>> i have confidence in mueller. i have questions about others within the fbi and the doj, especially what's come out in the texts, especially what it's been based on. i think it's the responsibility -- we have an intel committee. that's raced a great deal of question. >> is there a red line the president could cross with you in his treatment of bob mueller? >> the president and his team have fully cooperated. you're making hypotheticals. right now -- >> it's not a hypothetical. we have records that he ordered to do it and don mcgann threatened to quit if asked to carry out the order. >> this is a place i have not been a part of. i have not heard that. the only thing i have seen is cooperation is where we intend to end up. >> would you open if there's bill that protects -- you know, there's a couple of bills in the senate, one would be having a three-judge panel review a decision if the president did fire mueller to see if it was done on fairgrounds. would you be open if that bill is attached to the budget bill, woul

>> well, initially, mueller does. now, not many people think he could just be indicted based on the public record so far, right? so there seems to be kind of a consensus in a way if you don't do it secretly, then it doesn't seem like collusion, right? you just do it on national tv, how can it be collusion? maybe it can be collusion, but i think mueller would recognize that's a hard sell, what he said on national tv was, you know, was going to be collusion or conspiracy. but that still doesn't make it easy for trump to handle that question. what did you mean, exactly, when you invited the russians. that's a very hard question for him to answer, which is why i think any lawyer representing him would look upon the prospect of his testimony as a nightmare but it's a nightmare they know is coming sooner or later. >> as you said, mueller will decide whether he wants to interview the president or not. it's likely he's going to want to. and if you look at the scope of his investigation, there's sort of two that we assume he w

he had to get rid of mueller. >> when "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. as the president's lawyers continue to negotiate the terms of his looming interview with the special counsel, the president's friends and aides are panicking and the republican counteroffensive against the justice department is shifting into overdrive. tonight the white house is denying it had anything to do with the abrupt departure of a top fbi official whom the president has been openly attacking for months. nbc news broke the story the deputy fbi director andrew mccabe left the bureau today effective immediately months before his expected retirement. one source said mccabe was exercising his retirement eligibility, characterized his decision as stepping aside. but according to other outlets, the decision may not have been voluntary. cbs news reporting that mccabe was forced to step down. fox news reporting that he was removed from the fbi. now the president's attacks on mccabe go back to 2016 after

>> n -- mueller? >> these sources went all the way to switzerland today from the "new york times," to t"the washington post" to fox news. but more important, perhaps, than this cascading waterfall of lies is the fact that this is just the latest evidence of p m president trump's desire and actions to end the russian probes. last year president trump kicked off his reliationship with his own fbi director by asking james comey for his loyalty, a request made just days after being interviewed and michael flynn lied to them about his contacts with russia. that lie was something mcgahn told president trump about that month. and president trump later tested that loyalty request by urging comey to drop the fbi appropriation into flynn, whom he had just fired and ultimately the president, as we know, fired comey. we also know the president leaned on his attorney general, jeff sessions, to not recuse himself from supervising the russia probe. then after the recusal contemplated firing sessions. the president h

mueller will parse this. mueller will ask the appropriate questions. probably has asked the appropriate questions relative to it. and as with get closer and closer to the request for a discussion with the president, we'll see the facts continue to play out. >> if somebody tries to do something to impede an investigation, into them and a criminal act, would you see that as obstruction of justice? >> well they have to have criminal intent. you talked about it. you said it. they have to have criminal intent. >> that would mean they have to be doing it to disrupt that effort to bring them to justice, right? >> correct. >> that will be the question. it is only one man's reckoning we get. it's the man. the president we're talking about. i appreciate your mind on this matter. especially a friday night. thank you for doing it. >> thanks for having me on. >> be well. some lawmakers say mueller now especially needs to be protected from the president. there should be a bill blocking trump from firing the special counsel. is it constitutional? is it legal? is it n

to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it actually. there has been no collusion whatsoever, there is no obstruction whatsoever. i'm looking forward to it. i do worry when i look at all the things you people don't report about with what is happening. there is a lot of missing text. talking about two or three weeks. i would love to do it. again, i have to say, subject to my lawyers and all of that but i would love to do it. >> sandra: let's bring in our panel on this one. former state department spokesman marie harf and charlie hurt from the "washington post"? >> i think he is looking forward it to and i think the guy has been talking to mueller all along. you don't have to scratch very hard to get him to pipe up and talk about how he thinks that this collusion narrative is all a fantasy. it doesn't need to be investigated. you won't find anything. which also leads to it is hard to understand how -- are they going to try to say that's obstruction of justice, the president sitting there saying -- tal

