justice sotomayor: i'm sorry. i justice alito: but, mr. cox, you know the -- the fourth amendment says the people have the right to be secure in their homes, papers, persons, and effects. so in the curtilage -- the curtilage issue goes to the question of whether it is a search of the home. if it's not in the curtilage -- curtilage, then it's not a search of the home, the fourth amendment doesn't apply. but once you get beyond that, it is a search of the home, the ultimate fourth amendment question is always is it a reasonable search? and that's where we are here. is it reasonable? it's a balancing of interests. that's what reasonableness meant in -- at the end of the 18th century; it's what it means today. and so you have to grapple with the real privacy interests that are involved in the case versus the other considerations; namely, the mobility of the automobile. and that, i understand your argument to be, is why it's reasonable to draw a distinction between an enclosed place like the house or garage and an open place like a driveway, ev

justice: and maybe even right now. [laughter] gov. justice: you know? but there are real possibilities there. we got to put somebody on it, and i am going to put west virginia state, marshall university in west virginia university working this and bringing us real ideas as to what we can do. i will be able to tell them very quickly, there was no way on this planet that will work. or i will be able to tell them, yes, that is the real deal. now, we cannot possibly not talk about china. you talk about an 800 pound gorilla in the room, not me. [laughter] is thestice: but china possibility beyond all of our possible dreams. it could really happen. and the reason it could probably happen is two things. cards if wee trump have any to trump cards. president trump genuinely wants a trade -- wants the trade imbalance with china to change. if president trump is putting his first foot forward and saying that a big part of the changes happening in west virginia. president trump and i are friends, and president trump doesn't want me calling him, saying, donald, why i

justice scalia always spoke well of justice ginsburg. >> guest: yeah. >> host: he might not join one of her opinions, but he never derided her. ng he respected her, she respected him, they were friends and it's unfortunate that you just don't see a lot of that anymore. people who have fundamentally different political or ideological, but nonetheless could work together and be friends. >> guest: it does seem like ideology has taken a hold of everything, and. >> host: right. >> guest: and i think, if people let that happen they're missing out on encounters with a lot of great people and friendships. in their case, they focused on what they had in common. it was an awful lot. they were born in-- well, my dad was born in trenton, but grew up in new york around the same time. they had that in common. i think that was an element to their friendship. they both loved opera and they had cameo appearances in opera together and their spouses were great friends, too. my mother is a great cook. justice ginsburg's husband marty was basically a gourmet chef and justice ginsburg and my dad both like

the justice department. >> right. lou: we have an fbi in which the same thing appears to be the case. there is no action under way, criminal action against those who have -- it is reasonably believed defrauded a fisa court and have surveilled u.s. citizens unlawfully. and he has to put up with a general counsel, he the president, that is conflicted as any person involved in this corrupt mess over justice and the fbi. >> he'll end up talking to mueller and he will say, i don't know any russians. i never collaborated or colluded with them. as for obstruction of justice, i never tried to interfere in an investigation. i followed the advice of rod rosenstein who wrote a memo telling me to fire commie and under the constitution i can fire anybody in the federal branch for a reason or no reason at all, period. lou: and if it's obstruction of justice, it's a constitutional crisis. >> that, sir, is absolutely right. this is not obstruction of justice. lou: all right. great to have you with us. thank you. >>> be sure to vote i

[laughter] an aggressive record justice ruth bader ginsburg -- amy: supreme court justice ruth badersburg speaking with nina totenberg. they have known each other for 40 years. she is one of the people interviewed in the new documentary about ruth bader ginsburg that will go throughout the week called rbg. our guests are the films the film's directors and producers. her talknever heard about this, but it is absolutely true that there really was no whenfor sexual harassment ruth bader ginsburg was being discriminated against as a young later all of the women who flooded into the workplace in the 1970's, the sort of felt like, hey, this was the price of entry, something we have to put up with in order to have these fantastic jobs. and it was catherine mackinnon who was really just a young just out of law school -- she may still have been a law school -- when she started working on this concept and wrote this paper that was absolutely seminal, in fact, was quoted by the supreme court in the mid-1980's. some of the exact language that she used. said, itader ginsburg was a revelation. hey

