here to discuss now cnn little analyst laura coates, matthew whittaker, a former u.s. attorney and good evening. thank you all for joining us. laura, i want to start with you by discussing jared kushner. he is hiring abbe lowell to support him in the russian collusion and possible financial dealings. lowell is a storied criminal defense attorney. what does that say to you? >> well, again, you're in an area of uncharted territory. you're going to have to have a six-headed hydra to combat whatever may be coming up. it is a nebulous term that has left millennium pooh who may be target order may be a part of the investigation in some way grasping for straws and trying to figure out who they can use in order to address whatever is coming down the pipeline. you have a storied attorney who may be taking over in that criminal context you're seeing somebody being proactive what may be before them. remember, kushner has always said he would be forthcoming and be willing to speak to whoever investigates the actual collusion investigation. and you're seeing that when you lawyer up,

it is not illegal. >> let's ask laura coats. you are a lawyer. was this interference or inappropriate or new york bargaining or obstruction of justice? >> it was the former three. the instance of the president trying to throw his weight around in the attempt to influence an election. remember, influence an investigation. remember, attempting to try to do that can constitute a crime. that is not the end of the inquiry here. the reason this is important is because it is an attempt to thwart an investigation or stall one in some capacity. the end game here is not to stop at whether or not the president tried to influence the investigation or stop one. the end game is trying to ascertain what is the actual evidence they are looking for? what is a proof of a greater crime here? obstruction is not the end game. more importantly in this contest of credibility as chris stated, you have the fbi director who is corroborating the statements of the president. he felt compelled to document, but not compelled to confront the president on the inappropriateness

any emotions of the moment, of the anticipation of what exactly was going to be happening. >> laura coatesal analyst. laura, we did not hear from bill cosby today, but we heard from these attorneys, we heard from this p.r. representative who has been with him for a long time. often after these trials, these high profile trials, it's a bit of a melee outside of the courtroom. have you seen or heard something like what you just saw and heard? >> reporter: allow me to pick my jaw up off my chest from the comments from camille cosby and also from his publicist. remember, the publicist, his role is to kind of be the person to, no matter what happens, to be the person to advocate and champion for bill cosby. you would expect his wife, who did not come notably through the entire case of the prosecution, but did come on the first and only day of the defense's case, make several statements that kind of demonized the judge in this case. the judge who was expected to hear the retrial in this case, and was accused of actually colluding somehow with the prosecution. obviously her comments was that of s

laura coates, what do you say to that? >> i absolutely disagree.r the skoch a counterintelligence probe. when you talk about obstruction of justice that is a claim you add ton on to show what are you trying to divert my attention from. if my focus is the singular focus you're talking about, that could be true. but if you're trying every endeavor to put up obstacles and hurdles in my path to do just that, it definitely falls under the scope of that. remember, i think about obstruction in this way. if you saw somebody fleeing from the scene of a crime in a speeding vehicle. obstruction is the speeding ticket. i want to know what you're running from. he absolutely is entitled to investigate that and along the way charge other things. >> we've got to leave it there. i appreciate the different viewpoints. professor foley, always. laura coates as well. coming up, more breaking news. two attacks hours apart in paris and london. both involving vehicles used as weapons. the latest on the investigations next. rickion the course and off. but when it comes to

large with "the point" on cnn.com, chris cillizza and legal analyst former federal prosecutor laura coatesaura, serious question. could this be from a legal perspective an abuse of presidential power? >> not as told yet. not quite there. the reason it's so important, brian's right. we haven't right got to the allegation of actual blackmail. you have a discrepancy whether or not the president himself was involved in some way in knowing about an article in advance and having a hand in either trying to silence it or did he have a hand in actually crafting it with the idea of weaponizing it again to the media? it wouldn't be the first time the president obviously tried to attack the media but would be an odd step giving his track record he essentially tried to punish the media not creating stories in the press but rather trying to suppress them. inconsistency overall, but right now you have the accusation, what you need legally to push it over that hurdle is you had that intent to actually do that and what was his specific involvement in the crafting of it as a way to wield it against to silen

let's bring back david gregory, chris cillizza and karoun demorijia and laura coates.hris. >> if you listened to the testimony early on, he asked jim comey, do you think the special counsel investigation makes it impossible for us to do our oversight investigation just to get comey on the record. comey of course says no. i think it is uniquely possible. there are two things here. the special counsel is looking into criminality. what congress is doing is oversight function as it relates to the executive branch. just on the surface what all happened, although i defer to laura because she knows more than me. probably on a faster calendar than the special counsel. we may find some more out in the senate and house intelligence committees than we will in terms of when from the mueller investigation. this two things are still ongoing. this is the problem. the trump declaration of victory as it relates to the tweet sent just three minutes before he could have set his all-time record for time between tweets. suggesting he has been completely vindicated. i assume that is just sp

