other side. john was going to be up for election. and i wasn't the most popular person on talk radio. he stood with me and followed me around everywhere i went. when i ran for president, most of you missed it. john was with me. the bottom line is, folks, that the people that he served with in jail will tell you the same thing in prison that i will tell you. he is loyal to his friends. he loves his country. and if he ha

let me ask one question to mr. spicer that nobody's asked.e predecessor republican, george bush, democrat, barack obama, met repeatedly typically weekly with their fbi director to discuss what mr. spicer says is the top concern of the president of the united states. that's the security of his country. those meetings were to discuss terror threats to the united states. "a," is the president meeting his fbi director regularly along with the attorney general weekly and "b," if he is, did he ask him a simple question before he tweeted? what happened at trump tower? and did the former president authorize anything? what's going on with contacts with the attorney general and the fbi director? i don't know, wolf. >> yeah. we heard from the white house apparently there have been no conversations between the president and the fbi director before the president made this assertion saturday morning in those four tweets, 6:30 in the morning, or since, for that matter. we'll double check that. david swerdlick, the white house does say it wants congress, the

that's my guess, if you're asking me to guess. that's my guess because i didn't make the decision. >> i raise this because some of the same people helped to fund the group that put you on the list for president trump. president trump, as you know, has attacked judges who dare to uphold the constitution. he's gone after it. he's said things that i don't think any one of us would do. so you have to prove you can be an independent judge. you've heard that from both sides here. let me ask you a question on this regard. you are a person who believes in religious freedom. you said that before. in december 2015 they adopted my sense that the united states must not bar individuals from entering into the united states baseod their religion. this past almost every senator with the exception of then senator sessions and a couple others voted for it. now does the first amendment allow the use of a religious t litmus test for entry into the united states? >> senator, that's an issue currently being litigated actively, as you know. >> i'm not a

if everybody feels, let me ask you this, tavis. if glenn beck dropped dead tomorrow, or dropped dead in 2010, hit by a bus, would our country be saved today? >> the answer is no. and i pray that you don't get hit by a bus any time soon, brother. >> so the question is, i know at least in my family, we all play a role in wherever we're getting. big or small, we all play a role. i'm not just asking the people in politics and media. i'm wondering how many of us have taken stock and said, i may have played a role in that. because for instance, let me reverse things so you can understand. anybody who is on the left. right now, there are people on the left who are really, really frightened about donald trump. and there are a ton of people on the right who think that's ridiculous. i don't happen to be one of them but they think it is ridiculous. and i have said to them so many times. please don't mock. please don't dismiss them. their feelings are valid and real. you may not see it that way but that's how they really feel. why don't you re

inappropriate if he did ask for answers. members of congress have contacted the bureau for information as part of a taxpayer-funded probe. republican senator lindsey graham: >> it's not to much to ask the department of justice and the f.b.i. whether or not a warrant was sought and issued. >> reporter: attorney general jeff sessions recused himself last week from any trump campaign-related investigations. before that, he had rebuffed calls to appoint a special counsel for an independent probe, but today, he said he might consider one to investigate obama-era scandals. >> i'm going to do everything i possibly can to restore the independence and professionalism of the department of justice. so we'll have to consider whether or not some outside special counsel is needed." >> reporter: today, f.b.i. director jim comey briefed key members of the house and senate, each for about an hour, on these wiretapping allegations, and the ongoing investigation into russian contacts with trump advisers. scott. >> pelley: but no word on what c

>> you'd have to ask my -- the folks that i went over there to -- >> well, i'm asking you. you'd know if you were paid. >> yeah, i mean i went over there as a speaking event. it was a speaking event. what difference does that make, though? is somebody going "oh, he's paid by the russians"? >> well, donald trump has made a lot of the fact that hillary clinton has taken money from wall street. >> i didn't take any money from russia, if that's what you're asking me. >> well, th who pd you? >> my eaker's bureau. ask them. >> okay. >> my speaker's ask -- you know what? don't say something like that idly. don't say ask them idly to an investigative reporter like mike isikoff. also just don't say it unless you mean it because we now know that a congressional committee did ask them. a congressional committee did follow up on michael flynn's suggestion, ask them that they ask his speaker's bureau about that trip to russia from this letter released by democratic congressman elijah cummings, we know the oversight committee in the house asked michael flynn speaker's bureau, hey, who pa

he continually said, ask democrats those questions, don't ask me.rward with this russia investigation, and republicans on the committee support him staying in that position. a number of republicans going into this conference meeting where republicans just met signal that they do support him, including pete king of new york, who said to me, absolutely not should nunes step down. this would be just giving in to democrats. so, nunes really rejecting any notion that his standing is undermining this investigation, believing that it's going to go forward, but he did not answer some key questions, including whether or not the white house itself asked him to cancel a public hearing scheduled for today with three intelligence officials, including sally yates, the former deputy of the justice department, because they did not want her to testify about what she knew about michael flynn, those contacts with the russian ambassador. when we asked nunes that directly, he would not say, and he continually discussed how the committee plans to move forward, not gettin

once you have confirmed the bill is correct, ask if you can negotiate the amount due. ask if they will accept a discount if you pay right awayask if the hospital or clinic has a financial-assistance program. many providers do, she said, but "they may not offer it up front."barring any discount ask if they will accept a monthly payment plan, so you can pay the debt off over time.

