Skip to main content

tv   The Lead With Jake Tapper  CNN  February 1, 2018 1:00pm-2:00pm PST

1:00 pm
breaking coverage what happens with the memo as we hear it could be released as early as tomorrow. this contentious classified republican memo, and what those ramifications could be as far as it's concerned for the fbi chief, christopher ray. coming up next. "the lead" with jake tapper starts right now. breaking news in the poli c politics just a short time ago. the white house told cnn president trump is okay with releasing that controversial house committee memo, the one consuming the attention of the nation's capitol. the presidentments to do so without redactions, we're told, which means we could see it as soon as tomorrow. the memo has been assailed by house democrats as a partisan memo, and the fbi director, a republican appointed by president trump after the president fired the last director, ray took the step of making it known publicly that he, too, does not want this memo
1:01 pm
released. he calls it misleading. today, cnn found out white house officials are now worried that fbi director ray could quit if the memo is released against his recommendations. what we don't know is whether that even matters to president trump. sources telling cnn today the president told his friends that he sees this memo drafted by republican congressman nunez and republican committee staff as a way to undermine and discredit the russian investigation giving himself cover and ignoring, as we've noted, the objections of two of the nation's top law enforcement officials, not just fbi director christopher ray, but deputy attorney general rosenstein. a democratic senator suggested it's pretext for more than just undermining the mueller russian investigation, but for firing mueller. >> this appears to be a setup to enable the president to fire mueller and grind it to a halt. >> president trump did not
1:02 pm
mention the memo in the 35-minute long remarks in west virginia this afternoon, but today, the fbi is sending a signal it supports the decision against releasing the memo saying, quote, the fbi agents' association appreciates fbi districter standing shoulder to shoulder with the men and women of the fbi as we work together to protect the country from criminal and national security threats. joining me now to discuss this now, katlyn, there were talks to redact parts, but that's off the table? >> that's right, jake. two questions. we knew for some time the president wanted this released, but the questions were, had he read the memo, and when are they going to release it regarding redactions? we got answers today because the president has read the memo and reviewed it, and then just awhile ago flies back on air force 1 from west virginia, a senior administration official
1:03 pm
told reporters this about the release of the memo saying we've had over the last couple days to look at it, to make sure it does not give away too much in terms of classification. right now, i think it will be that we tell congress, probably tomorrow, that the president is okay with it. now, here's the key line, i doubt there will be any redactions. the official added, then it is in congress's hands right after that, but right now, the white house says they do not believe there will be redactions to the memo, jake. >> and what are you hearing about the fbi director, christopher wray, making it clear publicly, quite unusually, he does not want this released. >> yes, the way that he made this public is pretty minor compared to what he's been saying in private. repeatedly making clear that he thinks releasing the memo is a terrible idea, and we are told, myself, with jeff and others that people inside the white house are concerned he's so
1:04 pm
upset that he might consider calling it quits saying, i'm out of here. now, i can tell you that i talked to a source who is familiar with the situation, who insists that's not his style, that he would not threaten to quit. having said that, he is, clearly, not happy, and i will also say that it's not surprising that the white house is saying redactions with not necessary. my understanding is that the redactions were not really for sources and methods to protect the intelligence, any intelligence that was talked about in these memos, but, twam, to try to calm the fbi. the fbi's problem, though, was not and is not what's in the memo, jake, but it's what's not in the memo. >> right. >> they feel a lot of information was cherry picked to make a point. >> thinking the memo is misleading. >> exactly. >> your reporting that president trump is calling around telling friends that he thinks this memo is going to help him with the russian investigation. how? >> yeah, that's right, jake. the president is so eager to get
1:05 pm
