katy tur is in washington and picks up our coverage. >> hi there. 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. here in the nation's capital where the entirety of washington is on memo watch. the president could be moments, hours or days away from spurning the director, his fbi director, the man he chose to replace james comey. >> the trump administration could release the memo at any time despite warnings from fbi and other intelligent officials it would damage national security. >> i will tell you i've always believed in the public's right to know. and i stand by that principle, but we'll respect whatever decision the president makes concerning that memo. >> if it's released you'll see unbelievable spin that, you know, it doesn't mean this. we didn't do that. >> i'm not one of these people that will shake the world. >> if the white house decides to release the nunez memo director

wray is ready to release a rebuttal. >> it's an unprecedented showdown that puts the president and republicans at war with the fbi. this is what we know right now. and bear with us because things are changing fwhin. trump has three days to make a decision whether or not to release congressman nudevin nun memo, a memo that the president has now read. the fbi requested redaktions to the document but those have not been agreed to. the white house says the memo is still in review. according to sources inside the intelligence community a formal declassi declassification is under way. they have grave concerns of the memo being out in the public because of its inaccuracy. grave concerns is about as alarmist as the fbi gets.

this is a pretty big deal to them. and now there are new charges that congressman nunez secretly changed the memo before it reached the white house doors. adam schiff says that makes the memo null and void. nunez claims the only changes that were made were grammaticalal. chuck schumer and nancy pelosi are calling paul ryan to remove nunez as chairman of the house intelligence committee. this news today the chair of the senate homeland security committee ron johnson is requesting texts, earn mail and other records from 16 fbi and doj employees. including former fbi director james comey and former fbi, former deputy fbi director andrew mccabe. so the war on the fbi has now moved to the senate. a lot to get to today. let's kick it off with our

reporters. kelly o'donnell is at the white house. pete williams is in our washington newsroom. and betsy wood destructive. pete, let's start with you. the fbi does not want this memo out there. they are wrangling for redactions. what can they do >> i don't think they've decided. here's the deal. if the president says i don't have any objection, in other words poses no objection to the house releasing the memo then we get into this strange situation where it becomes public but not declassified. it may sound weird but only the executive branch can declassify something not the judicial branch. >> we have a hard in with congressman schiff who is being interviewed right now. let's listen. >> have to let everybody know about this? >> during the hearing, when the

republicans took up a vote to put their memo out and not put the democratic memo out jim hines asked the chairman is this memo you're putting out the same one that's been circulated the house. the answer is yeah. that didn't turn out to be true. in fact hines pressed him a couple of times but got the same answer. the memo had been altered. we learn later that evening and confront the majority on it. now they had claimed that their changes were clerical. that's not truetter. in fact, yesterday the intelligence committee spokesman said that the fbi was guilty of omissions in court proceedings. one of the changes that the majority made, i can't go into details about it, is to remove the word "significant" from material changes. they no longer apparently believe any omissions were

significant because they removed the word "significant." that to me is a consequential thing. it's one thing if you say there's omissions before the court and another if you say those omissions are significant. other changes also indicate that they are not quite as confident that what they provided to the house is fully accurate. and overstates the matter. so these changes were not made known to the committee when we voted out the document. the document that they produced to the white house is evidently not the same one we voted on. and it's just another corruption of the process. >> now, does it say in your committee rule that if something would be changed like this that you have to revote on it and if so, how do these steps, jumping over the minority, not really discussing with you guys all the time or at least giving you another round to vote on this. does that change the committee? like how should we view the

house intelligence committee moving forward? >> well, the rules provide that the majority of the committee can vote to declassify a document. we voted as a committee, the majority voted to declassify the document. they can then just release a different document. so that's a violation of the rules. now our system in the house is only as good as the speaker who is willing to uphold the system, and sadly the speaker has allowed himself to -- i think pushed into a corner by the chairman. he hasn't been willing to stand up to the chairman or the president and that has undermined the institution. but there's no basis now to disclose this altered document because the committee did not vote to release an altered document. >> now you brought up speaker ryan. do you think that he had anything to do? do you know that he had anything to do with either helping get

these documents or just approving them all together? >> well, i would presume that this whole gambit of releasing this memo, this spin memo by the republicans was approved by the speaker. it's a violation of the whole compact between the committee and intelligence community. that compact provides you share with us your closest held secrets. we'll keep them protected. protect your sources and m th methods. that's been broken here. the speaker is a complicit party in the breaking of that compact. >> now, do you think that -- >> excuse me one second. >> yes. >> it seems unfortunately slightly awkward because adam schiff is being interviewed by one of our producers in

