this resolution is a clear message to the department of justice that the u.s. house of representatives, we're determined to get the documents that have been requested. even a single page from these missing documents could be critical to the overall congressional investigation that's under way. it's all necessary. there are irrefutable facts, mr. speaker. the department of justice is accountable to congress. another fact, they are hiding documents. they are refusing to cooperate. we have even beyond that now the chilling reports that the deputy attorney general personally threatened staff members on the intel committee. this is unacceptable. so under this resolution the full house --full force of the house is being brought to light. mr. speaker, we've got to get to the bottom of this. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i now yield one minute to the distinguished democratic leader of the house, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from califo

but i think that the state attorney general can have a very real effect on the department of justice. even a vigorous enforcer and joel klein was can be influenced by the willingness of states to be at the tip of the sphere and to be aggressive. even or the department of justice settled we continued and we exacted some additional conditions that would not have been there but for our efforts. they may have seemed marginal at the time, but they settled separately and the attorneys general are a separate effort, but third point, the department of justice is a really important partner or can be. even though states do their own actions. for example, we did a number in the pharmaceutical drug area. i think that the department of justice and the united states is always a great partner to have in this effort, but most important simply be alert to the fact that the consumers of your states depend on you ultimately, and in recent years over the last couple of decades and maybe longer, the state attorneys general often have really been at the forefront of protecting consumers. >> senator, from t

let this also serve as a of nder through department justice that the u.s. congress was created by our founders and its authority and directly lities arise from article one of the u.s. constitution. the department of justice, on was created by congress. its power arise phrase those given to it by congress, and it those powers are given by congress, it's congress's responsibility to ensure that they are not abused, and if necessary, it's congress's responsibility to limit those powers. among wilson, who was the first to use the term oversight in reference to the investigation of the executive stated, quite quite as important as legislation is the igilant oversight of the administration, today we show we're taking oversight of the executive branch seriously particularly the department of working to we're prevent bias in the government. we command accountability because we have a president who seems unhinged. happening, this is what we are dealing with today on the house floor this morning. basically, a resolution to try to undermine the mueller investigation, w

the inherent intention has arisen most recently out of the department of justice's failure to comply with congressional oversight. some of the documents seeks is almost linked to the 115th congress. they deal with the most pressing issues. has the department of justice abused the fidsea authority? was it affected by bias? i believe these investigations need to play out but i also believe they can't last forever. i also believe the evidence of at , key personnel removals the f.b.i. needs heightened congressional oversight. an associate justice on the supreme court so eloquently stated, the house of representatives formed the grand inquest of the state. hey will diligently inquire of grievances both from men and things. as a member of the judiciary committee i will continue to take that charge seriously. yesterday, the jewish considered a similar legislation. the house will have the ability to reiterate to the department of justice the need to fully comply with our legitimate request. it's important to note the house intelligence committee has been stymied by delays of request of certai

breaking news this morning about a high level meeting between members of the justice department's top brass and powerful house republican committee chairman, the same chairmen who have been requesting documents from the justice department related to the russia investigation. this comes after the highly anticipated report of the fbi's handling of the hillary clinton investigation, a probe in which the inspector general unveiled deplorable behavior by fbi officials. ultimately concluded that political bias did not affect the investigation's outcome. that's a claim president trump and many republican lawmakers do not buy. reaction to that in a moment. first, let's get back to the meeting between justice department officials and influential house gop lawmakers many my next guest was one of those people in attendance. joining me right now is devin nunes of california. mr. chairman, it's good to see you. thank you for joining us. >> good morning, maria. great to be with you. >> maria: a lot to talk about with you. we understand you were at that meeting on friday with christopher wray, rod r

we also, if we learned anything from these findings, it should be that the department of justice and special counsel mueller must be able to complete the investigation without political interference, a lesson that my republican colleagues seem to have missed. second, the comments of my republican colleagues since this report were released are completely untethered from reality. republicans are clinging to the hope that somehow some way their long debunked myth of an fbi conspiracy against president trump is still true. a group of freedom caucus members just wrote the department of justice asked for, and i did you not, an investigation into the investigation of the investigation. a second degree or third degree investigation. facts are facts. secretary clinton did not, as my republican colleagues suggest, receive special treatment. the political views of the agents running this case did not affect the outcome of the investigation. these are findings of the report. where the department of justice and the fbi deviated from normal policy and practice, they did so to the detriment of secre