we are not asking local churches and others to ask immigration status.ctuary to illegal immigrant churches. >> it depends what sanctuary beads. >> incurably colored seeking -- the police are trying to get a good shutting the door and keep people away from police who may have a bright to protect the country from this. can you be taking care of people are not being worried. i got the wind -- if someone is thinking comes to my door i take them in. think about what happened with immigration in the united states of america, ellis island for example. but they showed up, they weren't all legal. yes we help them become illegal immigrants. the country has to fix the system in which we have been president trump has talked about having a wall with big open doors. is to ellis island was. but in search of a better life. they were legal at the united states. we have to help those fleet for very tough situations. abby: father john, good to have you. >> of all fired up. the mainstream media are feeling space-bar 46 attorneys but they obviously don't remember this. >> i

. >> let me ask you about it. it was reported by david ignatius that the incoming national security adviser michael flynn was in touch with the russian ambassador on the day the united states government announced sanctions for russian inrference wthe eltion. did that contact help with that russian -- kind of moderate response to it? that there was no counter reaction from russia? did the flynn conversation help pave the way for that sort of more temperate russian response? >> i talked to general flynn about that conversation. they didn't discuss anything having to do with the united states' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against russia. what i can say is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time the united states took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions. >> but that still leaves open the possibility that there might have been other conversations about the sanctions. >> i don't believe there were more conversations ant -- >> okay, let's mo

we found about it because we asked. when we asked the white house about it, they said it was a courtesy meeting. it was no big deal. nothing of consequence happens. and then, the bank e-mails us just a few hours ago and said, no, no. it was actually about his role as part of the kushner companies, it was actually for business reasons and we don't know what that means. >> who was asking for favors? >> we have no idea. >> whaas the kushner company looking for something from the bank? >> that's what we need to know. >>> all right, up next, the new reason the white house says president trump wasn't able to make a deal to repeal obamacare. we'll get a reaction when we come back. t-mobile one save you hundreds a year. right now get two lines of data for $100 dollars. with taxes and fees included. that's right 2 unlimited lines for just $100 bucks. all in. and right now, pair up those two lines with two free samsung galaxy s7 when you switch. yup! free. so switch and save hundreds when you go all unlimited with t-mobile. then

i'm asking you right now to provide the information that the osc has asked for. i want you to provide it to this committee. ms. gowadia: sir, may i offer something -- yesterday we came to visit with mr. meadows. as part of getting ready for this hearing, this has come to my attention and a strong way. i asked my staff to look and see , have we ever had any concern expressed by the osc to us in the information we have redacted? has that kept them from proceeding on a case? we found 2 instances. i believe ms. lerner has four in her statement. i have -- as of yesterday, if we ever redacted this information from the osc, we will always accompany it with a privileged log and that will allow o.s.c. to have more information on the information that has been redirected. mr. chaffetz: when will you provide the osc the privilege log? ms. lerner: that would not be sufficient. it suggests that there actually is a privilege. our position is that there is no attorney-client privilege. mr. chaffetz: your point is well taken, and i concur. i would like to see the tsa is taking th

let me just ask this of andre. let me ask this of jack and andre.lary clinton campaign had advisers and aides meeting with the russian ambassadors during the democratic convention, at the democratic convention, you guys would be howling. all we are doing is doing the same thing, asking questions that would normally be asked if the clinton folks were in the same situation. >> let me ask you the question myself. do you really believe if the republican party or jeff sessions or donald trump was colluding with the russian government, that they would meet with the russian ambassador in cleveland in front of the entire world to see? or meet in a senate office with all kind of records? absolutely not. i'm answering your question. >> but, sir, the attorney general was asked during a hearing, have you had any contact -- or what about the trump campaign contacts with the russians and he said i did not have any contact with the russians when that was clearly not the case. he did have contacts. >> that was not the question. it was a convoluted question -- >> he

i asked him about the funding of a wall. i'm on homeland security. and i see this every day of the week and every member of congress said the number one of the terrorist threats are not coming through the south border. what is the justification for taking money away from the t.s.a. and coast guard. and i really didn't get and answer. d talked about cartels and cocaine coming across the border but did not address the bigger threat of terrorism coming through the airports and the ports. and what will happen if you cut the funding there. mr. crowley: what has become clear for the american people, mexico will not be paying for the wall. and yes, the american taxpayer, under this administration, under the trump administration will be paying for that wall. it will not he upport nor the members standing here with e today, we will not support a wall on the southern border. [indiscernible question by reporter] >> he did not specifically say that they were going to leave money there or take money away, he did not dispute that they were going to cut money from

