mr. rosenstein: i don't have enough to do. sen. alexander: i think it should be a two or three year process because everything in the university's works slowly. there's a building over here that bill bennett used to call the block where all the universities have their associations. i think they would be happy to organize almost every one of their meetings, a forum for college presidents. you need the presidents and the i've members to say what said before. here is what the history is, here is what the law is, here is what you can do and here are your options. think if the university of chicago resident says here is how and why we adopted the principles and the princeton university president says here is how we institute are speech routine. and you can say at the beginning of every year, here is what you may do, here is what you may not do, and if you file that you will be punished. i think that would make its way through the various campuses. the other reason not to try to do it by a federal mandate or federal law is that it doesn'

mr. rosenstein who i personally -- i've been highly critical of mr. rosenstein. although, this i find really kind of odd, an odd statement and hard to believe that it was true, but i'm very critical of mr. rosenstein and the way the doj has been handled. arthel: is this all representative of a department of justice that's out to get president trump? or is this more of a reflection on president trump, his presidency, his character and perhaps the way he runs his white house? >> well, i think there's no doubt that president trump is comfortable operating in a certain environment of contestance if you can put it that way. the congress has been trying to get ahold of documents, trying to open up everything from the fisa warrant abuse to bruce ohr's documents, all these things should be declassified and the whole series that we go back for a year. arthel: do you think congressman that declassifying those requested documents, it is okay, and that this does not put national security at risk? >> well, consistently they have claimed national security, and we haven't ever

mr. rosenstein? >> the president has confidence in the system. >> that's not what i asked. >> well, again, i'm not going to get ahead of the conversation that's going to take place. certainly he wants things to take place. there have been a number of incidents that have caused a great deal of concern. not just the president, but to americans all over the country, people like bruce ohr, mccabe and others who have been dishonest and not played the role that they were meant to play through the fbi and through the department of justice and the president wants to have a conversation with rod rosenstein and that will take place thursday. >> he wants to know if rod rosenstein said should i wear a wire on the president. >> look, i think he wants to have a conversation with him. they had a very long and good conversation yesterday, and they want to continue that in a couple of days. >> if rosenstein refuses to resign, will the president fire him? >> i won't get ahead of the president's decision-making. again,

mr. rosenstein had an upclose view of the tumult. mr. cted regretful and emotional according to the people who spoke with him at the time. that is not necessarily new reporting. we knew there was a concern that his truthfulness and integrity by people he has worked with many years at the justice department. so you could understand that there might be some concern. but, also, if it was said sarcastically, is the "new york times" blowing this up out of proportion when you have somebody who is maybe blowing off steam and making jokes just to get through the day? >> >> well, it is well-known as have you indicated that rod rosenstein was not happy about the manner in which jim comey was fired u it's well known when the president asked rod rosenstein to give him a memo summarizing reasons that he the president could use for firing comey. he fired comey and published the memo that rosenstein completely taken aback he was thrown under the bus. he didn't want comey fired. he wrote the memo because it was ordered. to say never exmsd the memo would

mr. rosenstein in front of the house judiciary committee answering our questions. that meeting? was mccabe? strzok? lisa page? who was in that meeting? we need to know all that information, so come in front of the judiciary committee in the house of representatives and answer our questions. second, we need the information. i asked for the mccabe memos clear back in july. justice department said, no, we're not going to give them to you. but somehow they're leaking them to new york times, so is give that information to congress so we can get answers for you, you folks in the press and, more importantly, the american people. lou: again, you're exactly on point with this. the issue also though becomes what are we to do with this department that is leaking, this department that is not working in alignment with the president of the united states and which seems to be responding to clarion calls from the left to work against the interests of the white house and the president of the united states as, quote-unquote, an independent department? to which potentially i say the

mr. rosenstein had an up-close view of the tumult. mr. rosenstein appeared conflicted, regretful and emotional according to people who spoke with him at the time. one of the reporters who broke that story this afternoon joins us now, along with some of our favorite reporters and friends. mike schmidt from "the new york times" along with former u.s. attorney joyce vance, jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the cia and pentagon, former cia assistant director frank figlusi and phil rucker. i joked before the show, we also call you guys our honorary co-hosts. mike schmidt, take us through what you and your colleague adam goldman are reporting this afternoon. >> well, we're looking at this eight-day period of time between the firing of comey and the appointment of mueller. and in that time, it's been widely, from the folks we talked to, accepted that rosenstein was really not himself. he was emotionally uneven. he was struggling in the moment to figure out what to do. the president had just gotten rudd rid of comey. it was an extraordinary mo