but if he was sent to the justice department by the president, specifically to interfere with the justice department on a law enforcement matter, specifically to interfere with jeff session's rekuszr recusal decision, how they administer the rule of law, then that would be a pretty obvious violation of those important rules that govern how the white house and justice department are supposed to communicate with each other to avoid white house pressure. if mcgahn lobbied sessions, if mccann did in fact do what the "new york times" reports he did, there is a reasonable legal ethics case to be made don mccann should resign as white house counsel for having done that. that said, nbc further, this story today when they reported that the president didn't just send the white house counsel don mcgahn to the justice department to go lobby jeff sessions. according to nbc, the president sent multiple senior white house personnel to the justice department to lobby jeff sessions that he shouldn't recuse himself from the russia investigation. so both of those things, both the fact that the president rep

that's where we are today. >> and the fact that he calls the justice can want deep state justice departments deep state justice department must finally act. suggesting there is this deep state conspiracy there out to get him. >> yeah. this you know, this makes like the breitbart website look like the london times. this is such crazy talk that again, you know, maybe we're just ignoring these tweets at this point. maybe we're just dismissing them, but the idea that the president of the united states who is the head of the executive branch is talking about something in his justice department that's deep state, i mean, it's just madness. this is not how presidents have ever behaved in all of american history. >> sam is with us as well. you're a former national security analyst during the obama administration. i want to read to you the response from sally yates, the fired deputy attorney general acting attorney general at one point. she tweeted this. potus on 12/28, quote, i have the absolute right to do what i want with the justice department, closed quote. today, he slanders career department

that satisfy the justice department's concerns? satisfyeview did not either the bureau or the department's concerns. the director of the fbi asked for the opportunity to come before the committee express those concerns. the request was denied by the chairman. >> what was the rationale you, why is that not being released? >> mr. king made the request to release the majority memoranda in a statement advocating its release said that we need full transparency. so when i moved to have the minority memo released in the interest of full transparency, they took the view that full transparency means only one side gets hurt. they voted down the opportunity for the country to see the minority memoranda and frankly, report of the facts. >> [indiscernible] >> i would only say because at this point i cannot comment on the contents of the majority or minority memoranda, that i think mr. mccabe has been deeply and unfairly maligned. he has been a career public servant. he has done an admirable job serving the country. and others have done a german

one is that obstruction of justice is a crime. and even very, very high ranking government officials can be held accountable for obstruction of justice as a criminal matter, right? famously the first article of impeachment against richard nixon was about obstruction of justice. the first article against bill clinton was obstruction of justice. so one thing that's very important about obstruction are is that it's illegal. you can get caught for it. you can get impeached for it. arguably eyou can even get indicted for it while you are serving as president of the united states. that's one thing that's very important about obstruction, but there is something else that's important about obstruction of justice as well. which is that it might work. high ranking government officials don't obstruct justice because they misunderstand the law and nobody's ever told them that it's a crime. high ranking government officials risk that criminal liability because sometimes it's worth it to try. because sometimes you really want to obstruct justic

at the department of justice, we must always pursue justice and justice must be based on truth. i learn from bruce as we were putting together my first case, truth is about credible evidence, not strong opinions. many people sincerely believe that it's just not true. leaf is not the -- sincerity of belief is not the temperature. people who seek the truth need to remain open to the possibility that it may not match. president john adams famously observed the facts are stubborn things. whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence. pursuing truth means always yielding to facts, even if they run contrary to our expectations. one of the ways that we protect the truth-seeking process in our legal system is that investigators and prosecutors do not get to decide which facts are true. allegations made by prosecutor are presumed not to be true. so when we make an allegation, we meet -- we need to be prepared to prove it. some people look at the high conviction rate of criminals in our federal courts an

of justice from the executive -- from the president. and there are important reasons for that. like i said, i think that the american public should really want their department of justice to function independently without meddling from the president and it really at the end of the day, helps keep us safer to have people believe in the integrity of the department of justice and the fbi and to allow it to function independently from the president. >> we've heard the story about the president wanting to fire bob mueller back in june of last year. his counsel, bob mcgahn said if you do it i'm going to quit. what is his responsibility to inform the justice department of this order? >> his client is technically not the president as an individual. his client is the office of the presidency and he like everyone in the department of justice, as we've been discussing, mcgahn takes an oath to the constitution, not to donald trump. so i think that you know, he does have an obligation at some point to inform people of this order, if that's what it w

