as a general matter, if an f.b.i. agent has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, do they have a duty to report it? >> that's a good question. i don't know that there's a legal duty to report it. they certainly have a cultural, ethical duty to report it. >> you're unsure whether they would have a legal duty? i've th, it's a good question. before. there's a statute that prohibits knowing of a felony and taking steps to conceal it, but this is a different question. so, look, let me be clear, i would expect any f.b.i. agent who has any information about a crime to report it. >> me, too. but where you rest that obligation, i don't know. it exists. >> and let me ask you as a general proposition, if you're trying to make an investigation go away, is firing an f.b.i. director a good way to make that happen? by that, i mean -- >> yeah, doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but i'm hopelessly biased, given that i was the one fired. >> i understand it's personal. no, given the nature of the f.b.i. i meant what i said,

as a general matter, if an f.b.i. agent has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, do they have a duty to report it? >> that's a good question. i don't know that there's a legal duty to report it. they certainly have a cultural, ethical duty to report it. >> you're unsure whether they would have a legal duty? >> yeah, it's a good question. i've not thought about it before. there's a statute that prohibits knowing of a felony and taking steps to conceal it, but this is a different question. so, look, let me be clear, i would expect any f.b.i. agent who has any information about a crime to report it. >> me, too. but where you rest that obligation, i don't know. it exists. >> and let me ask you as a general proposition, if you're trying to make an investigation go away, is firing an f.b.i. director a good way to make that happen? by that, i mean -- >> yeah, doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but i'm hopelessly biased, given that i was the one fired. >> i understand it's personal. no, given the nature of the f

and your pretty damn whilely when asked if an f.b.i. agent has a duty to report a crime. >> i'm not sure they have a legal duty but they have a cultural and ethical duty to report it. judge jeanine: now you are not sure about an issue central to your testimony, like when you and your pal special counsel mueller had a show described as the single most extraordinary moment of the bush years? obstruction of justice by the president. you and i both know if you know that and don't report it, you are guilty of a felony. >> it's not tore me to say whether the conversation i had with the president was an effort to obstruct. i took it as a disturbing thing. judge jeanine: are you skits oh? are you the same guy who announced to the world that no reasonable prosecutor would indict hillary? by the way, mr. america, how is it you always seem to find yourself in the middle of a national crisis like the time you called the f.b.i. to rush into john ashcroft's hospital room to stop president bush and save the nation. you spend a lot of time talking abou

if the f.b.i. all materials containing f.b.i. information in my possession. that means that if an f.b.i. agent, director, f.b.i. employee, makes notice, makes a memorandum to refresh his recollection later, it is not a personal piece of property any more than what sandy berger stuffed in his socks were personal property to him. doesn't matter that he prepared it. it was done while being paid by the f.b.i. on f.b.i. time. regarding f.b.i. matters. as f.b.i. director he was talking to the president. how ironic also, we had no memos after president obama made the basic statement that he didn't think hillary should be prosecuted. we didn't -- we haven't heard ny outcry from the great director comey about how wrong that was, what an obstruction of justice by president obama. we didn't hear any of that. that's about as direct as you can get. when the president was talking on television and told the world and the fact that you may say it out front to the world doesn't make it any less intimidating or directional than if you look somebody in the face one-on-one and tell them. it's not a defense. to say it on television

as a general matter, if an f.b.i. agent has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, do they have a duty to report it? >> that's a good question. i don't know that there's a legal duty to report it. they certainly have a cultural, ethical duty to report it. >> you're unsure whether they would have a legal duty? >> yeah, it's a good question. i've not thought about it before. there's a statute that prohibits knowing of a felony and taking steps to conceal it, but this is a different question. so, look, let me be clear, i would expect any f.b.i. agent who has any information about a crime to report it. >> me, too. but where you rest that obligation, i don't know. it exists. >> and let me ask you as a general proposition, if you're trying to make an investigation go away, is firing an f.b.i. director a good way to make that happen? by that, i mean -- >> yeah, doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but i'm hopelessly biased, given that i was the one fired. >> i understand it's personal. no, given the nature of the f