mr. rosenstein has a long career in public service and law enforcement. he initially joined the department of justice nearly 30 years ago through the attorney general's honors program and rose through the ranks, serving as a trial attorney, as principal deputy assistant attorney general for the tax division, and as a united states attorney in maryland for over a decade, a critically important job in our justice system. as deputy attorney general, mr. rosenstein has overseen the russia investigation led by special counsel robert mueller which has secured indictments or guilty pleas from 32 people and three companies, including russian individuals and companies as well as former trump campaign manager paul manafort, deputy campaign manager rick gates, and other campaign advisors, including george papadopoulos and michael flynn. earlier this month, mr. manafort pleaded guilty to, quote, conspiracy against the united states, unquote. mr. rosenstein has played an integral role in ensuring that the mueller investigation can continue without interference. unfort

mr. rosenstein. have the chief of staff when he was secretary of homeland security supposedly involved in those discussions. if they existed, i don't think he was saying that he was there talking about removing the president. and i think the facts are quite unclear about that. but certainly nothing was actually done so far as any of the reporting. so instead of allowing this investigation to conclude a pace as it has been, mr. mueller has been absolutely pure in not leaking and doing his job, and he's doing it methodically and in a timely manner and we should allow him to conclude his investigation. let's remember what we're talking about here is a foreign power interfering in our electoral process. that is of the most seriousness to the way our country operates. >> do you see -- >> and the assertions of influence as a result of russian interference are getting stronger, rather than weaker. >> richard, do you see any similarities between what could happen if rosenstein is pushed out in the saturday n

mr. rosenstein put out tonight that he thursdauthor recording the president -- it was a crazy idea which all took off the table. i hope he does not fire rosenstein. i have had my disagreements with mr. rosenstein and i said some publicly on your show. right now he's doing us a signatu service standing between the white house and bob mueller. >> there would be a serious reaction of the law enforcement intelligent committee? >> i think there would be a dramatic reaction. i think folks know that bob mueller is a fine and decent and honest and thorough special counsel and the men and women working for him are sticking to the facts and the laws. dpeting rid getting rid of rosenstein would bring us one step closer to either eliminating special counsel or circumcising it and that would make it difficult for bob mueller and his team to do his job. >> chuck rosenberg, thank you for being with us on a friday night. >> thank you, rachel. >>> a little bit of a whiplash introducing news night, more to come. stay with us. stay with us ♪ come to my window. ohhh. ♪ crawl inside, wait by the light of the

mr. rosenstein's first statement didn't deny it happened.ge was that i don't think he should be removed under the 25th amendment. it didn't say that it wasn't discussed, and even this latest statement doesn't suggest that maybe it hadn't come up. it clearly came up and, you know, i think to take a step back, looking at who leaked this potentially, it looks to me like the fbi is concerned that it's going to come out that people like andrew mccabe wanted to get the president. so they're trying to put the focus on mr. rosenstein because this material is going to come out eventually. but, again, it goes back to the mueller investigation. this is where the mueller investigation was brewed from, and it shows you that its underpinnings, frankly, are one of politics and antipathy to the president as opposed to, as i point out, a rule of law approach that was required out of the justice department handling something so sensitive. >> you and i can go back and forth about whether or not the decision to appoint mueller was a lawful one. i've heard this

mr. rosenstein's role in mr. mueller's appointment. he has labeled it a witch hunt and it comes the week or so after the most momentous accomplishment of the mueller pro, to secure a guilty plea" operation deal with paul manafort -- free and cooperation deal with paul manafort. david: he has been giving extensive interviews. greg: yes, to mueller and prosecutors in new york. david: let's assume mr. rosenstein leaves. we do not know if that will happen but it is a possibility. what does that mean for bob mueller? greg: he will continue. it becomes a political question of who the president appoints a matchup. i do not think there will be much appetite in congress to see who will do the president's bidding. whoever takes the job would have to have some credibility as a serious enforcer of the law. david: one of the serious , inenders is mr. francisco line, and in the past, he has opposed it in other situations. greg: yes, but he comes from the law firm of jones day, and it played a large role in the trump campaign, so it could be argued t