this memo out there, and, today, we are learning just why, and it's because the president believes once this memo is public, it's going to actually help discredit the russian investigation, and he's been calling his allies and friends in recent days telling them as much that he believes once this is out there, it's going to expose the bias among the top ranks in the fbi, and it's going to show that the intelligence community has unfairly targeted him. that's the president's perspective on this, and he's felt that for some time because we knew that before the president even read this memo, he was going around after the state of the union tells congressmen he was 100% going to release it, and now we can see a little bit into the president's mind set of why he thought that, jake. >> you have breaking news for us? >> that's right. i've just -- we're getting this from our colleague that a source familiar with the process of reviewing this memo says at the moment, accommodations have been made in response to concerns by the intelligence community about
1:06 pm
this. they are potentially making changes because of that. now, obviously, that's different from redactions. changing the memo and actually blanking out parts of it are very different things, we'll see what they mean by the changes, jake. >> all right. thank you so much. my panel joins me now. cnn's reporting the president has told associates that releasing the memo would help discredit the mueller investigation. let me start with you, phil, your take on all of this? >> didn't paul ryan tell us this was not about mueller? this was about looking into how the fbi conducts investigations? look, this is not about redactions. this is not about the memo. this is about the president of the united states saying that his nominee and now his fbi director, christopher wray is running an organization involved in a conspiracy to undermine the president of the united states. this is about the executive branch, in this case, the white house, talking to the congress, nunez, in opposition to the fbi
1:07 pm
and other elements, department of justice who are involved in the investigation. it's us versus them, and the president said, you're with me or you're with the fbi. it's not about the memo or redactions. it's about saying the fbi is undermining the president of the united states. i think it is that simple. >> mike rogers, in addition to being the former chairman of the house intelligence committee, you're a former fbi agent. i want to read a tweet from one of your former colleagues who said that to the president state of the union night two nights ago, and in which he said, release the memo, and the president said, 100%. tweeting, quote, having read the memo, the fbi is right to have grave concerns to shake the organization down to its cores showing americans how the agency was weaponized by the obama officials slash dnc/hrc, meaning hillary clinton, to target political adversaries. what do you think? >> well, i mean, the narrative -- there's 18
1:08 pm
different narratives from the republicans right now. all of this concerns me. the dualing memos between the democrats and republicans concern me. here's the piece on the memo. if the speaker comes out saying it's not about the fbi and mueller investigation, that comment does not say that at all. it says the whole organization is corrupt. that's why you see something unprecedented. the fbi -- the director says something director, that's unusual. >> unprecedented. >> and the fbi agents, working men and women of the fbi, making cases, cuffing people, hauling them to jail, they said, hey, we appreciate the fbi director standing up for us. again, and i just -- i plead with my republican colleagues, if you believe that they were conspireing to purr jury in an affidavit before the court, that's a serious case to go to the ig or full investigation of the committee. this piecemealing of release of a memo is not going to give the
1:09 pm
american people anything but, you know, it's affirmation news. i either hate trump and don't believe anything in it, or i love trump, and i believe every single word in it. i think there's probably the truth is somewhere in the middle, and in the meantime, we have absolutely blown up real constructive oversight of the intelligence community, at least happening in the house of representatives. >> when you were chairman of the house intelligence committee, you worked closely with the democratic ranking member issuing bipartisan reports. that's not what's happening here. neil, your response to this. >> yeah, i don't think this release is going to undermine mueller at the end of the day for two reasons. i mean, one is that this is a pretty ham handed attempt by nunez, a self-suspicious under some investigation like a report from hannibal lector saying i'm a vegan. not much credibility there. >> you're not calling him a cannibal or a vegan.