robert mueller is special counsel. i'm not familiar with any conversation that i've had with the president intimidating to fire robert mueller. chris: would congress object to make it harder or impossible to fire him, is that something the president would sign? >> i don't know. chris: the president responded this week to report that is the special is investigating him on the issue of obstruction of justice, here he is. >> there's no collusion. now they are saying, o well, did he fight back, fight back -- [inaudible] >> it's obstruction. chris: what does the president think the difference is between obstruction and fighting back? >> i don't know, i'm not involved in those conversations regarding the investigation. you know the president has been frustrated and felt that there's been billions of dollars of taxpayers spent and no evidence of collusion. he recognizes that something that's been underreported the day before he accepted position of robert mueller, so i'm sure there's concern that obviously he was going to be

the president's desire to push mueller aside wasn't exactly a secret. at the time, chris ruddy, a long-time friend of the president's, went public warning him not to do it. >> i think he's considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. i think he's weighing that option. i, personally, think it would be a very significant mistake. >> reporter: but a couple months later, trump denied even thinking about firing mueller. >> i haven't given it any thought. >> reporter: and some of the president's top aides denied it, too. >> he has not discussed firing bob mueller. >> reporter: "the new york times" reports trump had even come up with a rationale for firing mueller, a list of three alleged conflicts of interest, including the fact that mueller had come to the white house the day before he was named special counsel to talk to the president about returning to his old job of fbi director. over the summer, the president fumed about that in an interview. >> mueller wanted the job. i said, "what the hell is this all about?" talk about conflicts. but he was in

so i'm not sure just what mueller -- director mueller is going to find, but it's pretty clear to me that, you know, he is looking, he may be looking at obstruction. i mean, if the president, as he has stated, that he has done nothing wrong, i don't understand why he seems to want to interfere with this process. >> well, what does that say to you if, indeed, the president was trying to interfere if it's not the firing of james comey, then the potential firing of bob mueller? does that say to you or raise some kour curiosities about what does the the president have to hide if there are all these reported attempts to obscure the investigation? >> well, first, i thought it was a mistake to fire director comey the way -- at least the way it was done was terrible. and it's very hard for me to try to explain and i'm not going to explain the president's apparent contradictions. on the one hand, he says he's done nothing wrong. on the other, he seems to want to interfere with the investigation to the extent that he's talked about, you know, firing mueller and there has been contributions and i'm

deputy attorney general rod rosenstein appointed special counsel robert mueller, the man who mueller reports to at justice department. appointed by president trump, he's a republican. nobody quite knows who wha to make of him secondhand his inclinations on the russia investigation. refused to discuss in public other than saying that robert mueller is the right man for the job. today, surprise. bunch of reporters were staking out paul ryan's office. speaker of the house's office today, hoping to catch some news about budget negotiations in congress. all outside paul ryan's office when, hey now, here comes -- isn't that rod rosenstein and his security detail? yeah. there's the deputy attorney general filing into house speaker paul ryan's office. what's he doing here? reporters soon sussed out, even though nobody knew this was coming, rod rosenstein was there to talk with him about the russia investigation. later learned that the meeting is something that rod rosenstein had asked for. and fbi director chris ray was in that meeting too. then it turned out what they were meeting about was

remember, mueller has known about this for weeks. the real question is not obstruction because at this point, it seems clear that there was an attempt. why? let's keep our eye on that. why was trump willing to go by these extreme lengths to destroy and demolish the russia investigation. that's something he didoes not want mull tore find out and mueller probably does. >> matthew i'll take you back to the beat and repeat for the benefit afterwards the number of defiles about attempts to fire mueller. >> does the president commit to not firing robert mueller? >> the president has not even discussed that. the president is not discussing firing bob mueller. we are cooperating with -- he is not even discussed not -- he's not discussed firing bob mueller. >> is he going to rule out once and for all firing robert mueller. >> i'll address the second question first. the president said last week, i believe last week and several times before there is no intention or plan to make any changes in regards to the special counsel. >> is he setting the

do we know what he might tell mueller? >> what i've been told is that the question of the indication of the executive privilege is not something where bannon has been able to make decisions for himself. it's up to the white house whether or not to invoke privilege. so essentially, the standoff that we with saw today, even though it was between bannon himself and members and staffers of the intelligence committee, in reality was between the white house and members of the intelligence committee. perhaps a little overdramatic to say that bannon is a pawn in this situation. but he is not a character whose -- who is acting. he see not making the decisions about what he can and can't tell people. and that's why this executive privilege question which again is something the white house invokes is such an important one. one person i spoke with pointed out to me that executive privilege, an important part of how executive privilege works is based on the constitutional separation of powers theory. the idea that the executive branch