or the department of justice. while there may have been political bias exhibited in some private text messages, none of that political bias influenced decision making in the clinton email investigation. the second, i think, key conclusion of the inspector general is that director comey and others made serious errors of judgment. and while these serious errors of judgment were not driven by political considerations, they were nevertheless serious mistakes. those mistakes unquestionably have the effect of helping the trump campaign. that was not by design, but that was the effect. and you need look no further than candidate trump's comments, applauding then director comey for discussing the investigation in october to see which way those errors in judgment cut. none of this report obviously reflects at all on the continued investigation by special counsel. it is more important than ever that that investigation go on unimpeded. but it's not completely irrelevant in the sense that one of the points made by the inspecto

the department of justice and the fbi are not mentioned in the u.s. constitution. who is mentioned in the constitution? the president and congress. yet, a handful of individuals in these law enforcement institutions place the constitutional institution of the presidency under attack during a heated election and mocked congress' legitimate constitutionally mandated oversight. equality under the law is a core american value. our laws are to be administered and enforced with impartiality. the ig report confirms that this was not the case in the clinton investigation. to quote from the report concerning certain individuals assigned to the investigation -- we found that the conduct of these five fbi employees brought discredit to themselves, sewed doubt about the fbi's handling of the investigation and impacted the reputation of the fbi. moreover, the damage caused by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the investigation and goes to the heart of the fbi's reputation for neutral fact-finding and political independence, end quote. i am only repeating what the ig

emergency injunction keeping them apart for a few more months, and if the past to times the department of justice sought the cut of relief, they have lost. scarlet: the judge has said he would deny a stay if requested by the department of justice. to add to that, no conditions on this takeover of time warner by at&t. julia: explore that a second. we have the ftc as well, and they share antitrust jurisdiction. you just mentioned the last two. go back to 2004 and tell us how many of these kind of emergency injunctions have actually been won. know you have gone back to 2004. even if they try to use this .mergency measure >> the justice department has been backed into a total corner. they have very little to do, and an appeal is a waste of time. julia: is an appeal a waste of time? jennifer: first, it will depend on the opinion, but fwhat i heard from headlines, it sounds to me like an appeal may be a waste of time. to be very aggressive abouting trying to close this deal right now. it looks like everything kind of broke their way here. they probably feel like they have some momentum, so unless the w

he has served in several divisions of the department of justice and notably as the united states attorney for the district of maryland from 2005 until 2017. before being nominated by president trump to be deputy attorney general. director wray is the eighth director of the federal bureau of investigation. he began his department of justice career in 1997 has an assistant united states attorney for the northern district of georgia. he then served in the office of the deputy attorney general and was nominated by president george w. bush to serve as assistant attorney general for the criminal division. he worked in private practice before president trump nominated him to lead the bureau in august of 2017. your entire written statement will be entered into the record and we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes and to help you stay within that time there's a timing light at the table. when you have one minute left, it will turn to yellow and then a minute later to red. so we hope you'll keep your time within that limit and then we'll open it up for questions. so we'll start wi

the facts, the law of past department practice to let me stress the hope that we will now see in and to the slander by republican colleagues and the president of the department of justicehe people of the fbi and the continued attempt to pressure them into not doing their job properly. continuing attempts at what i think are continuing obstruction of justice. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. leader. just to underscore a couple of points. think probably the two conclusions of the inspector general report our first that no political bias influence the decision-making at either the fbi or the department of justice while there may have been political bias exhibited in some private text messages none of that political bias influence the decision-making in the clinton e-mail investigation. the second key conclusion of the inspector general is bad director comey and others made serious errors of judgment and while the serious errors of judgment were not driven by political considerations they were nevertheless serious mistakes. those mistakes unquestionably have the effect of helping the trump campaign. that was not by design but that was the effect and you need look no f

that of course will potentiallyn raise more questions aboutwhhert the fbi but the justice department probing the president over allegations of russian collusion th theyng were in terms of getting to the bottom of the clinton probe. meanwhile, justice department pushing back and denying what you just reported on about deputyttorney general rod rosenstein threatening republican devin nunes. you heard him a moment ago, and his aides with a subpoena of their emails and phone records. democrats defending rosenstein, as did the attorney general jeff sessions on tucker's program last night. republicans are insisting this happened and it's a problem. watch. >> it is deeply concerning that instead of having a cooperative relationship with this agency, respectful of the importance of the congress, having access to documents regarding matters that they are investigating, that they have oversight responsibility for, and this is not the way to conduct that. >> more evidence republican from matt gaetz tweeting tonight "the doj's intimidation and stonewalling tactics have gone too far. i have heard