totally. >> as you do every single day, you ask tough questions. >> the last 20 years. >> so you askedrussia connection. let's play it and then we'll talk about it. >> april, go ahead. >> sean, don't seem so happy. you're like go ahead. anyway, with all these investigations, questions of what is is, how does this administration try to revamp its image two 1/2 months in. you got other things go s goin russia, wire tapping -- >> no, we don't have that -- i've said it from the day that i got here until whenever that there is no connection. you've got russia. if the president puts russian salad dressing on his salad, somehow that's a russian connection. but every single person -- i appreciate your agenda here but the reality is -- no, at some point report the facts np facts are that every single person that has been briefed on the subject has come away with the same conclusion. republican, democrat. you're shaking your head. i appreciate it. but understand this at some point the facts are what they are and every single person who has been brief oden the situation are respect to the situati

let me ask you a question in this regard. you are a person who believes and religious freedom, use of that before. in december 2015, the senate judiciary committee adopted that the united states must not bar individuals from entering into the united states based on their religion. this past almost every senator with the exception of senator sessions, a couple others voted for it. does the first amendment allow use of religious litmus tests for entry into the united states? >> that's an issue that is currently being litigated actively, as you know. >> i'm not asking about the litigation in the ninth of circuit anything else, i'm asking about the fact, is a blanket religious test, is that consistent with the first amendment? >> senator, we have a free exercise clause that protects the free exercise of religious liberties by all persons in this country. if you're asking me how i apply it to a specific case, i can't talk about that. for understandable reasons. i'm frank and candid with you as i can be, senator, when you asked me

for two weeks and doj asked him for one more week. if he does come up with something because there was a suspicious headline, wiretap data used in investigation of trump associates, that was a "new york times" head line of scrimmage on january 19th. if in two weeks -- >> we've had that report on multiple times who keeps pointing out the article was not talking about president obama wiretapping, it was about russian surveillance. >> but in the course they might have picked up on an american citizen. there could be something that comes out in two weeks and if there is we're having a different conversation. >> but if there's not -- >> -- doesn't trust the obama administration because of the irs bullying -- >> tweeted and alleged and now that's a change. if you're the president of the united states, you make one allegation and then it starts to fall apart and then you start to move the goal post, that's lucy with the football. >> then his flawed spes fisz ti, if that's the case. if something nefarious comes out, he wasn't specific enough.

asking for the overall -- barthold: if i recall, you're asking for the overall distribution -- mr. levin: i understand. chairman brady: for these specifics on this, i think that would be best delayed until we tackle this section indefinitely moments. as we look at one, we should look at all of them to see the overall picture because there's going to be $600 billion in lost revenue. as we start on this, i think him a dangerous path, i think we need to know the overall picture -- as we start on this, think, dangerous cap, i think we need to know the overall picture. chairman brady: the focus is on the picture in front of us. mr. levin: do you have that information? havearthold: my colleagues repaired distributional analysis nethe repeal on the tax on investment income. it is a five-page analysis. i will ask my colleagues to prepare copies for all the members of the committee and i will make it available a little bit later. mr. levin: thank you. chairman brady: the time is expired. does anyone else wish to inquire about the amendment? >> thank you. do i understand you are the only hum

and i'd like to ask you, ms. brand, will you commit to prioritizing doj resources to where the problems lie? the problems do not lie in voter fraud. the problems appear to lie in these voter suppression laws that states have been very busy passing after the shelby case. i'd like to know whether you would prioritize doj resources going after the voter suppression laws or certainly looking at these laws. to see whether in fact they suppress votes. >> well, senator hirano, i understand your concern with this, and i share concern for any -- anything that would violate the voting rights act and suppress votes. i view enforcement of that statute to be a core law enforcement function of the civil rights division. i would approach that issue like i would approach any issue, which is that if an issue is raised, a particular case, i would look at the facts and i would look at the law. i would of course be consulting with the lawyers in the civil rights division. they would be doing the work in the first instance of course.

i'm not there to -- i ask what my readers want me to ask.utside in the real world where the other 300 million people live, they don't care about personnel issues that msnbc is asking. >> tucker: you took heat from other reporters you at a press conference at the moment when mike flynn was having all of his troubles, national security adviser, you asked a question to the podium about what the foreign policy challenges facing this country are. and what was the response to that? >> it was very ate heated. i -- it was very heated. i got a lot of criticism on twitter. i asked a big-picture question about national security and who we're going to get into a war with next and that matters more to real people than a personnel question of who is working in the white house. no one will remember mike flynn's name by next year. >> tucker: i think that's totally fair. you're obviously pretty immuned to the criticism of your peers. what affect does that group thing have, that forced conformity have on other reporters there? >> not a good mix of that. other

let me begin by asking mr. pas crell you would submit that there is no legal obligation for the president to release his tax returns. >> i will yield to mr. pascrell. >> my friend, there is nothing in the law that says that any president has to do this. that is why we are here. he would also agree, would you not, i enjoyed your history of the long history of this law. only a few times in our nation's utilization by this committee. there is no question that the intent of the law is to prohibit disclosure of private tax return information to the government, by us. it is to prevent it up to the time where it could be a felony. you would agree with that, would you not? >> would you ask the question again? >> the intent of this law? >> i know the intent in the code. we know how the code came about. it was written into the code after 1924 after that scandal that i talked about several times. that is why it was done. >> i claim my time back. we know following back through 1976 when it was rewritten that the intent of