so he didn't fire special counsel mueller. he talked about the circumstances around special counsel mueller. there was no order to fire him. what is frustrating is the american people are not getting well informed by all these very important news agencies, "the new york times," "the washington post", cnn. we know the fbi -- and let's go back to the story we talked about the other day, sean, the fact the doj said we lost five months of text messages through a technical glitch and you won't be able to get them and now they have them. why did they say that to begin with, what are they hiding? >> sean: why didn't rob rosenstein before the committee was going to get the subpoenaed documents was begging paul ryan, please, please, don't release this. one role the judicial watch has played key in getting information -- i know you file a lot of freedom of information act requests. it looks like we'll get the memos next week probably after the state of the union but why do we have to wait for the 50,000 text messages. okay, maybe they c

paul manafort is suing the department of justice and special counsel robert mueller. the former trump campaign chairman was indicted in october for money laundering among other charges. the lawsuit claims the doj granted mr. mueller carte blanche to investigate things beyond the scope of the special counsel investigation. in a statement the doj spokesman tells nbc news, quote, the lawsuit is frivolous, but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants. we're back with jeremy bash and matthew miller. jeremy, take this on for us. paul manafort seeing the justice department and robert mueller for going outside of the scope of what he was supposed to investigate, is that going to hold any water legally? >> zero. it's completely baseless. the rod rosenstein memo which established robert mueller's authority said his authority was unlimited by time and also unlimited by subject. i believe there was a quote in the rosenstein memo that says bob mueller has the authority to investigate, quote, all matters that arise. i'm not sure what part of the word "all" paul manafort

and by the way, robert mueller used to run the fbi. he is in no position to do an investigation over this kind of misconduct. lou: all of this as robert mueller has gone on the defensive over the past few days. the special counsel office showing brazen a toward presidet trump and his administration. and as questions mount about the political corruption of mueller's conflicted team of partisans, the leaks from the special counsel's office have become more frequent, as evidence of the highly partisan leadership of both the justice department and the fbi spill into the public arena. the house intel committee, the senate homeland security committee among those revealing names of a number of justice and fbi officials who were working in the interest of president obama, hillary clinton and against donald trump. both as can date an candidate a. we'll be talking with christopher rel of judicial watch and greg jarrett >>> also tonight within president trump issuing a straightforward warning to cryin' chuck, the same senator who renege on his pl

mueller first. tom, six months ago when the president was supposedly thinking about firing mueller, here was the reaction from some republican senators. >> any effort to go after mueller could be the beginning of the end of the trump presidency. >> i think it would be as explosive as anything i can think single act that the president might take. >> we would certainly advise that step not to be taken. i think this is a man who many believe on both sides of the aisle has tremendous integrity and will do his work in a very diligent way. >> we have not had the same sort of reaction from republican side of the aisle. it's been much more muted saying, well, look, it didn't happen and we'll worry about it if it does. you heard leader mccarthy there claiming he has confidence in mueller but -- >> well, i think two things. one was, i was here for the saturday night massacre and the nixon white house thought that was going to unleash their ability to deal with what was going on and it was another nail in the

. >> did you ever see bob mueller during your interview? >> my interview was in chicago, with the fbi agents in chicago. we were in coordination with washington with a microphone. >> and how long did the interview last? >> two hours or so. >> and what did they want to know? ? >> if i had information, even concerning me personally, and my experience, my background was interesting because i used to work for the european parliament, i was extremely nervous. it was very wild, i said, okay, i go by myself, i will try to understand first of all what they want and help them. >> and you think bob mueller is interested in accuracy? >> i think he is doing a very accurate job. >> there have been allegations that it's a quote, unquote, witch hunt? >> i definitely never found, they just wanted to meet to clarify certain number of things and i never felt that they were making false allegation or they were doing an unfair job, never. >> simone met george popadopoulos after a lot of this went down and she says she went from the trump team describing him as

but now that mueller, state versus federal, but mueller is targeting trump. law enforcement, you can't question them. they can't do any wrong. if they should never be fired, they shouldn't even be question questions! one would think that the media, some in the media would have a little bit of curiosity about, i don't know, the conflicts of interest in the special counsel's office. if they distrust law enforcement and investigators on the state level so often, why do the feds get a pass? well, there is without a doubt a deep-seated animus, and that is putting it mildly, toward the president by key members of the mueller investigative team. and rather than confront the growing evidence, the left, they start demonizing members of congress. and anyone, frankly anyone, who dares to question the methods and the motives of the obama justice department and now the mueller gang. the black cloud that hangs over this russian investigation, let me tell you this, it wasn't created by fox news. it certainly wasn't created by talk radio. none of us hired jeannie reed, who p