they do their best to undermine the credibility of the department of justice and of the special counsel. they will try to hold mr. rosenstein in contempt. they may argue he must be removed from his role of the special counsel. thatis an investigation has already yielded five guilty pleas and led to the indictment of 20 people so far. the president and some of his closest advisers are under investigation for having indicated in a criminal conspiracy with a foreign power against the united states. that is an emergency. the president practically holt ond to lester firedsion when he said he this rush of of staff with trump in -- this russia staff with trump in russia. that is an emergency. this is been a hard week for the majority. i know it must be tempting to change the subject and rally your base with yells of lock her up. but we cannot hide from our responsibility. hide from our constitutional duty to protect our country from foreign interference. hide from our responsibility not to interfere with a proper investigation. i ask you to consider this question. when the special counsel's wo

the justice department provided previous text messages from that date. that included all of the messages except messages we have accept. why didn't the justice department produce that to congress when we asked? >> mr. desantis, i spoke with our inspector general michael horowitz yesterday and he told me when he testified he didn't have a full opportunity to explain the technological details that are pretty complicated but he assured me he had had a long telephone conversation with mr. jordan after the hearing and explained it. he's much better positioned than i. what i can assure you -- >> let me just ask you -- >> if i could just explain, sir. i want to ensure the american people. we're not withholding anything embarrassing. the message was not in the original material that the inspector general -- he found these messages -- z >> so you didn't find it and he did. we're expecting a good faith effort, you didn't find it and maybe somebody else deleted or something happened before you guys but he was able to find it and you didn't so it was very disappointing to see a text mes

. >> discussion and possible action to approve the addenda to the california department of justice and san francisco police department m.l.u. discussion and possible action. >> thank you, very much. commissioners, who have been on the commission are aware there was, from the department of justice cops, instituted the recommendations for reforms. there's a pre amble. they signed on to be subject and they wer to monitor our developments and work with our command staff and the department. unfortunately, the united states department of justice has decided that they're no longer in that business and so we were left out in the dark without. what we had we w met with , th experts were commanders, deput chiefs, frochiefs many major police departments throughout the country who had word through a lot of these reforms. we've losthat. one of the proposals was whether or not the california state department of justice can fill that role. come in and sort of monitor our progress and keep in mind the police commissione cmission is e ultimate authority of policy and pressure for the san francisco poli

grilling on capitol hill about out of control bias and corruption at upper reaches of the fbi and department of justice. >> who are we supposed to believe? staff members we worked with who never misled us or you guys? lou: we'll have complete analysis of the days testimony. andrew mccarthy, we'll be hearing from him. and the mueller witch hunt continues to expand. now targeting, get ready, now targeting inauguration party attendees an aide to roger stone. fox legal analyst gregg jarrett joins us with his take on what the special counsel is up. a deadly shooting in a newsroom in annapolis maryland. police say the suspect this custody but not cooperating. fox news correspondent kristen fisher is on the scene. good evening, kristen. >> over the last hour or so we have seen a dramatic reduction in the amount of police vehicles on the street right behind me. this is really the clearist sign yet that we are moving into a new phase in this investigation and in this response which was a massive police presence as law enforcement was trying to contain what was happening and get the shooter. it's now shifted to

states department of justice. do they have people that have worked in this field and can help get us through it? there was a memorandum of understanding that was entered into and the police commission rejected this. we've come back to the m.l.u. and commissioner hirsch took the lead in dealing with all the parties to basically modify this m.o.u., which would recognize the police commission's role. the first draft that came out, kind of left us out. they seemed to forget that we are the police commission and so there's been some changes and with that in mind i'll turn it over to commissioner hirsch to explain the changes made in his recommendation. >> thank you. the problem with the m.o.u. as it was first drafted is that it ignored the commission completely and most of us did not see it until after it had been signed. i talked to president tuman and vice president and i went and met with mayor farrell. i talked to the police chief. i talked to the state d.o.j. and told them our concerns that you could not sim plo si

