about doj oversight. following the new york government up until the moment of birth and the governor northam virginia's comments indicating support of an action which in my opinion relates to infanticide. are you concerned about some of these actions of late that implicate the federal partial abortion act that criminalizes procedures? i am getting really concerned that this is violating the law and has the doj looked into this? >> asked, as an american citizen i am very concerned. >> can you also tell me, i read recently a "wall street journal" opinion piece from 2018 and in that, it said new york city, thousands of black babies are aborted than born alive each year and my grandkids are african-american. so if there was a crime occurring in this country that exceeded the number of deaths from cancer, heart disease, aids, and accidents combined which abortions do, is that something that the doj would get involved in and be concerned about and try to stop? >> congresswoman, every life is valuable. while i c

but the doj should look like the country. and you all have been here twice and it is not a fair representation of what makes this country great. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. klein. i'm sorry, i'm sorry. ms. lesko. >> thank you. you know, i have to say that i'm very disappointed in this hearing. you know, i ran for congress to get things done, and at the beginning of this, you know, we were told that this is about asking about doj oversight and some legitimate questions. and here we are, it's nothing but character assassination, harassment of our witness, and it's really disappointing. at first i was mad. i have to tell you, when this thing started hours ago, i went outside and a reporter asked me, what do you think of the hearing? i said, it's a joke. but now i'm just sad. i'm sad because we were on the floor just a little while ago talking about how we are honoring our late representative dingle in talking about bipartisanship and how we need to get things done. and yet here we

this could be doj oversight. but i'm not sure your financial situation from 2014 to 2016 has anything to do with this hearing. it's beyond the scope of this hearing. so if this is what we're going to do, if this is where we're going, then i want to remind everyone that this is not the senate. if my friend on the other side of this aisle wanted to do a confirmation hearing, they ought to do it upfront. and if they want to do a confirmation hearing on senators, run for senate. this is an oversight hearing, supposedly, oops, i'm sorry, back to theaterics, again the curtain opened up and found out what's going on. no, we want to damage the president. we want to talk about your private conversations, what you did and why the president a most amazing quote i heard a moment ago. why the president may have put you there for-- that's offensive. when we look at this and we go through this, mr. whitaker, there are a lot of issues that we've discussed personally and as far as knowing this and discussing things that we could

the doj is telling reporters now that those reports are wrong and the doj under bill barr will not get the mueller report by the end of next week. if you follow the news, you know already just that is a contrast to the doj's usual silence about mueller's end game which is what we mostly saw under rosenstein, session and whitaker. it all comes from democrats of six committees are demanding new a.g. release the entire mueller report when he does get it. so if that breaks during this program, i promise we will cover it for you live and everything that's in it. in the views of the special counsel so bad that he should face up to ten more years in jail. as mentioned, manafort faces the prospect of extra separate jail time because now new york prosecutors are reportedly preparing these separate charges for tax and banking crimes. some have referred to it as an insurance policy if donald trump pardons manafort. those charges could actually come within weeks, according to a new story in "the new york times" today. also tonight, as if that wasn't enough, reporting that michael cohen gave federa

the doj is telling reporters that those reports are wrong and the doj under bill barr will not get the mueller report by the end of next week. if you follow the news you know already just that alone is a contrast to the doj silence about the end game which is what we mostly saw under rosenstein and whitt kerr. it comes at top exacts from six congressional committee demanding that bill barr release the report whenever he gets it. bob mueller must also file the manafort sentencing memo tonight. if thaeks during the program i promise we will cover it live and everything in it. it must detail by manafort's confessed crimes in the have yous of the special counsel so bad he should face ten more years. as mentioned he faces the prospect of extra separate jail time. because now new york prosecutors are reportedly preparing the separate charges for tax and banking crimes. some referred to it as an insurance policy if donald trump pardons manafort. those charges could actually come within weeks according to a new story in "the new york times" today. also tonight, as if that wasn't enough, report