mr. rosenstein's first statement didn't deny it happened.ursue it, or the language was that i don't think he should be removed under the 25th amendment. it didn't say that it wasn't discussed, and even this latest statement doesn't suggest that maybe it hadn't come up. it clearly came up and, you know, i think to take a step back, looking at who leaked this potentially, it looks to me like the fbi is concerned that it's going to come out that people like andrew mccabe wanted to get the president. so they're trying to put the focus on mr. rosenstein because this material is going to come out eventually. but, again, it goes back to the mueller investigation. this is where the mueller investigation was brewed from, and it shows you that its underpinnings, frankly, are one of politics and antipathy to the president as opposed to, as i point out, a rule of law approach that was required out of the justice department handling something so sensitive. >> you and i can go back and forth about whether or not the decision to appoint mueller was a lawfu

mr. rosenstein. on your show, but right now i think he's doing us a service standing between the white house and bob mueller. >> do you expect that if the president did move to fire him, whether it was tonight author weekend or any time in coming days that there would be a serious reaction within the law enforcement and intelligence community? >> i think there would be a dramatic reaction. i think folks know that bob mueller is a fine and decent and honest and thorough special counsel, and that the men and women working for him are sticking to the facts and the law. in getting rid of rod rosenstein would be -- would bring us i think one step closer to either either eliminating the special counsel's role or circumscribing it in a way that would make it very difficult for bob mueller and his team to do their jobs. >> chuck rosenberg, former attorney, forrer fbi. thank you for being with us on a friday night. >> thank you, rachel. >>> a bit of a whiplash inducing news night. more to come. stay with us.

mr. rosenstein is denying the allegations saying that if he said that, he said it in jest. it was a cheeky comment. >> right. so the big question right now seems to be less did he say it and more how did he say it? the report in the new york times says that those suggestions were serious ones. they write this, quote, it is not clear how determined rosenstein was about seeing them through, he did tell andrew mccabe, that he might be able to persuade attorney general sessions and john kelly to mount an effort to invoke the 25th amendment. a source in the room when rosenstein's initial comments were made told fox news they were made sarcastically. other outlets are reporting that as well. a senior doj official who has direct knowledge of the meeting from rosenstein and others, they told fox news mccabe and rosenstein were having a heated conversation, essentially going back and forth with mccabe saying that rosenstein who oversees the russia probe, was getting in the way of aggressively investigating the administration. that back and forth the source claims that rosenstein sai

rosenstein was the guy that's basically been overseeing mr.ueller and he hasn't done a great job of that and that's been a problem of the original impeachment. if he goes, who supervises mr. mueller and that person will make the decision on whether this continues. >> harris: can you talk to me about how much i play rosenstein has in terms of conflicts of interest? for reporting a fox news there were some alleged conflicts where he may be called to testify and how james comey was fired. what are you learning about that? >> we believe, and i think a lot of us believed initially that he had a conflict of interest because he's the guy that said comey should be fired, he's the guy that helped orchestrate mueller getting in there, he was the hub and spoke of everything all along with the fisa documentation, warrant authorizations, these type of things. those are conflicts of interest when they are being investigated not only by congress but by mueller ostensibly although that doesn't seem to be happening. and the need for the fbi and the doj to over

mr. rosenstein -- david: got to break in with rosenstein's argument which he says he was joking.he comment about the wire was a joke. that the 25th amendment thing, he said he was joking about. the way to find out if he was joking, which he claims or was serious, which a lot of people think is true, to look at the mccabe memos. the mccabe memos what spell all this out. they're still being held back. if we, the justice department released those memos, would we know the truth? >> we'll know more of the truth. we'll have a contemporaneous record what took place. presumably more than one person at the meeting and has notes about it. other witnesses should be called to talk about what happened at the meeting. whether it was a joke or not, as i pointed out the proof is in the pudding and the corrupt pudding here. david: right. >> to strain the metaphor is the special counsel operation run by robert mueller. david: there is another thing we need to straighten out. what was in that fisa warrant. rosenstein is the guy that signed off on the fisa warrant that allowed the u.s. government to

