For the Record with Greta, Transcript 5/16/2017
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOR THE RECORD HOST: Chris, thank you. And, boy,
there`s a lot of breaking news. Another bombshell, the New York Times
first reporting and NBC now confirming, President Trump asked former FBI
director James Comey in February to end his investigation into former
national security advisor General Michael Flynn. Now, NBC News confirming
it was at a White House dinner, Trump asked Comey to end it. After dinner,
Comey then wrote a memo saying the president told him, quote, I hope you
can see your way clear to letting this go, letting Flynn go, he`s a good
guy, I hope you could let this go. The White House telling NBC News in
part, quote, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else in any
investigation including any investigation involving General Flynn. Ken
Delaney is the NBC News intelligence and national security reporter. He
joins us. Ken, what can you tell me?
KEN DELANEY, NBC NEWS: Greta, just want to clear something up because I
was confused about this at first. This is such a fast moving story. It
wasn`t after the dinner that Comey wrote the memo. It was after an oval
office meeting, a day after Flynn resigned, about two weeks after the
dinner. But the upshot is the same and we`re speaking to – we have
multiple former law enforcement officials confirming this now. I spoke in
particular to one very close friend of Jim Comey`s who recounted this whole
scenario and said that Donald Trump asked Comey to drop the matter that
Flynn was a good guy, and Comey was noncommittal. And I asked this source,
why didn`t Comey, you know, resign on the spot and go public? And the
source had no comment on it. But it raises the question of whether any
other such conversations took place, and did Jim Comey believe that the
president was trying to obstruct his investigation. Did he take any other
steps to preserve other evidence? Now, this source told me that Jim Comey
wrote a memo after just about every conversation he ever had with the
president, Greta. So, there appears to be more evidence out there.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, Ken, is there any indication they`re going to release
the memo because one of the problems we have is we have a contemporaneous
memo that we have not yet seen, and is this now – he`s sort of deciding
several weeks later that`s what the president intended to do? Or did he
think that at the time that he wrote the memo which I understand had been
on February 14th?
DELANEY: Yeah. So, my source is saying it was a contemporaneous memo as
all these were. And there may be other – there may be other documentation
of some of these encounters, FBI note takers or other kinds of methods.
You know, that`s a great point, though. We need to see these memos. And
you can imagine that congress is going to be requesting them. The New York
Times is reporting the FBI has them or some of them in their possession.
So, they`re government records. Some of them may be classified, but you
can imagine that this is going to be a subject of an investigation going
VAN SUSTEREN: Ken, if you`ll just stay with us. Joining us now from the
White House, NBC`s Peter Alexander. Peter, what`s going on there?
PETER ALEXANDER, NBC NEWS: Well, the bottom line is I was just behind the
scenes here at the White House speaking to some senior White House
officials about this, and they are denying the version of events as
described in this memo, confirmed by NBC News as first reported by the New
York Times. They did give us a statement that says in part that the
president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any
investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn. They
add that this is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation
between the president and Mr. Comey. This advisor points to the fact that
the acting FBI director Andrew McCabe.
VAN SUSTEREN: Peter, can I.
ALEXANDER: Yes, please.
VAN SUSTEREN: Can I interrupt you one second? Adam Schiff is making a
statement about this. Let`s listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM SCHIFF, U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Whether he was the subject of investigation
in the context of reports by the director, or associates of the director
that he was asked to essentially – for a loyalty test to the president,
and now with allegations that the president urged him to essentially drop
the investigation of Michael Flynn, enough is enough. Congress really
needs to get to the bottom of this. We did have an opportunity to inquire
further about the reports of the discussion within the White House with the
Russian foreign minister and Russian ambassador. I don`t have much I can
share in terms of our discussions on that. I can only say that I remain
concerned about allegations that the president shared information with the
Russians that was not vetted in advance by our intelligence agencies. It`s
one thing to do this as a product of inter-agency thought and deliberation
about information that needs to be shared. It`s another thing to do it
spontaneously, impetuously, or in a way that might endanger sources of
information. So, I think there is still more for us to learn in terms of
whether classified information was shared with the Russians. That was an
answer that General McMaster was not willing to give today, and also
whether mitigation steps need to be put in place. And I`m happy to respond
to one or two questions.
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, why is (INAUDIBLE) not with you and getting
cooperation from Republicans and scheduling the Comey hearing or requesting
documents or tapes?
SCHIFF: Mr. Conway and I are working together very well. And I think that
he has made every effort, we both are, to run the investigation in a
completely nonpartisan fashion. The issues that have come up in connection
with Mr. Comey are beyond merely the scope of the intelligence
investigation and the intelligence committee. I think the judiciary
committees both in the house and senate also have a deep interest in this.
And from my point of view, I`m not being proprietary about this. Of
course, I`d love for him to come before the intelligence committee. But
either way he needs to come back before the congress and I think share with
the public what conversations he had with the president that may bear on
whether there was any effort to obstruct the investigation or impede it in
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Congressman, in light of these new reports on the
conversation between Comey, do you think the president has credibility to
appoint a new FBI director right now?
SCHIFF: Well, you know, I think the president has severely undermined his
own credibility on anything pertaining to the Russian involvement in our
election. With respect to the choice of the new director, I agree
completely and wholeheartedly with Lindsey Graham, I think it ought to be
completely A-political choice. I think the ideal candidate. I`m not
speaking to anyone in particular, but I think the ideal profile of the
candidate would be someone who is a retired judge or an active judge who is
willing to step down from the bench ideally that has prosecutorial
experience in the past, but someone, I think, that is very consistent with
the necessity of true independence in that role. So, whether the president
is credible on the subject or not, the senate has an incredible
responsibility of making sure that no one is confirmed for that job that we
can have absolute confidence would be fully independent. And I`ll say this
also about why that is so important. There are three primary
investigations going on of the Russia issue. One in the house intelligence
committee, one in the senate intelligence committee, and of course that
being done by the FBI. The FBI has far greater reach than any committee in
congress. They have agents around the world. They have resources we don`t
have. We can`t recreate what the FBI can do. Nor should we try. We have
to run our own investigations, but we do have to make sure that the FBI
does its work in a thorough way, and in a partial way, and without any
UNINDENTIFIED MALE: One last question. The White House (INAUDIBLE) the
version of events, they asked for Comey.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. That`s Adam Schiff, ranking member of the house
intelligence committee. Let`s go to Michael Schmidt, he is the New York
Times reporter who broke this story. He`s on the phone. Michael, what can
you tell me about this memo? And have you actually seen it?