impeachment and the doj recommending against it.ergency, high crime or some reason the doj wanted to go forward? two former special counsel have argued indicting a president on the job is not always off the table. arguing in a memo that there was nothing in the constitution barring the indictment of a sitting president. and then you get into modern times. ken starr was famously the republican special counsel investigating clinton. when i asked him, he took the same view. >> you solicited an opinion for your investigation that argued a sitting president could be indicted. did you agree with that view then? >> yes. >> do you agree with that view now? >> yes. >> those are major prosecutorial opinions. neither of them actually did the thing they say they could have done legally. they say they have that power or think that power should exist but didn't indict a president as you know. doj guidelines and a debate over what they mean. they're not law. the man who wrote the ones for the special counsel said this. >> regulations say mueller y

i warned that doj would need to live by this precedent, and it will. as we mentioned, trump's former lower michael cohen begins three days of congressional hearings tomorrow. he'll go before the senate intelligence committee for a closed-door session first. then on wednesday he'll give public testimony before the house oversight committee, that it will be televised live. on thursday, another closed hearing with house intelligence. you may recall cohen already implicated trump in campaign finance violations involving hush money payments and he's already pleaded guilty for lying to congress at previous hearings about the trump tower moscow project. late last week we learned he's continued to give federal prosecutors here in new york information about trump's business operations. earlier today senate intel chair senator richard burr of north carolina said tomorrow's public hearing could last more than ten hours and they may revisit cohen's previous testimony. as for wednesday's public televised hearing, our colleague here ken dilanian gave us a sense of w

get to the end of this, the law is not on doj's side and the politics are not on doj's side. we look at polls, somewhere 90% of the american public want the mueller report to be released. obviously doj set a precedent in recent years turning over information about the clinton investigation to congress. in this investigation, they turned over thousands of pages of information when the president thought it would be to his advantage to turn thoefrm to congress. the idea they would then turn around and say we turned over the fisa application, we turned over all of these other documents we thought would hurt the investigation. now we will sit on the report that shows the outcome of the investigation is untenable. if you look at some of the privilege claims they might make, congress will often go to court to litigate them. they almost always get settled with the executive branch turning over the document that's congress wants. >> it's such a good point. the minute they stand up and say we can't turn this over, over christopher wray, the president's handpicked fbi director's objecti

. >> the fbi and the doj are against him. >> you mean his wife that got $500,000 from a democratic pact when she was running for a failed race for state office. nobody cares about that. >> the president did. >> the president addressed that in a tweet today. here's what is important. the number one and the number two at the fbi and other people in the highest of the fbi thought so little of the democratic elected president, thought so little that they needed a, quote, insurance policy. >> you're taking that from one text between lovers. >> that's enough for me. >> of course it is. out of convenience. >> well, wait a second, you want us to think that they're lovers but were they really, chris? where did they work? they worked at the fbi. they were top, top level. this all started with the dnc, clinton campaign funded dossier. i expect the clinton campaign to want to stop donald trump from being president. that's their job. i'm disappointed but i'm not surprised that most of the mainstream media tried to stop donald trump from being president but we should all be outraged, you included, th

. >> so eric, listen, barr also pointed out in his confirmation hearing that the doj doesn't release aren't going to be indicted. because the doj has a policy that the president can't be indicted, should that change how this is handled? >> that's an excellent point, don. and i think it very well might. because in a typical situation there is a privacy interest of someone who the doj had a chance to indict and decided not to. as you note the doj has long maintained that the president is constitutionally immune to indictment. he's not immune, of course, to impeachment. and to the extent that is something if indictment is not on the table then impeachment has to be at least theoretically on the table. and therefore there is far more than in the usual situation, a public interest in learning information, derogatory information about someone who even though that person is not going to be indicted by doj. >> garret, for as much as it looks like mueller wrapping things up, roger stone's case looks like it's really just beginning. could mueller be playing a longer game than we think? >> yeah