1:10 pm
>> of course, of course. but saying he's acting suspiciously. the law has a long process of dealing with this. criminal defendants say, hey, someone is bias against me, out to get me and so on. every day in federal court we deal with that. >> hear it all the time. >> yes, prove it in court under high standards. look, if trump and the white house believe that there is some sort of big conspiracy in the fbi against him, prove it up in court like everyone else. >> i want to play for you, you referred to what house speaker paul ryan said in defending release of the memo, which contradicts the tweet by justify duncan. take a listen. >> what this is not is an indictment on our institutions of our justice system. this memo is not indictment of the fbi, of the department of justice. it does not impugn the mueller investigation or the deputy attorney general. >> but, phil, when you listen to republicans in the house, when you listen to the suggestions
1:11 pm
made by nunez, the author of the memo and comments made by donald trump jr., you get the complete opposite message. >> i think one of the biggest losers in the entire process is a man i believe is honorable. i believe the speaker is honorable, but led down a path that's going to be incredibly destructive. think of the issues at play here. you're saying the intelligence that drove the investigation is bad, but the investigation is great? that mueller is building an investigation built on faulty intelligence, but you still trust mueller? how do you do that? the second thing is more significant, jake. this is a complete setup. the setup is simple. it's not about the investigation. it's post-investigation. if director mueller and now special counsel mueller comes out with indictments, the setup is that the president gettins t say indictments don't mean anything based on intelligence that you see in this memo was
1:12 pm
intelligence collected by means that do not reflect american values. this is absolutely about the investigation, and absolutely about special counsel mueller, and i think the speaker should say that. >> neil, do you think that if the white house releases this memo against the advice of deputy attorney general rosenstein or fbi director, do you think wray and rosenstein resign? >> should seriously consider it. at least wray. the fbi said, you know, this is essential to the mission, that this is a selective disclosure with materially omitted stuff, absolutely, wray has no credibility if he stays with the release under those circumstances. >> what do you think? not only is the release unprecedented, but the fbi agents association statement today backing wray is unprecedented. >> yeah. i think this new cycle of i'm going to quit every time something bad happens is ridiculous candidly. stay. there's going to be an issue
1:13 pm
next week, an issue a month from now and two months from now. agents need consistentsy. wray has their interests at heart, if there's problems, he'll fix them. he has to stay. he says i disagreed with it, but i understand my role in the world, i wake up in the morning and be the best director i can be for the agents. there's more to talk about, more going on in the russian investigation including the spotlight on the white house communications director, she's been at the president's side almost every day for the past two years, but did she hint in any way that there would not be a release of some key information in this investigation? somebody who was part of the trump team says so. stay with us. friends, colleagues, gathered here are the world's finest insurance experts. rodney -- mastermind of discounts
1:14 pm
like safe driver, paperless. the list goes on. how about a discount for long lists? gold. mara, you save our customers hundreds for switching almost effortlessly. it's a gift. and jamie. -present. -together we are unstoppable. so, what are we gonna do? ♪ insurance. that's kind of what we do here.
1:15 pm
luckily, office depot®not officemax® is hereeart. to take care of you. ♪ taking care of business with print services done right. on time. guaranteed! expert tech support. and this week all dell pcs are up to twenty five percent off! save even more when you purchase a dell monitor. and make sure you protect your investment. office depot® officemax. ♪ taking care of business two,that was awful. why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school.
1:16 pm
really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum -- just to help you improve your skills. boom! that's lesson one. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. mom anit's not it's mine. mine. mine. and it always will be, forever and forever. the new rx 350l with three rows for seven passengers. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.
1:17 pm
1:18 pm
we're back, sticking with breaking news, the threat of a possible obstruction of justice charge hangs over the white house as the "new york times" reports a former spokesman for president trump's legal team will talk to the special counsel, robert mueller, about a conference call between the president and closest aides, hope hicks, raising concerns hope may have tried to obstruct the investigation in the fall. jim, this all goes back to the trump tower meeting with don jr. and the russians, right? >> that's right. a lot of ininquiry for the counsel. an attempt to possibly conceal the meeting and whether that adds up to obstruction of justice. special counsel mueller is scrutinizing a meeting between president trump and his aides on air force 1 last year as part of the probe into whether mr. trump
1:19 pm
obstructed justice in the russian investigation. former trump legal team spokesman is expected to be asked about it when interviewed in the next two weeks. cnn previously reported president trump helped craft a misleading explanation for a meeting between donald trump jr. and russian lawyer offering dirt on hillary clinton. the statement claimed the meeting was about russia's adoption policy, though e-mails fromdicted the explanation. the "new york times" cite three people with knowledge of the interview saying he's planning to tell the special counsel that white house communications director, hope hicks, said, quote, the e-mails will never get out, leaving corallo to believe hicks was considering b obstructing justice. >> to avoid the he said/she said