ADAM SCHMIDT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thanks for having me, Greta. As we
point out in the story, we have not seen the memo, but we had been read
parts of it. And basically, after Trump in the oval office said directly
to Comey that he should move on from the Flynn investigation and Flynn had
done nothing wrong, Comey went back and wrote a detailed memo that outlined
everything that had happened with Trump. Comey was very concerned about
Trump trying to meddle with the FBI, and he knew that he had to create a
paper trail. He did memos on every single phone call and meeting he had
with the president.
VAN SUSTEREN: In your article that read the news as breaking, it said that
Comey shared with senior FBI officials this memo, yet, last week the number
two, now the acting director of the FBI, McCabe, testified on the hill, and
he said there had been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Was
he not one of these people with whom Comey shared the memo, or was he out
of the loop, or what can you tell me?
SCHMIDT: I don`t know why deputy director McCabe said that. I don`t know
whether he knew everything that was in these memos. We have not learned
anything about that. But Comey was concerned about what Trump was doing
and what Trump had said to him, and Trump`s efforts to try and curtail the
investigation. Trump told Comey that he thought Flynn was a good guy and
had done nothing wrong, but that there was no need for the investigation.
And this was really concerning to Comey. It was – he believes in the sort
of independence of the FBI, and a line between the White House and the FBI,
and he thought he had crossed that.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. February 14th is when this private meeting
occurred. What time of day was it, and apparently according to your
article there were others at the meeting who were asked to leave and just
leaving the two alone, Trump and Comey?
SCHMIDT: There was a 4:00 PM national security meeting in the oval office
with the president with a bunch of folks from the intelligence community
and the law enforcement community. And at the end of the meeting, Pence,
Sessions and Comey were still there, and the president told Sessions and
Pence to get out of the room. Sessions kind of lingered around. The
president excused him again. And then it was in the oval office one on one
that Mr. Trump had the conversation with Mr. Comey. Now, what Mr. Comey`s
associates will say, that if Mr. Trump did have a taping system there will
be a way to corroborate this meeting.
VAN SUSTEREN: Was it at all unusual, did Comey memo, or any associates say
it was at all unusual for Trump to essentially tell everybody to leave but
one person, the then director?
SCHMIDT: Correct. I think that it`s seen as an inappropriate thing to –
for the president and the FBI director to be alone in a room discussing
details about an ongoing investigation that is so politically sensitive and
involved the president`s former national security advisor.
VAN SUSTEREN: I guess what I`m trying to find out is whether it`s unusual
for the two to be alone like that because we have a situation where
something – look, any time someone tries to interfere with an
investigation, you`ve got an obstruction of justice potential right there.
And you have the director who did not resign at that point, and then
several weeks later after he`s been fired, he now says that this happened.
With all due respect to everybody involved here, I`m trying to figure out
whether – without seeing the memo, whether or not – you know, what
happened that day.
SCHMIDT: Well, I think the FBI found itself in a weird position because
basically they had witnessed the president – Comey – basically there was
a potential crime that the president may have committed, but the FBI wasn`t
really sure what to do about it. We don`t know whether they told the
justice department about it. We don`t know how further they pursued this.
We do know as we pointed out in the story that Mr. Comey and senior FBI
officials kept this information from the investigators working directly on
the case because he didn`t want them to be influenced by – he didn`t want
the investigators to be influenced by what the president had said.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. So, the – Comey said there`s a tape, we`ll hear
everything that happened. If that tape ever gets out. But Comey has now
offered to testify. At least he did prior to your breaking news story.
He`s offered to testify, but only in a public forum?
SCHMIDT: Correct. Comey has – wants to testify, but he wants it to be
public. And so the question will be whether he`s hauled up to Capitol
Hill, and whether the Republicans will allow him to testify and what he
will say about his interactions with the president.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did any of your sources indicate that they`re likely to be
more memos with more bombshells? Not that this one is not huge in and of
SCHMIDT: I think that Mr. Comey was concerned about a lot of his
interactions with the president. I don`t know if there was anything this
severe that happened in the other ones. This is probably – this really
sort of changes some of the ways people are looking at the story in a sense
that it raises questions about whether direct evidence of the president was
trying to influence the investigation. I don`t think there is anything
this strong out there else wise, but, you know, the story has had a lot of
twists and turns that we haven`t been able to see, so.
VAN SUSTEREN: Indeed it has. Michael, thank you very much. Come back if
you get some more. Thank you.
VAN SUSTEREN: Bill Kristol is editor at large at the Weekly Standard.
Alan Dershowitz is a constitutional law scholar professor emeritus at
Harvard Law School. Alan, let me go first to you. Looking what was said,
at least purported to be said in a conversation in a contemporaneous memo
that we have not seen, let the investigation go. If that is true, what`s
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first, we should have no
trouble getting the memo. The memo belongs to the United States
government. It does not belong to Comey. And, so, the White House is
wrong when it says the burden of proof is on the New York Times. The rules
of evidence are always the burden of proof is on the person who has the
evidence available to him or her. The government has that memo available.
They can read it. They probably have read it. Memos are important because
they reflect the current, the contemporaneous views of the person writing
it rather than something that occurred afterward. Also, there may be a
taping system in the oval office. So, we should be able to ultimately find
out what exactly was said, and everything will turn on what was said. If
it was a polite request just saying, oh, you know, he`s a good guy, Flynn,
I wish you`d back off this thing. That`s not an obstruction of justice.
If it was a command, it would raise stronger problems. I don`t think we`re
ever going to get to an obstruction of justice.
Let`s remember that the executive branch is a unitary branch under the
constitution. When Thomas Jefferson was president, he commanded his
attorney general not only to indict Aaron Burr, but he micro managed the
trial of Aaron Burr, and he told the chief justice that unless there was a
conviction, he would get the chief justice impeached. This is Thomas
Jefferson. So, you know, to get to an obstruction of justice, you have to
go over a lot of constitutional hoops. I don`t think we`re ever going to
get there, so I think this is a political issue.
VAN SUSTEREN: But I think when you fold into it, Alan – this is an
assumption that`s true. These are the allegations they`re sending out.
They`re only allegations, they may not be true. But you have the situation
where Sally Yates, where she warns the White House and the next thing.
