cnn reporting he was wiretapped under fisa warrants. according to that report, the government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when manafort was known to talk to president donald trump. sharon lafraniere is a reporter who broke the story tonight. she joins me by phone. your reporting is they told manafort they planned to indict him. how common is that? >> that's not that uncommon that a prosecutor would say we don't believe your story, you're not really cooperating with us. we're going to indict you. the difference here, i think, might be, as my colleagues found out is that they threatened an imminent indictment and this was in the summer and we haven't seen it. >> one of the themes of the piece is the approach of mueller and how it differs particularly in white color investigations. the report says it's more like that mafia investigation. explain what that means. >> i think we're seeing that they're trying to create a sense of fear, right, that look, we're a bunch of sobs and don't try to play the usual white

that fisa with a general fisa that covered the whole russian hacking investigation. what we don't know is who is connected to that fisa. what was that fisa looking at and that is very highly classified. nobody wants to talk about that particular fisa right now. there's a distinction between a fisa and a wiretapping. they did tap. they were looking. >> sean: the truth was staring all these so-called journalists in the face the entire time. they never followed up on thatat story. sara carter and john solomon did all the legwork. it doesn't fit their narrative. there ideological agenda. they would just rather repeat each other's lies in conspiracy theories and report the facts and explain what's really going on. something you deserve. after breaking this story, some of the anchors over at the fake news network cnn even now -- they finally are having to start to admit that president trump was right the entire time. after march 4th, take a look. >> it sounds like the president was right. if paul manafort has a residence in trump tower and paul manafort was being surveille

that fisa with a general fisa that covered the whole russian hacking investigation. what we don't know is who is connected to that fisa. what was that fisa looking at and that is very highly classified. nobody wants to talk about that particular fisa right now. there's a distinction between a fisa and i wiretapping. they did tap. they were looking. >> sean: the truth was staring all these so-called journalists in the face the entire time. they never followed up on that story. sara carter and john solomon did all the legwork. it doesn't fit their narrative. there ideological agenda. they would just rather repeat each other's lies in conspiracy theories and report the facts and explain what's really going on. something you deserve. after breaking this story, some of the anchors over at the fake news network cnn even now -- they finally are having to start to admit that president trump was right the entire time. after march 4th, take a look. >> it sounds like the president was right. if paul manafort has a residence in trump tower and paul manafort was being surveilled

>> so when you get a fisa order on a u.s. person, the standard is slightly higher than for a nonu.s. person. so you have to show a court not only that the person is an agent of a foreign power but they're pgel engaging in clandestine intelligence activities, knowingly being a spy. and once you get that order, you have to go back to the court every 90 days and show the court that you are in fact getting foreign intelligence information. if in that 90 day period you have not gotten that information just in that last 90 days, the surveillance has to cease. so as jeffrey says there could have been a gap where it seesed and if they find there's other information they're getting about his potential intelligence keks, they can use some of the intelligence they've gotten before, the new stuff -- >> how rare is it that they would have surveillance back to 2014 and then stop it because they didn't think they were getting anything and then restart it? >> i don't think it's necessarily unusual. again, this 90-day period there is to provi

scott jennings, asia, how tough as it to get two fisa warnings? >> these are pretty difficult to get. there's a statistic out there that only some handful of fisa orders get rejected, but that's because they go through a lot of vetting before they get to the fisa court. i've gotten these before, they're lengthy, 70 to 100 pages. you're listing the factual assertions to support your believe, the probable cause this person is an agent of a foreign power and engaging in clandestine -- >> you're writing down all the intelligence you believe you have. >> you have had to gather all the evidence you have to get this. and therefore the electric swains will give you intelligence information. i've been through as an agent, the doj lawyers come back and make you support every statement in that affidavit before they will walk it into a court. so we're talking, you know, many, many hours that go into this application. >> is it unusual that the first one -- i guess it would lapse or they would let it go, or they didn't find any -- what they were looking for and