. >>> let's bring in our panel now, kirsten powers, laura coats and professor foley. i have never quite understood what the white house is playing out here with these tapes, the president said in that initial tweet, james comey better hope there are not tapings of this conversation. and then the white house refuseded to say whether or not these tapes exist. from a legal standpoint, what does the white house get for being so vague? >> i don't know, a lot of speculation here, because we don't even know if the tapes exist, frankly, i these if the tapes do exist, one reason why the president might hesitate to turn over those tapes and be a little bit coy about that right now to buy some time for the white house lawyers and the legal team to assert executive privilege, that's a privilege that covers deliberations between the president and his closest advisors, so it may be that portions of the tapes are covered by the privilege and portions of them aren't. and i think they would probably want to get their little legal eggs in a row before they reveal if the tapes existed.

we're going to carry on this conversation, laura cardona, maria coats you get the first question next session. next, bizarre or not, more on the by now legendary tapes and the president's habit, perhaps you've noticed, of doing what we're doing right now, promising something tempting is coming right up very, very soon. later hour, other presidents have been caught on their own mics doing everything from obstructing justice to averting world war iii to wearing a pair of slacks. here's to the safety first... i think i might burst... totally immersed weekenders. whatever kind of weekender you are, there's a hilton for you. book your weekend break direct with hilton.com and join the summer weekenders. bp uses flir cameras - a new thermal imagining technology - to inspect difficult-to-reach pipelines, so we can detect leaks before humans can see them. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing a

laura coats is a cnn analyst and former federal prosecutor and lauren jarrett is a cnn justice reporter. give to see all of you. lauria laura squared. >> we're learning that mueller has been methodically and quietly adding formidable minds to this team, five now. perhaps most significant is michael dreeben from the solicitor general's office. he's argues over 100 cases before the supreme court. you know, mueller has added people who know everything from watergate to enron. these are serious former prosecutors. we're also learning that mueller is taking this case even so seriously he's now dressing like he used to back when he was at the doj and fbi wearing crisp white shirts and dark suits so even the dress code is matching. >> this is very serious. if you are muller, was this risky? if you were him, did you potentially undermine your case by allowing chief witness james comey to testify? >> i don't wear crisp white shirts but if i were mueller i would have confidence the former fbi director would stick to the script, that he would tell the tale prior to his being fired and any memorand

joining us, laura coates, and laura jarrett, cnn justice reporter, ron brownstein. i want to go to you first, laura jarrett. i'm fascinated by this addition to robert mueller's legal team. michael dreeben, a lot of people will have no idea who this is, but this is important and it signifies something. >> absolutely. everyone i spoke with yesterday said this shows mueller is taking this seriously. michael dreeben is the foremost criminal law experts in the country. he runs the criminal appellate docket. this is a man argued over 100 cases before the supreme court and is going to stay on at the justice department, toggle back and forth with two jobs. but this is a really serious addition to the team. >> yeah. he's a top criminal law expert. this is someone who certainly knows about obstruction of justice. having tried cases on obstruction of justice. does this tell us, laura coates, this could head that direction or just that if it does, mueller is equipped for that. >> does both. signals to there's actually an allegation out there, they're digging in their heels, say

laura coats, we heard the statement from bill cosby.he defendant speaking so publically like that, thanking the jurors. presumably hopefully they won't hear what he has to say. what do you make of that and the fact his lawyers have filed or tried to argue for mistrial so many times while the jury has been deliberating? >> i think bill cosby would be more served if he stopped ta talking until the end of the trial until the conclusion and the jury issued a verdict or there has been a mistrial. it doesn't appear it's helpful for any defendant, especially in a sexual assault case who is a celebrity who may be perceived as grandstanding or using their celebrity in a way that gaves an anned a -- his comment was a confrontation between a supporter and an alleged accuser. he did gain a little credibility that i think he would have lost by the hey, hey, hey he said in court. ultimately, when it calls for a mistrial, it's fair not defense to say, you have the 11th hour. they are -- there are 50 or more hours in. it's very likely that perhaps they