fair the safe accountable and effective justice act, the safe justice act, two

with the justice department and christopher steele no word yet if the justice department will do that. this is part of a long-running fight that nunes has had with the justice department over this issue, wolf. >> and, manu, all of this comes as a new report suggests the dossier is not what started the russia investigation, right? >> reporter: yeah, that's right. "the new york times" reported over the weekend that george papadopoulos, the trump campaign foreign policy adviser who actually has pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi about some of these contacts pertaining to russia, met with the australian diplomat in london last year and said he had dirt -- he could get dirt from the russians on the clinton campaign. this came after papadopoulos was informed about these leaked e-mails that had been hacked by the russians from the dnc's servers and papadopoulos had been informed about this and mentioned about the opportunity to get dirt on the clinton campaign from the russians. now one question, wolf, that investigators on capitol hill still say they don't have the answers to is whether or

that's not obstruction of justice.f on the other hand, the president says hey, i want you to move heaven and earth to make sure this guy doesn't get out because i need him to protect me, that's closer to the flame. so context really matters. >> the context of the "new york times" reporting tonight is mr. trump said he expected his top law enforcement official, the attorney general to safeguard him. >> yeah. >> last question for you, chuck, it's another point raised in the reporting tonight is that a deputy working in the white house counsel's office reportedly intentionally misled the president about whether or not he had the legal authority to fire the fbi director, believing it would be a bad move and according to michael schmidt, this lawyer let the president persist in a temporarily wrong impression that he couldn't fire james comey because he hoped the president wouldn't figure out the legal truth. are lawyers allowed to do that with clients? >> they are not. lawyers have an absolute duty of candor with clients. a

it is the soul of our nation and justice justice for veterans who rely on medical marijuanacc and now according to jeff sessions the use of medical marijuana they are criminals. that is not the america i believe in. about m justice for the man who has a criminal record for doing something three out of four presidents have done who now cannot get a job to get a business license or move his family to a better home. this is not justice for the america i know we are. the mother i stood next to with her child with a seizure after seizure multiple times a day a marijuana refugee and u.s. state that had medical marijuana laws according to jeff sessions she is a criminal. this is not the land of truth and justice to treat apparent like a criminal. but families and communities who have been fractured by this body in action to not address the over criminalization of our country. the very values that people fight for and stand for. this is about who we will be. he cannot fall into this nation for the privileged and elite have certain laws the poor and the struggling have others. what jeff sessio

call the justice department and have them dismiss robert mueller. now, in the real world, presumably, what that would have meant would be don mcgahn calling up the justice department, specifically speaking to the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. you don't talk to the attorney general because he's recused of everything having to do with the russia investigation. that's how we got mueller in the first place. instead, he would have to call the deputy attorney general, hi, rod, it's don up at the white house, i got to tell you, you got to fire bob mueller. he would tell rod rosenstein to fire robert mueller. then, presumably, rod rosenstein would refuse to do so. rod rosenstein said if he was ordered to fire robert mueller for anything other than good cause, he would refuse to do so. so in the real world, if this had really happened, mcgahn would could rosenstein and say fire mueller and rosenstein would say no and rosenstein would be fired and they would work their way down until they found someone willing to actually fire mueller. ala richard n

speaker ryan's office is referring people to the justice department and fbi. they're saying nothing about what happened here. but this was a surprise meeting. and those documents supposed to go to devin nunes didn't go there. conceivably they could have been opening up very sensitive stuff from the middle of the mueller investigation while it's under way. drama. and that brings us to the last thing i want to get to off the top of the show tonight, the first direct effort by anybody in the orbit of president trump to try to shut down the mueller investigation directly. trump campaign chairman paul manafort was indicted on multiple felony charges. trial due to start may 2nd. today he and lawyers filed a civil lawsuit against robert mueller and justice department official who appointed him and oversees the investigation, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. i'm not a lawyer but i think it might be weird that manafort has filed this as civil lawsuit. wouldn't you just file this in his own case? but it's demanding that order appointed robert mueller be declared

he declared in justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.not be what i have to be until you are what you ought to be, because our destinies are tied together. all humanity is caught in a network of mutuality, tied in a garment of destiny, certainly whatever affects one directly affects all. thus we are all responsible to ensure that we live in a fair and just and peaceful society. what does justice look like? justice is having unfettered access to our rights to participate in the democratic process of a voting, just legislative capitals and statehouses and executives should be looking for every opportunity to help people vote, rather than come up with excuses to prevent some from exercising their rights. voter suppression must be eulogized. it has to be dead. we have got to make sure that there is no barrier to voting. we should have all my registration. we should have, we should have the ability to register and even have all the i.d.'s that we need. i propose a couple years ago, that is why i was meeting with the president-elect trump at th