james comey publicly makes his case, the actions he took bring on a justice department investigation. >> breaking news from the department ofa report just out from the department's inspector general. >> on june 14th, 2018, inspector general michael horowitz presents a tough indictment of the investigation. >> the biggest criticism of that report was in that october decision to alert congress the investigation had been re-opened. comey said his choice was to either speak or conceal. the justice department inspector general said that was false, a false dichotomy. your choice, mr. comey was whether to follow justice department policy or violate it. you chose to violate it and the justice department called it a gross error in judgment. >> the following day the president seizes on the report tweeting he did the country a great service by firing james comey. the president and the republicans used the report to attack robert mueller's ongoing russia investigation. >> i did nothing wrong. there was no collusion, there was no obstruction. the ig report yesterday went a long way to show that, and i think that the mueller investigatio

department of justice went after police departments, local law enforcement and using the power and almost unlimited money of the department of justice they could overwhelm and force a local law enforcement office into agreeing to a consent decree where the u.s. department of justice got to basically supervise whatever they did. based on the kind of prejudice and bias, outrageous actions within the united states department of justice and the f.b.i. it looks like some of those police departments that ended up agreeing to consent judgments might be better off suing the u.s. department of justice exposing how prejudice and bias they were during the period in which the department of justice came after them and was trying to supervise them and show how bias they were and show the local police department getting to tail the department of justice if they are acting appropriate and when they are not. it is just incredible how such a great justice organization, not just compromised, but devastated ke a cancerous prejudice and bias. incapable of rendering fair, blind decisions without regard for any

received to conduct his investigation of the 2016 election has been in terp tate bd i the department of justice to fall outside the first subpoena i ever issued as chairman of this committee. shockingly, emails and communications of doj officials have not been produced at all. therefore, we have not received any emails between prosecutors working the clinton case. said differently, we are not receiving and have not received potentially enlightening communications between prosecutors themselves, between prosecutors and doj management, including former attorney general lynch or even communications between doj officials and those with the obama white house. this is unacceptable. particularly by requesting the subpoena to the inspector general other than certain ones pertaining to grand jury material. the department of justice and the fbi are not mentioned in the united states constitution. the president and congress are. our constitutional oversight necessitates that institutions like the fbi and doj yield to congress constitutional mandate. this is non-negotiable. because we must assure the ameri

jon: house republicans ramping up their standoff with the department of justice. lligence committee chairman devin nunes sending a letter to deputy attorney general rod rosenstein accusing the department of wrongfully withholding information related to the clinton e-mail and russia investigations, this after the d.o.j. handed over some of the documents republicans were seeking ahead of a friday deadline. house judiciary chairman bob goodlatte accuses the department of dragging its feet. >> we had specific requests, they were slow with some of those, and one of those is still promised to us by 5:00 tomorrow. so we're looking forward to seeing that, but we're also looking forward to making sure that they understand this is an ongoing investigation, and this production has to continue. jon: garrett tenney has the latest on this monumental battle from washington, garrett? reporter: jon, the latest dustup comes as congressional investigators are trying to determine whether there is legitimate agenda into the fbi's agenda into the trump campaign whether they used informa

the answer to that, with regard to the information of the justice department there are certain categories of information as director wray said that we typically wouldn't release and my experience is that congress doesn't want to know the identities of confidential sources. director wray and i don't know the names of the confidential source, to the extent we ever hear them, they're masked. >> what i'm trying to get at here is the public is never going to have confidence in this broader issue that we've been talking about for so long until as much information as possible can have sunlight on it and congress is not going to have confidence until we get information that we don't have to pull and try to fill in the blanks and fill in the blanks of redactions, et cetera. i would submit there's no information that's housed within the executive branch and whatever form, even just institutional knowledge. or forever foreclosed to access to the united states economy. >> forever is a long time. i'm sympathetic and i understand the concern. >> mr. attorney general do you agree with me on that stateme