philadelphia. >> the gambit at the white house where he went to present materials that he got at the white house, materials that didn't show what he said they showed forced him to step aside months ago. he never honored that commit pentagon. the time has come for him to honor that commitment. let mr. conoway run the investigation. he's a good and responsible partner. yes, i think our investigation would simply not be credible or productive as long as chairman nunez is at the helm. >> do you think if congressman conoway were there from the beginning it would look different >> undoubtedly it would look very different. we wouldn't have any of these shenanigans and our committee wouldn't be breaking this compact with the intelligence community. we wouldn't be, i think, maligning the fbi and department of justice to carry water for the president. so i think things would be very

different. >> do you think that the ethics committee should have looked at nunez again -- first i should ask you do you believe that this is a mishandling of classified information in that nunez is at the helm of that and should be blamed for something like that? >> i don't like to make ethics referrals or ethics arguments. but i think in the interest of the investigation he should have really stepped aside when he said he was. he certainly ought to, i think, yield the reins of this to his colleague mr. conoway. let him run this in an appropriate way. this is bringing discredit on, i think, on mr. nunez, on our committee. >> so adam schiff right there talking to an nbc reporter in philadelphia after an event. he stayed words that were omitted in the memo that went from the house to the white house, that "significant" was taken out when talking about significant omissions.

he said there's a difference between just regular omissions and the word "significant omissions." he said this investigation into the fbi is a violation of the pact between the fbi, intelligence community and the intel community a pact they won't reveal sources and methods just for political gain. he also said he does believe that devin nunes should step aside. i got a number of folks here with me. we have pete williams, betsy wood destructive and kelly o'donnell. pete let's go back to you. devin nunes or adam schiff obviously not happy about this memo being released. he's calling it a violation of the pact. does the fbi see it that way? >> your question to me originally i was going to answer when this interview started what can the fbi say about it? it depends on how it becomes public. if the president puts it out, in essence, declassifies it, it may

loosen the reins on the fbi to talk about it. if the white house puts it out that doesn't declassify it. if i can equitable with what adam schiff said. the white house rules say they can disclose publicly any information that's been classified. that doesn't declassify it technically. may seem weird. makes it public. only the executive branch can declassify not the legislative branch. the fbi's hands would be tied in terms of how they can respond. nonetheless i will say that what we're told is the fbi is trying to figure out what it can say about this thing if it seems like as now seems inevitable that it will come out. how much can they say? how much can they engaging it given whatever the classification of the nunez memo might be, a warrant to monitor an american citizen remains classified. >> pete, christopher wray is

donald trump's pick for fbi director. he's made a recommendation to the white house. the white house if they release this memo is not going take that recommendation. what is the reaction? have you got enany reaction from inside the bureau to the president overruling their fbi director. >> they are not happy about it. not the only time people who are part of the government making a suggestion to the president and the president chooses to do something different. so these things happen. obviously they wish this doesn't come out because they think it has all sorts of consequences, but, you know, i think it was bold of the fbi director to do this, to publicly first privately and then publicly say we sure hope you don't do this. >> mike, if the president decides to release the memo how would he be able to do that? >> i think it's important to step back and realize this is uncharted territory. the house rule being invoked here for the purpose of putting the memo out publicly has never

been explored before. it's been clear that they are working overtime to figure out all the potential scenarios and make sure they are going by the book here because they will seat precedent here. there are three scenarios in which this memo will become public. the first is that the white house will declassify the memo and release it itself. and that's the cleanest scenario. available to us publicly and everyone including the fbi, democrats and republicans can talk about what's in it. the second scenario is that the president would dehave the memo. that sounds like something we're seeing. process of redactions under way but goes back to the house to release it. the third scenario is the most complicated and that's where the memo is not declassified but the president says i do not object to the release of this classified memo. we have to wait until next week

to see it and the way it happens the house has to be in session and would either read the full memo, it's four pages long from the floor of the house or read it into the congressional record. the reason you would do that is because it's a crime to disclose classified information but there's the speech or debate clause in the house which gives members immunity from breaking laws. >> complicated rules. right now looks like the third option, the complicated option mighting the one we're dealing with. >> that's what my sources are preparing for. our colleagues at the white house are reporting there's some redactions and declassification happening. we've been talking about this memo for a month, weeks at the very least. now the moment has arrived everyone is getting, i don't know if cold feet is the right word but they are recognizing the gravity of the situation. now taking some time to do this