to fire robert mueller. so when they eventually have an interview and mueller asks him, did you ask don mcgahn to fire me? what does the president then say? >> well, that's why i think the president is in a no-win situation now. we know that whether he's under oath or just speaking to federal investigators not under oath, he has to tell the truth or he's subject to prosecution for making false statements and that's a federal felony. we also know that this president seems to be incapable of making statements that are consistent with what are known facts. he also doesn't know what evidence mueller and his people have from other witnesses who are present at those conversations or heard about them from others or may have seen documents that relate to this. so the president is going do be charging off going in some direction or another without knowing just how much trouble he's in with the statements he's likely to make, and i think that's why he's in a no-win situation, but that's the situation he's made for him

tried to fire muellerer. drip, drip, drip, it continues to grow. >> yeah, and i will add onto that list. when you -- by my count the president has reported to considering firing or in the case of james comey actually fired five top justice department or fbi officials, including the big daddy of them all, now robert mueller. it raises the question, either the president truly believes this is a hoax, and people are out to get him in the justice department, including allies like jeff sessions who are politically tainted, or he's trying to cover something up. >> to be clear, it's okay to muse about this, to be angry about this. it's another thing to have done it. is there anything problematic about saying it if you don't go through with it? >> he did give the order according to the report. that is some sort of action. whether that raises to a legal problem, i think that depends. but i think all of this evidence, everything that natasha pointed out in the tweet, and then amber added to, does go to the issue of int

and i think bob mueller will give them a lot of credit. first of all, bob mueller and his team know that jim comey is a career professional, a straight shooter, a person with honesty and integrity that's informed everything he's ever done in his life. secondly, if they don't have those views of him, he actually wrote down what happened and i think that's going to carry a lot of weight with the special counsel. >> chuck, i saw you today with niccole wallace, and you talked about the major print stories today that revealed both schmidt and comey had been interviewed, and you said this was a revelation more than a development. can you explain that and have i quoted you correctly? >> you did, and i hope i can. what i meant, brian, was there was nothing surprising about it. it's not a development that we shouldn't have anticipated. i meant by revelation that now we've learned it, too. jim comey, as i understand it, was interviewed at least several months ago, and there's nothing surprising about jeff sessions being interviewed. one of the reaso

i expect mueller to be there. unlike ken starr mueller has -- who really had very little involvement in the actual questioning he had some questions related to the constitutional issues, bob mueller spent his whole life in law enforcement and prosecution and with the fbi so he's certainly capable of participating substantively. but i think the bulk of the questioning will be handled by his top lieutenants. but i don't think this would prohibit him at all from asking questions. >> greg craig, if you were representing this president, in anticipation of some kind of an exchange with mueller or mueller's staff, what's on your agenda right now? what are you looking for? what do you want this process to look like? >> well, as i mentioned earlier, mike, i would like to know with as much precision and detail as possible as to what the topics are. so that i can prepare the president. the president is going to be concerned about making statements in response to these questions that are not inconsistent with previous stateme

what if it's not mueller he's after? >> listening to republican members talk about a coup and talk about criminal activity in the fbi, that will encourage the president to think he can fire mueller with impunity or perhaps even more pernicious from my point of view, fire rod rosenstein, put in place someone who will tell bob mueller private live you c privately you cannot look into these issues, you cannot follow the money. >> congressman adam shift on this program last month saying it would be even more pernicious to fire rod rosenstein than to fire bob mueller? is that true? what would happen if trump did it anyway? joins us now is the man who helped write the rules that allowed for the appointment for special counsel like robert mueller. he has a new op-ed "yes, he can fire robert mueller but a normal president would know not to try it." you wrote a couple of points in this op-ed. "many wish for legal restrictions that would block trump from firing mueller but rules can only do so much. institutions are often what mat

mueller to be removed. instead it was just regarding mueller's conflicts of interests. this is why i did not and won't in the future, trust the "new york times" because they get it wrong time after time. it is why trump is ripping the paper. >> what about robert mueller? >> fake news. fake news. "new york times". fake story. >> we've been telling you a long time it doesn't matter to the liberal mainstream media. it is why the "new york times" posted this story before this show, the media went into a frenzy, they completely lost it. it is sad because journalism is dead. watch this. >> the president of the united states ride to fire the independent counsel, robert muller tmull -- mueller? is that impeachable. >> you wonder if he's corrupt? we lean toward corrupt. >> his first year in office, he's done everything to undermine and obstruct and halt this legitimate investigation. >> it adds to the mounting evidence there's a -- there's a serious obstruction case here. >> i don't know how this movie ends but ther