>> congressman, in the department of justice we're accustomed to criticism and it doesn't affect our work. saidngressman, i have repeatedly, i am committed to doing this job by the book in all respects and there is no amount of political pressure that will dissuade me by either side. >> thank you, and i find you and each of you and special counsel mueller as paragons as people who should be revered and not torn down and people who tear them down tear down the flag and the constitution. failed back and hope the constitution is respected. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio mr. jordan. >> mr. rosenstein, why are you keeping information from congress? >> congressman, i am not keeping any information from congress that is appropriate for -- >> in a few minutes, mr. rosenstein, i think the house of representatives is going to say something different. >> i don't agree with you, i don't believe if that's what they'll say and they will be mistaken. >> i think in a few minutes the house of representatives is going to go on record saying you haven't complied with requests from a sep

we sit down with a team of attorneys from the department of justice, all of whom review that, provide a briefing for us about that is in it, and so i review that one in some detail and i can tell you, sir, the information that is public about that doesn't match with my understanding of the one that i signed. but i think it is appropriate to let the inspector general complete that investigation. these are serious allegations. and i don't do the investigation. i'm not the -- i'm reviewing the finished product, sir. >> are they investigating you? >> if they find i did something wrong, i'll respect that judgment, but i think it is highly unlikely, sir, given the way the process works. >> chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, miss jackson lee, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. let me thank ranking member who remains on the floor. i know he's en route. i'm almost believing that i've just attended or i'm in midst of a monster ball. and we're looking for monsters wherever we can find them. as i was on the floor, as i was on the floor, i heard someone say, miss deputy attorney g

>> congressman, in the department of justice we're accustomed to criticism and it doesn't affect our work. saidngressman, i have repeatedly, i am committed to doing this job by the book in all respects and there is no amount of political pressure that will dissuade me by either side. >> thank you, and i find you and each of you and special counsel mueller as paragons as people who should be revered and not torn down and people who tear them down tear down the flag and the constitution. failed back and hope the constitution is respected. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio mr. jordan. >> mr. rosenstein, why are you keeping information from congress? >> congressman, i am not keeping any information from congress that is appropriate for -- >> in a few minutes, mr. rosenstein, i think the house of representatives is going to say something different. >> i don't agree with you, i don't believe if that's what they'll say and they will be mistaken. >> i think in a few minutes the house of representatives is going to go on record saying you haven't complied with requests from a sep

i can't tell the difference between this department of justice and the eric holder or loretta lynch department of justice. congress still does not have the documents from fast and furious. that's been going on for 10 years. behind the scenes i think the department of justice is trying to egg congress on to go to court. but congress is playing this one a little smarter in saying because if they go to court the doj can run out the clock for years. there are other things they can do like mark meadows and jim jordan and gates are talking about. hold them in contempt and work towards the impeachment of the senior most department of justice officials. that will get their attention. lou: we are almost two years. we are close to the halfway mark for this president. he has been hounded by this witch hunt. and he's correct to call it there in my judgment on the part of the special counsel. the leadership of the house and senate has not been supportive. trey gowdy said it's time to wrapt damn thing up. but trey gowdy was saying he's so proud of the fbi. we have got sort after schizophrenic impulse on the

wray began his department of justice career in 1997 as an assistant united states attorney for the northern district of georgia. he then served as the office of deputy attorney general and was nominated by president george bush to serve as assays tant in the criminal division. he worked in private before before prum nominated had imto lead the bureau in 2017. your teen written statement entered into the record and we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. and to help you stay within that time, there sa timing light at the table. when you have one minute left, it will turn to yellow. and then a minute later to read. so we hope you'll keep your time within that limit. and then we'll open it up for questions. so we'll start with deputy attorney general rosenstein. welcome. >> thank you chairman goodlatte and members of the committee. i always welcome the committee to appear before this distinguished body but today is not a happy occasion. based 0en my 30 years of experience, federal law enforcement working with the out standing men hand women of law enforcement, federal, state

>> the focus is behavior of the fbi and the justice department, particularly investigation. reports that suggest they intend -- the report will lambaste jim comey the fbi director, andrew mccabe, as well as criticize atey general lorettaew lynch. it could cut both ways because a lot of the criticism of comey came from democrats that particularly he should never have stood up at thatress conference in 2016 when he announced that there wouldn't be charges brought against hillary clinnd proceeded t ize her for what d that's not the role of the fbi director. s it's also possible they will conclude there was politicalo bias that led to the decision not to charge her in the first place.rs it's unclear who politically it will help but it's going to reflect very poorly on top of justice department and fbi officials. >> tucker: he shouldn't have criticized her i've said so at the time. i'm very struck by the reaction ink the s the default seems to be you don't have a right to know what your government is doing and pressed too hard to find out, there's something wrong with you, you're

