. >> so, with us this evening live from capitol hill, let's bring on congressman mike quigley, a democrat from chicago, illinois. importantly, a member of the house intelligence committee. congressman, thank you for coming on. what is left of your committee tonight? and i guess my second question will be, will you ever trust your chairman again? >> look, the first thing i was asked this morning is what will the white house role be in the russia probe? and i said i predicted that it would be distractions and obstruction. and they didn't disappoint and it didn't take too long. the committee's work, however, is going to continue. there's no way in the world we should walk away from it. frankly, we're the only game in town on the hill between the house and senate intelligence committees. the work is too important. we're the only ones shedding a light on it. pressuring, as you saw with the ranking member, for an independent investigation and an independent prosecutor. but it's the information that we glean and learn in this process that helps drive that ability. >> it's 11:00 at night. have yo

we are about to bring in mike quigley, democratic member of the house intelligence committee. a pleasure to talk to you. welcome. >> thank you. >> you are a colleague, ranking member of your committee is openly questioning whether or not the white house blocked sally yates from testifying. do you believe that to be the case? >> absolutely. with the greatest respect, this isn't democrats or republicans. you can look at truth versus ab shut fantasy land. i don't know what mr. spicer is looking at. it is very obvious the white house wanted this open meeting cancels. they did not want miss rogers, miss yates to speak. they didn't want a repeat of last week's disastrous first meeting in which director comey said there is an investigation. the russians attempted to help the trump campaign and hurt mrs. clinton. there was no truth in the fabrication that president obama wiretapped trump tower. those are facts we have ascertained. the fact that the white house has a two-prong attack is pretty obvious, obstruction and distraction. >> you say it is obvious. would you consider that move

and a statement from mike quigley sighing we are very disappointed nunes cancelled hearing, suppressing answers, stirring con furgs keeping people in the dark won't allow us to come to an answer. >> let's look at the last nine days, director comey said that there is an investigation into the russia-trump probe, he said that the russians attempted to help president trump's campaign and hurt hillary clinton's campaign. just before that, the president of the united states said his trump tower was wiretapped and no evidence has come forth on that. just a few days later, chairman nunes goes on some sort of lite night excursion where he says he witnessed evidence of such and then just a few days later, he announces that the open hearing scheduled for this tuesday is cancelled. that's hardly a good week for a credible investigation. >> but do you believe he's trying to suppress answers and keep information from the american public? >> i think this is a two-fold campaign while the leadership on the republican side of the house, and the white house. it is distraction and obstruction. there's no

one of the members who will be part of those hearings is democratic congressman mike quigley of illinois. thank you for being with us. >> good morning. >> we've been hearing from sheldon whitehouse, democratic senator who sits on the senate judiciary committee. he says he thinks he might get a comment himself from fbi director today about whether there is a criminal investigation into these alleged contacts between trump soegts and the russians. he thinks they'll get confirmation of that on his side. do you already know the answer to that in the intelligence committee? >> i think the intelligence committee can answer that, but we've been briefs on that in confidential settings. i'll leave that to mr. comey to decide whether he's going to tell anybody else. the fact is the american public needs to know. that information needs to come from director himself. >> just to be clear, there is an answer and you have it, you just can't tell us, which is okay. we don't want you to reveal classified information. >> i respect the director's decision on what he's going to brief to this committee. it i

take a listen to congressman mike quigley a member of the house intelligence committee talking to ushis evening. >> i think the best way for me to describe it as a former criminal defense attorney, look, there is probable cause to believe there was coordination. >> i want to bring in our political commentators, the contributor to the hill and the former south carolina state representative. first chairman nunes draws some criticism by rushing to the white house with intel, not sharing it with the committee first, then he postpones tuesday's public hearing. he's getting a lot of criticism for this, how do you explain those actions? >> i agree with both congressman nunes's action and congressman peter king's defense of those actions. he said the president's name was caught up in surveillance between a foreign agent and a u.s. citizen, the name was unmasked, it appears to have no intelligence value, the person appears not to have been committing a crime which is the only reason why the person's name would be revealed and disseminated around government. if the president's name is caught u

congressman mike quigley of illinois. bring in msnbc's chief legal correspondent, ari melber, my good friend. the intel -- devin nunes we're talking about, may have been incident collection of trump team -- i want to play this. >> i was able to determine that it looks like it was legal collection, incidental collection but then made itself into intelligence reports. >> okay. legal collection but incidental. can we just -- let's just explain that. >> legal incidental collection is routine. it's what the spy agencies do day in and day out. it refers to the notion that lawful surveillance was conducted, that is likely through a fisa warrant or some or lawfully authorized collection and incidental means officials or transition members basically are not -- i'll speak to this full screen in a second. let's answer your question first. the folks who might have been incidentally collected are not the specific targets of the material. one example we do know about, according to public reports there's transcript of conversation that

congressman mike quigley. >> i am joined right now by senator marc warren, the ranking member of the senate intelligence committee. former president joe biden tweeted, senator, devon nunes, quote, checks and balances the chair and the committee having itting the white house can share info, mccain is right, need select committee. where do you stand on the need for a select committee, senator? >> listen, i think the senate committee is doing its job in a bipartisan way. i think a special prosecutor, i am wide opened with that. my concern would be both sides would ends up picking their most partisan men members, would take them months, we are having a public hearing next week. we started interviews, we got a lot of folks that we got to talk to. we got to get some additional information from a couple of the agencies, but we are doing this in a way i think that is methodical and we will follow the intel wherever it leads and candidly, i was surprised as everybody else was about what mr. nunes did yesterday. >> would you call that partisan or non-partisan, we still don't know whether he go

joining me now, republican congressman mike quigley of illinois. he sits on the house intelligence xhipt now, government sources tell cnn the documents the d.o.g. provided -- the d.o.j. provided, that is, last night, they done provide any evidence of president trump's wiretapping claims. can you confirm that? >> well, we got that document late yesterday while most of us were on our planes home. so i can't confirm. i suspect very strongly, though, that what we're going to hear on monday from director comey is a denial that there's any evidence about this unsubstantiated claim. i suspect that document will say the same thing. and it will only lead further proof i suspect that the president of the united states probably read something in breitbart and tweeted about it. and we're facing the consequences of that action. >> how are you preparing for monday's hearing? >> we've been getting extensive briefings on this. a lot of documents to read. this is going to take some time. we're hoping for a thorough, fair, bipartisan, bicameral analysis of this, an