ising said that, justice just that. there ought to be a punishment that fits the crime especially for violent criminals. no one is talking about going backward on that. the whole point of the juvenile justice reform is to make certain we are in a country with a $20 trillion debt. a number of states have financial challenges. to observe that precious prison space for the violent offenders that present the greatest threat to society. >> most countries able to get 100 to 200, as low as 50, 100 thousand, 600 is way above that that -- the rest of the industrialized world. most of it is the war on drugs. jim in ohio, line for independents. go ahead. there is a court in ohio that does exactly what these two congressmen- are trying to get past. i do not understand why it takes so long and congress -- in congress to get your laws passed. the other thing i would like to say is if the congress could get together like normal human quits and get together and all the tomfoolery and quit picking up and backing into the guys should beu

the effect of justice act, safe justice act. , online.te we are taking a call as well. -- host: on the prevention side, what are specific changes you are recommending? strategies, doed what works. do not throw hardened criminals in with first time offenders, things like that. have made reforms. save money, get people out of prison. i am saying the laboratories of democracy ought to be able to be allowed to work. 500 percent, $6.7 billion over the same time. it is a 600% increase. keep doingfford to this. we have to allow the states to experiment and reduce something that is far too expensive and get back to what works as representative scott says. is one thing but regardless, we have 32 states that have made these changes. let's see how they play out. that is good 10th amendment philosophy. congressman scott, why not focus more on the stateside? the stateot of it is and the problem is with the federal does in terms of court -- crime policy is mimic by the state. when we have a mandatory minimum sentence for drug sentences, they tend to pick it up, we tend to pick it out and they pass i

justice scalia always spoke well of justice imins burg and might not join one of her opinions. but he would never deride her. i think he respected her. she respected him. they were preandz unfortunate that you don't it see -- a lot of that anymore. people who have fundamentally different political or o ideological but monals work together to be friends. >> it does seem like ideology has taken hold of everything and -- it is with with great friendship and in their case they focused on what they had in common and it was awful lot they were born in well my dad born in trenton but they have that in common i think that was element to their apprenticeship and they both loved opera they had cameo appearance and opera together and spouses were great friends too. my mother a great cook. justice ginsberg husband marty was a -- basically gourmet chef. and justice ginsberg and my dad both liked to eat apparently so that was another element of their friendship that i think had just by focus pooing on those things they have in common. was how the friendship thrived. i think somebody asked my

do you see this as obstruction of justice? >> this excellent reporting certainly indicates a key element of an obstruction of justice case, which is corrupt intend. what is building here, it may not have reached the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to try to shut down the investigation to interfere with it by telling jeff sessions he had main control over it and stymie it if possible. the standard here has to be a high one for any kind of obstruction case, but clearly when you're dealing with senior white house officials and the president of the united states, the bar is especially high. here is one point for sure, jeff sessions ought to explain this kind of contact from the white house. the white house staff ought to be called before the grand jury. and i would predict there'll be convictions and indictments early in the new year. >> convictions and indictments of people currently on the white house staff? >> currently on the white house staff or past white house staff, because the momentum of this investigation

with those old justices but justice galea thought it was an opportunity to ask the question that somebodyought to answer that there will not be anybody like justice scalia. >> that is my understanding. but his background is a law professor. and brought that professorial demeanor and approach to change oral arguments so now if you don't speak every time somebody thinks there is something wrong with your approach. but it was more subdued. >> so when he arrived 1986 people said justice powell that new guy would ask too many questions. so i said you're not bothered at all he asks too many questions? he said as a law professor to speak for the full hour. it was a little way to say yes but everybody is caught up after a while. and he change the arguments. it is a much more likely exchange because the justices are fully engaged. >> there are speeches about his catholic faith tell me about one of those speeches. so he valued to put a great emphasis on his speech about religion and he refined and polished these. the christian as a cretin. with the two thomases. the differences between thomas jeffe