is the department of justice allowed to redact information solely for the purpose of protecting its oneputation? >> it is not, even though it has a long history of doing so, not just in congress but in the courts. what's really funny is, they will charge somee who gives the misleading information, but they will tell congress that they rejected classified information that proves entirely unclassified. there is this sense of acting without her impunity, when you redact these types of documents. and that material is classified under any defition. they can disagree with chairman nunez, they can disagree with the white house, but they should all agree on the fact that this is an improper use of reduction. >>r: and it's been going on you set for quite some time, so this is basically the status quo, not a new way of ing business? >> unfortunately it is. i've been counseling security cases against the government, and i have redacted to the courts that it's clearly not classified. and, n disputesharob rosenstein went over to the congress and threatened to subpoena the personal communications of

lou: the department of justice and the fbi have also put up with the corruption that obviously permeates the leadership of that department and the fbi. there has to be an investigation here that rises to a level of seriousness. it's -- at the very least, to hold accountable the special counsel which has 3 angry democrats as the president calls them working obviously -- you mentioned of the five agents, three of them are moved into mueller's special counsel to specifically attack the president of the united states. >> strzok was wanted to dump' the exam. lou: he doesn't wants to call it the hillary clinton email case or investigation. wants to refer to it with its working jargon as the mid-year investigation. it's -- >> strzok is trying to run away from it and quickly get over to the mueller investigation because of his vendetta he has against the president. this guy, talk about an egomaniac, this self-anointed super agent. he's going to stop the president of the united states from getting elected and assuming office. lou: he may be all that you say. but we know he had much of the leaders

he works for the department of justice. d he must comply with the policies of the department of justice. even putting aside the constitutional issue, he cannot defy the department of justice and bring in an indictment. i bely already understand that because they tch your show. because additionally, we know he can to either because of the arguments laid out by republican administration and democrat administration. you cannot cripplthe prident of the united states but he's the most powerful man in the federal government, expect him to have his due process constitutional rights properly defended at the same time. no prhas been indicted, there is a reason for that. no president has ever been brought before a federal grand jury, there is a reason for that. perhaps mr. mueller is the one who was the tyrant, not the president of the united states. the appointment clause of the united states constitution, president trump did not write that. last time i checked them of the framers wrote that, and ratified by all the states. the defec

at the heart of this hearing the decision the department of justice and f.b.i. regarding the hillary clinton email investigation and then dove tailing off that is the russia matter that surrounds the trump campaign of 2016. we will jump in now. it will go on for hours to our audience so you know. this could be very interesting based on some of the statements we've heard already. john ratcliffe on the committee talked about the 11-hour interview yesterday with peter strzok. ratcliffe says he did not help himself, meaning strzok. he did not help bob mueller. so we'll see where we go. chairman of the committee, bob goodlatte, the republican from virginia now with his opening commentary as we go in live on the hill. >> insure these tools are not manipulated by unscrupulous actors. the i.g. noted bias in a presidential election and revealed f.b.i. agents, lawyers and analysts held profound biases against then-candidate donald trump and in favor of his opponent, hillary clinton, while those on the other side of the aisle continue to exclaim these biases are only perso

neither the department of justice would've you like that information neither the department of justice or the fbi are mentioned in the constitution. however each institution has engaged in repeated stonewalling of the constitutionally mandated oversight. we will stop president trump from taking office which we received on the day of your reports releases a prime example. this text was revealed late in your interview as well. do you believe this text shows political bias? >> it clearly shows a biased state of mind. >> to believe the political bias shown by this text had an effect on the initiation of the russian investigation? >> that is a matter we have under review and are looking at. >> more to be determined on the. >> the time proximity as mr. gaddy pointed out is significant. >> correct. in fact there were other text messages in the same time. >> you are an assistant united states attorney for eight years, and that time did you ever charge any espionage case. >> i did not. >> i'm trying to understand more about the seeming need for intensive the statute. some have noted that people