so get ready, this is all this is going to be, doj oversight. there are some things that are interesting here that you did point out in your opening statement that do need addressing, whether it's voting rights issues, and i get that, but i'm also going to deal with something that's directly under your oversight supervise, something i've read in a her -- and i believe that lying before this body or any body is wrong, but the issue is tactics. and my question is, were you aware of roger stone's indictment before it became public? >> congressman, that's a -- as you know, an important question. it is also -- mr. stone is part of an ongoing investigation, but i have again been briefed on the special counsel's investigation. that would have been considered a development that i would have been briefed on, and i was briefed on. >> are you familiar, from public boards or other, that a cnn reporter was camped outside of stone's outs when the fbi arrested him? um, this wouldn't be part of the investigation -- i am aware of that, and it was deeply concerni

and when parents are prosecuted and sentenced, they are in doj custody, correct? >> correct, they are custodies transferred to the u.s. marshal. >> these parents were in your custodies, your attorneys are prosecuting them and your department was not tracking parents who were separated from their children. do you know what kind of damage has been done to children and families across this country, children who will never get to see their parents again? do you understand the magnitude of that? >> i understand that the policy of zero tolerance -- >> has the justice department started tracking parents and legal guardians who were separated from their children at the border? >> the time of the gentle lady is expired. the witness may answer the question. >> congresswoman, i appreciate your passion for this issue and i know that you've been very involved on the front lines of this -- >> this is about more than my passion. this is about the children's future, mr. whitaker. please answer. go ahead. please. >> the witness may answer. >> congresswoman, the responsibility for

i warn that doj would need to live by this precedent and it will. schiff seems to be referring to justice department actions during the clinton e-mail investigation. he has subpoenaed -- threatened to subpoena both mueller and the report if it is not released in full. >>> house democrats showdown with president over his emergency declaration comes to a head today. it is all but certain to pass blocking one of the president's main tools for funding construction of his border wall. from there the resolution of disapproval will go to the republican controlled senate where its fate is far from certain. sunlen serfaty has more from th first step. they will be voting to try to block the national emergency declaration to get his border wall. there will be no drama in the house. that will sail right through. they will send to the senate and that is where there is a big test for senate republicans. many of whom have been very openly critical of this move by president trump, the question is will they vote against it, will they defy president trump. house demo

i think it was basically having other conversations with other officials at doj. there was frustration that the southern district were doing thing beyond doj's control. and i think part of this was about appeasing a deeply frustrated and often mercurial president who was, as jeffrey also said, very animated by this probe in the southern district, which, remember, is the one that is threatening to go into his business, into his company, it's now into the inaugural question. they are -- his lawyer has basically gone to war, rudy giuliani, with the southern district of new york, an office giuliani used to lead. so he knows very well how prosecutors take it when they get essentially the stakes raised as the president's lawyers have done. i think that there is a desire by sdny to run a fine-toothed comb for everything trump related and the chances that you find something are relatively high. >> go ahead, carl. and well, it's a terrific story that "the times" and maggie have done, from two points. one, it's a wide angle lens story in which "the times" has pulled out, pu

we know doj signed on to that.ial documents and a check not just from the president's organization or foundation, but a personal check from the president while he was president in 2017. so, i think that's the most strongly supportive of the criminal conduct outlined in this statement. >> so glad to you have walk through this testimony with us. in just a few hours, these 20 pages certainly a bombshell. let's bring in jim sciutto our international correspondent traveling with the president in hanoi. clearly, while this is on the president's mind if you look at his twitter feed, jim. . it is, if you look at cohen's statement, we have been told that cohen would not touch the subject of russia, that is off-limits in effect because of special counsel's investigation. but there are statements that get to the core. these are not small revelations for him. they get to the core of what the investigation was looking into. does the president, number one, know in advance of these wikileaks releases? cohen appears ready to testi

this is all this is going to be, doj oversight. and i'm going to say there is interesting things you did point out in the opening statement that need addressing. there's a lot of things, voting rights issues or civil rights issues and other things. i get that. but i'm also going to deal with something directly under your oversight. we're going to talk about something i've read in a letter about. i believe lying before this body or any body is wrong, especially under oath. that's not the issue. the issue is tactics. my question is were you aware of roger stone's indictment before it became public? >> congressman, that's a, as you know, an important question. it is also mr. stone is part of an ongoing investigation. but i have, again, been briefed on the special counsel's investigation. that would have been a -- that would have been considered a development that i would have been briefed on and i was briefed on that. >> are you familiar from public reports or otherwise that a cnn reporter was camped out outside of stone's house when