DERSHOWITZ: Sally Yates` warning is absolutely idiotic. Think about that
for one second. Just logically think about how wrong Sally Yates is. She
says that Flynn posed a risk of blackmail. All you have to do is go over
to Flynn and say, oh, by the way, Mr. Flynn, we overheard your conversation
with the Russians. You lied. That`s the end of the blackmail. The
Russians have nothing more on him. It`s idiotic to say that Flynn was
subject to blackmail once the government knew about it. All they have to
do is go over to Flynn and tell him they know about it. Then they can go
further and say, by the way, if the Russians try to contact you, record the
conversations, and we`ll make sure that the Russians pay a price for that.
But there was no way that Flynn was ever subject to blackmail as long as
the United States government and Sally Flynn herself knew that this
information was a lie. You just tell them that and the blackmail is over.
VAN SUSTEREN: I don`t think you can discount, Alan, the fact he was
interviewed by the FBI. I don`t know what he said by the FBI. But by that
time he`d been interviewed by the FBI. If he made a false statement to the
FBI saying a conversation was different than what he relayed to Pence. I
think he has a bigger problem.
DERSHOWITZ: I agree with that. I`m just saying the blackmail issue, take
it off the table. Somebody should ask Sally Quin, I`m sorry that Anderson
Cooper didn`t do it in his interview. Somebody should ask Sally Quin, duh,
why didn`t you just go to Flynn and say, by the way, we know, we have the
tape recording of you lying. You`re no longer subject to blackmail.
That`s the easiest thing any intelligence operation knows that if somebody
is subject to blackmail, if somebody is going to be blackmailed because
he`s had sex or because whatever, you go over to the guy and you say, by
the way, we have the picture of you having sex so you`re no longer subject
to blackmail. It`s the easiest way to undo any blackmail by the Russians.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Let me go to Bill Kristol. Bill, your thoughts
BILL KRISTOL, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: I think it`s interesting – Alan is
right – the way in which Trump ordered or suggested to Comey to ease up on
the investigation would be important to know. I do think it is interesting
that President Trump asked Vice-President Pence and Attorney General
Sessions to leave the room.
VAN SUSTEREN: Assuming all this is true. We`re making all these
KRISTOL: Assuming that that is true, and he wanted to have a one on one
session with the FBI director, I would bet and people serving in the Obama
White House, and the Bush White House – talk about this, but my memory of
the White House I served in, I might not have known about them is, it would
be very, very rare for the president of the United States to be one on one
with the FBI director. The FBI director reports to the attorney general.
The president has a White House counsel. He has a White House chief of
staff, as the vice-president. What would you have to discuss that you
wouldn`t want your most senior people to know? So that I think is a
little worrisome if you`re on the Trump side here, but why the one on one
meeting. And then the question is, of course, what about Flynn? I mean,
people are assuming that Trump had sympathy for Flynn, I assume that`s
correct. But was he also worried that Flynn might say certain things about
Trump? We don`t know about that.
KRISTOL: He had fired Flynn the day before. He liked Mike Flynn. Mike
Flynn had been a loyal supporter of his. Remember what Rob Kelner, Mike
Flynn`s attorney had said, it will be interesting to find out, was that the
night before this meeting or the day of this meeting, remember Kelner said
Flynn has an interesting story to tell and he might be willing to testify.
That would be interesting to know. So, again, it matters a lot is Donald
Trump just acting out of human sympathy for a guy he`s known for a couple
of years, or is Donald Trump trying to stop an investigation that might
VAN SUSTEREN: You know how I read that, maybe I don`t know, Alan, how you
read that. I thought that the lawyer was trying to dangle that to get
immunity on false statements to the FBI and something else. I was trying
to dangle an interesting story so he got immunity. I thought that was
DERSHOWITZ: He did it foolishly because you don`t dangle those things in
public. You dangle those things in private to the prosecutors. You tell
them discretely that you have a story to tell. They then ask for a proffer
and then they give you immunity. But you don`t go in public and make that
kind of statement.
VAN SUSTEREN: I think if I were the president`s lawyer tonight, I think
the most potent thing the president has is that as the acting deputy
director – acting director of the FBI, McCabe, testified just late last
week that there had been no effort to impede our investigation to date.
And according to the New York Times report is that when the former deputy
or former director Comey wrote that memo, that he told it to several other
senior intelligence – senior people at the FBI. Maybe McCabe wasn`t in
that circle. But I think that`s the most potent thing the president has
DERSHOWITZ: I agree with that. And again, there is a big difference
between asking politely and doing something a little bit more direct than
that. I suspect that Comey did not identify this as an obstruction of
justice. Otherwise he would have been duty bound to bring it to the
attention of the justice department, and he didn`t do that.
KRISTOL: I think that`s right. But I also think – I mean, McCabe is the
actual acting director of the FBI. He is in public office. He can testify
to this. So I think the point Alan made at the very beginning we`re going
to learn a lot more about this. There are documents which are either
government documents or maybe Comey dictated them on his own. They would
still be government documents if he dictated them late at night, at his
house in a recording machine. They`ll still be accessible obviously.
McCabe is there. He can testify. Comey can testify. Flynn may or may not
be willing to testify, but we can eventually learn what he has to say.
White House people can talk about what happened at that meeting and why –
what they thought when President Trump asked them to leave the room. So,
we`re going to learn a lot more about this.
VAN SUSTEREN: NBC has confirmed, at least we have been told, the same
thing about the contents of the memo. We haven`t seen the memo yet, just
to the extent it`s relevant. NBC has also been told the same thing. Alan?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, I just think it`s a very, very high bar to get over
obstruction of justice for a president who, in fact, is the head of the
unitary executive branch that includes the FBI and the justice department.
It`s just a hard, hard barrier to overcome. It doesn`t mean that the
accumulation of circumstances – and we`re seeing them drip by drip now,
may not ultimately get us to that point, but we`re not there yet.
VAN SUSTEREN: Congressman Blake Farenthold, Republican from Texas, serves
on the house oversight committee, he joins us. Sir, what can you add to
this discussion tonight? You just met with the CIA, you got a briefing.
Tell me what you can tell us.
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Well, I can tell you that we`ve got a
situation now where a lot of stuff is coming from anonymous sources, the
earlier stuff. Obviously you`ve got the alleged Comey memo. But you`ve
got a media and folks within the government who are dead set on
discrediting President Trump, and the media just jumps right on it. You`ve
got to remember, Trump is making a transition from being the CEO of a
company to the chief executive of the country. And the rules are a little
bit different there, and I think he`s climbing the learning curve but not
as fast as I think some folks including me would like to see.