. >> the way fisa warrants work, every 90 days you have to renew it. and sometimes the judge says you don't have enough to renew it. sometimes the government says we want to take a break and then come back. so, again, i don't want to speculate too much about what happened. but two separate fisa warrants on the same person, it's unusual and it's suggestive of a productive investigation. >> maggie, you've been waiting patiently here. >> that's okay. take it away. >> no, no. >> supporters of donald trump point out here, look, the president was right. he was being wiretapped. no, paul manafort was being wiretapped, number one. there appears to be this gap. >> that's really important. >> where manafort wasn't being surveiled. >> an important thing when i was watching the cnn story and watching angry twitter. we don't know when that gap took place specifically. it did appear it was essentially during the time manafort was in charge of the campaign. that was a very brief period, essentially four months. and then it started again, it sounded like in the fall o

and you're now talking about a fisa court operating on two occasions the wiretap for mr. manafort, right? >> i'm talking about if electronic surveillance was conducted, of course a search warrant was also signed off by a judge, and i do believe at the federal level, you also have to ask as well to have service during darkness or to enter without knocking. >> and in both cases, a very high standard has to be met. i wonder if you as a member of the house intelligence committee will have access to or will seek to have access to anything that was collected under those fisa warrants? >> it would help that whatever bob mueller is able to do, once a decision is made and whether indictments are issued or not, that there would be a two-way street of information sharing, i think we can help his investigation in many ways and once it is concluded, he can help ours. i think the american people would benefit if we were all speaking from an agreed upon set of facts. >> congressman, thank you so much for jumping on the phone and spending time with us, we appreciate it. paul butler what

we learned there was a fisa warrant, two fisa warrants, it lapsed, there was a new one. today we got more information. i want to read this from "the wall street journal" and get your reaction to this information. the u.s. monitored manafort after he left the trump campaign, the surveillance did not involve listening to phone communications in real tyke but investigators still could have conducted clandestine surveillance of mr. manafort, possibly by obtaining copies of his e-mails and other electronically stored communications or having agents follow him or conduct physical searches of his property. what's that -- what do you think that says? >> so we know that manafort at different points in time had been subjected to surveillance, both under a fisa warrant as you've indicated, part of a national security-type process for investigating people who are suspected of being foreign agents and having ties to foreign governments. we also know, though that manafort was under criminal investigation, at least by mueller. that there was a search warrant obtained using an article 3

>> well, i can't comment on a specific fisa order. i said some things about this on meet the press on the 5th of march, and i stand on that statement. i can't -- i can't confirm or deny. >> sir, let me play it -- just to remind people of what you said and this is what you said to chuck todd. this is back in march on meet the press and then we'll finish up. >> let me start with the president's tweets yesterday on this idea that maybe president obama [*ordinalwords]ed an illegal wire tap of his offices. if something like that happened, would this be something you would be aware of? >> i would certainly hope so. i -- obviously i'm not -- i can't speak officially any more, but i will say that for the part of the national security apparatus that i oversaw as dni, there was no such wire tap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time or as a candidate or against his campaign. i can't speak for other title 3 authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity. >> i was just going to say, if the fbi, for instance, ha

according to the cnn report tonight, paul manafort was the subject of a fisa warrant that allowed the fbi to listen in on manafort as of 2014. that surveillance fisa order, those were based on the ukraine thing, based on the workman that fort did in ukraine for the dictator he ran campaigns for. so the fbi had him under surveillance starting in 2014 reportedly because of the stolen assets and the fact the fbi is working on that story. this celptocracy movement, the dictator manafort worked for, that's why they were listening in on him and something about how much they knew about paul manafort before manafort became trump's campaign chairman. how much they knew about him and his previous work in the former soviet union and his money. all right? they were already deep into paul manafort before the campaign started. and that surveillance on him starting in 2014 was totally unrelated to his work on the trump campaign. now, according to cnn, at some point last year, that surveillance on the ukraine stuff stopped. petered out. fbi no longer had the evidence to be able to convince a court th

fisa court involved there is a very high standard. we are trying to figure out was the fisa court at all involved in that. >> martha: all right, senator. i want to turn your attention now to michael cohen, an attorney for president trump who was involved during the campaign. he was supposed to speak to y'all on your committee today. what happened? >> well, he was supposed to speak to our committee privately. we have a lot of the interviews that we do behind closed doors to be able to ask hard questions that we go through the process. but we ask those witnesses not to be able to put out a big statement before or after. obviously we as the intelligence committee are not going to put out a counter statement so it's best that they don't put out a statement that then we get questions about to say did get said or what else got said because you're going through the investigation trying to handle it in a professional way. mr. cohen wasn't honoring that so we pushed to have that committee not meet today and then later made a request to say if