as you note, doj has long maintained that the president is constitutionally immune to indictment. not immune, of course, to impeachment. and to the extent that is something that if indictment is not on the table then impeachment has to be, at least theoretically, on the table. and therefore there is far more than the usual situation a public interest in learning information, derogatory information about someone who even though that person is not going to be indicted by doj. >> garrett, for as much as it looks like mueller is wrapping things up, roger stone's case looks like it's really just beginning. could mueller be playing a longer game than we think? >> yeah. and i think that, you know, even if bob mueller announces on tuesday that he's totally done, he's brought every charge that he's going to bring and he's going back to his golf game in california on wednesday, which i don't think is the most likely scenario, let me hasten to add, but this is a case that will likely go on for years in the various courts. you know, he has handed back parts of this investigation to the distri

the doj also denied mccabe's story saying it's inaccurate and factually incorrect.ng to the doj, we should note that mccabe was ultimately fired for a lack of candor about an issue relating to a clinton foundati foundation investigation. he contests that but lost his job over it. i'm going to begin one-on-one with matt miller who worked as a chief spokesperson for the justice department during the obama administration and knows a bit about the very strange terrain we're witnessing. thanks for being here. >> thank you, ari. >> just big picture so folks understand, did you ever hear anything like 25th amendment discussions when you were at the justice department? >> no, that was not one of the issues we faced under president obama. >> that did not come up? >> not quite. >> when you see it as described by mccabe, we'll get to the whole story and the truth, but if what he said was true, would that be inappropriate? >> no, not necessarily. i think it would be a fairly ineffective plot given that rod rosenstein isn't one of the people who would have a vote to actually exe

so his doj tried to show there would be no favoritism.ppointed a special task force run by the fbi director at the time bob mueller. that was bush's proof this was going to be a tough probe. and then mueller needed a point man to show it was going to be a tough probe, and he chose weissmann to lead a, quote, elite team of fbi agents and federal prosecutors to investigate and prosecute any crimes related to enron. now what was true then is very relevant now in the mueller probe. picking weissmann meant you would get very tough prosecution and maybe controversially so, because he is widely known for being effective and controversial. and that is based on three major tactics. keep an eye out for these as we see where this whole thing goes. one, he supersizes even seemingly small offenses to play hardball. two, he has managed to flip even hardened criminals into cooperating witnesses and he targets entire corporations or defendants' own family members. i repeat, defendants' own family members. now those first two tactics are pretty widely use

sessions became a gnu became chief of staff, doj leadership ordered a real validation and what do you know? the office of legal counsel found subtle and invisible points of law that apparently escape the department of justice back in 2011 and reversed the plain reading of the interpretation which talk specifically about sports betting. were you involved in that decision? >> congressman, the gentle general sessions was accused of the time the decision came out. >> were you recused to? >> i was not involved in the decision. no, i never met sheldon. >> to talk to his lobbyists? >> no, i do not but i do know charles cooper and i would point out one of the things -- >> you can ask the chairman for time but i can't give you my time but we only have five minutes. >> the gentleman controls the time and at the conclusion of his statement -- >> mr. chairman, the witness would like to answer -- >> but the gentleman controls the time. >> january for very 2018 the chairman and vice chairman of wild rose casino and resort in iowa each donated $200,600 to your senate campaign which was over four yea