c-n-n legal analyst laura coats......addressing legal challenges that president trump's own words maye created for his executive order on immigration. the stalled order -- now in its second iteration -- seeks to temporarily restrict travel to the u-s from several muslim- majority nations.the administration asked the supreme court to hear the case after lower courts repeatedly blocked the order.and amid legal wrangling, administration officials have for months insisted that it is not a travel ban.sean spicer january 31: "this is not a muslim ban. it's not a travel ban."but after the white house communications staff tried to reinforce that message tuesday......trump doubled down on his preferred verbiage, tweeting quote: "that's right, we need a travel ban for certain dangerous countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!"trump's tweets -- drawing exasperation from some in the conservative camp... ...including white house counselor kellyanne conway's husband george conway, who tweeted in part, quote... ..."these tweets may make some people feel bet

that smells like litigation and bureaucratic problems to me, laura coates. what is your legal reckoning? >> i absolutely agree, chris. in fact, the dissenters didn't know this would be the case. this blurred distinction invites future litigation. there may be a nuanced reason for that. number one, the supreme court is not in the business of giving legislative advice. the guidance they did give did give some examples of what would constitute a bona fide relationship. however, the very issue people had back when this was initially tried to be implemented in january was issue of due process, giving fair notice, an opportunity to be heard and consistency over the way it's implied and the way those words are interpreted. right now i think you'll have some chaos at the airports around the globe as individual bureaucrats try to interpret and figure out who meets that particular criteria, even though it seems to be clear-cut from the state department. remember, the supreme court knows that 90 days from now is still not october, chris. that issue may have been moot b

let's bring in the panel, cnn legal analyst laura coates, cnn political analyst david gregory, cnn political commentator errol louis, and cnn law enforcement analyst james gagliano. david gregory, the stakes are very high. i think the central question is whether the president obstructed justice. i think that's on the minds of lawmakers. did he try to interfere with this investigation in a way that broke the law or was simply inappropriate? and i think what you've got over the past couple of days are those intelligence chiefs who said that they did not feel pressure, and now an fbi director saying and laying out the facts of where the president clearly acted inappropriately, whether it was illegal will be a separate matter. but i think that will be the issue. i'm also interested, picking up on what joe just reported, on how republicans try to frame this, the fact that the president was vindicated. he wasn't being investigated. it goes to show the president's really just thinking about himself in all of this and not the potential political damage to his entire white house, but that that was a

allen dergswits, elizabeth foley, page pates, and laura coates. laura, we just learned that diane feinstein has asked to launch an investigation in that committee specifically on the issue of obstruction of justice. she wants to know if there was any obstruction of justice independent of the russia investigation. she specifically says she also wants to look into the director of national intelligence dan coats and whether he was asked to intervene in the investigation into michael flynn. if there's a congressional committee that ultimately looks into this as well as a special counsel, does that increase the jeopardy here? >> it does. remember, the congressional probe has a very different goal than the criminal objective. the criminal objective is to actually see if criminal charges should be brought and if prosecution is appropriate. if the congressional committee is looking into it, their focus is different. they're trying to figure out -- there's a legislative agenda or initiative that has to take place to correct issues like this from happening o

here in washington, cnn politics reporter and editor at large chris slis a and laura coates i with us as well. jeffrey what do you make of the decision to let parts of the ban take effect? give us clues, for example, how the arguments might go when the full court takes up the case in october? >> i think this is definitely much more of a win than a loss for the trump administration. there are three justices. the three most conservative justices. thomas, alito and gorsuch, who say, look, the ban is clearly fine, and they would let the whole ban go into effect today. so the only issue is whether they can get two more votes for, for that position, but all nine justices agree that the president has the power at least for the short term to keep the people who do not have close ties to the united states out of the country. so -- the court seems to have thread a needle actually quite elegantly where they have dealt with the people who have the biggest hardships. the saddest stories. the people who have close relatives, the people admitted to school here who have job offers here. they clearly