mr. rosenstein. but for different reasons.tatement last night that you must not be using this as a pretext for correct purpose of firing mr. rosenstein in order to allow the president to interfere he says, with special counsel investigation. in other words, this would be used as an excuse to do that. what did you think? >> a thing is very important to be careful not to improperly interfere with an investigation. the question here is, should mr. rosenstein and indirectly, the president of the united states, be tried in the news media? it is exactly what is going on here. and it is much better to get to the bottom by looking at documents created at the time that may well reflect on what activities were taking place in the fbi and the department of justice from the middle of 2016, well into 2017.>> chairman, you were chairman of the house, judiciary committee. your expertise, how to handle controversial issues that come before your committee would come in handy looking at what chuck grassley is dealing with. hoping to get ms. for

mr. rosenstein expected at the white house.utting up shop and that is where we find ourselves. vonnie: we are going to continue to keep an eye on that. let us have a quick look at where u.s. markets are trading. did not see a reaction to the rosenstein news. the dollar is a little softer. it had a few soft sections -- sessions last week. are back down partially thanks to the sterling and the euro. that is the yield curve now. we have the conference coming up with the fomc tomorrow. are back down partially in the u.s., wtirling andcrudee trading close to $73 a barrel. $81. trades close to the commodity index is rebounding and i will show you why. macro movers, commodities such as sugar are having a down day even as hydrocarbons are higher. does not seem to be much forward momentum on the trade front. guy mentioned other stories. dollar down a little as oil rallies where it -- rallies. this is "bloomberg." ♪ guy: this is the european close. italian sovereign yields were climbing as investors not convinced the government will stic

well i think it's a dress rehearsal for what will happen on thursday when mr rosenstein probably will submit his resignation we need to remember the rosenstein comments and it's not just oral statements it's e-mails and memoranda that were prepared by those who spoke with him including mr mccabe of the f.b.i. indicated certainly a hostility towards mr trump that echoed the exchanges that we've seen between lisa page and peter stroke at the f.b.i. which also indicated rather disparaging remarks towards the president and dismay that he was elected now i don't know whether the rizieq nation will impair mr moeller after all under the department of justice rules the immediate successor to mr rosen aside would be the cylinder general no francisco who really doesn't really have any political dimension to him ease just a lawyer and if anything it would mean that mr malvo would simply continue on his investigation i do think however that given the political climate it will be exceptionally difficult to actually nominate and have the senate confirm any successor to mr rosenstein the senate will

mr. rosenstein right now.y's media confusion as to whether or not he may have quit or been in the process of being fired, do you have any further clarity as to his fate and what's going on between him and the house? >> i don't. i think we need to see this is part of a long effort by the president and his allies in congress and his allies on fox to push rosenstein out of the way so that they can put someone in there who someone the president gets to do his bidding. th that's a shrewd way to kneecap, and you are right to point out concerns of attorney general, matt whitaker, that he wrote an op-ed suggesting that would cross the red line and beyond the scope to look at whether the russians are laundering money to the trump campaign and the clear language of that scope of authority provides above mueller can look into any connection between the russian government and trump or anyone else affiliated with this campaign. he's wrong on the facts and he's wrong on the law but if he's the deputy attorney general then s

mr rosenstein — who oversees the special counsel's inquiry into alleged links between president trump'sssure following a newspaper report that alleged he suggested secretly recording conversations with the president and was encouraging senior government figures to remove him from office. he's denied the claims. 0ur washington correspondent gary 0'donoghue joins me now. remind us who is rod rosenstein? it may not be a household name, but he is stealing some headlines. he is a functionary, he is the deputy attorney general, any normal run of things he really would not be a name at all in the american household. he has been thrust into the limelight simply because he is the man who oversees the investigation, the special counsel investigation into the russian allegations, allegations of russian meddling in the 2016 election. he is the man who he reports to, has to get clearance from hemp for certain lines of investigation, has to justify the money, and at the end of the day the report will go to him if he keeps hisjob, and report will go to him if he keeps his job, and he report will go to