it's suppose tod to be vetted b doj. many, many nights to make sure that if he goes through with this, they are prepared and not caught off guard the way they were. >> they have been preparing for that. it's not like he decided today to do a national emergency. he has been talking about it since the night he agreed to sign the spending bill telling allies, i will sign a national emergency. aides have been trying to make sure they are going through the legal loopholes. they have been preparing. they have had a lot of lawyers looking at this. >> if i can add one point of preparation. brett kavanaugh, his great cause as an appeals court judge was expanded presidential power. the issue of whether the president is allowed to use the national emergencies act in this way, it seems is very likely to wind up before the supreme court. the fact that neil gorsuch and kavanaugh are believers in expansion of presidential powers is likely to be very important in the resolution of this case. if i had to guess, i would think the presiden

that's according to multiple doj officials involved in the prep. they tried to prepare him for lengthy statements, harsh tones and leading questions. dozens of department officials have helped him prepare. those officials told the daily beast, working through the government shutdown to brief him and get him ready. among the questions they're preparing for him to field, did you have any communication with any white house official, including trump, about the possibility of your appointment as acting ag? did you consult with the white house about your decision to not recuse from the mueller problem before or after it was announced? and this one, have you ever received a briefing on the status of the special counsel's investigation? and if so, have you communicated any information you learned in that briefing? now, a high-stakes game of chicken between the justice department and house judiciary committee puts into question whether we will get any of those questions answered. that's where we start today, with some of our favorite reporters and friends.

that merger was rejected by doj and the fcc in 2010. that deal would have led to doj and the fcc found higher prices, less competition to discipline the marketplace, less competition would mean less innovation and service plans, less robust networks, lower customer service quality, less incentives to invest and deploy. those things are all true here. but in some instances this merger is worse. we're actually eliminating both of the smaller maverick competitors that challenge and discipline the behavior of the two larger companies in the marketplace. there are also increasing harms to the prepaid market, low-income consumers, lifeline marketplace and then lastly, the roaming and marketplace those harms are exacerbated here between to at&t and t-mobile. >> mr. sheldon, if a sprint employee is working at a retail store and they lose their job because they are working across the street from a t-mobile store, is the claim being made that that employee will get another retail job in that area? or do you think rather it's potentially these job

andrew mccabe sending shock waves through washington after confirming the doj talked about forcing president trump out of office. geraldo rivera is fired up about that and that's what he looks like from the chest up. ♪ . . . .

charlie: three and i'm telling you this is something that concerns the hell out of the trump doj. would concern them more if they both went under? because they couldn't stand on their own? charlie: are they going under? liz: they're not but you've seen t-mobile try multiple times to do different mergers. charlie: i'm just telling you there's only three of these companies around and if you're going to have three companies, you have to convince them that the price pressure won't be that dramatic. liz: but for tesla we only have the big three automakers, ford, fiat chrysler, and general motors. you know? consolidation happens. charlie: it does happen and those happen because businesses were going out of business, right? remember -- liz: there used to be 100 car makers. charlie: you had price pressure on the way down. the question is with these anti-trust things just so you know it's not that you have less of them. it's in creating less of them, anything, is the price pressure going down, or up? and there's the doj's statement it's interesting they are basically confirming what we're

like the sought after mergers before in i have full faith this the fcc and doj -- doj thoroughly review the facts to determine whether it is in the public interest of course, the merger. like the witnesses i await the decision and reasoning for that conclusion from all the information in the record. and i yoeld back, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair now recognizes ms. clarke. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank our ranking member and panelists for their testimony here today. speaking on behalf of my constituents in brooklyn, new york, they care about creating and keeping good paying jobs, particularly in new york city. however they have grown weiery and single of big corporations that seem to rake in money hand over fist while their hard working neighbors have to pinch pennies to make ends meet or to even afford the corporate offerings that we hear about and that sound so great for the consumer. if t-mobile and sprint merge there is going to be one less employer in this particular labor market. so mu question first is to mr.