scott jennings, a ssia, how tou as it to get two fisa warnings? >> there's a statistic out there that only some hajd handful of orders get rejected, but that's because they go through a lot of vetting before they get to the fisa court. you're listing the factual assertions to believe the probable cause this person is an agent of a foreign power and engaging in clandestine -- therefore the electric swains will give you intelligence information. i've been through as an agent, the doj lawyers come back and make you support every statement in that affidavit before they will walk it into a court. so we're talking, you know, many, many hours that go into this application. >> is it unusual that the first one -- i guess it would lapse or they would let it go, or they didn't find whaerp looking for and get another one down the road. >> it's not necessarily unusual. for a u.s. person, the government has to go back into the fisa court every 90 days and say we told you we thought we were going to get foreign intelligence information, here's what we got in the

why did they get two fisa warrants to monitor him? >> the order that began on manafort began back when he was a subject of an fbi agent in 2014 and that centered on work that was being done by a group of washington consulting firms, including his, for ukraine's former ruling party, according to sources we have talked to. the surveillance was discontinued last year for lack of evidence according to one of the sources. the fbi restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new fisa court warrant that extended into earlier this year. the second warrant was part of the fbi's effort to try and figure out what was going on between these trump campaign associates and russian operatives, and it's unclear when that new warrant was started, and we learned earlier this year the fbi conducted a search of a storage facility belonging to manafort. of course we know in july the fbi raided his home outside of washington. >> in the timeframe here involved here, again, before manafort worked for the campaign and after he worked for the campaign, do we kn

we don't know what the evidence was that was presented to the fisa court. one of the questions i have, did the dossier that's now been discreditedded -- paul: this is the christopher steele -- >> the fbi, and if you step back, it's not just the paul manafort wiretaps, this is two other parts. we know the news about susan rice and samantha power unmaasinging people in -- unmasking people. may not be against the law, but they're saying samantha power did almost one a day. i mean, it's abusive. and then if it's built on a dossier, it's just a scandal of immense proportions x. the last thing was james clapper and all these people contributed to this idea that donald trump was crazy for even suggesting this. this was -- i think the intro was this makes it a little less outlandish, and now we find there's a lot more to worry about. paul: well, the christopher steele dossier, dan, really is bothersome because if that was the genesis of the fbi investigation into the trump campaign, we know that's been widely discredited. it was ginned up for political purposes. it

fisa court. foreign intelligence surveillance court. it's a secret court in washington and washington geeks love it because they, you know, they meet in secret and they issue these secret warrants and usually we never find out about fisa warrants. and traditionally, whenever the government asks for a fisa warrant, they get it. there have been a few cases where that didn't happen. but the court is very strict. and in this case, apparently, reportedly, the fisa court at some point said wait a minute, i don't think we have enough cause to continue here, and they revoked the government's permission, whereupon the fbi stepped in. >> wowowser. you've known them for dwight so quite some time. what do you think is in store? >> donald trump is surrounded by lawyers who have been bumbling at every step. this week alone we just saw ty cobb and -- >> i mean that story is extraordinary. >> at a restaurant publicly in washington, d.c. talking very loudly -- >> they're on the sidewalk. >> on the sidewalk about the parameters of this investigation. at

and they know, especially when you're allowing fisa wires on american citizens. the standard is really high. i have a degree of confidence in that. once you get to 2016, i don't think those judges in my experience, would care about a campaign context -- >> or presidential candidate? that a presidential candidate could be indirectly -- >> but at least the law enforcement folks were doing it, have an absolute obligation to minimize those conversations. and so if he was on the phone talking to donald trump about campaign strategy, they've got to turn it off. >> let me ask you this, though. you -- this was jeremy bash who said you have to ask the question and answer it to your satisfaction whether or not the russians who had done business and funneled putin-friendly funds to paul manafort because he was on the putin side of the ukraine question. you have to ask and answer the question to an investigator's satisfaction that he wasn't placed there and still servicing those clients as a chairman of trump's campaign. he didn't make any money from the trump campaign. >> b