VAN SUSTEREN: Would you agree that if we actually could see the memo that
is now being reported that James Comey made contemporaneous with his
discussion on February 14th with the president, that that would have some -
- that would help us understand the situation better, if we actually saw
FARENTHOLD: And I`m confident it`s going to come out. I agree with the
professor that it is government property and it`s the people`s.
VAN SUSTEREN: And I assume that if Comey would produce it now – where is
this memo, you think? Must be back at the FBI, or was Comey able to take
FARENTHOLD: When you leave government service, you`re supposed to leave
your papers with the government. They`re not your papers, they`re the
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, let me just play for you what the senate
minority leader Chuck Schumer just said reacting to this news.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHUCK SCHUMER, MINORITY LEADER: Mr. President, in a week full of
revelation after revelation on a day when we thought things couldn`t get
any worse, they have. I was shaken by the report in the New York Times
that alleged that the president tried to shut down an active FBI
investigation into a close political associate. And we are only one day
removed from stunning allegations that the president may have divulged
classified information to a known adversary. Concerns about our national
security, the rule of law, the independence of our nation`s highest law
enforcement agency are mounting. The country is being tested in
unprecedented ways. I say to all of my colleagues in the senate, history
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAN SUSTEREN: Congressman, your response to the senate minority leader?
FARENTHOLD: Sorry, I`ve got to catch my balance here from all the spin
that`s going on. Donald Trump is not cut a break by anybody. If this were
Barack Obama, everybody would be oh, well, this, oh, well that. It was
just a friendly suggestion. It`s amazing the difference in the treatment
this president gets in the press than his predecessor.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me go back to Alan Dershowitz. Alan, I guess a
politician says that the president tried to shut it down and says that
that`s a fact. A lawyer says, looking at this, is that someone has made
the allegation and we are awaiting the documentary proof, right? I guess
we`ve lost – I`ll go back to you, Bill.
KRISTOL: Well, look, assuming the memorandum is not being made up and was
really contemporaneous, I don`t see what interest James Comey would have on
February 14th to invent a conversation with President Trump. He was
sitting FBI director. And I think Alan makes an important point. Comey
does not seem to have thought at the time that this rose to obstruction of
justice. If he had, he would have had to inform the justice department.
He might would have resign – he didn`t seem to have done that. So I think
the question whether it`s illegal obstruction of justice or criminal
obstruction of justice is one thing. Could it be part, honestly, an
impeachment bill, a bill of impeachment, this is very much like
incidentally the allegations against Nixon and even Clinton in a certain
way in terms of using the instrument of government to shut down
investigations that he was fearful of and that would be the question.
VAN SUSTEREN: Alan, are you still with us?
DERSHOWITZ: I`m still with you. Here I am.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Alan. What`s your first question, what do you
want if you`re looking at this?
DERSHOWITZ: I want to see the memo. I want to see whether this is a
command or just a suggestion. I want to see the tone. I want to see what
Comey himself thought about it at the time it occurred rather than in
retrospect after he`s been fired, and what his friends are putting out the
story. I want to see the facts, just the facts, and then we can add that
to the facts that we know exist and do a legal analysis. But as I said,
it`s going to be very hard to get over the unitary executive as a barrier
to any obstruction of justice here.
VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of the memo, whether it`s sort of a recovered
memory by Comey now after he`s fired, as Alan says, could be a possibility.
We don`t know anything at this point. I guess if we had a tape that sure
would help us. Is there likely to be a tape of this?
KRISTOL: I don`t think so. But I think the FBI director who is a man of
probity, there is no evidence he`s ever manufactured memos in the past, I
don`t believe, if he goes back and dictates a memo that is contemporaneous
– the presumption has to be – he doesn`t quit – no, no, because Alan is
right. But I didn`t think it quite rose to obstruction of justice.
VAN SUSTEREN: So why is it coming out now then?
KRISTOL: It rose to something – well, he thinks perhaps that his friends
think it`s relevant to the president`s overall conduct. We`re not talking
about – we are talking partly about a criminal inquiry. We`re also
talking about a political question of confidence in the president whether
there should be a congressional council, whether there should be a
congressional inquiry, whether they could conceivably be impeachment
proceedings. These are all legitimate things to raise in this context.
This is not narrowly legalistic questions.
VAN SUSTEREN: You wouldn`t drip, drip, drip part of a memo and comments to
the media. Would you present the memo, maybe even testify publicly. This
has been leaked to the media tonight in piece. We haven`t seen it. And it
may be a huge bombshell, it may not. But we have not actually laid our
eyes on it. It may be worse than we think, maybe less than we think.
KRISTOL: Go to Comey and say, why don`t you come forward here. You`re a
private citizen now. Why don`t you tell us what happened. There is no
reason I can see, maybe Alan will correct me, for Comey to be reticent at
VAN SUSTEREN: How do we determine tone, Alan, from the memo?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, first of all, the memo may have some tone in it
different from the selected portions that were read the New York Times.
Second, there may be a taping mechanism in the oval office. And third, you
know, I think we have already come to the point where an independent
investigation by a congressionally approved independent commission is
warranted. I don`t think we`re up to a special prosecutor. That may come
after an independent investigatory agency investigates. It may then
recommend an independent council. We`re getting close to that, but again,
we`re not quite there. I think we have to do this step-by-step to make
sure that this isn`t politicized, that it remains a nonpartisan
investigation designed to bring out the truth.
VAN SUSTEREN: And what I would like is Comey has said that he will
publicly testify, not privately, which I really appreciate that he wants to
do it publicly. You know, let`s have at it, have it sooner rather than
later. And I think at that point we make the decision whether or not to go
on independent counsel or independent commission or not.
DERSHOWITZ: Makes a lot of sense.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Clint Watts, a former FBI special agent joins
us. Clint, you`ve been listening to the discussion that James Comey
apparently made a contemporaneous memo after meeting with the president on
February 14th. We have not seen it, we only have bits and pieces, and we
don`t really have much in context. We just have the fact that he reports -
- there is a report of this memo. Your thoughts?
CLINT WATTS, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: I think this is consistent with
Comey. He`s done this before where he`s actually documented evidence.