can he do that with mueller? when he sat down with mueller's team, can he use that or no? >> he can to a certain extent, but he's not going to be talking to congress. it is going to be a different situation. it is going to be more conversational. and fbi agents can be a little bit strong in their questioning. but he doesn't have the legal compulsion to speak. had they brought him before the grand jury, they can compel testimony except, you know, certain types. so the choice to interview him rather than initially bring him before the grand jury is significant. but mueller, we have seen in this investigation, is not afraid to use heavy handed tactics. >> i want you to comment on the issue of privilege. you're a walking encyclopedia into the entire russian affair and russia investigation. what are the major touch points that you think that mueller would want to drill down on? >> right, so as shimon referred to earlier, you know, sessions really is involved in a number of different threads here. one he was part of the trump transition team, part of the foreign policy team, so

mueller will be there. mueller probably won't do the questioning just as ken starr didn't do the questioning. the big fight, the very competitive prosecutors, everybody will want to question the president. it will be one of the senior prosecutors on the team, and mueller will be sitting there watching and studying and gauging. is the president telling the truth or not? if he tells the truth, he may walk into an obstruction case. if he lies, it's a false statements case. what a terrible dilemma. >> philip, do you think they cut the president a deal where he gets to do it all in writing? do you think he gets away from having to do it in front of the grand jury under oath or do you think he winds up in person with the investigators and probably mueller? >> he's got to be in person with the prosecutors. i completely agree with the comments made about mueller's role in this. i doubt he'll do the questioning. he's not an ego guy. furthermore, he's not the expert on every single minute detail in this case. i think

green was spotted at mueller's office twice last week. in october, gates pleaded not guilty to eight charges of money laundering and failing to register foreign lobbying and other business. his longtime partner, former trump campaign chairman paul manafort, has pleaded not guilty to nine counts in the same case. >>> president trump inclined to allow the release of the memos said to allege the fbi has abused surveillance laws. a person familiar with the matter says the move is contingent on the house intelligence committee approving declassification. the vote could come as early as next week. the white house insists no decision has been made on the release. >> conservatives have rallied around this memo, but democrats say it is republicans' latest attempt to undermine special counsel robert mueller's investigation. >> i think it is sloppy, careless, and again, i think has no grounding in fact. >> the top democrat on the house judiciary committee said it was profoundly unfair the house republicans have not shared the memo with the fbi and j

to fire mueller? >> fake new, folks. "new york times" fake stories. >> but it is not just the "new york times," it is the "washington post," nbc news and fox news. something sean hannity had a hard time swallowing last night. >> at this hour the "new york times" is trying to distracts you. how many times has the "new york times" and others gotten it wrong? so we have sources aknd i conf m confirmed that, yeah, maybe donald trump wanted to fire the special counsel for conflict. does he not have the right to raise those questions? you know, we'll deal with this tomorrow night. we have a shocking video of the day to bring you, this comes to us from arizona where you see that red suv? high speed police dhas. >> nothing to see here. let's look at a car crash instead. that was priceless. just ahead, new jersey democratic senator cory booker joining me to talk about this, but first let's get to our team of reporters. let's start with julia ainsley. layout the time line for us. what was happening in june of 2

just as the trump firing let to mueller and the mueller firing would lead to somebody else. it's a practical matter for him to shut down the investigation. >> woodruff: the white house counsel saying i'm going to quit if you do this, other threats to resign from other up in justice as we know, there's a lot of clear disagreement, turmoil. what does all that say to you? >> it suggests it's very hard to work for president trump. chris ray, the f.b.i. director, this week threat topped resign. stories in the past about the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. the president is mercurial and engages in self-destructive actions and actions that violate norms that make it extremely difficult for people to work with him and the only leaf rang they have is to resign or threaten to resign. every instance so far the president's backed down and there's actually a somewhat happy story here in that despite the extraordinary attacks by the president, despite his attempts to impede the independence of the justice department and the f.b.i., they seem to have resisted so far. the