. >> it's not an easy thing to be able to carry out this fisa-approved surveillance. you have to make a case before the fisa court to prove there's just cause to do this. what is your opinion about paul manafort under surveillance before and after the election? >> i think it's a level of seriousness and that's why congress is taking a bipartisan stand to the investigation, and i commend the committee, and they are talking about the facts before conclusions were drawn. there seems to be a lot of finger-pointing but no smoking gun so it's important that we continue the search for the answers and make sure we get to the bottom of it as we also support the mueller investigation going forward. >> yeah, looks like there's bipartisan cooperation. let's get to other major issues facing the country today. as you know the president is set to address the u.n. general assembly in the next hour. we are told the speech is expected to be what officials describe as philosophical, and we are expecting the president to issue harsh warnings to iran and north korea. what would you like t

she subject to a fisa warrant and told he is a target. it's a bad time for him and the issue that they will have to determine ultimately is does paul manafort have information that is relevant to their investigation as to others so they can work out a deal with him for testimony and move up the food chain, if you will. >> that raises the possibility that your former boss is engaged in what they call shock and awe treatment not only of manafort, but others to get them to cooperate. >> that's right. i think that's what prosecutors often do is leverage people to get testimony that they otherwise don't have access to. an easy way to do that is charge them with provable crimes. in this case manafort is under investigation for money laundering possibilities in new york by the state ag and under investigation by tax violations for federal authorities and under investigation for failure to register as a foreign agent. lots of things that he is vulnerable to that they can say look, this is a straight forward case. i can charge you and you can spen

if it's not fisa, it's fara. if i walk into a bar in the bar is being surveilled, does that mean i am being surveilled? i think manafort was very -- he did it for no pay. it was very irresponsible. if they were wiretapping manafort inappropriately, fine. >> kennedy: but when is it appropriate? if you haven't done anything wrong, you can still be caught up. that's very problematic. >> kimberly: what dana said -- what we've been saying is manafort -- what his business dealings and interactions were. and he improperly disclosed some of those and put the president and what has turned out to be a compromising position. if you know in good faith that you have that and you will take a role for free or not, okay, with the president of united states customer gap to be very forthright and forthcoming at the you know what? >> dana: i don't think it's spying -- if you are manafort and you are dealing -- if you go back and look in his client list and you know the kind of things he's been involved in, yeah, you might assume. >

we don't know what the evidence was that was presented to the fisa court. one of the questions i have, did the dossier that's now been discreditedded -- paul: this is the christopher steele -- >> the fbi, and if you step back, it's not just the paul manafort wiretaps, this is two other parts. we know the news about susan rice and samantha power unmaasinging people in -- unmasking people. may not be against the law, but they're saying samantha power did almost one a day. i mean, it's abusive. and then if it's built on a dossier, it's just a scandal of immense proportions x. the last thing was james clapper and all these people contributed to this idea that donald trump was crazy for even suggesting this. this was -- i think the intro was this makes it a little less outlandish, and now we find there's a lot more to worry about. paul: well, the christopher steele dossier, dan, really is bothersome because if that was the genesis of the fbi investigation into the trump campaign, we know that's been widely discredited. it was ginned up for political purposes. it

we should not have fisa courts. i understand electronic surveillance, americans talking to terrorists abroad but fisa courts and spying -- -- >> sean: americans should be off-limits. un-american. thank you both. when we come back, members of a youth football team took a knee during they national anthem. judge jeanine pirro has a lot to say about this. when they come back. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance. whether it's connecting one of or bringing wifi to 65,000 fans. campuses. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink. - i love you. - love you too, dad. ♪ i will love you ♪ in the morning ♪ when the dew is ♪ on the ground ♪ will love you... man: hey, good luck! dad, dad, your tie! ♪ when the sun is ♪ rising ♪ ♪ adapt supply chains based on trends, tweets and storms. and make adjustments on the fly. ♪ ♪ the ibm cloud. the cloud for enterprise. yours. the cloud for enterprise. itthe power of nexium 24hr protection from frequent heartburn. all da