in the most appropriate form. >> betsy, "the washington post" today said, has reported on what's been going on behind-the-scenes and they said the president told advisers the memo is gaining attraction and can help convince the public the spreeb witch-hunt. does this underscore this is a political effort than a transparency effort. >> the fact that nunez and republicans on the house intelligence community voted to block democrats to release their own version of the memo, their own interpretation of the intelligence which underlies the memo means, that itself is very much focused on the political impact of new information rather than on what the actual substance of what happened and what this matter is about. when we talk about that impact, one piece of this that i learned yesterday, important to bear in mind this issue doesn't just pit chris wray against the white house. rod rosenstein has had deep seated very deep concerns about

the memo's release. when the justice department sent a letter to the hill last week, a letter very important, it was signed by steven boyd who is the doj's top hill liaison. but rod rosenstein was deeply involved in writing that letter and it totally reflected the concerns he specifically had. rod rosenstein is also a member of the trump administration, senate confirmed guy. the tension here within the trump administration is really acute. guys stand by for just one second. kelly o'donnell stand by as well. we want to get to lee who is joining us from the republican retreat in white sulphur springs, west virginia. congressman, thank you for joining us. i know you'll be going into a meeting, or an event with mitch mcconnell and paul ryan in just a moment. but i want to get your thoughts on this memo. you said you support it. the fbi says it has grave concerns and they use that, "grave concerns" about its

release. even with redactions fbi says it's not okay with the release. are you concerned republicans could be jeopardizing national security? >> no it will show fisa abuse. that's what's going to reveal. that's probably the main reason why some people would very much not want to see it get released is because it's definitely going be showing fisa abuse and misconduct. >> have you read it, congressman? >> yes, i have. >> you have. so you're positive you're not going to be jeopardizing national security in anyway? >> absolutely. not only are you not revealing any good sources and methods, you're showing a reliance on some bad sources and methods. >> that's not what the fbi is saying, though. the fbi is saying it's very concerned about this and that there are material omissions,

that there are significant omissions in this memo that make it so it's going to basically not tell the truth, it's going to paint a v-in their words, in their opinion, biassed analysis of what's going on at the fbi. i'm curious because when hillary clinton was accused of mishandling classified information and having it on her server you said that no one is above the law. you called for theory be investigated. republicans are releasing this despite the most severe warning that the fbi can give about harming sources and methods. that's what the fbi is saying. how can you say that you and republicans aren't doing worse than what you accused hillary clinton of doing? >> you know, i read the memo and as soon as its released you'll have and all your viewers can read it as well and you'll see we're not revealing good sources and methods. the national security concern is not the main issue. the main issue is the fact that it's going showing misconduct on the part of top people at the

doj and the fbi. you're going to see a need for a change to certain practices up there. there's going to be a need for a change of certain personnel towards the top. what i don't want to have lost in this discussion that we're having in this greater debate that this country is having is that we have almost 100% of our justice department, fbi made up of great career professionals who are doing this because they love our country, they are doing it for all the right reasons. but there was misconduct that took place in some of the highest levels that have to get addressed. i want the american public to have more information not less. if anybody is complaining about any kind of mission, they believe additional information should be provided let's provide more information to the american public not less. i'm all for the american public -- >> why not release that. that's more information. >> this is a new memo that just came out. i had the opportunity to read it a couple of days ago. i'm all for giving the american public access to both memos as

it relates to the schiff memo. it's important to have a conversation with the democrats, with congressman schiff with regards to whether or not he wants to release the entire memo as is because there are a few components of it that do get into specifics on sources and methods where he can essentially say the same exact thing. he can make the same exact point he's making without a few points that actually do reveal sources and methods. that's conversation that needs be had with congressman schiff. i'm all for giving the american public more information not less and that applies to relevant source material in the documents. any undersource material where you can provide that information to the american public if there's any redactions needed that's fine. if there's a document that can't be released that's okay. i understand. but i don't believe we can't provide any of that relevant source material. >> you say there needs be changes in leadership at the

top. who your talking about? >> as on as the memo comes out, if it comes out in its current form that i've read that was provided to the white house, if it's released as is, then you'll know the names. i'm not allowed to be able to tell you. >> up think rod rosenstein who is an appointee of donald trump leads to not be leading -- should not be in his position any longer? >> i don't want to comment on any names specifically just because i'm not allowed to. as soon as this memo gets out then -- by the way, to your point with the interview you just had, so important there's a difference between releasing this document without declassifying it versus declassifying and releasing it. we need the white house, we need the president to actually dehave the document because imagine this. if it's just released publicly, you can actually read it for