mr. rosenstein is at the head of that agency. there are plenty of questions we can ask legitimately about his intentions towards the president. >> how do you see how this report might influence the mueller investigation. if you recall the memos of andy mccabe went to the mueller team back in may and now suddenly we are reading in this report that that information is leaked and in the body of these memos would be rosenstein commandeering this overthrow. how does this impact the mueller team at all? >> let's go back. unless i'm mistaken so we can keep facts as facts, rod rosenstein is not the head of the fbi. he is deputy attorney general. two separate bureaus and branches of government. also, by the way, this all involves trump firing the head of the fbi which bay the way, was something rosenstein apparently supported and thought the way trump went about it was problematic and what was a private memo. if we are looking for people who are supposedly trying to take down the trump administration, you wouldn't think they are trump's a

and duty of congress to conduct oversight of exactly this sort of misconduct that rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in. and mr. meadows is correct! look, they demand accountability. he needs to get in, meaning rosenstein, needs to get in front of them, under oath and explain and clarify the reporting period that evidently was serious enough for andy mccabe to write reports on. >> right. i think we had to say that going to the issue of the leadership, we cannot even call it that. the presence of the speaker of the house through all of this, it is through the courage and the energies of half a dozen folks. congressman devin nunes, house intelligence community. congressman jordan, congressman meadows, matt gates and a handful of others. that we know anything about what is going on. the speaker has been absent, derelict throughout, efforts to carry the constitution responsibility over these intelligence and doj. >> worse than that, the speaker has guilty knowledge of all of this. and he is just as bad in my opinion as mr. rosenstein because he is sitting on top of corrupt criminal activity. he is suppressing and

mr. rosenstein ought to resign. i think he should stay put. denied the elements of the "new york times" story that have him suggesting whether in jest or otherwise with a verifiable case with the 25th amendment. that raises interesting questions. what if a president were acting so irradically that those close to him suspected he was not capable of performing his job? would a tape recording of the president be in order? i don't know the answer to that question, but it raises questions about the 25th amendment and what was in mind. >> for rosenstein leaves or resigns or is fired, what does that mean for the attorney general, jeff sessions, who for more than a year now has been publicly huh mailiated and rebuked by the president? >> i'm sure he will be humiliated and rebuked more. he is not willing to resign either. the question is if mr. rosenstein is fire and whether the solicitor general, mr. francisco will be appointed to take over the responsibilities of supervising mr. mueller. to complicate matters even further, the law firm from which mr.

mr. rosenstein's state of mind in

mr. rosenstein, you no longer enjoy my trust and confidence, you are dismissed. if mr. rags his feet as well, there's another opportunity. rosenstein needs to go. this is the perfect opportunity given the context and given the amount of information that's going to be revealed, that he is actively suppressing this criminal conspiracy. now is the time for mr. rosenstein to be fired and this documentation when released will only confirm and compound that. lou: i know you have expressed your view on their slow-walking whether at the department of justice or the fbi or the dni, the intelligence community. so i'm asking you more of a political question now, and that is to assess whether that slow-walking will mean that we see documents in a week, whether we see them in a month, or will we, god forbid, see them after the election sometime because that looks like what this is a preface to, this statement from the department of justice. >> right. well, the deep state political operatives will drag their feet to kick it past the election, but i can urge and compel the leadership i

mr. rosenstein at the white house on thursday.is warning russia that its plan to supply a serial with an advanced missile-defense system will be a major mistake and should be reconsidered. national security adviser john bolton said delivery of the russian s 300 would be a significant escalation in already high tensions in the region. there is speculation that a dispute between the united states and turkey that has wreaked havoc on the lira could be resolved. he is accused of aiding terrorist groups. florence isn't done with the carolinas yet. rumors are still rising. thousands were told to evacuate today before rivers reached across. northds of roads in both and south carolina are still impassable. the storm has claimed 43 lives since slamming into the coast. global news 24 hours a day, on air and on tictoc on twitter, powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in over 120 countries. i'm mark crumpton. this is bloomberg. ♪ caroline: hearing from christina , she will answer committee's questions. chuck grassley is the leade