it is a secret court of federal judges who to have review these qu requests before they grant a fisa warranter which would lead to the wiretap. it has to involve a foreign the sub. if in fact manafort was the subject of a fisa warrant that allowed the wiretap, it is because they would have thought, or had probable cause to think that he was doing something nefarious with a foreign power, foreign business person, foreign something. or they wouldn't have been before fisa at all. >> so paul manafort's statement that came outdoes a couple of things. when you look at the discussion of threatening an indictment, there has been a lot of talk that that is exactly what happened to see who will flip. what will they say and how much will they say? all of that as it relates to manafort and mike flynn is speculation but it is a factor that we'll be looking at. here's what the spokesperson did. he threw all that shiny object and said this could be a crime. he's right. it could be a felony. the other part is he said, hey, release it all. i call on the department of justice. my client did nothing wr

of course getting a fisa warrant is not easy to do. what does that tell you about this investigation? >> so at the outset, obtaining a fisa warrant means that the government was able to prove that they had probable cause that paul manafort was the agent of a foreign power. the definition can encompass a lot of different activities but typically it does indicate there's some evidence here of there being criminal wrongdoing. >> so considering the surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, it means when they got the fisa warrant again, they must have learned something new, right? something that rises to that level that you just stated. >> right. so it does appear as though obviously there are connections here, that there are really two separate investigations. one is a previous investigation related to mr. manafort's contacts and work on behalf of the ukrainian government. that warrant was concluded for lack of evidence after a period of time. then there's some gap, and then the warrant was restarted in re

we should not have fisa courts. i understand electronic surveillance, americans talking to terrorists abroad but fisa courts and spying -- on americans including a presidential candidate, an incoming president. >> sean: americans should be off-limits. un-american. thank you both. when we come back, members of a youth football team took a knee during the national anthem. judge jeanine pirro has a lot to say about this. she will be debating. when we come back. hey, big guy! come on in! let me guess your weight! win a prize! sure, why not. 12 ounces! sorry, mate. four ounces. i've been taking the stairs lately. you win, big guy. sorry, 'scuse me! oh, he looks so much more real on tv. yeah... over 75 years of savings and service. get your rate quote today. if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and

it's not fisa, it's fara. if i walk into a bar and the bar is being surveilled, does that mean i am being surveilled?is i think manafort was very irresponsible -- he did it for no pay. if they were wiretapping manafort inappropriately, fine. but i would say right now he is looking down the barrel of a gu gun. >> kennedy: but when is it appropriate? if you haven't done anything wrong, you can still be caught up. that's very problematic. >> kimberly: what dana said -- what we've been saying is manafort -- what his business dealings and interactions were. and he improperly disclosed some of those and put the president and what has turned out to be a compromising position. if you know in good faith that you have that and you will take a role for free or not, okay, with the president of united states? you have to be very forthright and forthcoming, you know what? >> dana: i don't think it's spying -- if you are manafort and you are dealing -- if you go back and look in his client list and you know the kind of thing

the surveillance on paul manafort under the second fisa court order, quote, continued into early this year including a period when paul manafort was known to talk to president donald trump. according to three sources familiar with the investigation, some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among the investigators that manafort encouraged the russians to help with the campaign. now the sourcing here is important. again, cnn is describing three sources familiar with the investigation as saying when the fbi was listening in, what they heard were communications that sparked concerns that manafort was encouraging russians to help with the campaign but cnn then goes on to qualify it. so they say they got three sources but then go on to say that two of the three sources who say these communications included the possibility that manafort encouraged the russians, two of the three sources cautioned the evidence on that was not conclusive. okay. so one source says it was, two sources say it wasn't but agreed there was something about cooperating with the r

not one but two fisa warrants on him. what does that tell you about the investigation right now? >> jeffrey toobin gave a wonderful legal analysis. president trump had his meltdown on twitter 48 hours ago, he must have known that this was coming. it tells us about the russian connection in the campaign. he was working in ukraine, helped to subvert ukrainian democracy at russian behest. it was manafort who approached trump and said i will work for free, which is not a big word in the manafort vocabulary, free. why was he so eager? why did he put himself forward? >> such a great point to remind everybody about. rob reiner, how did you get into this russia investigation racket? >> well, i mean, it occurred to me that, you know, we've heard this cliche our whole lives. when our country is attacked, politics stops at the water's edge. this is the first time that that didn't happen. and i don't know that the public understands the gravity of what the russians were able to do and continue to do here in the united states. they attacked us. they're trying to undermine our democracy. for s