if you get that information at d.o.j., mr. rosenstein? information from a 702 collection clearly indicates there's a crime involving a u.s. person. mr. rosenstein: i hesitate so that's an f.b.i. question. director mccabe: if that's a u.s. person we begin to build an investigation aimed towards title 1 fisa collection. senator blunt: with adequate protections for u.s. persons and that is the -- director mccabe: of course. senator blunt: thank you, mr. chairman. senator burr: senator kaine. senator kaine: like senator feinstein, i want to express my support for this important tool for our intelligence agencies. i do have a concern which we can discuss perhaps in closed by on about the process which american names which are incidentally collect ready then queried. senator king: i'm concerned about the distinction between query and search and where we run into the fourth amendment. it strikes me as boot strapping to say we collected it legally under 702 and then we can go and look at these american persons and i believe that the fourth amendment imposes a warrant requirement in between that step which is not present, the present process. we can discuss that at greater length. mr

an explosion in the media over the james comey testimony. >> the president brings in the f.b.i. director and says please stop your investigation. if that isn't an obstruction of justice, i don't know what is. >> if you are a republican i think you have got specific things you can defend the president on. but atmospherically this is a horrendous day for the president. >> politically i thought it was damaging to the president. >> today was predicted to be the worst day of the presidency and donald trump knows it. >> they wanted watergate and they got a water balloon. everything they learned we already know. howie: the president hitting back at a news conference. >> no collusion, no obstruction. he's a leaker, and frankly james comey confirmed a lot of what i said and some of the things he said just weren't true. howie: the media hardly buying his claim of complete vindication. comey also going after the "new york times." >> that report by the "new york times" was not true, is that true? >> in the main, it was not true. i asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. howie: leaking, does that undermine come

an f.b.i. director alone. i think it would probably be worse asking a number of former f.b.i. directors if they ever had one-on-one conversations with the president. >> woodruff: even in the middle of this kind of an investigation? >> yes. i mean, i think in hindsight anybody that looks at it would go, it would have been better for that not to have occurred, but the fact that the president asked and the attorney general... i mean, he's a courteous man. i think he respected the president's wishes. and more than anything, judy, what came through the me today more than an attorney general was i saw a man who said, you're not going to play political football with my integrity and said that very, very firmly even as to that question. >> woodruff: walter dellinger, what did you take away from the hearing, and what about the specific point about the president asking everybody to clear the room while he talked to james comey? >> i think what was particularly improper about that conversation was the content of it, that is the president saying, i hope you will end this investigation into general fly

an f.b.i. informant. finally today if you're having trouble sleeping and i we have news that will put your mind. or something that you as our may just successfully test it for the first time ever a powerful new. gun for a military gun or actor or a theone and although dr evil would be disappointed believe they're being wise and attached to a shark had it was attached to a flying apache attack helicopter and used it to hit tank from a mile away if you weren't oriya shirred enough it's also silent invisible to the human eye and weather permitting has perfect i am better at an anti missile or a firearm great but not to worry the army has made clear that although the laser gun is powerful enough to destroy a modern to anchor couple is to miss a lot of the sky its power can just be. only adjusted to hit humans outta this where non-lethal level where it remains unclear out how raytheon. plans to test that particular capability. sidling thank you rosie always a. laser beams are the perfect show for you to. remember everyone in t

f.b.i. to drop an investigation? and if so, would that be obstruction of justice? you said words matter. that's why this is so critical. because if the president merely was hinting at or suggesting or as he said today flat out didn't do it, that's one thing. if mr. comey's version is correct, that's another. and a problem for bob mueller is you've got just the two of them in the room. yesterday by the way the president's counsel came out and said after comey's testimony, well, he never said those things. the only way the counsel would know that is whatever mr. trump told him. robert: julie, when you look at the white house response and the president, he is working with a hard charging new york lawyer and when it comes to this answer, the question about what did the president ask comey to layoff former national security adviser michael flynn, it is about the word as the senator said in the hearing, did he hope to do it or did he want to do it, did he direct comey to do it? are they parcing words over on pennsylvania avenue? julie: i think they are. they have to because at this point they

if he's being investigated? i have no clue. kennedy: what's the difference between an f.b.i. investigation and special counsel. would the f.b.i. have to let him know whether he's under investigation? and would special counsel? >> no. if anybody takes that tweet where the president treats out and says, i'm being investigated. at this stage of the game, if you take the tweet at its face vool you a and that's what you are basing your story on, i have seen stories, the president said i'm being investigated. you are probably missing the lack of nuance and sophistication in the president's tweets. i don't take any of that at face value. that's a guy talking who for a long time is running small business it's a self-inflicted wounds. kennedy: he can gift context with other tweets before and after. the fact that he was saying let's start with the hypothesis that i'm going investigated. >> the 140-character limit. kennedy: you points out that this president might be -- tie go book and forth whether trump is a genius or special needs child. he will do things that are politically brilliant. he had such a political victory.