yourself. i can stand here in front of the cameras and because it actually still maintains its classification, even though it's all over the internet i still can't talk about the contents. the last point -- >> let me ask you a question. we already know that. i want to talk about the leadership at the top. if this is about rod rosenstein, rod rosenstein is the one in charge of the mueller investigation. if rod rosenstein goes, donald trump appoints somebody else to that position is donald trump trying to get a more favorable out come or favorable pressure on the mueller investigation. this seems like from the outside observer we're seeing a slow roll of the saturday night massacre but what donald trump has what richard nixon did not have is the entire support of the republican party to tear down the deputy attorney general in order to eventually get to the man that's investigating the president of the united states. >> and, again, why it would

being a great for this memo to get out because it helps answer your question and you might be surprised to that particular point that is the basis of your question. i'll say the majority memo is specifically about fisa abuse and some misconduct that took place at the highest levels of the doj and fbi. >> so should carter page not be under fisa surveillance. he was known to the intelligence community long before he worked for donald trump. >> and, you know, again the majority memo is at risk of repeating myself the majority memo is specifically about fisa abuse. and that's my main concern here. and i want accountability. i want transparency. i have a ton of respect for the department of justice, for the fbi. these are great historic legendary, important organization. in order for these organizations to go forward as effectively and

as prominently needed and deserved there has to be a change to certain practices and a change to some personnel towards the highest levels of the doj and fbi. i really wish i could get in more specifics but to your question you just asked about carter page i would just re-emphasize that this memo is specifically about fisa abuse. >> congressman, thank you very much for joining us. >> take care, katy. >> a former staffer on the house intelligence committee. mika thank you for joining us. you were shaking your head. tell me why. >> so i find it difficult to believe their claims that this is about fisa abuse. a few weeks ago these same republicans opposed any reforms to fisa, claiming that there were no abuses whatsoever of the process and the authorities that the fbi had been using to investigate all kinds of foreign crimes. now a few weeks later when it's

political lly advantageous to tm they turn around and say they found fisa abuse. they are unwilling to hear from fbi and doj their side of the story. they are only interested in putting out a particular narrative. not interested in looking at all thie ining facts. >> you worked with devin nunes, there's a particular narrative they are trying to put out there. what is that particular narrative. >> they are trying to put out a particular narrative thatcherry picks intelligence that says the fbi and doj tried to go after this person for political purposes. but when you only pick out the evidence that makes your case you can leave a really false or misleading picture. people may remember in the bush administration in 2002-2003 when they only put out the evidence that was favorable to their case that iraq had weapons of mass destruction they buried the doubts and contrary evidence and took the nation to war on a false premise.

now they are using this same cherry picking tactic. >> are they going for robert mull center >> eventual they are. i think they are trying to says people bring out objective facts, look at all of this. >> what's more important here. protecting donald trump, who may or may not have abused power by obstructing justice maybe or his campaign which may or may not have coordinated with the russians. the russians already meddled in our elections. what's more important? finding the right out of that. bringing those to justice out of that or just protecting their republican agenda? >> they swear their otts to constitution and nation not donald trump. they have a bigger responsibility than that. and when a hostile foreign nation interferes in our elections and the director of the cia says the russians are coming back again it seems --

>> what should devin nunes do? people say he should recuse himself. he's doing the white house's bidding and not him protecting the constitution, this is him going out on a limb and making every effort he can to protect the man he was during the transition. avenues transition man between donald trump's campaign and his administration. >> i think that's right. very difficult to see where the national security interest is and what devin nunes has been doing. if he was interested in national security interest he would try to figure out how the russians were trying to get close to the trump campaign. he's not doing that. he turned this investigation on the fbi and department of justice which are sacred american institutions. >> is this the same man you worked with? >> i find his behavior baffling. >> thank you very much. sorry, we got twisted around there with the adam schiff interview. white house communications director hope hicks has been by

donald trump's side since day one. she has the president's ear and his trust. has efforts to protect her boss landed her in robert mueller's cross-hairs. we have more right after this quick break. families. you know, like actual, non-celebrity, non-famous, non-reality show families. so, get ready to share a photo or video of how you family on game day, and we might show your photo to 111 million people. get your camera, get your people and get ready.

so allstate is giving us money back on our bill. well, that seems fair. we didn't use it. wish we got money back on gym memberships. get money back hilarious. with claim-free rewards. switching to allstate is worth it. successful people have onthey read more.on. how do they find the time? with audible. audible has the world's largest selection of audiobooks. books like peak performance... and endurance. books that energize and inspire for just $14.95 a month. less than you'd pay for the hardcover. with audible, you get a credit-a-month good for any audiobook. if you don't like it, exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. audible members use the free mobile app to listen anytime, anywhere. ...on the go... or in the car.