This is very common for lawyers to keep track of any of their engagements,
conversations, anything that went on the record, especially if they`re not
sure what the outcome would be. And the other thing we have to look at,
you know, I`m tired of hearing some of this legal talk which is, let`s look
at what`s right and wrong. He has a dinner where he asks for some sort of
loyalty oath. He then brings the FBI director into the oval office with no
other witnesses, and then brings up the Flynn investigation. And then, he
relieves the FBI director for causes that were based on something that
happened last summer. And then, the next day says, oh, it was because
there`s nothing to the Russia investigation. That is three strikes in my
book. I don`t understand why this evidence comes up every couple days.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, NBC NEWS HOST FOR THE RECORD: All right let me just
ask how you factor in two things. One, the fact is that this note,
February 14th contemporaneous note is that if it were pressure to drop the
case, you know, why didn`t Comey resign or why it didn`t leak out, maybe
that is the first explanation. The second is McCabe, who is now the acting
director late last week, testified before congress and he says there has
been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Now, in the “The New
York Times” article it says that when Comey wrote this February 14th
article, he told senior people at the FBI, maybe he left his number two out
of the loop. What are your thoughts on that?
WATTS: There is a difference between trying to impede the investigation
and trying to influence it through the FBI director. I see this as a very
consistent pattern. Regarding your first question, you know, McCabe, what
he is saying is the investigation, the interviews that they want to do, the
evidence they want to gather, the subpoenas that they probably are
developing or issuing, those have gone through. But in terms of
influencing the investigation, it seems pretty consistent. Trump himself
said last week in an interview on NBC. I didn`t see anything to this
Russia investigation. I don`t see why we continue to pursue this. I just
don`t see how there is any evidence to anything else other than the case.
It consistently comes back to Flynn and his involvement with this Russia
VAN SUSTEREN: What does Comey`s reputation among the FBI agents you know?
WATTS: The FBI agents I know all are very much in favor of supporting the
FBI director. I`ve never heard the up swell of it. Based on the way
things conducted last week, how Trump fired him by sending over a letter
rather than calling Comey on the phone, Comey showing up in Los Angeles and
finding out that he is fired based on a TV broadcast that is behind him, I
think that definitely puts any FBI agent that is out there in the Comey
camp and says, hey, I`m going stay independent and impartial and I`m going
to fight for the American people. It`s the rule of law. It`s not the rule
VAN SUSTEREN: Bill Kristol?
BILL KRISTOL, THE WEEKLY STANDARD FOUNDER AND EDITOR: Greta, you`ve been
making the point about McCabe saying the investigation had not been
impeded. The Times does have one sentence that might speak to that. Comey
and his aides perceive Trump to influence the investigation. They decided
they would try to keep the conversation secret even if the FBI agents
working on the Russian investigation so the details of the conversation
would not affect the investigation. It may be that Comey only shared this
memo a couple with personal staff aides of his. He did not put it in the
chain of command. He did not let McCabe know about it. He wanted McCabe
continue to supervised on the investigation.
VAN SUSTEREN: Was McCabe supervising the investigation?
KRISTOL: It will be a question asked of McCabe, I assume is being asked of
him right now and people who are at the FBI will have to answer that, but I
think it`s possible Comey didn`t – McCabe is speaking honestly, that the
investigation wasn`t impede, in fact, but Comey simply recorded this
conversation and let a couple aides know about it but did not put that into
the lot of chain of command at the FBI.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, LAW PROFESSOR AND AUTHOR OF “ELECTILE DYSFUNCTION”: I`d
love to hear a historian look at the Kennedy`s administration relationship
with J. Edgar Hoover. It was a very sordid relationship. We know that the
Kennedy justice department allowed Hoover to take record Martin Luther
King. You know, this new found notion of ethical separation between the
president and the FBI is not really a matter of law. It`s a matter of
post-Kennedy administration, post-Johnson administration tradition. I
suspect historians will go back and find very often that president –
VAN SUSTEREN: That doesn`t justify it.
KRISTOL: The law changed. That is why they created a tenure term for the
FBI director, if you wanted to defend this on the grounds the behavior of
Kennedy – J. Hoover was appropriate, you cannot behave the way John F.
Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy behaved in 1962.
DERSHOWITZ: It is not whether it was appropriate or justified. My point
is whether it was illegal. The law doesn`t change –
KRISTOL: The laws have changed. There have been new laws since 1962.
DERSHOWITZ: Criminal laws don`t change.
KRISTOL: There are new criminal laws since 1962. The government practices
in terms of political –
DERSHOWITZ: The law that existed prior to the Kennedy administration.
Just because we have new sensitivities, which we should, and tell us what
happened here is wrong doesn`t mean you can go back and retroactively
rewrite the meaning of the criminal law to cover conduct that wasn`t
covered at the time the law was – that is my only caveat.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Tell the viewers, Alan. Let`s pick something in
the universe of the discussion, obstruction of justice. What are the
elements to that? What is that so we can drill that one out or still keep
it in the pot as maybe remotely that that could have happened?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, obstruction of justice has been applied far, far too
broadly and every civil libertarian ought to be concerned about any
expansion of obstruction of justice. There are some horrible, horrible
cases involving relatively innocent conduct being swept within obstruction
of justice. The real issue is how it applies to a president who is the
head of the executive branch. Can congress really enact a statute
prohibiting the president from dealing with the executive branch in the
manner he chooses to deal with it?
VAN SUSTEREN: No, wait a second, Alan. If there is a black and white
situation, if I`m the president and the FBI comes in and says do an
investigation, I say drop the investigation, the person says no, if you
don`t drop it I`m going to fire you, that would certainly be an effort to
obstruct justice, wouldn`t you agree?
DERSHOWITZ: That would be the clearest possible case. And the question is
would the constitution permit a president to be indicted by exercising his
constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI for very, very bad
KRISTOL: It would certainly prevent congress –
VAN SUSTEREN: It`s not going to prevent him from firing, but it certainly
doesn`t prevent a grand jury from indicting someone trying to obstruct
KRISTOL: Prevent congress more importantly from considering it as
DERSHOWITZ: The Congress has limits as to how it can constrain the actions
of the executive. Congress cannot constitutionally require the Supreme
Court to abide by a series of ethical rules –
VAN SUSTEREN: Alan, to think of it this way would give a president carte
blanche to do anything with an FBI to use sort of a private enforcement
service. You can`t obstruct – a president can`t obstruct justice.
DERSHOWITZ: Subject to the constitutional power of impeachment, which is a
political power vested in congress. We just have to remember we have a
unique form of tri par tide government which vests equal power in each of
the three branches of government and no branch has the power to usurp –
VAN SUSTEREN: I see your point. I guess I was thinking more broadly as a
form of punishment whether obstruction of justice would lead to the
constitutional authority of congress to impeach somebody, the president in
DERSHOWITZ: There is no reviewing of congress`s power to impeach. The
congress can impeach a president and there is no court power to review
VAN SUSTEREN: Would you agree congress could impeach, hypothetically, a
president who was obstructing justice in sort of the traditional sense of
what we consider obstruction of justice under the criminal code, would you
agree that is possible?