. >>> i'm joined now by mike quigley of illinois who is a member of the house intelligence committee. thank you for being here. >> glad to be here. thank you. >> you'll be meeting with fellow democrats on the house intelligence committee. whal will you be reviewing there? >> at this point in time, it is more of a strategy session. given that tomorrow's public meeting was canceled late last week twoefl decide how to move forward. it includes just continuing the investigation, reviewing documents and making sure the proper people are interviewed. >> so discontinuing the investigation. is that one of the options? a lot of preeople are calling f an independent investigation. >> i believe we should have both. there are benefits to having an independent investigation. after 9/11, there were several forms. they all have different abilities. our committee has certain expertise. we'll meet in top secret. we are able therefore to review documents that are not custom airily available. >> reporter: it would take time even get started. we have the opportunity to move forward very quickly as we nee

sarah, i talked to congressman mike quigley, a democrat on the house committee holding monday's hearing. let's listen to a portion of what he told me. >> and the bottom line, when you look at all this, the president's sign on his desk probably should now say, "the buck stops anywhere but here," instead of addressing the fact that he tweeted something he shouldn't have tweeted, he won't take responsibility. when there's a problem with a raid in yemen, it's the generals' fault. the day after he speaks to congress, he blames his senior staff or it's the democrats' fault or president obama or the republicans. anyone but himself. >> so does the buck stop at the white house? or does it stop anywhere but, sarah? >> the white house has been in a really tough position, trying to substantiate this tweet. there doesn't seem to be any evidence that backs this up. this week the white house seemed to task house intelligence chairman devin nunes with putting this claim to rest. they had nunes come out. he said that there was no evidence to back this up. they kept referring reporters to the house and s

. >> let's bring in illinois democrat congressman mike quigley, member of the intelligence committee.in nunes is facing a lot of feet from the democrats, and a couple of republican senators in terms of questioning why he went to the white house and why he won't reveal his sources. but so far it sounds like nunes is not take thing quite as seriously. he's brushing it off. listen to him last night. >> so you're not going to tell the committee who your sources are? >> we never talk about sources. i wouldn't expect you to do that either. you guys are so infatuated with sources. >> and you're waiting to hear back from comey before you schedule yates? >> yes. we have the witnesses that we want. but we don't know who the democrats want to bring in. >> we never talk about sources and methods. i understand not talking about that in a public setting. i understand not telling a reporter who your source or method is, but usually you share that with the committee. am i wrong? >> well, the first thing that you do when something like this happens as a chairman is share it with the ranking member. th

the house intelligence committee, i'll speak live with a key democrat on the panel, congressman mike quigley. he's with us look with our correspondents and analysts as we cover all the breaking stories right now. first, let's go to cnn's jessica snooerd wi schneider with more on devin nunes' secret visit to the white house complex. >> we know that house intel chair devin nunes disappeared from his staff last tuesday night to delve into classified information on the white house grounds. what we aren't getting the answer to is, was this arranged by the white house. a former government intelligence official telling cnn that members of congress must be cleared to enter white house grounds by a white house staffer, saying it's just not possible that the white house was unaware or uninvolved. the white house, tonight, though, refusing to deny they knew nunes was nearby. tonight, new details about house intelligence committee chair, devin nunes' whereabouts the night before this unusual press conference. >> what i have read bothers me and i think it should bother the president. >> reporter: it turn

congressman mike quigley, a democrat from illinois sit on the intelligence committee and grig miller,correspondent for "the washington post." gentlemen, thank you. you know, i'm trying to speculate, and i admit i'm speculating. but i'm thinking i'm donald trump and i just got up on a saturday morning a few weeks ago and tweeted that the formerment wiretapped tapped me during the campaign at trump tower. then i realized i made a mistake but i better get some backup for this. so i talked to my people, jards kushner, my son-in-law and bannon, my guy, and i go, well, do we have that can give us something like that? who can we feed that to on the hill so that they will parrot this. they find out we got this guy ezra cohen, and we got this ellis who used to work for nunez. put this thing together. congressman, it looks like it was an alley-oop play. i like to use that phrase because dick cheney used to do it. give it to somebody else to deliver, and then you can say, as i was saying. they've got this guy nunes pegged. they used him. they fez him stuff out of the white house one night. the n

. >> with me congressman mike quick l quigley from illinois. listening to director comey saying he has no information that president obama wiretapped president trump, it's either right or it's wrong or it's wrong that it was either the president tweeted that based on that he was mistaken or did it intentionally. what do you think this is? >> i'm not sure what's worse. the president of the united states lying about this or watching breitbart and tweeting it. or actually believing that it's true. and adding insult to injury, the president of the united states tweeting about that during perhaps the most important investigation since watergate's first hearing is extraordinary. a surreal day on the hill. >> what can you do or what's the recourse? what do you tell the american people? where does congress take it beyond this hearing on that issue? >> i think what comes out of today's hearing -- the american public knows this investigation has to move forward. that this isn't just smoke somewhere. that there is there there. and we can't be stymied. >>