he's the one who mueller reports to at the justice department. rod rosenstein was appointed by president trump. he's a republican. nobody quite knows what to make of him and his inclinations on the russia investigation, which he has steadfastly refused to discuss in public, other than to say that he believes mueller is doing a good job and that he's the right man for the job. but then today, surprise, whole bunch of reporters, including scott wong from "the hill" newspaper were staking out paul ryan's office. they were staking out the peopler of the house, his office today, hoping to catch some news about budget negotiations in congress. they're all outside paul ryan's office when, hey now, here comes, isn't that rod rosenstein? and his security detail? yeah, there's the deputy attorney general filing into house peopler paul ryan's office. what he is doing here? reporters including scott wong were soon able to susz out that nobody knew this was coming, rod rosenstein, in fact, was there at paul ryan's office to talk with him about the russia inve

is it evidence of obstruction of justice? >>> investigating clinton. sources tell cnn that the fbi and federal prosecutors are now actively investigating bill and hillary clinton's charitable foundation. is it a legitimate criminal probe or political payback? >>> and putting up his dukes. secretary of state rex tillerson talks candidly about north korea's nuclear program and what it would take to open up talks between the kim jong-un regime and the trump administration. did president trump's troubling tweet about his nuclear button complicated situation? >>> i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." president trump is lashing out in an explosive new book and its author who not only claims the president is mentally unfit for office but also says everyone around the president agrees. the journalist michael wolff is strongly defending his work which he says was based on extensive time spent inside the white house with the president and his team. mr. trump denies that, saying wolff has zero access to him and calling the book, and i'm quoting him no

does that satisfy the justice department's concerns? what is the rationale that your committee gave for not releasing the memo? >> the review did not satisfy either the bureau or the department's concerns. the director of the fbi asked for the opportunity to come before the committee and express those concerns. the request was denied by the chairman today. >> what was the rationale you, why is that not being released? >> mr. king made the request to release the majority memoranda in a statement advocating its release said that we need full transparency. so when i moved to have the minority memo released in the interest of full transparency, they took the view that full transparency means only one side gets hurt. they voted down the opportunity for the country to see the minority memoranda and frankly, an accurate report of the facts. that there concern memo is going to show that perhaps he may have been involved anyhow and perhaps -- in perhaps issues that the gop is -- right now? >> i would only say because at this point i cannot comme

justice kennedy and justice thomas were the only members on the court at the time were still there. this is a deep insider tip. thoughtkennedy has been to be important on the supreme court. everyone took notice. on behalf of the retail community, we represent a bunch of retailers, we had a meeting and decided to work with various states to get statutes enacted that would challenge quilt so -- quill. we built the case from the ground up. we designed the legislation, got the legislation passed. we went into court. we told the chords, hello, we want to lose, which is an interesting thing to do. i do that all the time, but not usually on purpose. we said to the trial court we just want to go straight to the supreme court. they time -- the time of the kay's, from enacting the legislation all the way through, so it would make the last conference in january and it could be argued this term. received not just amicus briefs from our side, but which ispposing it, basically respondents and jumping down and screaming this is not an important case, don't pay attention to what is happening here,

there's a lack of transpersoncy at the justice department that would have made the obama justice department blush. and the deep state is in full control over there, thanks to the leadership just checking out on these transparency issues and refusing to be brave on these transparency issues. we were told by the fbi, we've asked about these text messages. i can't tell you how contempt cuous they were. and they told us to sue them if we wanted them, which we did. we've had numerous lawsuits that should have been turning them over to us and they've basically giving us the back of the hand. and this is out of the new administration, not the obama administration. lou: that raises the question. why you must ask yourself this question surely, why would not president trump order these people, these servants of the american public to act in his interest and release that to the american people because it is our right to know. >> i think he's receiving legal advice not to get involved. i don't know how else to explain it because i think he does want this information released. he's been complaining abou

they've now gotten the republican justice department to come out and say what the democratic-led justice department did was completely 100% within the law. but the further claim that they make that for devin nunes to release there memo would be reckless and could jeopardize national security, i can't think of a time when a justice department of one party has written to a committee chairman of the same committee with that big of a claim. it's even more strange because you have on the other side, just down pennsylvania avenue at the white house, you've had sarah sanders saying they want the memo to come out in the full interest of transparent sit contradicting the people who say it could hurt security. >> the white house has taken is the side of the allied media organizations against its own justice department. >> take a listen, clint. >> there are serious questions about political bias at high levels at the fbi. they've existed for some time under the leadership of the previous director james comey. >> it's remarkable for the president's spokesperson to call it the integrity of his own fb