f.b.i. there is an ethics rule. if you have a relationship with a person who could be a target or a witness, you should recuse yourself. in that dynamic jeff sessions can't fire him, donald trump can't fire him. it's the person who made the appointment. in this case mr. rosenstein. when you see the headlines trump is going to fire him, trump can't fire that individual. you have got a series of questions here that you could tell they are moving away from the collusion and they now want it to be about -- they are impeding this investigation. so that tells the viewer even the democrats realize arguing about collusion doesn't make sense. gerri: there is no there there is what you are saying. thanks, tammy and rich. sessions addressing comey's comment about his recusal from the investigation. >> the question is, mr. comey said there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he couldn't talk about them. what are they? >> why don't you tell me. there are none. i can tell you that for absolute certaint

if we do that we have a requirement to report or inform the department of justice and f.b.i. and they make the determination if it's illegal or not. we're anrganization not a law enforcement organization. the second question we ask ourselves, is there anything in this conversation that would lead us to believe we're talking about harm to individuals? in that case we do report it. if we think there is harm to individuals or criminal we report it. other than that, unless there is a valid intelligence purpose, depending on the authority in the case of 702 we specifically purge the data. we remove it. we don't put it into our holdings. if we don't assess there is intelligence value and it is a u.s. person we have to purge the data. >> as i indicated, i have some questions on another matter and director coates and admiral rogers will mostly be directed at you gentlemen. thank you for your testimony this morning. we all know now that in march then director comey testified about the existence of an ongoing f.b.i. investigation into links between the trump campaign and the russian government. there are reports out in the press that the president s

an explosion in the media over the james comey testimony. >> the president brings in the f.b.i. director and says please stop your investigation. if obstruction of justice, i don't know what is. >> if you are a republican i think you have got specific things you can defend the president on.

an explosion in the media over the james comey testimony. >> the president brings in the f.b.i. director and says please stop your investigation. ifuction of justice, i don't know what is. >> if you are a republican i think you have got specific things you can defend the president on.

an offense. and if press accounts are right, there might have been discrepancies between facts and his f.b.i.mony. in your estimation, was general flynn, at that time, in serious legal jeopardy? and in addition to that, do you sense that the president was trying to obstruct justice or just seek for a way for mike flynn to save face, given he had already been fired? >> general flynn at that point in time was in legal jeopardy. there was an open f.b.i. criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the russian contacts and the contacts themselves. and so that was my assessment at the time. i don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation i had with the president was an effort to obstruct. i took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning. but that's a conclusion i'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try to understand what the intention was there and whether that's an offense. >> director, is it possible that as part of this f.b.i. investigation, the f.b.i. could find evidence of criminality that is not tied to the 2016 elections, possible collusion, or coor

f.b.i., have conversations with the last administration about the risk that this posed? >> yes. >> and share with us, if you will, what actions they too? >> well, the f.b.i. had already undertaken an effort to notify all the victims and that's what we consider the entities that were attacked as part of this massive spear phishing campaign and we notified them in an effort to disrupt what might be ongoing and a series of continuing interaction with entities in 15 and 16 and in 16 we were trying to respond to the intrusion we saw. >> the f.b.i. in this case, unlike other cases you might investigate, did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected? >> in the case of the dnc, and i believe the dccc but i'm sure the dnc we did not have access to the devices themselves. we got relevant forensic information from a private party. high-class entity that had done the work. >> content part of the important part of the forensics from a counter intelligence standpoint >> it is. my folks said they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion

an f.b.i. director perhaps say i was urged to thwart an investigation into a nominee to be the national security advisor to the president, ifct that is what he says? >> so, before jim comey was fired, i thought there were three issues that needed to be investigated with regard to trump associates and the russians. the first, which jim comey earlier said the f.b.i. was indeed investigating, was, did any trump associates conspire with the russians in their interference of our election? did any of them help the russians? choose the material to be released, for example, for maximum impact? help them think about the timing of releasing the material for maximum impact? did anybody do that? second is, did russian organized crime longer monday -- money through the trump organization over an extended time? remember, one of the president's sons said russian money is flowing in, right? and there has been -- there is enough there to at least ask that question. if anybody in the trump organization new that it was russian organized crime money, that would be a crime. and even if they did not know, the question becomes, did they do the du