DERSHOWITZ: I think congress could say if the president does something
that if he were not a president would be a high crime and misdemeanor, the
impeachment power extends to that kind of conduct.
VAN SUSTEREN: I think we`re all sort of saying the same thing but looking
at it very loosely, very differently. What`s your thought, Bill?
KRISTOL: I`m happy when people are saying the same thing. I think it`s
not – maybe there is a legal criminal case here but that is different from
an impeachable offense. I don`t agree. I think Alan is overstating the
president`s – if Donald Trump destroyed evidence in the oval office of a
crime of an investigation, if he was part of – if he was under
investigation and destroyed evidence, I believe there would be criminal
WATTS: He doesn`t have the legal authority to do that. But he has the
legal authority to fire the director.
KRISTOL: No one is doubting that.
VAN SUSTEREN: And, of course, you could be impeached for conduct which in
a traditional sense would be a crime out in the rest of the world.
KRISTOL: Or that would be a violation of crimes and misdemeanors.
DERSHOWITZ: Tri par tide system of justice, more complicated than for any
individual when you have the president.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me bring in David Priess, former CIA daily intelligence
briefer. Do you have any thoughts on all this?
DAVID PREISS, FORMER CIA OFFICER: I think it`s fascinating because we`re
talking about different definitions. The only definitions that matter is
the House of Representatives said it is. General Ford said it best before
Watergate, when he said, what is an impeachable offense? Whatever the
house of representatives says it is.
VAN SUSTEREN: I think the point that at least I was making is that an
impeachable offense would be one that would be obstruction of justice
outside the president versus the FBI director –
KRISTOL: Of course true in a sense. We call it a common law tradition by
now. We`ve had two articles of impeachment voted on by the house. We have
some sense of what it is therefore appropriate for a president to do and
not do in term of impeding investigations by the FBI. And Donald Trump,
people can say congressman said he is a new guy, he is a new president. He
presumably knows when he becomes president what he can and can`t do. For
me, kicking Vice President Pence and Attorney General Sessions out of the
oval office and having a one on one meeting with the FBI director is very
unusual. I would love to know how that happened –
VAN SUSTEREN: It`s unusual to me that if Comey felt pressure that day on
February 14th and he wrote a memo that he didn`t do something then, it`s
only until after he is fired he has a recovered memory of what it meant.
Without the memo, until I see it.
KRISTOL: Going to Attorney General Sessions and saying, we need to launch
an investigation of Donald Trump and say, you know, what, I`m worried about
what happened, I`m memorialized this, let`s see what happens the next month
PREISS: Obstruction of justice may not be in one day. Putting that memo
on the record could be part in a sense of building a case over time. One
event doesn`t break the camel`s back.
VAN SUSTEREN: I totally agree. It is merely something I`m curious about.
That is the question I would want to ask him. Maybe there is a very good
explanation and maybe an explanation by the director.
PREISS: He is made it clear he wants to speak publicly on this.
VAN SUSTEREN: Which is even more nearest, to my believing him?
PREISS: Yes, because he wants to have this in the public sphere because
that is where this ends up.
VAN SUSTEREN: We`re not even getting this from him, are we, Alan? We
haven`t even seen the memo and we`re getting it filtered through media
DERSHOWITZ: And I don`t like the fact that Comey is, if he is involved
with this, is leaking information through surrogates. He ought to be doing
it himself. And I think we ought to be seeing this memo. We shouldn`t be
playing cat and mouse with “The New York Times.” I`ll read it to you. I
won`t read the whole thing. The American public is entitled to see that
whole memo. He own that memo, it belongs to us. We should see all the
memos and be able to make a decision based on the full evidence.
VAN SUSTEREN: Totally agree, but it may not be Comey leaking the memo. It
may be those he apparently shared it with. The one thing he has said, at
least has been reported, he wants to testify and he was offered behind
closed doors. He said, no, I want it publicly. He may not even be the one
tonight doing this.
KRISTOL: Of course. He has no choice if they want him to testify, he has
to testify. If they want it to be behind closed doors, they can do that.
I hope it`s open to the public. I`m glad he is insisting on it but that is
not something in his power.
VAN SUSTEREN: Everyone stay with me. Congressman Eric Swalwell is a
member of the House Intelligence Committee, and he joins us, Congressman,
your thoughts on this?
REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIFORNIA: Good evening, Greta. Let`s see the memo
and let`s hear from former Director Comey. And if we take a step back,
Greta, what`s really going on here, we have serious allegations about
Russia`s interference into our past election. There are people in the
United States who are being investigated as to whether they cooperated and
worked with Russia. The best thing we can do now, Greta, is to have an
independent commission. I wrote legislation with Elijah Cummings to do
this. We`re forcing a vote on it this week. We need to be as independent
and credible as possible to understand just exactly what happened, who was
responsible and how we can assure the American people we will never put our
democracy in a position like this again.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know tonight we`re in the awkward position of having two
stories collide. One is the one you`re speaking more directly to, the one
that broke yesterday about the president meeting with – what he shared
with the foreign minister of Russia, and the ambassador. And then we`ve
got this other story about this leaked information to the “The New York
Times” about a meeting that director Comey had February 14th with the
president. So, we`ve got all these things sort of colliding with each
other and people want special counsel, they want special commissions. It
really has gotten rather messy to say the least.
SWALWELL: Greta, as this information collides, our constituents are
counting on us as stewards of this country to be responsible. So, we
should not be as reckless with the facts as the president has been and that
is why I think an independent commission to understand what Russia did, to
have a special prosecutor so that the criminal probe is also independent of
the White House`s alleged meddling. That is the best way to go forward
before we go any further than that. That has been obstructed a number of
times by the White House, and that is the problem.
VAN SUSTEREN: I think in order to get special prosecutor, you have to have
a special crime on the table at least for the Russia thing. Am I right,
DERSHOWITZ: You need to have probable cause that a crime may have been
committed and you know we`re getting close, we`re getting close. And we
have to see – it doesn`t have to be a crime committed by the president.
It`s a crime committed by anybody who could be the subject of the
investigation. And, so, we know already that Flynn may well have committed
a crime and others as well. So, we`re getting close. I don`t think we`re
there yet and we have to do it step-by-step. But I do think an independent
commission which doesn`t require a crime is a very, very good idea.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Let`s go to the White House. Hallie Jackson is
standing by. Halle, what`s going on there?