mr. rosenstein oversees the special counsel investigation into alleged russian interference in the election. "new york times" reporting friday and early last year, rosenstein talked about secretly recording the president and recruiting cabinet members in an attempt to remove him from office. rosenstein denied those reports. andrew, what are the problems with rosenstein's denials on the "new york times" story? >> well, you know, first of all, the story is credible because my own view of it for what it's worth is that rosenstein miscalculated what the reaction to his memorandum supporting the firing of fbi director james comey was going to be. i think he expected to be applauded for that. he was bitterly attacked over it, and i think he spent a lot of times in the days that followed that trying to get back into the good graces of the people who were attacking him to. my mind, the most interesting thing, liz, is the timeline, because at the same time that he evidently talking about potentially wiretapping the president and the 25th amendment, which was ridiculous. at that very time, he also ap

mr. rosenstein could explain what happened, what he said, and there be a bipartisan committee of congress at which some facts could come out in an impartial way and we would learn the full story after "the new york times" has broken this huge important piece of reporting. unfortunately there is no such committee because we're in a constitutional crisis where the congress of the united states is totally dysfunctional. on top of that, we have a president of the united states who's contemptuous of the rule of law, that one of the things that mr. rosenstein, we know has been concerned about for months and months, is that contempt for the rule of law, the president's lie, and now he joins a long list of people in this presidency who fear that the president of the united states is not fit to be the president, is a danger to the national security, does not understand what the proper use and function of the justice department is. so all of these things are converging, and they're converging at the time of a midterm election in which the president is going to throw all of this meat to his base and

mr. rosenstein would be well advise today step aside and the president and the attorney general would be would be well within their rights to terminate employment. >> as for the deputy attorney general, he says the reporting in "the new york times" is factually inaccurate and based on anonymous source who is are bias against the department of justice, a source in the room and initial comments were made told fox news that they were made sarcastically, senior doj member says the meeting took place on may 16th, the official who has direct knowledge of the meeting from rosenstein and others, they told fox news that mccabe and rosenstein were having a heated conversation going back and forth, mccabe saying rosenstein was getting in the way of aggressively investigating the administration and rosenstein was saying that mccabe was shooting from the hip and that moment the source claims rosenstein said what do you want me to do, andy, wear a wire. another source familiar with memos of this meeting drafted by former fbi director andy mccabe says the times reporting was accurate and mccabe's sinki

mr. rosenstein, why are you keeping information from congress? >> your statement that i'm personally keeping information from you trying to conceal information -- >> you're the boss, mr. rosenstein. >> that's correct, and my job is to make sure we respond to your concerns. we have, sir. >> the question now is whether republicans have given the president an excuse to fire rosenstein. something trump himself hinted at in a may tweet. at some point, i will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the presidency and get involved. >> are you afraid of president trump firing you? >> no, i'm not being, congressman. >> rod is, he is shockingly fatalistic. >> different people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time, and i think they should understand by now the department of justice is not going to be extorted. >> he is a career public servant. he's a career prosecutor. whatever mr. trump wants to say frankly can only make his reputation go up. >> even if he gets fired? >> especially if he gets fired. >> b

mr. rosenstein. >> we have a meeting when i get back.we are meeting with a lot of great people including president moon and we are -- over the next couple of days we are meeting with many countries tomorrow giving a big speech. i will be back on thursday and when i get back we're going to have a meeting. i spoke with rod today and we're going to have a meeting on thursday when i get back to the white house. i want to say the country, the united states as president moon pointed out when we first met, the united states is doing better economically than we have ever done before. the numbers are outstanding. new numbers will be released that i think will just continue this forward march and i think we have tremendous potential on the upside. i'm very excited about our new trade agreement and this is a brand new agreement. this is not an old one requinn. this irerewritten, this is a brd new agreement. i'm excited about that for the united states. i believe it's good for both countries. but the numbers that we're doing in the united states whe

mr. rosenstein about what he said and whether or not what he said was in gest or seriously.n, you know -- >> harris: can i ask if it matters? >> i was about to say, i'm not sure that it matters at this point given where we are in the mueller inquiry. if the reporting is to be believed, we're nearing the end of this process. so it doesn't matter. >> harris: when you say something, sometimes you do put it in as a joke. doesn't mean it's not true. i'm saying that from my own recording and what i've seen people do and how they handle things. >> the idea that rod rosenstein would be suggesting using the 25th amendment is absurd. >> harris: even as a joke? >> even as a joke. nobody would consider using the 25th amendment inless the president was incapacitated, which suggested this is a made-up story. there's nothing wrong with the white house asking him to come up and clarify the situation given the volatility of what is going on right now. >> harris: so you think it's made up? fabricated? >> i think it's -- yes, a lot of what is going on right now. >> harris: you're shaking your