1:20 pm
scenario. >> reporter: denying thing te accusation, saying she never said that and the idea she suggested it would be destroyed is false. >> there's an open legal question about this. focus of the mueller investigation is the misleading statement, about what went on in the trump tower meeting, it's not a crime to release a misleading statement, to lie to the press, in effect, so what is it about the meetings or efforts to obstruct or conceal the meeting afterwards that mueller is interested in and may rise to the legal level of crime? we don't know the answer to the question, but appears he's looking into more here than what's on the surface, jake? >> thank you, jim. my panel is back. phil, starting with you. it's not a crime to lie to the "new york times" or to the public, so what might mueller be looking at here if he's wondering about mark corallo saying hope hicks' communication
1:21 pm
director said something about concealing information from the public and the "new york times," there's no crime there. >> i think there's a couple questions you might ask here. number one, pattern of activity. remember, we had donald trump jr. making different statements about the nature of the meeting, and now hope hicks is making additional statements. i'm not interested in whether someone made a mistake on one day, a bad hair day, but interested in the pattern of activity over time saying there was a conspiracy to obstruct. i think that's one broad issue you're looking at. the second issue you're looking at is simpler, that is, i assume now or before that the team has interviewed hope hicks. they're going to go in and say not only what did you mean we that statement, but did you participate in conversations over time? this is all about a timeline from the campaign through the firing of michael flynn and beyond. did you participate in conversations over time on e-mail, in person, did you hear conversations that suggested that there was an intent to obstruct investigation?
1:22 pm
it's not one snapshot of one statement or event, but pattern of activity over time. she can talk about that. >> the "new york times" talked to three close sources to corallo, and he did not dispute the report when reaching him whether there was obstruction of justice going on there, but, again, pattern of activity, does that count when you are just talking about lying to the public or "new york times"? >> i think it does, jake. the report says something important, that hope hicks allegedly said that these e-mails about the russia meeting would be destroyed. that is, obstruction of justice. i think it goes to a deeper point saying it's all about leadership. it doesn't surprise us that hope hicks is acting this way. they set leadership examples for the saf and if you're around president obama, you tended to be really huge in the line as he did, no drama, and so on. this president, who, obviously,
1:23 pm
you know, has issues with the rule of law has set a different example, so it's not surprising to see things like this happen. >> do you think that the president trump should testify, and the reason i ask is because there's people around the president, and now maybe members of the legal team saying, this does not rise to the threshold because there's nothing specifically alleged that the president has done. there might be people around the president, but not him per se. >> two different takes on it. if you're advising the president legally, i would say absolutely not. he's likely to say something he shouldn't say and get in trouble. i think for the good of the american public, he probably should testify. i think the publicments this done, a full accounting, and transparency. if i may, just on hope hicks thing, it's not just the activity. they'll also look for any real actions that she may have taken on that e-mail issue. that would, as an investigator, that gives intent, right? if you say nobody's going to get
1:24 pm
these, and then they took steps or may have taken steps, or that's probably allegations, they took steps to actually do something with the e-mails, and that's where i think an investigator would go, and then you go over a pattern of activity through the encampment. >> phil, let me ask you, mike referred to the fact the publicmenpublic me wants the president to testify. there's a new poll finding 71% of americans say the president trump should agree to be interviewed by mueller. only 22% said he should not. do you think it would hurt the president politically if he refuses to sit down with mueller? >> i don't think so. i agree. i mean, i feel like mike rogers has taken his vitamin pills today. i agree with him on everything he's said, possibly a first. he's at great risk for going into that room. you have a man whose shown indiscipline in terms of how he
1:25 pm
uses language. if there's one thing you got to do with the federal investigator, be precise with language because they have months of investigation, and they are going to compare everything you say with everything your subordina1:bora. there's lesser risk if you look at a balanced equation, jake, lesser risk saying, you know, i think this is a witch hunt which you said, i'm not testifying. what's the base going to say? same thing from day one, jake. >> all right, phil, congressman rogers, neil, thank you so much. one and all. the next guest saw the memo, pitting president trump against his own fbi director. congressman castro is live next. stay with us. oh, you brought butch. yeah! (butch growls at man)
1:26 pm
he's looking at me right now, isn't he? yup. (butch barks at man) butch is like an old soul that just hates my guts. (laughs) (vo) you can never have too many faithful companions. that's why i got a subaru crosstrek. love is out there. find it in a subaru crosstrek. you're gaining something from meeting mr. adderley. it's a calling to not only everybody in this neighborhood in miami, but to the nation how great we are. and how great we can be. ♪ ♪ i'll stand by you. ♪ i'll stand by you. ♪ and i'll never desert you. ♪ i'll stand by you. searching for answers may feel overwhelming.