we're talking about the fisa court, john. what will i put up with a fisa court that is a rubberstamp? why will we permit this kind of conduct without consequence? this is madness. >> i think the fisa court should be advised what they found out. mispens with the fisa court it is pretty tough operation. to me calling it into question the public's confidence in our ability to conduct government that pursues national security objectives without politicization. i lay that squarely at the doorstep of barack obama. lou: oh, i do too, and obviously the heads of the intelligence agencies during his administration, the heads of his national security team. and who knows, by the way, look at the fbi. are you kidding me? that is a way to conduct -- what about the head of his cia, who spied on the very intelligence committee that it has oversight over the cia and other intelligence agencies? >> i don't think there is more politicization of any intelligence -- lou: this is not a accusation. this is criminal conduct! >> and rank incompetent

what does it mean if he was the subject of a fisa warrant? >> right, so first of all i want to stress the word "if" here. because as you noted up front, your news organization and a lot of other news organizations do not seem to have independently confirmed this yet. and moreover, cnn's sourcing in the story is, you know, quite vague. and so i am unsure. i'm not saying they are wrong by any means but i'm unsure how seriously to take how much of that story. i'm trying to make a point of reserving judgment on it. that said, if it's true, it's a very significant story. and so the authority that the government reportedly used in that could have been the counter-intelligence authorities under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. and that means that they would have had to show a fisa judge that probable cause that paul manafort was an agent of a foreign power. and according to cnn, they actually did it twice. >> yes. >> once sometime back before the campaign. and then once after he stepped down after the campaign. >> what's interesting about

him being reportedly the subject of a fisa warrant can you stay with us for a moment so i can ask you those questions? >> you bet. patrick woke up with back pain. but he has work to do. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. if yand constipation,ling and you're overwhelmed by everything you've tried-- all those laxatives, daily probiotics, endless fiber-- it could be wearing on you. tell your doctor what you've tried, and how long you've been at it. linzess works differently from laxatives. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. it can help relieve your belly pain and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements that are easier to pass. do not give linzess to children less than six and it should not be given to children six to less than eighteen. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially

he said he was not personally aware of a fisa warrant on mr. manafort. kneel? >> who would have been. thank you. mark steyn is here, best selling author. what do you think? >> james clapper is a liar and in many cases he would have been prosecuted for perjury over some of the things he said in recent years. i'm not minded to believe him on this. the fact is, paul manafort has been wiretapped by the u.s. government since 2014. >> neil: 2014. >> yeah. that's almost three years. he's never -- never mind convicted, he's never been charged with anything. so we have a situation in a supposedly free seven governing civilized society if the government can wiretap you for three years and never have to bring a charge or find any crime that you've committed. >> neil: i get different reads on whether it was a ukraine connection and all of that. certainly whether people knew who he was or not at the time when he ascended to the role of campaign manager. you had to think that there were conversations, you know, hey, we have these wiretaps. and they could very well involve th

that is when we believe sometime around then that the fbi asked for another fisa warrant. it is not clear exactly when they started listening in on manafort's conversations. in the russia medaling investigation if it was while he was as the campaign chairman, but we know definitively it went into early this year when manafort and trump were still speaking. >> shocking new details. appreciate that exclusive reporting and they have the scoop on paul manafort that reads like a spy novel. a predawn raid where they picked the looks of manafort's home and warned him he is likely to be indicted. listen to the final paragraph of this piece. his team had to show probable cause of a crime. the federal judge he was likely to destroy the evidence. >> let's start the conversation there. you cannot get a fisa warrant without making a case to a judge that somebody is doing something with a foreign actor that raises legitimate suspicions. they had one and got a second at a time he was talking to candidate trump and president-elect trump and then president trump. to get a warrant, the guy

it is improper to release information about fisa warrants. it is improper, but i salute our colleagues who get this information. i try to get this information ourselves. i understand why it's upsetting to manafort and his team. but, you know, we're in the journalism business and we want this stuff out there. it's highly relevant and newsworthy that this campaign manager for the incumbent president of the united states was wiretapped by the united states government. >> and so chris, this comes as we're also learning some new details about the tactics used by mueller. in "the new york times," they say, and i wanted to quote this line, because i think it says so much. it says, chris, manafort was in bed early one morning in july when federal agents bearing a search warrant picked the lock on his front door and raided his virginia home. they took binders stuffed with documents, copying his computer files looking for evidence that he set up secret bank accounts. they even photographed expensive suits in his closet. what does it say where they're l