wray, did that review satisfy the justice department's concerns? and i want to know, what was the rationale that the committee gave for not releasing your memo? >> no, the review did not satisfy, i think either the bureau or the department's concerns, and indeed, the director of the fbi asked for the opportunity to come before the committee and express those concerns, but that request was denied by the chairman today. >> and what was the rationale for your memo? why is that not being released publicly as of now? >> well, mr. king made the request to release the majority memoranda. in his statement advocating its release said that we need full transparency. and so when i moved to have the minority memo released in the interest of full transparency, they evidently took the view that full transparency means only one side gets heard and not the other. so they voted down the opportunity for the country to see the minority memoranda and frankly, an accurate recitation of the underlying facts. >> with the resignation of andy mccabe, is there concern that

vindication tonight for republican efforts to purge corrupt top officials of the department of justicefox news has confirmed the fbi and federal prosecutors are investigating allegations of pay to play corruption at the clinton foundation. specifically investigators are looking into whether foundation donors were illegally given preference and access to hillary clinton while she was secretary of state. tonight i'll talk with one of the republican lawmakers who has been calling for months for a second special counsel to investigate the clinton scandals. congressman matt gates joins us >>> also tonight, two republican senators calling for the fbi to pursue a criminal investigation of christopher steele. he's the author of the democratic funded and discredited trump dossier. senators chuck grassley and lindsey graham say they have evidence that steele lied to the fbi >>> and president trump tonight at camp david for two days of meetings with republican leaders. they'll be mapping out their 2018 strategy and talking over their political priorities for the year. we'll take up those presumed

sometimes you want to obstruct justice depending on what you might otherwise be on the hook for if justice proceeds. given how many famous people have been busted so badly for obstruction of justice, nobody would try it unless it sometimes still worked. during the presidential campaign in 2016, the u.s. intelligence community saw something going on with regard to russia and that election of ours and part of what they were noticing was that russia seemed to be taking more than an acute interest in our election that year. they seemed to be making moves to interfere with, to try to influence that election. but simultaneously they saw something that concerned them that was going on between russia and the trump campaign. >> did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the trump campaign and russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts? >> i encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between russian officials and u.s. persons involved in the trump campaign. there was a sufficient basis of information and i

this is an fbi or department of justice thing.d, the director of the fbi was in today to review this memo. ranking member schiff spoke to the director after he reviewed the memo. he told ranking membership i really need to come in and talk to you about this. ranking member schiff schiff made the motion. imagine if you were accused, we swroulds the right to face our accuser. if motion today to allow the fbi and the doj to come in was voted down on a straight partisan, unanimous no basis by the republicans. that should tell the american public all they need to know about whether this is a search for truth or if this is an ignorant, no nothing attempt to put the national security at risk and the sfervice of this yearlong es ka paid about being being spied on. >> why do you believe the sha chairman wants to release this memo? >> it gets produced to a committee that's not had chance to read it or the underlying intelligence. this is the latest chapter in the nine-month campaign to back up the president's wildest charges that he's gotti

the fbi and the department of justice. every member of congress now who has read the classified intelligence memorandum detailing fisa surveillance abuse seem deeply disturbed to say the least. our next guest is calling for the release of the classified documents and demanding a purge of officials at the politically corrupt fbi and doj. joining us tonight is republican florida congressman francis rooney. vice chairman of the foreign affairs committee. congressman, good to have you with us, first of all. this is now reaching a level that i don't think many anticipated. and that is two institutions that are at the foundation of the special counsel are obviously corrupt and working against the public interest. >> well, first, lou thank you for having me on. i really appreciate it. no one would have foreseen the depth of the rot that you're talking about. who could have thought such behave yoor would be conducted right inside the doj and the fbi. that's why the memos need to be released to let the american people see what's ha

does that satisfy the justice department's concerns? what with us the rationale the committee gave tore not releasing to them the memo. >> the director of the fbi asked for the opportunity to come before the committee and express those concerns. but that request was denied by the chairman today. >> why ways your memo not being released publicly. >> mr. exing made the request to release the majority memoranda. saying we needful transparency. so when i moved to have the minority memo released in the issue of full transparency. they took the view that full transparency means only one side gets hurt and not the other. so they voted down the opportunity for the country to see the minority memoranda and frankly an accurate representation of the underlying facts. >> is there concern that the memo [inaudible] this issue that goes up bringing up right now? >> i would only say -- at this point i can't comment on the contents of the majority or minority memoranda. i think mr. mccabe has been deeply and unfairly maligned. he has been a career publi