HALLIE JACKSON, NBC CORRESPONDENT WHITE HOUSE: Everything I think is about
the only answer you can give, Greta. At this point we know that the White
House – you`ve talked about the response to the Comey memo news that NBC
news has confirmed and reported the existence of this memo. The White
House has said there are parts of this that are not true. They`re pushing
back against “The New York Times” story, they are pushing back against the
overall story via reporters who have been, again, for night number two,
lined up in a row outside Sean Spicer`s office and by sending this
information via the pool as well to distribute it to the wider group,
people who cover the White House.
I just think back to a week ago, Greta. I think you and I had been
talking, we had been here at the White House, and that is when James Comey
was fired. Right around this time seven days ago and to think of
everything that has happened in the past seven days, it has been a
whirlwind. The next seven days, the president is out of town tomorrow. He
leaves for a week, his first international trip. A grueling slogs, you
could say, a series of countries over eight days or so. Major meetings,
major summits, key speeches, big moments and it is only Tuesday.
VAN SUSTEREN: Yes indeed, it is only Tuesday. Hard to believe it is only
Tuesday. Thank you, Hallie. Let`s go to Ken Dilanian. He has some news.
KEN DILANIAN, NBC NEWS: Greta I`ve been speaking with a source close to
James Comey law enforcement official. How did Comey view that request from
Trump about Flynn? Did he consider resigning? The answer I got was, no,
he was disturbed by it, but he immediately documented it. He did not
consider resigning. He felt he could manage the situation. He kept that
information, though, from the rank and file agents who are working on the
Russia investigation because he did not want them to feel chilled. But it
wasn`t the kind of situation where he felt like he needs to take immediate
action. You know, Trump is the president. He felt, he is running the FBI,
he is still continuing to be an independent FBI director. And he thought
he could continue in his job, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you know – do you have any idea where this memo is or
whether or not we`re going to see it soon?
DILANIAN: I think it`s likely that we`re going to see it soon because I
believe that the FBI has a copy of it and some other memos that Comey
wrote, some which are classified. The public may not see them, but
congress is certainly already drafting the letters to request them, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: One quick question. Do you know if Comey told McCabe who
testified late last week who is now the acting director?
DILANIAN: I don`t know that. That is a mystery why he would answer the
way he did. I don`t know the answer to that, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Ken, thank you. NBC news chief foreign affairs
correspondent Andrea Mitchell joins us. Andrea.
ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: This has been an incredible day.
Hallie Jackson just describing what`s been going on and Ken Dilanian at the
White House, on top of which they`re planning for this trip and that,
should have been the focus for the last two weeks. You saw that Henry
Kissinger came in last week. They were planning to have the president
really drill down and almost have a graduate seminar to prepare for his
first foreign trip, a rigorous and very challenging schedule. He is going
to Riyadh first, going to meet with more than 50 Muslim and Arab leaders,
Sunni Muslims to try to circle their summit against Iran, trying to exclude
and isolate Iran. But now what has been revealed today is that the Arab
leaders, the Saudis have also invited the Sudanese leader, who is known for
genocide and war crimes according to the international criminal court –
VAN SUSTEREN: And I might add he threw you out?
MITCHELL: Yeah, but I`ve suffered a whole lot less at his hands for a
photo opportunity than thousands of people, untold numbers who have been in
refugee camps, who had been displace and tortured by that regime. For him
to be invited to a summit with the American leader is quite startling, the
White House having to deal with that tonight. And then, of course, they go
on to Israel. We know now that Israel was the source of that very
sensitive information that the president in an ad hoc way revealed to the
Russians. Israel saying tonight they have no problem with the U.S. and
they`re not confirming or denying that. They`re just looking forward to
the president`s visit. Then the Vatican and NATO, we are told by
diplomatic sources the NATO allies are planning for this first meeting with
Donald Trump, who has spent the whole campaign calling NATO obsolete, has
since revised that, but they are quite concerned that he is not really
ready to drill down on the heavy policy load that takes place on the
detailed briefings at these NATO meetings. They`ve been told to keep
speeches short for his sake as well as theirs and then on to g7. This is a
daunting trip for an experience commander in chief, for a president who
tweets, who speaks off the cuff. It`s going to be challenging and
interesting to cover.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me add about going back to Bashar of Sudan who will be
at that event, not invited by President Trump, will be at that event he is
under international criminal court, including in the mountains where I`ve
actually been and seen what atrocities he does there. Let me ask you this,
he is going on to Israel. He is going to meet with the Prime Minister. We
had the news today that Israel was the country that apparently was the
source of this information that was passed on to Lavrov, the Russian
ambassador. Israel says we`re still great friends. They`re not worried.
Do you have anything beyond that very public statement?
MITCHELL: Well, Israel, of course, is the closest of allies, especially to
this president. There were close intelligence relationships even under
Barack Obama when President Obama and Netanyahu did not get along. That
was a very public eight-year spat. The fact that this is Donald Trump is
going to smooth over a lot of those differences. But at the intelligence
level, CIA and Assad there`s clearly a lot of concern, because this is the
kind of really privileged information that they would not want to share
with Russia because Russia – especially because it`s against ISIS in
Syria, you know, who Russia`s partners there are, Iran, the arch enemy of
Israel and of course - excuse me – Assad.
VAN SUSTEREN: Thank you, Andr‚a. Shane Harris a national security writer
for the Wall Street Journal. Shane, we thought tonight we were going to be
talking about this meeting with the Russian ambassador and Russian foreign
minister and trying to get a little bit more information about the Russian
ambassador. But the Russian ambassador seems to end up the center of so
many of these stories. Is he a diplomat, or is he a spy?
SHANE HARRIS, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, that is a great question, and the
answer to that depends on who you ask and the fact that there`s been this
question, I think, swirling around him is very interesting. Some
lawmakers, I think Senator Warner on the intelligence committee has
insinuated he is an agent. It would be not unthinkable, I suppose, but the
Russians have found plenty of other ways to try to recruit agents in
Washington. But clearly he is trying to exert some influence on behalf of
the Russian government, and we saw that most notably with the Trump
campaign. Obviously he is now a friend of this administration, so he
really has been for many years, but especially now the public face the
Russian government in Washington.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, the Russians came out and defended Trump on this
disclosure. What do you make of that?