1:27 pm
so start your search with our teams of specialists at cancer treatment centers of america. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at
1:28 pm
1:29 pm
welcome back, breaking news, a source telling cnn accommodations have been made in
1:30 pm
concerns in response to the release of the memo. a white house official told cnn today that the president is okay with releasing the memo over objections raised by his own fbi director, christopher wray and others in the justice department. joining us now to discuss, this is democratic congressman castro of texas, serves on the house intelligence committee and saw the memo in question, and, congressman, thank you so much for joining us. we appreciate it. do you know anything about the accommodations being made? >> i don't, but i do know the request was a serious one, and in the director's statements he said, himself, there's inaccuracies in the memo. when i read it and when many of the members read it, we saw it as fundamentally a political statement and document, and, also, a partisan document. at this point, it's clear that nunez's political purpose is to basically be a sacrifice fly for the white house and for donald trump. >> the basic suggestion i heard
1:31 pm
from people like paul ryan, the speaker, who don't think this memo should be used to discredit the fbi, discredit the justice department, to discredit the russian investigation or robert mueller, is that -- there may have been a violation of civil liberties, presumably, carter paige, that fisa warrant, surveillance warrant based too much on political documents could have been used? is that possible? is there possibly a civil liberties issue underneath all of this? >> it's very unlikely based on everything i've seen, from everything i've seen, they followed, basically, the normal processes. so i also can't understand when the speaker says it's not an attack on the institution, when you welcome at what donald trump has been saying over the past year, and even before as a candidate, and his constant attacks on the fbi, some of its personn personnel, the kri, and other intelligence agencies, and then,
1:32 pm
finally, the fact that rather than consulting with the fbi, they really did not give the fbi a chance to respond at all. instead, or review the hmemo an said instead and said they were under investigation by the house intelligence committee. that was a strange thing too. >> the fbi director, christopher wray, rob rosenstein, steven boyd all out publically against the release. do you think if the white house overrules these three individuals, top justice department officials, they should resign? >> the justice department officials resign -- >> or all three? >> well, i mean, they've got to make that decision for their own careers, but i'm reluctant to say they should resign in protest because i'm worried that donald trump tries to put stooges in there who do his bidding and try to kill the russian investigation or
1:33 pm
otherwise only serve to protect him from any kind of legal liability. >> at this point, i just want to circle back on the underlying argument made by the republican counterparts in the house intelligence committee. can you rule out the possibility there was misconduct by the fbi or the justice department when it came to fisa surveillance during this investigation into the trump campaign and affili e affiliates of the trump campaign? >> well, i guess, let me acknowledge a few things. first, only two members of the house intelligence committee have seen the underlying source material, so that means that nobody else in the house intelligence committee has seen the underlying source material. that's why look at my public comments from the hearing, i prefer neither republican memo or democratic memo released unless the public can see the source materials and make a decision for themselves, and that really is ill-advised because you are compromising sources and methods, but based
1:34 pm
on everything i've seen at least, there's -- i have not seen reason to think that processes were violated. >> a senator earlier today, i believe it was democrat of oregon, suggested he thinks all of this is just the president trying to create a pretext, put out this memo, and then use that as an excuse to fire the special counsel robert mueller. do you agree? >> it's quite possible, yes. the president seems to be taking different steps to protect himself. that seems to be his priority, and he's got folks like the chairman of the house intelligence committee who are helping him on that, so i think the senator could be right. >> the top democratic on the house intelligence committee from california claims that the memo, the one sent to the white house is different on what was voted to be released by the committee, and, therefore, the one that was sent cannot be made public, a spokesman for nunes responded changes made were
1:35 pm
minor edits like grammatical fixes, two fixes by the fbi and minority democrats themselves. i don't know if you saw them or not, but by your understanding, were changes important ones to alter the conclusion or just syntax and some requests made by the fbi and departmemocrats? >> i have not seen the revised version because i've not been in a classified setting back in washington since it's been revealed there's another version, but i've been briefed on it. my understanding is there's appreciateble differences in the two memos that are not just correcting a misspelled word, for example, so as adam made the point yesterday, i think the changes are significant and material enough so that this altered version should not have been sent to the president without having another committee vote. >> congressman castro, good to have you here, thank you so much for the time, sir. >> thank you, jake. could the possibility of two fbi directors leaving within one one-year period keep president
1:36 pm
trump from releasing the momeem? that and more next. stay with us. control. i need to shave my a1c i'm always on call. an insulin that fits my schedule is key. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, swtiting, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue, orhrhroat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans.