i can't tell the difference between this department of justice and the eric holder or loretta lynch department of justice. congress still does not have the documents from fast and furious. that's been going on for 10 years. behind the scenes i think the department of justice is trying to egg congress on to go to court. but congress is playing this one a little smarter in saying because if they go to court the doj can run out the clock for years. there are other things they can do like mark meadows and jim jordan and gates are talking about. hold them in contempt and work towards the impeachment of the senior most department of justice officials. that will get their attention. lou: we are almost two years. we are close to the halfway mark for this president. he has been hounded by this witch hunt. and he's correct to call it there in my judgment on the part of the special counsel. the leadership of the house and senate has not been supportive. trey gowdy said it's time to wrapt damn thing up. but trey gowdy was saying he's so proud of the fbi. we have got sort after schizophrenic impulse on the

justice department. doing that publicly not only tarnishes an individual, but raises questions of the fairness of justice and applications of various principles as you indicated. indeed, as we point out here, while there isn't an explicit policy at the department about not speaking on uncharged conduct in a case where you don't charge any criminal activity, there actually is language that pro hibtsz department prosecutors from speaking about uncharged conduct of co-conspirators. so in other words, where there is, in fact, a charge of criminal wrongdoing and a conspiracy, and some individuals in the conspiracy are charged and some individuals aren't charged, then that can happen because there is stronger evidence against some than others. the department policy says you can't speak about the uncharged individuals even though you believe they committed a crime and yet there is no corresponding policy where there are no charges which is why we make that recommendation in this report. >> you also found that director comey's october 28th, 2016, letter to congress about secretary clinton and i quote, originated

of the f.b.i. and justice department. ion to close the investigation without prosecution, we found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were the result of improper considerations including political bias, rather were exercises of those prosecutors prosecutorial discretion, an exercise based on their assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice. our review also included a fact-based detailed assessment of certain specific investigative and prosecutorial decision that were the subject of controversy. it was necessary to select particular investigative decisions because it would not have been possible to recreate and analyze every decision made in a year-long investigation. in examining these decisions, we considered -- the question we considered was not whether a particular decision was the most effective choice, but rather whether the documentary and testimonial evidence indicated the decision was based on improper considerations, including political bias. this approach is consistent with th

and then the department of justice watchdog concluded there was no bias at the justice department or fbi. we'll take up this fictional sham of an investigation with an all-star lineup of guests here tonight. congressman jim jordan and congressman matt gates join us and legal analyst gregg jarrett >>> also to tight, rhyne's political end game becoming more obvious to those pays attention at the end of the day. the latest draft 06 the daca amnesty deal reads like a love letter to the koch brothers and wall street. it can mean only that the speaker has sold out the republican party for good and will be running for president if he is not already. we'll talk about the disturbing prospect with the dean himself, political strategist ed rollins. >>> and the fake news losing its collected mind. today turning the white house briefing room into a shameful spectacle of gran grandstandingd childish temper tantrums. >> these people have nothing, come to the border with nothing. you're a parent of young children. don't you have any empathy for what they go through? lou: you would think someone would

of justice, the briefings we've gotten from the donell d.o.j. but frankly, chad, it shouldn't take a speaker of the house hav to get involved every one of these times to get the department of justice or any department in the executive branch to comply with congressional oversight requests. that's what's frustrating to us. and so we received an oral briefing two weeks ago, but what we are asking for and what e require and we expect is the corroborating documents that back up that oral briefing. and last night they could have brought it andhey ch to do it next week. that doesn't frankly, the sooner department of justice complies with all of our doc requests, which are legitimate document requests, the better this isng to be for everybody. and had they complied with these document requests earlier red e couny them, we probably one more point. in allthis of in any of this, there's been no evidence that there's any collusion between the trump campaign and the president and russia. let me make it clear. there is no collusion. this is russia and what they did and making sure they don't do it again and about us, congress, the elected representative branch of congress, conductin

gowdy loves the fbi and the department of justice. i think all americans want to have a good department of justice and fbi doing their job, and if they're targeting russian s or chinese or what have you that's what we expect them to do; however the challenge we have in this is if they actually targeted a political campaign that was donald trump and that's where i think that even though mr. gowdy believes that the president is not a target of this investigation, his campaign is and i think that's where the challenge occurs. maria: so do you think then that the fbi did the right thing in terms of investigating the campaign, looking for russia interference? >> well you know, mr. gowdy has , you know, under what he's heard, he believes the fbi was doing the right thing and do you know what could solve this? for a year we've been waiting almost a year now we've been waiting for documents for the deputy attorney general so deputy attorney general rosenstein could provide all the documents all the information that we need this week and we cou