i think that mueller is out for blood. >> mueller is not only out for blood, he's out to save his own butt. he is the person who should be investigated. jim comey should be investigated. all of these guys. strzok, mccabe, why are they getting a paycheck? why is my taxpayer dollars paying for them? they needed be taken out and cups. i've set up before, sean, this is not our justice department, this is a bunch of arrogant, condescending people who think they know better than we do. you've been on that the whole time, sean. >> sean: you've been not come as well. good to see you. when we come back, the great one -- rate until you hear what mark levan is saying, fired up over this fbi and these missing texts that we now know tonight are actually being recovered as we speak. breaking news on "hannity" ." allen drove alan dershowitz wad next. >> sean: the great one mark lavin on fire warning with the de >> sean: the great one, mark levin, on fire earlier tonight. he's been warning about the deep state. take a look. >> the fbi sought to interview in our election. i'm not talking about the men

mueller remains as special counsel. the times writing, mr. mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior white house officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice. it continued, the president began to argue that mr. mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation. >> those three conflicts, according to the times, a dispute years ago over fees at trump's virginia golf club. the fact that mr. mueller had most recently worked for a law firm that previously counted jared kushner as a client, and finally mr. mueller had interviewed the president for the position of fbi director just days before being announced as special prosecutor. in response to the report, democratic senator mark warner, the co-chair of the senate intel committee, said any attempt by the president to dismiss mueller would be a, quote, red line and a gross abuse of power. warner and other members of congress are calling for legislation to prote

and i think bob mueller will give them a lot of credit. first of all, bob mueller and his team know that jim comey is a career professional, a straight shooter, a person with honesty and integrity that's informed everything he's ever done in his life. secondly, if they don't have those views of him, he actually wrote down what happened and i think that's going to carry a lot of weight with the special counsel. >> chuck, i saw you today with nicolle wallace at 4:00 eastern time, and you were talking about perhaps one or both of the major print stories today that revealed both sessions and copy had been interviewed. and you referred to it in a curious manner. you said this is a revelation more than it is a development. can you explain that and have i quoted you correctly? >> you did, and i hope i can. what i meant, brian, was there was nothing surprising about it. it's not a development that we shouldn't have anticipated. i meant by revelation that now we've learned it, too. jim comey, as i understand it, was interviewed at least several mon

robert mueller now knows from his witnesses that the president ordered don mccann to fire robert mueller. when they have an interview and mueller asks him, did you ask him to fire me, what does the president say? >> that's why the president is in a no win situation. whether he is under oath or just speaking to federal investigators not under oath, he has to tell the truth or he is subject to prosecution for making false statements. that's a federal felony. we also know that this president seems to be incapable of making statements that are consistent with what are known facts. he also doesn't know what evidence mueller and his people have from other witnesses present at those conversations or heard about them from others or may have seen documents that relate to this. so the president is going to be charging off going in some direction or another without knowing just how much trouble he is in with the statements he is likely to make. i think that's why he is in a no win situation. that's the situation he made for himself. he certainly has -- he can avoid a perjury trap as it's called by

what mueller knows, doesn't know what all the e-mails that mueller has had access to. so for something like the trump tower meeting with donald trump jr., paul manafort and people who claim to be working for the russian government offering dirt on hillary clinton, there may be a whole slew of e-mails about that meeting that the president has no idea about. >> there is certainly more that the special counsel's team knows than the president and the white house know. but the white house knows more than we know. they have been in talks with the special counsel's office. for example, several months ago they had written some memos that they submitted to the special counsel's office trying to argue why the president shouldn't be subject to an inquiry into obstruction, for example. so they have behind the scenes been trying to weed down the investigation. the issues with respect to the interview are first a format. the things we were talking about before the break. what will be the format of the interview, who will conduct it, who will be able to be there with the president. t

number two, when we say a mueller-bannon conversation, what mueller show up for something like that or is that deputy counsel in charge of that area of the conversation? >> for the first question about is the mueller investigation preeminent? there are separate branches of government at work. they want to defer to each other, but i bet you that the members of congress are mindful that the who really wields the most power and can bring criminal charge this is this case is robert mueller. my guess is that the members of congress don't want to do anything that might cause problems for mueller's investigation down the road. the consequences there can be greater. then with respect to whether robert mueller is in the room, i bet you he is. he will not be the lead questioner. i read in the other introduce there have been teams of people who have come in. those who are focusing on different aspects. those focusing on the cyber portion of the investigation and money laundering will come in in shifts and robert mueller sits in the corner and listens carefully to all that is said, taking it all i