he is the head of the doj, even if only for a few more days.d being in the department of justice is not like being in some other place or some other agency. it is staffed by assistant united states attorneys. it's the department of justice. if he testifies inconsistently with communications he's had not just with the president but with other folks at the doj, it's likely to come out. these are people who pay attention to things like inconsistent facts. it's something assistant u.s. attorneys are quite good at. so even though his tenure is almost at a close, the importance of his testimony is as important as ever. >> on january 28th, you made a statement, and i'm trying to understand more about that. you mentioned, and this is a direct quote, right now, referring to the mueller investigation, right now the investigation is close to being completed. what was the basis for that statement that you made, mr. whitaker? >> thank you for that question, congresswoman. i had a press conference announcing an important indictment related to huawei and thei

if he's not indicted, the best we'll be able to say is because doj policy says he can't be indicted. congress is the one who has to make that decision about whether there is accountability. they need the evidence that's been collected by mueller to fulfill their constitutional obligation. >> right. and that's where the limits of the starr precedent are, because he was operating under different rules that had a more formal transmission to congress on the idea that they would deal with anything they deemed a high crime. the distinction you draw is quite significant. rod rosenstein was sort of dancing around it when he spoke about the normal rules for nonpresidents, shall we say this. was just today. take a look. >> the guidance always gave my prosecutors and the agents i worked with during my tenure on the front lines of law enforcement were if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in open court, then we aren't prepared to make allegations against u.s. citizens. >> what's your sense? >> i think the dilemma of being rod rosenstein right now is no matter what you

how much pressure is the doj going to face here? you obviously saw these immediate responses from schiff and warner. >> there's going to be immense pressure on the department of justice. and what we could be seeing is much of what we saw from republicans, when they were trying to get information from the department of justice, into the trump investigation, into the russia investigation. so no doubt, there's going to be immense pressure. and i think people like adam schiff and mark warner are laying the ground work there. they're certainly hinting that they're going to fight. they want all the information that the department of justice has, as it relates to this investigation. the problem is, though, that, you know, while it may come as a surprise to some that we're hearing from rod rosenstein, no doubt that this was done today, with the intention, you know, i think, certainly, to prepare the american people that we may not see this report. we may not see everything that we certainly want to see. >> all right. shimon, thank you very

i understand the doj is unlikely to appeal a loss to the supreme court of the united states. doj.if at & t loses, and it's a possibility, this appellate division, it's a number of judges, packed with a lot of obama judges so that means there are more, you know, they -- liz: likely to -- >> like a consumer angle about big monopolies and things of that nature. they are, at & t we understand, sources telling fox business network, they are prepared to appeal to scotus. this will be a big deal when it comes out. the way i'm hearing it, it's imminent. days, maybe a couple weeks but it's coming down the pike. liz: my money is on at & t and time warner. i think the merger will go through. we already have one judge who is highly respected say not a problem, it's a horizontal situation, not a vertical. therefore, it should be fine. at & t does something different than what time warner does. >> yeah. i tell you, even the judges, it seemed like they were skeptical of the government's argument. however, listen, a lot of it's in the wording. if they say listen, we don't -- we have to see the wa

the doj needs to clean house and so does the fbi.the most avijayous in modern history. >> sean: how many people committed crimes? i want to ask exit question for all of you. sarah, we will start with you. >> i would say right now at least a dozen. i think there will be about a dozen referrals and i think there will include glenn simpson, too and other people from fusion gps and people who lied. >> sean: all the names from the fbi that we keep hearing and bruce and nellie ohr. >> that's right. >> sean: gregg, how many. >> i wouldn't be surprised if officials in there too. >> more than a dozen. of the new attorney general should haul them all in front of the federal grand jury. >> sean: what about hillary? does she get held accountable? >> they should reopen the investigation. it was a fraud. >> sean: last question. real quick, how many, david? >> i don't know how many. but the sure sign that someone did is that they can't get their stories straight. mccabe and comey are at odds with each other and so many of the issues. >> sean: we ha

the doj said, that's not enough assurance.st night that the agreement had been made and it was a full cave by the committee chairman. no subpoenas today. so everything that we did earlier in the day was a complete waste of time. what was even worse and let's talk about twitter accounts. last night around 8:00 the chairman's twitter account said acting attorney general was going to show up today at 9:30. the interesting thing is they linked to the 5:00 letter, not this letter which i ask now to be admitted to the record which, by the way, i was cc'd on but we'll put this in the record now. the letter to the acting attorney general in which the chairman of the committee says there will be no subpoena tomorrow and any differences we have we'll work on later. i ask that to be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> at 8:00 we send a tweet which many in the media picked up on and have run stories saying the reason the judiciary chairman wins, the attorney general is coming, he doesn't have assurances. he does. no subpoena