the audible app automatically keeps your place, no bookmarks required. so you'll pick up right where you left off, even if you switch your phone... ...to your echo at home. get more books in your life. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. listening, is the new reading. text "listen 12" to five hundred five hundred to start listening today. s. as washington waits for the memo to be released special counsel is putting new pressure on the president's inner circle. hope hicks has benton roller coaster ride which is the donald trump presidency from the beginning back in 2015.

the 29-year-old was with the president when he launched the campaign rising through the ran ranks. she has the president's trust and one of the few people he listens to. which is what is putting her in an uncomfortable position today. the "new york times" reports robert mueller's team is focusing on hicks role and drafting a statement about that 2016 trump tower meeting. the "times" report the former spokesperson for the president's legal team disclosed a previously unknown conference call with the president and hicks. mark corallo quit the legal team last year. mr. corallo planned to tell investigators that miss hicks said during the call that emails written by donald trump jr. before the trump tower meeting, in which the younger mr. trump said he was eager to receive political dirt almost mrs.

clinton from the russians will never get out. that left mr. corallo with concerns that miss hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said. matt, let's go right into it. i want to go back to that moment when donald trump was flying back in the g-20, on air force one, and they are drafting a statement in response to your reporting, "new york times" reporting about don jr., jared kushner, paul manafort meeting with a russian lawyer. this is the first statement the one that ultimately ended up misleading. who was there and what were they trying to write? >> we had gone to them. when he gone to the white house and said look we'll write a story about this meeting. we know the meeting happened.

we know who was in the meeting. tell us what it's about. we won't go ahead until we hear the full story. they asked us to hold for a day. we did. we were going to get something on the record. finally we sent a list of questions. first two questions were what was this meeting supposed to be and what was it actually about which are important questions it turns out. and what we ended up getting was a really misleading statement that said primarily about russian adoption. no mention of the fact that this meeting was actually set up in hopes of getting russian dirt on hillary clinton as part of the russian government's efforts to support donald trump. and so what we've now know is that bob mueller the special counsel is actually looking at that, the release of that statement and that's one of the topics he wants to talk to president trump about in that face to face meeting that's being negotiated. some people are saying, no. president trump you should not go in and talk to special counsel about that. he has no right to even ask

about that because there's no evidence that there's an underlying crime because frankly lying to me is not a federal crime. >> you talk about an undisclosed conference call between mark coral jobs the spokesperson for legal team, hope hicks and donald trump. what was said on that conference call? >> well, so after that misleading statement came out there's another statement. this one that corallo the speaksmspeaks spokesman for the legal team put out which adopted the white house line it was primarily about a russian foreign policy and that also kind of spun it so the idea was well maybe the trump campaign was tricked by democratic operatives into having this meeting. so mark corallo was mad at hope hicks for her statement. hope hicks was mad atco ralo for his statement. there's this conference call. donald trump is on the line. they are both sort of saying this is dumb. no you're really dumb. what we're experiencing here at this moment in the investigation is like we're all just covering

the slow unfolding of the last scene of reservoir dogs, okay. and so they are accusing each other of botching this thing and corallo's version is that hope says those emails these underlying emails will never see the light of day. now there's some reason to doubt that. her lawyer, obviously denies it. but we have other reporting that says she was actually privately pushing to get those emails out ahead of time. so they are turning on each other. these guys are turning on each other. >> it seems like it from this reporting you have corallo saying this was hope hicks doing it. you have hope hicks saying she never said that. ultimately don jr. did release all of those e mailings. does that exxoexonerate them? >> the real question is what was

donald trump sr. up to in that situation. not whether he was trying to lie to the media. what knowledge did he bring to that entire press statement drafting process? what did he actually know about the meeting? is it true as steve bannon suggested he knew the russians are coming and even met with them. we don't month that's the case. the reason that i would guess the special counsel is interested in donald trump's involvement is not because he was engaged in a public relations effort but because he was engaged in a larger effort to protect himself. >> hold on. paul ryan is taking questions about the fbi. >> over a very unique law, fisa. and if mistakes were made and if individuals did something wrong then it is our job as the legislative branch of government to conduct oversight over the executive branch if abuses were made. remember, fisa is a unique situation which involves americans civil liberties and if american civil liberties were abused then that needs to come to light so that doesn't happen

again. what this is not, is an indictment on our institutions, of our justice system. this memo is not an indictment of the fbi, of the department of justice. it does not impugn the mueller investigation or the deputy attorney general. what it is, is the congress' legitimate function of oversight to make sure that the fisa process is being used correctly and that if it wasn't being used correctly that needs to come to light and people need to be held accountable so that we do not have problems again because this does affect our civil liberties. kerry. >> -- called on you to remove chairman nunez. what's your response? >> they are just playing politics and looking for a political distraction is what i get out of that. look the tax cuts are working. tax reform is work.