so he didn't fire special counsel mueller. he talked about the circumstances around special counsel mueller. there was no order to fire him. what is frustrating is the american people are not getting well informed by all these very important news agencies, "the new york times," "the washington post", cnn. we know the fbi -- and let's go back to the story we talked about the other day, sean, the fact the doj said we lost five months of text messages through a technical glitch and you won't be able to get them and now they have them. why did they say that to begin with, what are they hiding? >> sean: why didn't rob rosenstein before the committee was going to get the subpoenaed documents was begging paul ryan, please, please, don't release this. one role the judicial watch has played key in getting information -- i know you file a lot of freedom of information act requests. it looks like we'll get the memos next week probably after the state of the union but why do we have to wait for the 50,000 text messages. okay, maybe they c

of -- i guess fallout would we see should mueller be fired? >> well, i think that it would be a repeat of what was called during watergate, the saturday night massacre when archibald cox the special prosecutor in that case was removed, because he kept insisting on nixon releasing his tapes to the court and to grand jury and there was a subpoena for them. to try to halt that action, nixon fired cox. he had to also let his attorney general resign, and his deputy attorney resign, and he had to swear in his solicitor general as attorney general to get the job done. it was a really startling weekend, and following that is when impeachment became a serious matter in washington as a result of removing cox. it was sort of a defiance of the rule of law, and washington reacted. >> some republican lawmakers have pointed out that don mcgahn did the right thing when the president asked him to order mueller fired, but givenb the outcome that no action was taken against mueller at that time, does it make any less damning for the president? >> well, today, po

the president's desire to push mueller aside wasn't exactly a secret. at the time, chris ruddy, a long-time friend of the president's, went public warning him not to do it. >> i think he's considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. i think he's weighing that option. i, personally, think it would be a very significant mistake. >> reporter: but a couple months later, trump denied even thinking about firing mueller. >> i haven't given it any thought. >> reporter: and some of the president's top aides denied it, too. >> he has not discussed firing bob mueller. >> reporter: "the new york times" says trump even had come with a rationale firing mueller, a list of three alleged conflicts of interest, including the fact that mueller had come to the white house the day before he was named special counsel to talk to the president about returning to his old job of fbi director. over the summer, the president fumed about that in an interview. >> mueller wanted the job. i said, "what the hell is this all about?" talk about conflicts? but he was interviewing

i don't think mueller will accept that. i think in the end there will be no choice but to sit down and have an interview limited in time, limited in scope with his lawyers present and hopefully he will answer the questions yes and no without elaborating too much. that's the hope that his lawyers have. they want to be able to control the situation and not allow mueller to ask him to go far afield and to make statements that could fill gaps or come back to hurt him. remember, the president doesn't know what he doesn't know. he doesn't know whether there are emails or anything else that might contradict something he says. the president doesn't know he has testified secretly if front of a grand jury and he doesn't know where the gaps are in the prosecution's case. he has to be very careful how he answers these questions. >> bill: whether it's pompeo, sessions, comey. where do you think the investigation is now? >> well, i worry that is obstruction of justice and constitutional crisis. if the president were to be charged with ob

firing bob mueller? >> no. >> there's no way he's going to fire him? >> there's no conversation about whatsoever in the white house. >> no, i'm not. no. what else? what, are you surprised? >> sarah huckabee sanders for the 1,000th time, luckily, we can count to 1,001. >> that's good you put that out there in terms of credibility. what rick said there are bills in both houses of congress to prevent the president from doing this. senator tillis, senator graham. what we should be looking at is what they're going to be saying about this. i don't know, preventing, but to make it much more difficult for him to fire the special counsel. so it's really important to get signals from congress to see what they're going to do. not only that part of the republican party, which is very serious about having a russia investigation, but the breakaway faction of the party, which includes nunez and meadows. are they going to give him cover by muddying the water, by saying this russia investigation is tainted? if they're do

to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it,

talking to mueller. the cnn learns that mike pompeo talked to the special counsel's team in the russia probe. and robert mueller will soon interview steve bannon. loyalty test. the white house isn't denying reports that the president tried to ask the top fbi official who he voted for. was it a loyalty test or a getting aquainted time? >> and starting all over again on immigration. can they reach a deal? and growing storm costly the special counsel look into the reported hush money payment to porn star stormy daniels following her alleged sexual relationship with donald trump? i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> robert mueller's team has interviewed mike pompeo and will soon interview the chief strategist steve bannon about the firings of michael flynn and fbi director james comey as the russia investigation closes in on the oval office. our correspondents and specialists are standing by with full coverage. >>> this took place last year. the focus. questions were told by one source it is