1:37 pm
♪ tresiba® ready ♪
1:38 pm
1:39 pm
1:40 pm
every hour is like a day, and every day, new threads make a bigger mess of the likely release of the memo crafted by house intelligence committee. the white house pushing for release, while those at the top of the justice department and fbi warn grave concerns over admissions that make the memo inaccurate. the political panel is here to discuss this with me now. so, josh, starting with you, according to sources, aids worry this drives the fbi director out
1:41 pm
the door. might that give him pause? the president, in terms of releasing the memo? >> no, i mean, i think the decision's been made. i think the memo's coming out. i don't think that the fbi director is going anywhere. he, obviously, has an obligation to fight for his department, and their view is that it shouldn't come out. the thing is about this, it's not new, right? i mean, the fbi, the doj, and the cia have been at odds. we had a huge fight in 2014 about release in the cia document pertaining to torture. >> right. >> and in the early 2000s during the beginning of the war on terror. that's kind of similar, right? there's still that same attention, i'm not surprised that that continues today. so, you know, i don't think he's going to go away. >> the difference is, correct me if i'm wrong, but the difference is this time it's republicans in the justice department branch
1:42 pm
telling republicans in congress and the white house not that this could compromise sources and methods, but it's inaccurate giving a misleading impression of what happened. >> similar to what happened in 2014 with the cia saying about the torture method, painted an inaccurate picture. there's a lot of similarities. >> okay. >> i don't see wray quitting. he has a lot of authority. he can't fire without a political fire storm, so in reality, wray has the power. the fact he put out the memo that blasted the white house tells you he has some authority. i think to some extent, trump has a wray-rosenstein particularly, if he fires them, that's another finish for him. there are constraints trump has to think about as he behaves. >> the intelligence committee out to get him, even before he took office, referring to what the intelligence community was doing like nazi germany, using
1:43 pm
the term "witch hunt," arguably forced out the deputy fbi director, and heard reports of him wanting sessions gone for rescuing himself, and rosenstein gone for not having a better control of the mueller investigation, and even mueller gone. already, there's this horrible relationship between the intelligence community and president trump. specifically, the justice department. how bad can it get if he goes against his own justice department? >> well, it's just continuing what he's already started, as you just outlined. >> arguing they started it. >> okay. >> please continue. >> it's about one issue, the russian investigation, and the fact he's feeling the heat of the investigation. there's no doubt he'll continue trying to discredit exactly the institutions and officials that are going after him and his point of view. now, some say that this is him misunderstanding or not understanding the separations between, you know, the white house and the department of justice. that's bologna.