joining us, john dean, cnn contributor, white house counsel for richard nixon and eric and laura coates. what are we learning, eric? >> i think one point that he is likely to hit is that this was a process for him as well as the country as a process to understand these sort of awkward overtures from trump that seemed so unusual coming from the white house. i think what we're hearing is that no one of them perhaps crossed over the line or clearly smashed through the line of manipulating or pressuring the fbi to drop the investigation and perhaps comey felt that he kol sort of handle or educate the president. but added up cumulatively with comey's firing, it was the appearance that the president was trying to take control of this investigation because it threatened him personally. >> so laura, if that were to be his testimony, that doesn't sound good for the president. >> no, it doesn't. but if the end game of the fbi investigation was to determine whether or not there was collusion between a foreign entity, that being russia, and the trump campaign, then to hinge the entire investigation

joining us jeffrey toobin and laura coats.this whole it is a travel ban, it's not a travel ban, back and forth, how much does it matter legally speaking? >> it's not helpful to the trump administration. i don't think it's fatal to their case before the supreme court. remember, the real problem is if he would have said this was a muslim ban. this is not, according to the administration, a muslim ban. a travel ban is a less problematic phrase. but it's still suggestive of the improper motive that the lower courts found, which raises something that the administration would rather not deal with, as this case comes before the supreme court. >> professor dearthswits, these tweets from the president, do they undermine his justice department's case as it heads to the supreme court? >> i think they do to a substantial degree. there are three issues that the supreme court will confront. is there standing, number one? and on that issue, he says that the first travel ban is as good as the second ban. that's just wrong. the first travel ba

laura coats is with us. she's a cnn legal analyst, a former federal prosecutor. our legal analyst -- our political contributor david gregory is with us as well. mark preston is a cnn senior political analyst and margaret t talla is the white house correspondent. david, what is your title? >> why did you think i can be -- i'm very close to lawyers. >> all right. so you're not our legal analyst. laura is our legal analyst. i want everybody to go through and tell me two things you are especially going to be looking toward in the upcoming sessions testimony. >> two things i'm looking for, wolf, one is does the attorney general exert executive privilege and how? or is it more along the lines of what we heard from coats and rogers last week? i'm not comfortable answering that question at this point. how does the committee respond. that's one main thing to look for. then the questions about this reports of the third meeting with mr. kislyak are going to be really important on how he handles that. >> on the issue of executive privilege, doesn't the president have that re

laura coates, dispense with one main issue dealing with the travel ban. that is, the unknown bona fide connections. bona fide relationships. this is a soft standard. the court spent 16 pages, uncharacteristically long, going through its encurium, fum court reckoning of this case, but that standard seems it will beg for more litigation? >> of course it will. examples what they considered close association and left room for bureaucracies including the state don't say what they believe the explicit definition of a close family member would be. and it boggles the mind on some left out. grandparents, for example can come in. stepsisters and others can. mind-boggling aspect of that. this is kind of the separation of powers at work. the court saying we haven't dealt with the congress stugsality of this. that comes in october. guidance now how to legislate and do this at this point in time, go ahead, but knowing full well, chris, they know that this issue invites not just a little more litigation but a ton of more litigation as people scramble to figure whether t

our cnn legal analyst, former federal prosecutor, laura coates is with us.nior political analyst, mark preston. our cnn chief political correspondent dana bash. and our chief political analyst, gloria borger. gloria, is it semantics because it's very confusing, sekulow says the president is not under investigation but the president himself tweeted on friday that he is under investigation. >> let's try and put the semantics aside for one moment, the difference between an inquiry and an investigation. what we do know and evan peres has done a lot of reporting on this. we do know law enforcement sources are telling cnn the special counsel is gathering information right now. maybe that's the best way to do it. he's trying to consider whether there is enough evidence to launch some kind of investigation, potentially into the issue of obstruction. so he is at the fact-finding part of this right now, gathering information, as one would expect, before reaching a conclusion about whether it is obstruction that he needs to really hone down on. >> from a legal perspect

also cnn legal analyst laura coates and national security and legal analyst susan hennessy. thank you all for joining the panel. laura, you first. this is possibly yet another undisclosed meeting with the russian ambassador and this attorney has already had to rekus himself from the russia probe. do people just really have that bad of memory? what do you make of this new reporting? >> the am nearby thnesia is sus best. the idea you can continuously forget about important meetings with people who in some way or another have impacted or alleged to have impacted an election you were a part of is very interesting and curious and invites the scrutiny of the fbi. it invites further scrutiny and says, listen listen, it's not a your proactive and what you've done, it also includes your omissions. the omissions are curious. if you consistently fail to provide information about things that have happened and you remember everything else, the omission invites further scrutiny. again, we're in a larger investigation process now where the whole goal is figuring out what actually happened,

