mr. danforth mentioned russia won't replace the united states. i'm really not so sure now why you're so confident about that. there have been threats about closing down before. the way the relationship is going, from what i'm reading, i'm seeing articles skeptical of nato membership, and you're nodding. what would be the balance of power here. let us say that turkey blocked our access and things deteriorated. let us say we told the europeans we're not holding the refuges here, we're sending them on, build a wall if you want. we would do what in response? >> on russia, that was nick's point. what i would mean by that, if you want somebody to experience what it's like to be friends with russia, good luck. we see everybody around this region, they fall out with the united states over something. they think they can strike a deal with the russians. the russians treat them so badly and abused them so badly they get very much fed up with that quickly. that's what i say. that doesn't mean you're wrong. what we would have lost a lot by the time that happe

the first one was the waco, texas, janet reno, senator danforth who took over that investigation. and mreller. each of those are special situations and we would use the proper standards, and that's something i can tell you. >> jesse: do you think the doj should be investigating the clinton foundation? steve work absolutely. the clinton foundation got all of this money from russia. imagine their joy and surprise over this because i don't remember the russians doing a lot of charity giving in the united states. do they give stuff to wounded warriors or united way or hurricane relief? i don't think so. must've been a real shock. could have been any coincidence involved. link is a key question. it's interesting how you can love the russian so much five years ago to sell them nuclear material and then think they are awful people now. >> jesse: is that how politics works in washington? people make a donation and maybe they expect something in return. >> dana: and asked for the clinton foundation said in their defense. "the new york times" puts out this story in the clinton foundation went bers

mr. sessions: it's in the manual of the department of justice about what's required. we have overwhelm had two. rst one was the waco janet reno, senator danforth took over that investigation as special counsel. and mr. mueller. each of those are pretty special, factual situations. and we will use the proper standards. that's what -- only thing i can tell you, mr. jordan. you can have your idea, sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it needs to stand -- meets the standard -- mr. jordan: we know one fact. we know the clinton campaign, the democrat national committee, paid for, through the law firm, paid for the dossier. we know that happened. it sure looks like the f.b.i. was paying the author of that document. and it sure looks like a major political party was working with the federal government to then turn an opposition research document that quoted some "national enquirer" story into an intelligence document, take that take that to the fisa court. that's what it looks like. i'm asking you doesn't that warrant in addition to all the things we know about james comey in 2016, doesn't that warrant a second special

in waco, janet reno, senator danforth, who took over that investigation a special counsel, and mr.ueller. each of those are pretty special factual situations, and we will use the proper standards, and that's the only thing i can tell you, mr. jordan. sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets the standard to require a special counsel.. >> sean: the department of justice has since put out statements are made to further explain attorney general jeff sessions comments. it says "the attorney general was clarifying the legal basis for appointing a special counsel, not passing judgment on whether it applied in any specific investigation." that statement and sessions' testimony today is crucial in all of this.es sessions is explaining that just because a special counsel has not been appointed, that does not mean it won't happen, andd that the threshold for one won't eventually be met. look, we've been exposing these massive clinton scandals, and i believe crimes for over a yearwe it's frustrating, people are getting impatient. i totally understand why c

the first one was the waco, janet reno senator danforth who took over that investigation special counsel and mr. moeller. that was a pretty special factual situation. we would use the proper standards and that is the only thing i can tell you. you can have your idea, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it needs to standard required. >> we know one fact, we know the clinton campaign and the democratic national committee paid for through the law firm, paid for the dossier. we know that happened and it sure looks like the fbi was paying the author of that document and it sure looks like a major political party was working with the federal government to then turn in opposition research documents of some "national enquirer" story into an intelligence document, take that to the pfizer corporation so they can then get a warrant to spy on americans associate of the president trump campaign. that's what it looks like and i'm masking you doesn't that warrant in addition to all the things we know about james comey in 2016 does that warrant naming a special second coun

the first one was the waco janet reno senator danforth who took over that investigation as special counsel and mr. mueller. each of those are pretty special factual situations. >> let me ask it this way -- >> we will use the proper standards and that's the only thing i can tell you, mr. jordan. >> i appreciate -- >> you can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it needs -- meets the standard required a special counsel. >> well, we know one fact we know the clinton campaign, the democrat national committee, paid for through the law firm paid for the dossier. we know that happened. it sure looks like the fbi was paying the author of that document and it sure looks like a major political party was working with the federal government to then turn an opposition research document the equivalent of some national enchoir ir story into an intelligence document take that to the fisa court they could then get a warrant to spy on americans associated with president trump's campaign. that's what it looks like. doesn't that warrant in addition to the things we

. -- senatoras danforth took over that investigation as special counsel. and mr. mueller. each of those are special factual situations. we will use the proper standards and that's the only thing i can tell you mr. jordan. you can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and evaluate whether it meets the standard. >> we know the clinton campaign, the democrat national committee, paid for through the law firm, the dossier. it looks like the fbi was paying the author of that document. it sure looks like a major political party was working with the federal government to turn an opposition research document into an intelligence document, take that defies a court so they could get a warrant to spy on americans associated with president trump's campaign. a secondhat warrant special counsel? 20 members of this committee wrote you come asking you to do. >> mr. comey is no longer the director of the fbi. we have an excellent man of integrity and ability in chris wray and i think he will do an outstanding job. >> he is not here today. >> i would say looks like