we don't know what was learned on the fisa warrant. we will have to wait and see what comes out of that. >> there is two directions and a number of directions this has been moving. one is that the news that mueller has been back and forth with facebook about their data. of course got the information that ads were paid for and they believe especially foreign entities from russia for campaign ads. you were writing about what you thought the significance was of mueller subpoenaing a facebook content. why do you think that's a big deal. >> to be clear, just to go, it was a search warrant on facebook. i think that is significant because what it means is that mueller went to a judge and showed the judge evidence that indicated to the judge that a federal crime had been committed. this this case the contributions were made by foreigners using facebook. what that tells me is that mueller is closing in on that as a potential charge. if he does that, that means there is potential liability for people in the united states. as long as somebody kne

you just don't walk into a court and order a fisa. it's not a starbucks. so you have to actually have conducted an investigation for usually a period of many months, where you're getting -- whether it's intelligence from our agencies, maybe you're digging through their trash or conducting physical surveillance, you're gathering a lot of information in order to show a court that there's probable cause to believe that as jeffrey said, this person is knowingly acting on behalf of a foreign power and engaging in clandestine intelligence activity. so they are -- they are looking like they are spying on behalf of this foreign government. and what your intent is, what you're trying to convince the court is, that if you commence this electronic surveillance, again you are already using other techniques, we need to use the other technique because we believe that in these communications, we're going to get more foreign intelligence about what this foreign intelligence service is up to and how this person may be participating in it and potentially other people who ar

there is a fisa. at some point all of this will come out. we will see what is actually true in the investigation and everybody who covered this is going to have to look at their coverage and see where it matches up. and that's going to be, you know, it seems like sooner rather than later given how fast this is moving. >> again, explain how secretive this process is, even if you are in a legal community, you don't know the existence of who the fisa judges are for the most part. everything is so secretive about this process that, yeah, i would be really surprised if mueller's team was leaking that there was a fisa warrant against man jarring fomanafort. >> because of a no knock search, they are squeezing manafort. this is not your typical white collar crime investigation. those tactics of illegal break-ins into his apartment and then going up to his bedroom door. that does not happen in any previous investigation of any kind of possible official crime. >> andrea mitchell. thank you very much. >> you bet

. >> with congressman beryl fisa -- congressman fisa and then from palmdale alien plant castor. >> so the idea that it would be brutal for them if he is of the white house is probably not the best way. >> i will be a data entered we have a term called the underwrote but then they stop voting down ticket because they don't know and that phenomenon is called the underwrote. if people were not voting for republicans but voting down the ticket so bin that republican base is secure. to say hillary won the district, and though it says the exact opposite of my opinion. in 2015 the first presidential year since 2000 were no republican members of congress in california lost their seats. kennedy did worse since fdr. and the republican base is very, very secure. they are showing up and voting because of the fear of the alternative. to understand that turnout could be lower most of those republicans are in pretty good shape. but the to better than most concerned that were not even on the radar prior and this is important. those that have the highest love all of college educated in come were repub

warrant, the kind of warrant you can only get from a fisa court judge if the judge believes the american citizen in question is knowingly acting as the agent of a foreign power. i need to mention that nbc news has not confirmed that cnn reporting about the warrant for paul manafort but if true, it's important to recognize that warrant include as time period when the president himself was continuing to talk to his campaign chairman. even after the inauguration despite the president's stating publicly he hadn't talked to paul manafort in a long time and him insisting that paul manafort had been involved in the campaign for a short time. apparently, they were still talking to each other after the inauguration at a time when reportedly, paul manafort was having his communication surveilled because he was the target of a fisa warrant because a judge was convinced he was a knowing agent of a foreign power. now we don't know if the president himself turns up on the surveillance intercepts the fbi reportedly made. given the reported timing, that does appear to be a possibility. remember when jam

according to one of the sources, and then the fbi restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new fisa warrant that extended at least into early this year, now, the second warrant, don, was part of the fbi's efforts to investigate ties between trump campaign associates and suspected russian operatives. it's unclear when that new warrant started, but we have learned that as part of the warrant, earlier this year the fbi conducted a search of a storage facility belonging to paul manafort. of course, that's in addition to that raid last july at his home when the fbi executed that no knock warrant, don. >> do we know whether president trump, the president himself spoke to manafort while he was under surveillance? >> so it's actually pretty interesting because we've told by sources that there were conversations between the president and paul manafort even earlier this year in the same time frame that the fbi was listening to manafort's phones. so it's certainly possible that those conversations were collected, were swept up. >> so was the president right that he was wire-tapped? >> well, th