or mueller himself interviews the president of the united states? >> so you know, the president doesn't have a lot of bargaining power with how the interview goes. mueller could always subpoena him and then he has to come and testify. his only way of getting out of it would be to claim the fifth amendment which politically would be untenable i think or he could continue these bogus claims of executive privilege. that's just not going to fly. i think the terms of the bargain will be how long the length of the interview, bill clinton got ken starr to agree to only four hours. the subject. so i think mueller will insys on collusion questions and obstruction questions but probably not agree not to ask any questions about money laundering. the courthouse or white house venue. it looks like it might be the white house. if you lie under oath or not under oath talking to the fbi, it's still a crime. >> michael flynn found that out the hard way. great to have you both. i want to bring in legal analyst ben wittes, the editor-in-chief of law fair. daily in gra

major attempt by the president to fire mueller. only stopped because the white house counsel said no, i won't do it, and if you force me to do it i'm going to resign. so that didn't happen, but nonetheless, there was obviously a very significant push by the president to do that. and then they shifted gears. and there's some evidence, not evidence, there's clear evidence that the white house then shifted into a different mode, which was to discredit the entire operation. they undertook what is now sev months effort to lead to the discrediting of the entire investigation. not only the intelligence community, but also the fbi and mueller himself. so that's been under way. and joining in moments of the republican, members of congress and the senate. it is very, very disturbing. because it is a direct attack on what is fundamental in our nation and that is there is no one, myself, president, anybody, who is above the law. >> let me ask you now about these new sexual misconduct allegations against las vegas casino mogul, you know, steve

have just been mueller. it would have had to have been rosenstein. and the attorney general. it would have had to have been all the upper department of justice. at least in the watergate situation, elliot richardson who was then the attorney general, deputy attorney general, they both had told congress or senate during their confirmation hearings they would not fire the special prosecutor unless it was for cause. they felt they could not do the firing. they actually got together with robert roark, who is the solicitor general, and purposely came up with a plan. so the nixon administration could not put people into the department of justice who would be a bunch of political hacks and take over that department. this is a fact that isn't well know. robert has gotten a bad wrap for this over the years. it was a concerted effort by these three gentlemen to keep the rule of law intact in the department of justice. >> paul butler, how concerned are you that even if donald trump does not succeed in pushing out rober

paul manafort is suing the department of justice and special counsel robert mueller. the former trump campaign chairman was indicted in october for money laundering among other charges. the lawsuit claims the doj granted mr. mueller carte blanche to investigate things beyond the scope of the special counsel investigation. in a statement the doj spokesman tells nbc news, quote, the lawsuit is frivolous, but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants. we're back with jeremy bash and matthew miller. jeremy, take this on for us. paul manafort seeing the justice department and robert mueller for going outside of the scope of what he was supposed to investigate, is that going to hold any water legally? >> zero. it's completely baseless. the rob rosenstein said it was onlimited by time and subject. i believe there was a quote that said bob mueller had the authority to investigate all -- >> and matt, in modern political history every special prosecutor, every special counsel has ended up indicting and charging people for crimes that are often very much unrelated from

in a new low for republicans, they'll protect mueller efforts loosening. also ahead why debating the state of race relations in america with jay z is a bad idea for donald trump. stay with us. pssst. what? i switched to geico and got more. more savings on car insurance? a-ha. and an award-winning mobile app. that is more. oh, there's more. mobile id cards, emergency roadside service... more technology. i can even add a new driver... ...right from her phone! geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more. (gasp) (singsong) budget meeting! sweet. if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream. >>> why are they afraid to send this to the justice department for review? >> well, aren't we separate but co-equal? don't we have the responsibility for oversight? the justice department will be able to see it because you have the executive branch and you have the legislative branch and as the legislative branch looks at it, it will send

you made mention of trump interviewing mueller. that's one heck of a point. >> mueller interviewing trump. i know that's what you're dreaming of. >> no. it was trump interviewing mueller for the fbi position. it's one heck of a note he interviews him for the position. doesn't want to hire him. within 24 hours rosenstein appointed him to. >> it was the president choice. who he relied on for the assessment of comey. now can't trust him for mueller? you celebrated him. he's a decorated veteran. >> not a single american wants to be investigated by -- >> the president who is not shy never said anything about it. one other thing and i have to go. you say this is the biggest coincidence since the e mac lat conception. what are you talking about? >> the notion. sdp and again this will be illuminated by the memo. notion that this five months that this particular five months is where the black hole is. that's a hell of a coincidence. it's the time someone would be hatching a conspiracy. meeting with the secret society. >> you don't know one