joining us jeffrey toobin and laura coats.a travel ban, it's not a travel ban, how much does it matter legally speaking? >> it's not helpful to the trump administration. i don't think it's fatal to their case before the supreme court. remember, the real problem is if he would have said this was a muslim ban. this is not, according to the administration, a muslim ban. a travel ban is a less problematic phrase. but it's still suggestive of the improper motive that the lower courts found, which raises something that the administration would rather not deal with, as this case comes before the supreme court. >> professor, these tweets from the president do they undermine his justice department's case as it heads to the supreme court? >> i think they do to a substantial degree. there are three issues that the supreme court will confront. is there standing, number one? and on that issue, he says that the first travel ban is as good as the second ban. that's just wrong. the first travel ban really gives standing to green card holders

to bring in cnn political analyst carl bernstein, senior white house correspondent zef zeleny, laura coats and tara pamieri. here we go. we're seeing a frustrated president today, at least on twitter. you could see that he's frustrated. writing this, "i am being investigated for firing the fbi director by the man who told me to fire the fbi director. witch hunt." what do folks around the president say about his complaint? >> well, don, there's no sort of guessing what his mindset is. we all know what his mindset is. we can see it here in realtime. i'm being told that the tweets that we've been seeing particularly on this matter are less spontaneous than you might think. the fact of the matter is, he's basically trying to take the reins of the communication strategy here, the talking points, if you will, and send the message out early in the morning about this and that witch hunt message, he wants his core supporters to believe and in many respects they do. but the challenge here is this. i mean, this is a different type of fight that he's ever been in. according to one person he spoke to i

i want to bring in cnn paul callan and laura coats, our legal analysts. we're going through the ruling right now, paul. i want to set the scene for our viewers. what's at stake in this decision that we're about to get from the ninth circuit? we earlier received a decision prosecute the president's travel ban. set the scene for us. this is another important decision. >> people have to understand that the ninth circuit really is where the battle began with respect to the travel ban. and the president issued this ban which is now the second travel ban in an attempt to come up with something that was constitutionally sound and that would have a better chance of being upheld ultimately by the u.s. supreme court. so this will now be the ninth circuit's look at the second travel ban and ruling on its constitutionality. the initial problems that they criticize criticized in the first travel ban been resolved and fixed by the changes in the second executive order. >> and so laura, this is an important decision. the assumption a lot of people assume the ninth circu

i want to bring in cnn paul callan and laura coats, our legal analysts.e ruling right now, paul. i want to set the scene for our viewers. what's at stake in this decision that we're about to get from the ninth circuit? we earlier received a decision prosecute the president's travel ban. set the scene

let's talk more about this with our legal analyst, laura coates with us, danny cevallos, michael smerconish and i believe is paul also with us? no? okay. so laura, you first. the reaction to this decision. this after learning for so many hours, this jury deliberated and had at least a dozen questions including asking to look again at the phone logs between constand and cosby. also wanting to hear a better definition of reasonable doubt. then now a mistrial. >> you know, i'm not surprised there's a mistrial given the length of the deliberations and also given the actual testimony that came in. remember, the burden was on the prosecution to prove this happened. this is a very lengthy, delayed case in the sense this happened allegedly in 2004. you had little forensic evidence and you only had one other witness who was allowed to testify about a seemingly analogous scenario that allegedly happened to her. of course, the court of public opinion had dozens and dozens of women who came forward to say they, too, had been assaulted by bill cosby but the judge would not allow that testimony in. all y

joining us jeffrey toobin, laura coates, mike rogers and leon rodriguez.uting this is a clear victory in their words for national security. does this improve national security? >> well, you know, it's interesting. some notion that this is trump against the democrats or something i think is completely wrong. we have to look at what are the underpinnings of why we got to where we were. and i disagreed with his first ban. i thought it was too broad. i don't think it was well thought through. i think they made big mistakes. but when you look at countries where our law enforcement intelligence services cannot properly vet people, there is no way to vet people from countries that we know are recruiting. you know, el shabaab in somalia, al qaeda in the arabia peninsula and in yemen. a whole host of groups in syria. all of those are realities. what the real debate should be is, is there a proper way to allow citizens from those countries to come in through a proper vetting process, and i would argue, and i saw this when i was german, absolutely not from these coun