committee he would not fire him except for cause, as if it was the standard, and it was an independent event. this is not an absolutely independent f.b.i not an absolutely independant special counsel. and they like every person in the executive department of this government are -- report indirectly to the president, period. ends of story, right? >> the thing is a lot of this with mueller is a non-story. it makes you scratch your head because you are reading between the lines. he didn't talk with trump. no one told him that. it's about ability for them to use this as a sounding board for them to say what they want to say to make their opinions. it doesn't matter what of any >> some of these leaks as you know are extraordinarily damaging to the united states security. and we have got to restore a regular order principle. lou: attorney barbara smith joins me to discuss the potential discussions for the director leaker next. i've been blind since birth. i go through periods where it's hard to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. learn about non-24 by calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com. your insurance on time. tap one lit

f.b.i. in particular, when they get lied to in an investigation, tends to turn over -- even if they're not going to charge you, they turn over every rock in your life and really look at everything. >> rose: explain to me now, as much as you can, about the fact that the trump response was delighted about the notion that the fired former f.b.i. director james comey had taken these memorandum and then he sent them to a friend, and the friend released them to the "new york times" in part, and it's unclear whether he just read them or read some of them and gave some of the others. what can you help us understand about that and what the "new york times'" response is to the accusations by the trump administration? >> so what comey said yesterday was that his friend who he told to put out this information had a copy of one of the memos. from comey's understanding of it, these memos are not classified. these are simply his recollections of his interactions with trump. we have never had copies of the memo. as we pointed out in our stories, we've written three or four stories about the memos. parts of them

an appalling and detectable lie. scott: the appearance doesn't end the scrutiny. a couple of senators asked the f.b.i. to investigated to determine if sessions committed perjury in january when he said he hadn't had any meetings with the russians. >> a university of virginia student held in korea has been released. however, h otto warmbier's parents say the 22-year-old serving 15-year prison term had been in a coma for more than a year but they just found out about his medical condition last week. north korean officials say he tried to steal a propaganda banner in 2016. sources saying that the student had botulism and is being thrown back to the united states. nancy: you have an hour left to vote in the primary. michelle: voters are heading to the polls to vote on a number of races but the high profile ones are governor and lieutenant governor. ralph northam and tom perriello are battling for the democratic nomination. ed gillespie was leading in the recent polls. voting had to be moved outside after this hazmat incident. there was a chemical spill in the building. everyone is okay. whooping cough surfaced at a school in northern vi

if it was so egregious, howbout make an issue of it before he was canned. the president will be live tweeting which i wholeheartedly endorsed. he's nominating chris christie's former attorney to be the f.b.i. director. if we are not going to get out of comey's heart of stone, at least the president will make it entertaining for the rest of us. i'm kennedy. part of james comey's statement released earlier refer to michael flynn. he says he's a good guy and has been through a lot. i hope you can see your way clear to let him go. i reply only that he is a good guy. i did not say i would let this go. heavy stuff. tim carney joins me tonight. joining me, tim carney. there is one thing i know about james comey. he has enemies on both sides of the aisle. it seems the intel committee was in a kerfuffle as they grilled thmembers of the adminiration. so now what should we expect? is there more animus in store for comey's testimony? >> the tension today is they were refusing to answer questions about conversations they had with the president or comey had with the president. and they were giving what i thought and the democratic senators thought were bogus, thin reasons for not doing it. none of thos

f.b.i. as an act of terrorism in our homeland. charles: gop, well, they were wondering if there were enough vote to repeal and replace obamacare once and for all. if not, this would be a monumental disaster. here to discuss, tammy bruce, ford o'connell. this is the first in a long line of dominoes that have to go through. it could be the biggest legislative win because it make everything else easier. it has been crafted in secret. mike lee is one of the republican senators upset about that. tammy: this it part and parcel of how legislation is done. it's been so long since legislation has been crafted with obama we never got to see it. so i'm not concerned about that. but there are so many divisions -- in the actual end result. it would have gone smoother if they had been focused the last several years. i we hear that the senate version though is actually similar to the house version which could be somewhat help new. whatever it is that get announced tomorrow. whatever end up coming out will probably not look anything like it. a big deal this fact the opioid epidemic and mo

to find out what was the situation was there an unwillingness or reluctance to share their server with the f.b.i. or d.h. is that something that gives me if you think a crime took place is that the thing that you then go to the authorities who would be able to decipher what's on there right but instead you want to a private company a private company that you're paying to give you potentially i mean i'm sure you want they're paying you they're going to give you what they think you want to hear at the end of the day. sorry i have to see you with i want to talk about crime. before the election he said you need a million voters this in franchised voters of color who would normally vote democrat would be disenfranchised by voter rolls you know cross check and other things like this software that's the real investigation and that's not being called for because you have to create a war with russia and it's just it's it's insane to create to follow this one narrative you know basically to lose our democracy here because there is this threat this event as it takes place in this country we know it right and it's. it's very simple it's very. old sch