isis is on the run. things are going well. economic confidence is at a 17 year high. they would love nothing more than to play politics and change the subject. devin nunes shepherded through re-authorization of 702 which is the foreign surveillance law. he's focusing on keeping our country safe. what they are trying to do is side track us for some political game. >> on the cr -- >> we've been both talking about the cr for, first of all, the reason why we're having these crs in the first place the democrats have been holding the military funding for an unrelated issue. if we had our cap agreement in place by now we would not be having to do these crs. i think we're making progress and even if we get everything figured out by say tuesday, we still will have to have a cr if

only for the fact we have to give them time to write an appropriations bill. there will have to be a cr to give the appropriations committee time to write a bill. we're still negotiating the contents of that. >> i might just add one thing that's been eliminated, i don't think we'll see a threatened government shutdown again. one of my favorite kentucky sayings is there's no education in a second kick of a mule. there's a new level of seriousness here in trying to resolve these issues as the speaker outlined as we go forward. >> can you tell which bill that will be? >> no. what i've said -- what i've said friday last friday, a week ago tomorrow was if the immigration

issue was not resolved inside the global discussions that the speaker has been talking about, that we had going on, which the democrats have been trying to shoe horn the immigration issue into that collection of discussions, if those are not resolved i'm perfectly happy, provided the government is still open on february 8th, to go to the subject and to have, to treat it in a fairway, not try to tilt the playing field in anybody's direction and we'll see who can get to 60 votes. >> jake. >> reaction to reports that nunez changed this memo after it was put out. >> no it was before it was voted on. the question was the memo -- it's important that we scrub these memos for any sources and methods that could reveal national security or compromise national security. that scrubbing has taken place.

in consultation with the fbi they made a change to register those concerns and then they voted on releasing the memo to the white house. so the process is exactly what it should have been. scrubbed to make sure there are no sources or methods were revealed. when an issue was brought to the committee they went through it and then through the committee process. >> republicans are traditionally the party of law and order. you have an fbi director saying please don't release this memo, it is misleading, it is incomplete. he was appointed by a republican president. doesn't that give you thoughts. >> what concerns me is if we're violating civilian liberties. this fisa law is very unique. there's been confusion about different titles in this law. this law allows the government to go to a secret court to gate wiretap on a citizen.

so this is incredible power that the people of this country through congress has given our executive branch of government. so we have to make sure this power is being exercised properly and ju didiciously. it's our job in congress to shed light on that, bring transparency and accountability. let me just say the vast, vast majority of the men and women of the fbi are doing a great job. these institutions, the department of justice, the fbi, very important institutions for the rule of law. but it's also very important that we guard people's civil liberties as we exercise these institutions. like i said to you on tuesday, the men and women over at the milwaukee office, you know, at the field office in the fbi they are the ones keeping the opioids out of our schools. these men and women are doing a fantastic job. but we also have to make sure if there are certain individuals who did the wrong thing, who either brought bias or cut

corners or did something wrong that indicate american civil liberties it's our job as congressional overseers to bring people to account so it doesn't happen again. >> senator mcconnell have you seen the memo and secondly do you agree that -- >> no i haven't. i don't have any suggestions to make to the speaker. i think he's handling it just right. >> last question. >> mr. speaker, do you really believe this memo has nothing at all to do and no impact on the special counsel -- >> what i'm trying to say people shouldn't draw lines. people shouldn't implicate. >> you are drawing. >> i'm suggesting people should not draw lines or implicating independent issues. this does not implicate the mueller investigation. this is about us holding the

system accountable and reviewing whether or not fay is a abuses occur. the government has been given extraordinary power over citizens civil liberties. it's our job to make sure the process is followed properly and if not we need accountability. let it all out so long as we're not involving sources and methods to protect our national security philanthropy more transparency the better so that people of this country can see that their civil liberties are protect, the constitution is being followed. that's why we think sunshine, transparency and accountability is the correct anecdote for this. why this duly elected branch of government conducts its oversight over the executive branch of government. thank you very much. duly elected branch of government, yes. but this is not done in a bipartisan way. this is done along party lines. republicans voting to release this memo and not release the democrats version of peopleos.