HARRIS: Well, I don`t exactly know how the Russian government would know
whether or not it was classified information that was revealed. That they
came out and said it wasn`t classified. But obviously the Russians, I
think, are probably appreciative at some level of knowing what it is that
we have to say about the Islamic state`s attempts to get bombs onto
airplanes. They have a lot of concern about that as well. A Russian
airliner was downed in the Sinai in 2015, officials believe by an affiliate
of the Islamic state. But there`s no getting around the very strange
optics for sure of this meeting with the Russians and the president in the
oval office, and there`s really been no great explanation for why it is the
president decided to share this information with them in this way. There
are channels for conveying intelligence and counterterrorism information to
the Russians if that is what the administration wants to do. Clearly the
Israelis did not expect that President Trump was going to do that in that
VAN SUSTEREN: Alan, last night you said you thought it was Israel that was
the source of this information.
VAN SUSTEREN: That was improperly passed on.
DERSHOWITZ: Yes. I thought so because the Israeli press, months earlier,
had speculated that American intelligence had warned the Mossad in Israel
to be careful about what Israel intelligence gives to U.S. Intelligence,
because American intelligence officials were concerned that the president
didn`t know how to handle this kind of material with sophistication. So I
put two and two together and figured out it must have been Israel. Israel
also has this extraordinary ability to get inside terrorist organizations,
but it takes years and years and years to develop counteragents, double
agents, informants, and all that may be blown. Whoever was at the top
level of ISIS may now be dead or escaping. But let`s remember one thing.
Although Trump began this, it was the people who leaked it to “The
Washington Post” that got the information to ISIS as distinguished from
Russia. If this had been kept secret, if it wasn`t leaked by intelligence
officers to “The Washington Post,” ISIS and the general public would never
have learned about that. So we have a conflict between Democratic
accountability, which favors leaking and publishing, on the other hand,
national security, which might have benefited by keeping this information
only to the Russians and the American intelligence agencies.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask David. David, you`ve actually briefed presidents
on this and you are shaking your head.
PREISS: There`s this assumption of machinations going on behind the scenes
that intelligence officers are scheming with other services to do this.
There`s the assumption that the president of the United States is the only
consideration they have. The intelligence relationship between the United
States and many countries including Israel is robust and diverse and well
beyond one person. If intelligence were not to be shared because of what
one person might do with it, what about the thousands of other people that
are working together to address common threats and things like that?
KRISTOL: But sharing it with the – I`ve worked for the vice president of
chief of staff. We were in sensitive meetings. It is jaw-dropping that
the president mentioned this in – it`s one thing to talk about the laptop
threat. That was public. But to give an indication that we got this from
a friend who had presumably a spy or maybe technical means of listening in
a city that ISIS controlled – to say that, you wouldn`t – I mean that is
so far beyond the line of –
PREISS: Especially –
KRISTOL: You might say it`s your closest ally. To say it to the Russians,
I really think people who haven`t been in government don`t understand how
jaw-dropping that is for Trump to have done that and how really reckless it
VAN SUSTEREN: When you brief the president, I mean was this – I mean how
much of a mistake was this for the president? I mean, I realize the
consequences of it, but – is this sort of oversight when you brief the
president, do you say, don`t say this?
PREISS: The colleagues who I worked with who did brief the president on a
regular basis, it depends on what the president wants and what the
president needs. If the president thinks that he needs the actual details
of the source in order to make a judgment, then that information will be
provided. How often does the president of the United States need to know
the name of an actual source? Almost never, usually it`s about the
KRISTOL: This is presented as, this is highly sensitive. No foreign
distribution. No mention to foreign people.
PREISS: Why was the president –
VAN SUSTEREN: Alan`s got a question for you. Alan, go ahead.
DERSHOWITZ: Why is the president told the city? That seems to be
irresponsible by the intelligence agencies to have told the president the
city where this information came from. That could only cause mischief.
KRISTOL: The president Alan, don`t repeat things they`re not supposed to
repeat to foreign governments. We were told a lot of things we didn`t say
to other people.
PREISS: To directly answer a question of the United States about the
foundation of the intelligence on which they`re being briefed. That
strains the relationship between the White House and the intelligence
community more than it`s already being done.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me bring back Clint Watts, former FBI Special agent.
Clint, you know, obviously a lot of turmoil going on as we`re trying to
cover the story inside the FBI, can you give me confidence that whatever
investigations they`re working on any of these topics that they are un-
poisoned by the noise that is going on, or should we be concerned?
WATTS: I think the FBI agents are going to keep going with their
investigations. That is what they do on a daily basis anyways. The
politicians on each end of Pennsylvania Avenue need to get out of their
way. It`s been pretty consistent between the White House and congress that
they`re called to testify nearly every single week whether it`s Director
Comey or now McCabe. The investigation will proceed. The agents will do
what they`re supposed to be doing. I think the real question is can the
DOJ be impartial in these investigations? Ultimately the FBI has to bring
any of these charges, any subpoenas, and any indictments forward to either
a U.S. Attorney or someone in the National Security division of the
Department of Justice. Will they actually do the –
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have that confidence? Do you have that confidence
tonight of this DOJ?
WATTS: No, I don`t. I don`t understand how Attorney General Sessions puts
his name on the memo to fire Comey and yet recuses himself of Russia and
then the president shows up the next day –
VAN SUSTEREN: The memo said – he recused himself, whether you believe
this or not, he recused himself on the Russian thing. The memo said he was
being bumped for the e-mail.
WATTS: The very next day Greta, the very next day the president came
forward and say this is about the Russian investigation, so –
VAN SUSTEREN: I`m not endorsing it.
WATTS: Whether Sessions signed that or not, the facts don`t bear out that
that is the case. Whether it cannot be impartiality whenever one is
involved, Sessions involved in the firing on the one day and then the very
next day, the president says the whole reason I did this has nothing to do
with what Sessions signed. It has everything to do with the Russia
investigation. The two of those can`t be together. They`re mutually
exclusive events. Based on this, I don`t the DOJ can accurately and be
impartial in terms of how they are dealing with the FBI investigation.
VAN SUSTEREN: I must say that I – I share your suspicion. I think
everybody tonight is so unconcern uncertain. There are a lot of facts that
we still don`t know. There`s a lot swirling around. There certainly is a
lot of smoke, and people have made these stories that are disturbing, but
anyway, thank you all for joining us. And to the viewers thank you for
watching, I`ll see you back here tomorrow night 6:00 p.m. Eastern. Stay
with MSNBC all night for coverage of this breaking story. “Hardball”
starts right now.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
Copyright 2017 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
Copyright 2017 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the