f.b.i. will be going over it at an indoor location somewhere. really looking if there is anything more they can find in there. if we come back at 6:00, we will tell you more about the man's a leading up to this shooting. fascinating story. so now we want to head back to nancy chen at nats park. nancy: brad, thank you very much. see you then. meantime, interest in tonight's game is really at an all-time high. if you are coming down to nats park for the game, or if you are just in the area and you want to send your well wishes, i want to show you something. abc7 and newschannel8 has put together this banner for those who were injured in yesterday's incident. so you can sign it. leave a message of well wishing and we will send it over to the people who are affected on capitol hill. so please come by and see our abc7 team for that. some notes, though. if you are heading down here, security is tight. just like at any other event at nats park. there are metal detectors. all bags will be checked. tickets are going fast. you can expect a big crowd tonight. also, give you

if true. according to this account-- in order to implore the director of the f.b.i. to drop anestigation of a friend or associate, that's the core of why many of our rules and customs were in place was to prevent exactly that type of conversation or interference from occurring. >> woodruff: so now, here we are, a month and a half later, this is march 30, the president phones jim comey at the f.b.i. he repeatslet idea of a cloud over his administration because of the russia investigation. h so, matt apuzzo, we're back to that same scenario, back and forth, where the president is asking the f.b.i. director to do something. >> yeah. i mean, look, you can see why donald trump might be frustrated, right. setting aside the fact that he's the president. if you've been told "you are not under investigation personally," but yet your administration can't escape the cloud of this investigation, and you kind of just want it to be over, you can see why you would say, "hey, what do i have to do to make this go away? if i'm not under investigation, why can't you just say that?" that's a very

the fact is if he felt he was being -- there was an obstruction to justice he had an obligation to report that, he did not, case closed. >> shannon: that will be number one question. the f.b.iclined to turn over so-called comey memos if they exist. reported through anonymous sources to this point. current house oversight committee chair jason chaffetz think congress should be able to get to them because they're federal documents if they exist. >> if they exist they are federal documents. how did the staff get their hands on his private memos? i would like to ask that. how did the f.b.i. director do a private memorandum. allowed that staff to leak it to a newspaper? i think -- while he is testifying with the special counsel. what doesn't look right here? everything looks wrong. that's the truth. this whole thing is a setup. i'm afraid to say that the memos would be self-serving at best. may not exist at worst. but what they're doing is trying to paint a picture here. the left better be very careful. if i was on that committee i would bear down on james comey and ask him first you are under oath again, director, former director comey. three times you've had to correct your te

opened himself up to an interview with with the top investigator in this russia investigation, a special counsel, bob mueller. former director of the f.b.i., a prosecutor. and so if you are the president's personal attorney, perhaps right now you're pulling your hair out, because it's going to be hard the walk back from making that kind of statement, subjecting yourself essentially to an interview with the top prosecutor in this case, just as you're calling out the former f.b.i. director about his integrity and whether he's telling the truth about these meetings. so at some point, the people leading this russia investigation are going to have to get to the bottom of the answers here about those meetings and what was happening in those meetings, and so to do that, it seems increasingly likely that they will have to question president trump. >> pelley: well,ings that to our team this afternoon, jeff pegues, john dickerson, margaret brennan and nancy cordes. essentially what's happened is that an investigation that began into whether there was russian meddling in the u.s. election and began the look into several members of the president's campaign has now moved into

an unflinching look at the motivations of the shooter here. and i think that will be pieced together the next few days if you watch the f.b.i. briefing. the agent said nothing about what's going on. the first question was did the shooter have a vendetta against republicans. he wouldn't answer. and he wouldn't answer almost everything else either. we need to take this unflinching look at how he was motivated and what happened. farce some sort of unity, sure there is unity that members of congress don't want to see this happen. but does it mean they will get along on obamacare and taxes and other issues that divide them? no. charles: they don't want to put the cart before the horse. but we are all intelligence enough to know what happened. i think what was interesting from the press conference before the show, law enforcement has reasons to believe the shooter had been in alec an tria since march perhaps living out of his car. this is a person not unlike the lone wolf jihadist americans who start to plot against their fellow americans in plain sight. tammy: where i'm politically passionate and people watching this program are as well. b