it flies in the face of it for sunlight as the best disinfectant. the fbi, again, saying despite the, you know, the speaker right there and congressman zelden saying no sources or methods were revealed they are still at odds. opposite back with bob baur who served with president obama. bob, i want to go back to you. and just go back briefly to the initial conversation we were having about hope hicks and the president drafting this misleading statement. hope hicks is saying this in

front of the president and mark corallo who is the spokesperson there's no attorney cli/client privilege there? >> no. i apologize. there was another lawyer on the phone. what about donald trump jr. >> if you were advising donald trump, would you say that he should submit to questions from bob mueller. would you want him to? >> in what capacity. >> if you were advising him. >> if i was the white house counsel that's one thing. if i was his personal counsel very difficult for me to see how that works to his purely personal advantage and that's my sole preoccupation my advice would be bad. once an individual in his position becomes president of the united states other considerations are brought to bear on that. decision or should. >> let's go back to the memo.

we have paul ryan and right there just defending the release of this memo. lee zelden was on a moment ago defending the release of this memo. he said an interesting thing. when the memo comes out leadership, senior leadership at the fbi and doj will obviously need to change. >> well, katy i think lee zelden told you what he was not supposed to say out loud. paul ryan and other republicans made a case releasing the memo is not about the mueller investigation. in their words this is about the fisa reform. that could not be any further from the truth. when zelden talks about changes at the top of the department of justice there's one name associated with this memo that's rod rosenstein. rod rosenstein in addition to being the deputy attorney general is important in this context because he's the one that controls the mueller investigation. bob mueller and his team of investigators go to rod rosenstein every time they have

to take or would like to take a significant investigative step and if someone more mallable, someone in more in trump's camp were in that position the president could exeritrea undue influence over this investigation and that's clearly his end goal. >> does that seem like the end goal to you. is this donald trump trying to move people out of place in order to get more control over the mueller investigation? could we see him essentially going down the line of folks at the doj much as we saw in the saturday night massacre? >> i could see him doing it but i think he's a very measured person, actually. he sees how things float and he'll push the memo out there to see the public's reaction. if the public turns towards him and say it's a big conspiracy against donald trump, nothing about the russian investigation then he may pull back and wait to see what further reaction is. either way we have been talk about this memo all week. i thought this was going be

super bowl week and it's been memo week. it just continues to muddy the waters. if anything else the public doesn't know what is true and what's false ultimately because we don't even know what the version of the memo is when it actually comes know -- >> i think it is very distracting by this whole festival of opinions that have been thrown out there. >> and you have the republicans like paul ryan on the one hand the other day urging his members not to overstate it, saying this is not that big of a deal. it is just going to raise some questions. i had congressman stewart say that to me the other day. but then you have lee zeldon saying this is going to make it clear that leadership changes are needed at the top and you have paul ryan right there saying it's very important for the public to see this because we're talking about potentially -- potentially compromising civil liberties in this country. this is -- this is so far afield from what i remember republicans doing in the early 2000s when it came to the patriot act. there was no way to put any sort

of pressure or constraint on the intelligence community because it was protecting the homeland and protecting americans and now this memo comes out which is -- maybe it is not revealing sources and methods but it is revealing some aspect because it is about what is going on in getting a fisa warrant and that is okay to release to the public? >> yeah, the republicans have gone from take the gloves off on all terrorists and we need tools and surveillance, we are the ones that stand up for you public and let you know about all of these indecency through electronic surveillance. and what will come out is they will try to connect some part of the fisa application to the dossier. and now they could take two of the colonels of truth and string them together into a conspiracy. and the dossier is proven to be pretty much accurate. there is a lot of gaps and

holes, but they are trying to try this together as hillary clinton's campaign created the dossier and then used to investigate donald trump which is all a bunch of nonsense but they'll leave out the sources and tips and other indicators that emerge there. carter page had been notified and interviewed for being a target of the russians for recruitment who then appears on stage in moscow after he was picked by donald trump's campaign to be one of the top foreign policy advisers. it is ridiculous. there is plenty of predicates there to then alert people for a counter intelligence investigation and it is pretty straightforward. so in the end the truth is muddied and the goal is to undermine the investigations. and again the pattern is going and the longer the mueller investigation goes on, the more i'll see things like the memo get pushed out against some conspiracy against donald trump. >> where do you see this going? >> i think about super bowl week, i think the president hoped it would be the state of the union and economy week.