i warned that the doj would need to live by this precedent." and you can see, and he says, "and it will." it clearly is now, i think, the two battle lines are drawn here. and i think even though we haven't seen what's in the mueller report, and certainly what bill barr is going to send over to members of congress, it's not going to satisfy the members who want to see everything that came from this investigation, wolf. and i think you can see that adam schiff is signaling that. >> what he's signaling also is what was good for the republican majority in the house, they demanded hundreds of thousands of pages of documents involving hillary clinton, even though she wasn't charged with a crime, they got those documents. now, schiff is saying, you know what, when you were the majority, you got those documents, now we're the majority, we're going to get those documents involving president trump. >> and i can tell you that inside the justice department, when those fights were going on, that's exactly the concern. the concern that arose, the idea that i

>> i don't think he can. >> reporter: the doj calls mccabe's version of events inaccurate, and president trump is going even further, describing mccabe's story as deranged and calling it illegal and treasonous, but the former fbi director discussed invoking the 25th amendment to remove the president from office. >> he should have gone immediately and said that rosenstein should be removed from office. >> reporter: mccabe was fired from the fbi last year, accused of lying under oath about his int interactions with the media. marlie, back to you. >> hallie, thank you. >>> more trouble for roger stone this morning. the former trump adviser is apologizing for an instagram post attacking the federal judge hearing his case. the artwork included inflammatory language as well as crosshairs in the upper corner of the post. stone has pleaded not guilty to several charges stemming from the russia investigation including obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to congress. stone took down the online post and apologized in a court filing, saying that it was improper and that he had

>> i think there's a sentiment from certain doj officials who feel as though the fact the man who ran the fbi, who opened these investigations is now talking about opening these investigations, talking about the factual predicate for them while the investigation is still going on. while mueller is still completing his work so that's the issue that's been raised when it comes to his discussions about briefing the gang of eight, those top intel officials on capitol hill about these sensitive materials. on the other hand, there are career professionals at doj who have been battered for the past two years and feel like mccabe is sticking up for their voice. >> thank you very much laura jarrett, tim schultz. nice to have you. >>> we are following all the developments on these two major stories. will the president see any political fallout and how will republicans respond? >>> also, southwest airlines is cancelling hundreds more flights tod today. the airline declaring an operational emergency due to maintenance issues. what's going on? >>> and russian president vladimir putin threatening t

>> congressman, i made my recusal decision by myself. >> there were career doj officials who advised you that you should not touch that investigation; isn't that correct? >> congressman -- >> yes or no? >> i consulted with career ethics officials. i consulted with my senior staff. i consulted with the office of legal counsel. it was my decision to make. i decided not to recuse. i'm happy to walk through the step by step advice that i received. >> there were four individuals who you consulted who advised you that you had the ability to not recuse yourself from this investigation, isn't that correct? >> congressman, the regulations actually say -- >> four individuals advised you that you did not have to recuse yourself; is that correct? >> congressman, let me be clear. it was my decision -- >> you're not being clear, sir, other than in your obstruction and refusal to answer. >> i'm not obstructing anything. i'm answering your question. i consulted with a lot of people regarding my recusal. >> you're not telling me who it was. who did you consult with? >> as i mentioned, i consulted wit

i warned that doj would need to live by the precedent, and it will.ts are ready to go to battle for this report. we may not even -- you know, we may not even see what's in the report. do they have a strong case if they subpoena someone of getting this information out? >> they could. i mean this is all sort of new territory. i want to be clear. there are going to be legitimate reasons why the public does not see all the information in this report. we have, as you said -- you know, we have at least 30 cases ongoing. we have 199 indictments. there are going to be reasons to protect sources, methods, investigations, information. so this idea that it's like sunshine rules, i think it's just ridiculous for even democrats to say at this stage. what we need to do is set the standard for what should be disclosed, right? this is where rosenstein, i think, we should not lose our heads over what he said. it was clear he was not talking about -- at least when i saw the whole thing, that he was not talking about the president of the united states because the presid