. >> here with us cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor laura coats.ef political correspondent dana bash inform the closed hearing that happened after the two and a half hour open hearing, they went behind closed doors for an hour with members of the senate intelligence committee. apparently comey elaborated on sessions saying it's possible there was a third undisclosed meeting he may have had with the russian ambassador to the united states, sergey kislyak and if he did that raises questions about sessions's credibility. >> big time. the key part if he did. what he hinted at in close -- what he hinted at in open session was something cnn reported last week which is that this is part of the investigation. they're looking into whether or not there was an additional meeting that jeff sessions had with the russian ambassador, that he didn't tell congress about. or he didn't -- that he didn't tell the truth about when he was asked explicitly about it when he was under oath before the committee that was talking about whether or not he should be confirmed as

i want to bring in laura coates, our cnn legal analyst. it all started early may with that original tweet when the president said, you know, comey better hope there are no tapes before he leaks information to the press. >> we do know that. we know that set the ball in motion at that point for james comey to in the middle of the night begin to remember that he had memos of his own that could verify his recollection of what he talked to the president of the united states about which then set in motion the appointment of a special counsel. and so when the president made the statements, i know the assumption is that social media is not somehow a presidential statement, perhaps shouldn't be taken that way. in fact, it was the most presidential and led to a turn of events that has placed the magnifying glass of the russian collusion investigation squarely on top of the president. and his statements about there not being tapes, i don't think it's a big surprise to many that there may not have been tapes. he's been hedging for a long time. but the

laura mason led the safetrack effort. she said there is no sugar coating it. had to happen. >> i would not put it off longer. some people said we could have used more time to plan. you could always use more time to plan. the areas we touched were in bad shape. that work was needed. >> ultimately riders say the proof is whether or not they can get from point "a" to point "b" on time. that's how they'll judge safetrack's success. along the red line, adam tuss, news 4. >>> if you're moving any time soon, you will want to hear about this story. nbc 4 responds to an international shipping nightmare. >> a family moved from tokyo here to maryland. but their furniture never made it what happened next had them calling our consumer reporter, susan hogan for some international move from hell would be an understatement. this maryland family was about to give up all hope of ever seeing their belongings again. until they called nbc4 responds to get them the results they couldn't. ♪ >> reporter: picture this, take everything out of your house, i mean everything, and live the

coat. i'll have a look at the forecast for san jose. that's coming up in three minutes. sam and laura. >> thanks. we look forward to it. >> 5:38. coming up, a controversial tweet as a bay area city in hot water. the reason people are outraged with hayward city leaders. >> plus, caught on camera, a car smashes through a restaurant. how this man right here made it out alive. >>> plus, president trump nominates a new fbi director while his old one gives him trouble. we'll fill you in when today in the bay continues. >>> a cloudy start in san jose. right now at 5:42, mildtures. and we'll see a mix of sun and clouds throughout the day. won't be bright and sunny all day long, and our temperatures start out in the mid 60s by this morning, into the upper 70s later today. we are getting ready for a chance of rain, and i'll talk about that coming up at 5:47. >> and we're talking about the travel times looking great. 17 minutes down the east shore freeway. that's the top of the screen. highway 4 to the bay bridge toll plaza where the metering lights are on. we'll show you the rest of the commute

laura, with the president of the united states are private. i'm not going to discuss them publicly. >> he could, and we heard rogers and coats do that move lastbut the issue of course here is that the president has put some of these conversations into the public square, and so it's very difficult to claim executive privilege on things that you've been tweeting about, wolf. >> it's going to be a sensitive issue for him to explain, for example, if he's asked, and i'm sure he will be about comey's suggestion that the president kicked everybody out of the room except comey and that sessions lingered outside during that very sensitive meeting. you got a little smile on your face. how's he going to answer that? >> boy, i'm smiling because i'm getting the popcorn ready. this is better than "wonder woman." i'll be watching tomorrow. i don't think there is a good answer. if you serve at the fbi as i did, any attorney general, i served under three of them, i saw them every day. every attorney general knows it's their responsibility to shield the fbi from inappropriate political pressure, so question one, did you intervene? if the answer is no, you've g