this is such a distraction for the president of the country. >> i think he wants this out. this is looking good for him. according to the washington post saying the memo is graining traction and it is helping him. >> i would take a different point of view respectfully. >> i think you would take a lot of different point of views for donald trump. >> this is distracting from the governing and getting his agenda done. that is what the american people want. and i think the commends you've heard, this is all going to be a muddle. and i just think at the end of the day, it is not going to serve the president well in terms of policy or his governing but not going to serve the american people well. >> you served a president who also faced a special prosecutor, bill clinton. he was eventually impeached. didn't leave office but he was impeached. what sort of calculations are being made within the west wing? >> i think the calculations it seems from the president's lawyers which bob could speak to seem to keep it on a legal track and keep it moving forward.

that does not seem to be the political calculation. some of that driven from the hill. but i think you noted it was not bipartisan and that is not consistent with sunlight and everything we hear from the speaker. so you have conflicting views within the white house and look, you have some strongly conflicting views within this administration with key officers and leaders of the trump presidency. >> you have ever seen anything like this? >> no. >> amen. >> thank you very much. thanks for rolling with us. i know that was -- not what was expected for this hour. bob bower, macmcclary and ned price and clint watts. and after the break, one more thing. but first a monmouth university poll shows most americans think mueller should interview trump. 71% agree, including 85% of democrats. 51% of republicans and 74% of independents. and majority also agree that president trump should be interviewed under oath.

even though it doesn't matter because he's talking to a federal agent and you can't lie to a federal agent and 60% of republicans said he should be interviewed under oath. we'll be right back. thank you so much. thank you! so we're a go? yes! we got a yes! what does that mean for purchasing? purchase. let's do this. got it. book the flights! hai! si! si! ya! ya! ya! what does that mean for us? we can get stuff. what's it mean for shipping? ship the goods. you're a go! you got the green light. that means go! oh, yeah. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we're gonna hit our launch date! (scream)

thank you! goodbye! we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open. it was always our singular focus, a distinct determination. to do whatever it takes, use every possible resource. to fight cancer. and never lose sight of the patients we're fighting for. our cancer treatment specialists share the same vision. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. specialists focused on treating cancer. using advanced technologies. and more precise treatments than before. working as hard as we can- doing all that we can- for everyone who walks through our doors. this is cancer treatment centers of america. and these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. treating cancer isn't one thing we do. it's the only thing we do. expert medicine works here.

learn more at cancercenter.com cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. so, howell...going? we had a vacation early in our marriage that kinda put us in a hole. go someplace exotic? yeah, bermuda. a hospital in bermuda. a hospital in bermuda. what? what happened? i got a little over-confident on a moped. even with insurance, we had to dip into our 401(k) so it set us back a little bit. sometimes you don't have a choice. but it doesn't mean you can't get back on track. great.

yeah, great. i'd like to go back to bermuda. i hear it's nice. yeah, i'd like to see it. no judgment. just guidance. td ameritrade. one more thing before we go. a reminder as we wait for the release of the memo that the republican party very public war with the fbi is not normal. my colleague ken delanian pointed out it is not normal for the fbi and d.o.j. to reject a

document that the white house said should be released. it is not normal for the gop chair of the house intel committee to refuse to share a classified document of mutual interest with the gop chair of the senate intel committee. it is not normal for the agency that was the source of the classified material in this case the d.o.j. to be excluded from the declassification process. and it is not normal for anyone in the government to expose secret material that sheds light on fisa surveillance. as ken delaney an also noted, when edward snowden did that, he was labelled a traitor. that will wrap things up for me this hour. follow the show on facebook, twitter and instagram or e-mail us at -- at this very long address. ali velshi picks things up right now in new york. >> and i have ken delaney an here so we'll go forward with that not normal situation.

good morning, i'm ali velshi. washington on the heels about whether the controversial memo is going to be released. drafted by devin nunes is causing a major divide in washington. republicans say it shows the fbi abused its authority in obtaining a warrant to spy on a former trump campaign associate. the fbi is warned of the grave concern the document contained material omissions of fact that impact the memo's accuracy but the white house doesn't care. we're following a number of scenarios in which we could see the memo release. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer are calling for speaker ryan to remove devin nunes from his post as house intelligence chairman and just moments ago the intelligence committee top democrat adam schiff told msnbc that republicans changed the memo before sending it to the white house for review. >> the exchanges were not made known to the committee when we voted out the document. the document that they produced