1:44 pm
he's been president for a year. >> yeah. >> no doubt hae'll continue. how problematic could it be? pretty problematic, not abiding with the white house and department of justice. >> what we can agree on is the house intelligence committee is a mess. operates in a bip partisan fashion, there's a level of decorum and republic. when mike rogersfu was here, he the republican, worked closely with the democrat. nancy pelosi today called for nunes to be removed today as chairman. she said from the start he's disgraced the intelligence community. he's abused the position to release a dangerous campaign for the white house. the memo train has left the station, but what do you think about the idea that he's not
1:45 pm
being an effective chairman? >> i am not a big fan of characterizing in any way classified information because you have to get at its core, the sources and methods, in order to understand the entire picture. what you have when you start characterizing classified information is what this devo e devolved into now. it's a partisan fight. it doesn't matter which side is right or which side is wrong. it's a full-fledged fight over allegations only some of which will ever be known. it undermines another investigation which is important, the i.g. investigation at the department of justice, which is designed to find what we're trying to get at with this memo, and so, look, i don't like the way this whole thing started, but it is what it is, right? we got to a point we have to release it. it's a matter of public interest. >> so, just one point on that, and we have to break, which is it's democrats versus republicans in the house, but
1:46 pm
also republicans in the justice department and fbi are with the house democrats on the issue. coming up, it's not the crime, it's the coverup, a phrase made famous in watergate. is the coverup more important than what happened in the meeting? that's next. , 1... not cool. freezing away fat cell with coolsculpting? now that's cool! only coolsculpting is fda-cleared to treat and freeze fat cells, non-surgically. diet and exercise alone just shrink those cells. coolsculpting gradually eliminates them, with little or no downtime. visit today... for a chance to win a free treatment. luckily, office depot®not officemax® is hereeart. to take care of you. ♪ taking care of business with print services done right. on time. guaranteed! expert tech support. and this week all dell pcs are
1:47 pm
up to twenty five percent off! save even more when you purchase a dell monitor. and make sure you protect your investment. office depot® officemax. ♪ taking care of business so we know how to cover almost we've everything even a "red-hot mascot." [mascot] hey-oooo! whoop, whoop! [crowd 1] hey, you're on fire! [mascot] you bet i am! [crowd 2] dude, you're on fire! [mascot] oh, yeah! [crowd 3] no, you're on fire! look behind you. [mascot] i'm cool. i'm cool. [burke] that's one way to fire up the crowd. but we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
1:48 pm
1:49 pm
1:50 pm
welcome back. as we wait to see what's in the controversial nunes memo, another investigation raises questions about possible obstruction of justice. i'm back with the panel. so, according to the "new york times," former trump legal spokesman mark corallo was
1:51 pm
concerned hope hicks might have been attempting to obstruct justice on air force 1 when concocting the public excuse for donald trump jr.'s meeting with the russians reportedly saying the e-mails would never get out, and that set off a light bulb for corallo who ultimately and quickly resigned. what do you think about this? especially the fact, starting with you, a lawyer for hicks who normally doesn't say anything about the charges, the lawyer came forward publicly to deny it. speaks volumes that the lawyer did that. >> yeah. there seems to be a great amount of concern with people in the white house about what happened in the call, involving this meeting and attempts to lie to the press about it functionally. seems they lied to the press about it, may have crossed legal lines as well. i don't know. it's one of the things where it's not illegal to lie to the press. >> right. >> i hope people don't do that. >> they do, they do, by the way. >> that's what i heard, jake, but i just have questions
1:52 pm
whether it is broader. the broader story here is did the white house try to hide what happened in the meeting in a way that caused obstruction of justice. >> to be charitable, we don't know the context of the remark. could have been saying she doesn't think the texts are going to get out to the media, not that she's trying to hide them from the investigation. that would make a big difference. >> yes. look, i think, also, she's somebody who came into the white house never having worked in politics, never working in government, and probably never having sat in a meeting with russian official, not knowing what would be coming up in a meeting, so if you are being charitable, all of that could be she didn't know enough to know, and, however, i think the biggest question here is, is this part of a larger pattern of trying to cover up things for an investigation? is she a key player in that? i have no idea. maybe not. i think that seems to be what they are looking for. >> we -- i just want to make sure that we make a note of this, also. after a full day of no tweets. we woke up yet to another falsehood in a tweet from
1:53 pm
president trump today. he tweeted, thank you for all the nice complements and reviews in the state of the union speech, 46.5 million people watched, the highest number in history. we looked into this, using 45.6 million number as the gauge, meaning president's state of the union speech was sixth highest behind obama and george w. bush's and bill clinton's address, and why? why? why? i mean, he had good reviews. >> well, and behind his own joint congressional address the year before. >> yeah, exactly. >> so i don't know. i mean, clearly somebody gave him the information, he was proud of it, proud of the job that he did, and, you know, i talked to a couple senators who spoke with him today at the republican retreat who said that he continued the same kind of tone this afternoon. they feel really good about the way the state of the union went, and some of the policies that have come from it, and they have been able to unite around it, so, yeah, he's feeling upbeat.