we don't know what was learned on the fisa warrant. we will have to wait and see what comes out of that. >> there is two directions and a number of directions this has been moving. one is that the news that mueller has been back and forth with facebook about their data. of course got the information that ads were paid for and they believe especially foreign entities from russia for campaign ads. you were writing about what you thought the significance was of mueller subpoenaing a facebook content. why do you think that's a big deal. >> to be clear, just to go, it was a search warrant on facebook. i think that is significant because what it means is that mueller went to a judge and showed the judge evidence that indicated to the judge that a federal crime had been committed. this this case the contributions were made by foreigners using facebook. what that tells me is that mueller is closing in on that as a potential charge . if he does that, that means there is potential liability for people in the united states. as long as somebody kn

the fisa court approved it. is it possible the former president would he kno the feds we listening in on then candate tru? joining us a curious position on this show. n on one hands you have to defend the deep state having been a part of it. on the other hand you have to shine inconvenient sunlight on it. >> this an interesting story and people need to focus on it so i'm glad you are covering it. if the reporting is correct, they are saying the filessa court had approved a warrant for the fbi to wiretap communications of paul manafort in 2014 to 2016. the reason for that was because he was involved in lobbying efforts on behalf of a pro-russian ukrainian president and there was interest in that. kennedy: so were john podesta and his bther tony. >> isn't tha interesting. john podesta and his brother to, tony runed the podesta group i was also working forkenr rveillance? >> isn't that an interesting qution? i wouldssume so given the fact that the bureau seems to be so they would lk at the potential targe. the pest

the fisa courts are secret courts. i've always been against them. i think they are fundamentally wrong and it anathema to democracy. charles: but they exist right now and jamil, for the last two have to acknowledge that because they ridiculed president trump so much that by the same token do they get the last laugh with an indictment of a criminal action as a result? >> charles it's a great question and at the end of the day the fisa court authorizes surveillance. you have an independent article precourt staff by district court judges to authorize wiretaps. i know there's a lot of talk about the need to look but the truth is there's an independent court and between the government and the surveillance and they authorize the surveillance. >> i agree with that with one exception and that is the evidence that has put forward in front of judges. if it is faulty, fake fabricated evidence as as been on the case on several occasions, then it's an illegal procedure and that's my problem. you can conjure all kinds of fabricated evidence in support of a warran

you have to have a good basis to get this kind of a fisa wiretap. we know they were looking at paul manafort for some time. they had a resurgence of interest. james clapper said, a national tv, well, no, there was no wiretapping whatsoever. he has now had to step back and suggest that somebody in his circle had the authority to approve this and somehow he was out of the loop and didn't know about it. what do you think of that? >> there are a lot of statements made by former obama officials that don't quite square with what we know now. in fairness to them, unmasking does occur, but we should all share the same concerns. fisa was created to work essentially below the standard normal weight for fourth amendment searches. it doesn't require true probable cause. it is a very dangerous institution if used for the wrong purposes. i think we can all at least agree that we should find out more, why so many requests were made, particularly when these officials were headed out the door. >> martha: jonathan turley, always interesting to talk to you. thank you

the fisa court approved it. is it possible the former president would have known the feds were listening in on then candidate trump? joining us is mike baker. you have always been in a curious position on this show. n on one hands you have to defend the deep state having been a part of it. on the other hand you have to shine inconvenient sunlight on it. >> this an interesting story and people need to focus on it so i'm glad you are covering it. if the reporting is correct, they are saying the filessa court had approved a warrant for the fbi to wiretap communications of paul manafort in 2014 to 2016. the reason for that was because he was involved in lobbying efforts on behalf of a pro-russian ukrainian president and there was interest in that. kennedy: so were john podesta and his brother tony. >> isn't that interesting. john podesta and his brother tony, tony runed the podesta group it was also working for the same pro-russian ukrainian interests back then. kennedy: were they also under surveillance? >> isn't t