mr. rosenstein. trish, bottom line, lots of hypotheticals here.e should know more potentially at least on thursday. trish: blake burman, thank you very much. richard fowler, tom borelli, still with me. i'm a little perplexed by the comment from the democrats saying that somehow if rosenstein were to leave that that then would dissolve the special counsel. i imagine there are a lot of conservatives would love that because it has been such enormous distraction. i don't think that would actually happen. >> of course it is not going to happen that way but that is what the democrats want to do. they want to set the seeds of chaos. they want to set seeds of somehow president trump breaking the law, obstruction of justice, whatever it is, but remember, how many years no russia collusion? almost $20 million spent this is what the american people have to worry about. trish: you know, mr. fowler, what i would like to know is whether or not they have looked into the other side as well? why not look into everything? if you're going to look into what the russi

mr. rosenstein's ouster. here on the senate side, another democrat, senator patrick leahy, democrat from vermont says this: saturday night massacres don't need to happen on a saturday. if president trump fires deputy attorney general rod rosenstein or forces his resignation, he will come one giant leap closer to directly meddling with the special counsel's russia investigation. amend that is the big concern among lawmakers about rosenstein leaving. just out impact that it would have on the mullen probe. trace? >> trace: and republicans, peter, what do they say? >> not a whole lot yet we did here in mark meadows, part of his statement says this: under rod rosenstein and jeff sessions the department of justice has had just as much transparency problem as it did under eric holder and loretta lynch the bar for which is extremely low. this is disastrous and it needs to end now. meadows is one of the only republicans to have commented on this so far in addition to mitch mcconnell who you just heard from. however, o

mr. rosenstein right now.'s sort of media confusion as to whether or not he might have quit or been in the process of being fired, do you have any further clarity as to his fate and what's going on right now between him and the white house? >> i really don't, but i think we need to see this is part of a long effort by the president and his allies in congress and his allies on fox to push rod rosenstein out of the way so they can put someone in there who is pliable, someone that the president can get to do his bidding, his own roy cohn, as the president would say. that of course is a much more shrewd way to kneecap the mueller investigation than overtly firing bob mueller. you're right to point out concerns about the deputy attorney general matt whitaker. he wrote an op-ed, as you mentioned, that is factually wrong and legally wrong, suggesting that it would cross a red line, it would be beyond the scope of mueller's investigation to look at whether the russians were laundering money through the trump campaign.

mr. rosenstein's proposals apparently came to fruition. it is not clear how determined he was about seeing them through, though he did tell mr. mccabe he might be able to persuade john kelly, ten the secretary of homeland security, now the white house chief of staff to mount an effort to invoke the 25th. the "times" adds rosenstein was serious in raising the idea of wearing a wire himself to secretly record the president somehow and he mentioned it on a different occasion. his remarks were not meant seriously according to a senior doj official at a meeting may 16 of 2015. quote, rosenstein was arguing with andrew mccabe about the president according to a senior justice department official. well, what do you want me to do, andy? wear a wire, rosenstein asked at the at the meeting that included lisa page and four doj officials. this official and a source in the room characterized his mood as sarcastic. another told nbc news rosenstein was making a serious comment and the doj official also tells us there was a brief mention of the 25th amendme

mr. rosenstein president this is after an explosive report from "new york times" claiming that he considered invoking the 25th amendment to remove the president and thought about secretly reporting him last year. rosenstein denies all of it. his dismissal would put the mueller investigation in limo. >>> holt and dry conditions leads to an elevated fire danger, this fire sparked? samara month. our anybody bay area sky ranger was overhead. fully contained is the good news, but the danger remains. jeff, there's a new red flag warning? >> yes, there is. this threat is for the hills right around 1,000 feet and above for the north-northeast and the south bay. sustained winds 10 to 25, it's the occasional gusts that could go 20 to 40 that could keep that fire danger ramped up. as we look at the areas, it's just for the hills outside of petaluma and novato. over to the east bay, really anywhere from concord to danville down through livermore, pleasanton and right near fremont. for the south bay, it's no the east san jose foothills, and then right up, of course, over through mt. hamilton. what we nee