1:54 pm
i don't know why he does that. >> you can't explain it. >> i mean, come on. >> when you talk to former people who worked on "the apprentice" with him, a piece about this a year ago, he'd go to the presentations to the press, and say, it's the no. 1 show on nbc, when it was not. it was top five when it was, like, 70th. it doesn't matter. >> i think he's trying to keep fact checkers employed. doing a great job of that. but the state of the union address, infrastructure, all blown out of the water by the nunes memo. the economy's doing well, numbers go up, but constantly making political mistakes, i argue. this is the best couple weeks in ter terms of policy he's had, but we're not talking about that because he's in the russia story very hard in a way that won't help him much. >> he has a pension for lying, we know that, and it's the eighth largest tax cut, not the biggest tax cut, something he says every day.
1:55 pm
i agree -- i don't agree this is the best couple weeks for his presidency. he has a tension for stepping on his own news and business. >> thanks one and all for being here. coming up, more proof that elan musk could be the real life bruce wayne and why he has a flame thrower and time is up if you are trying to get yours. stay with us. lobsterfest is back at red lobster... with the most lobster dishes of the year. new dueling lobster tails has two tails
1:56 pm
that'll fight to be your favorite. one topped with creamy shrimp and scallops, the other... steamed with lemon and herbs. and no, you're not dreaming, classics like lobster lover's dream are back too, along with decadent new lobster truffle mac & cheese. but enough talking about lobster- let's get to eating! - because lobsterfest won't last. so dive in today at red lobster! you've probably seen me running all over the country in search of our big idaho potato truck. but not any more. i am done with that. ooh, ooh hot - just gonna stay home on the farm, eat a beautiful idaho potato, and watch tv with my dog... tv anncr: the big idaho potato truck pulled into town today and it's really a sight to see. oh man...let's go.... (distant) you comin', boy? sfx: (dog) gulp! woof. like you do sometimes, grandpa? and puffed... well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe.
1:57 pm
it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! get symbicort free for up to one year. visit today to learn more. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. your heart doesn't only belong ♪to you. bye grandpa. and if you have heart failure,
1:58 pm
entrusting your heart to entresto may help. entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital compared to a leading heart failure medicine. don't take entresto if pregnant. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. and help make more tomorrows possible. ♪ i'm your phone,istle text alert. stuck down here between your seat and your console, playing a little hide-n-seek.
1:59 pm
cold... warmer... warmer... ah boiling. jackpot. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, you could be picking up these charges yourself. so get allstate, where agents help keep you protected from mayhem... me. mayhem is everywhere. are you in good hands? to the lovers out there preparing for valentine's day, if you are planning on getting a special someone a flame thrower, you are out of luck. musk sold out of the flame throwers in four days, selling 20,000 devices. the price tag? $500 a thrower. that means the tesla founder successfully met the goal of raising $10 million for the
2:00 pm
tunnelling business. the boring company. the boring company insists the flame throwers are safe, just look at musk himself operate the bad boy, the safest toy since bag o' glass. follow me on facebook and twitter. i'm jake tapper. we go to wolf blitzer in the situation room. thanks for watching. happening now, breaking news. memo war. senior officials say president trump is okay with the controversial republican memo alleging fbi abuses and is moving towards releasing it. sources say the president believes the memo could help him discredit the russian probe. raising hell, top aids are worried the hand picked fbi director could quit if the memo is released. wray warned that the memo is inaccurate. one source says it's raising hell within the white house. plain obstruction. did president's top