he was another one that some considered a career position at the doj. he had jordan kelly there. he's currently director of cyber security policy and response at the nsc, at the white house. there are reports that she met routinely with the mueller investigators. you know, between these people who -- like tashina gahar just thought yates was wonderful, i would hope that wisdom and you as acting director, wisdom in the incoming attorney general, would be to look at the backgrounds, look at the people who are political hacks and figure out, oh, they're giving me advice on this? this is not for my well-being, this is to hurt the president of the united states. and i know you may just have another week, but i would encourage you that as people make a big deal about career, look beyond career. look where their loyalties are, because even though they may be in a career position, if their loyalties are not to the attorney general and not to the president of the united states and are more political than they are constitutional, disregard what they say. >> the time of the gentleman has ex

he was another one that some considered a career position at the doj. let's see -- he had jordan kelly there, who is currently director of cyber security policy. the nsc, the white house. there were reports that she met routinely with the mueller investigators. between these people like tashina gauhar just thought yates was wonderful. i would hope that in wisdom, as acting director, wisdom in the incoming attorney general, will be to look at the background, look of the people who are political hacks, and figure out, "there give me advice on this? this is not for my well-being. this is to hurt the president of the united states." i know you may just have another beat, but i would encourage you that, as people make a big deal about career, look beyond career. look where their loyalties are. even though they may be in a career position, if their loyalties are not to the attorney general and not to the president of the united states and are more political than they are constitutional, disregard what they say. because the time of the gentleman has expired. m

. >> i wonder what the options would be for doj or robert mueller. there is talk that you can't indict a sitting president or about whether it is true or not. when you look at the evidence that we laid oit at the tut at the show, all the way the president is trying to undermine and under cut to stop the investigation and struck the investigation and witness tamper and etcetera, it makes you wonder what more is needed. >> andrew mccabe was on "morning joe" this morning, he says back in 2017, there was evidence in his mind of obstruction. let's listen. >> i was confident in may of 2017 that we had what fac had e indicating the president of obstruction of justice. >> paul, go ahead. >> a couple of thoughts, katy. it is true that doj policy currency says a sitting president may not be charge but it does not say anything when the president leaves office. if the president is still in office, that can change the game. bob mueller has the power of the pen. every time they approach obstruction of justice or try to slow or impede this investigation, that's ano

kennedy: you look at the chasm within the fbi and the doj.etta lynch and james comey totally turned on each other. there's probably a lot of vitriol left in their quivers. and now you have them doing the exact same thing, the exact dynamic. lock it up over at the justice department, okay? you guys have a job to do and it's much more than protecting your own futile power. marc lotter, thank you so much. always great to talk to you. kennedy: democrat politicians are eating crow after allegations of the alleged attack of smollett. the pnl joins me t ponl joins ps after the break. the latest innovation from xfinity isn't just a store. it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. ♪ kennedy: god bless aleya. cops in chicago want to talk to jussie smollett and they're working for a mutually benl time

the doj is pushing back on that. mccabe is standing firm, no, rosenstein was not joking about wearing a wire to meet with the president of the united states. >> yes, the doj is pushing back and they never authorized anyone to wear a wire. they did not say it was discussed. it was well confirmed. this is an absolutely fascinating account. what's particularly interesting to me and what's new is mccabe make a decision to open an obstruction of justice investigation in addition to counter intelligence investigations reported a few weeks ago. all of this he was doing to make sure these investigations could not be made to go away. it would be interesting to know why he felt there was a risk of that happening. i find it fascinating about his comments for the need of special counsel because they did not want to be in a position that comey is in announcing a result where charges were not filed against clinton. we may be entering a similar phase. mueller does not end up charging a conspiracy case. the rule says he has to file