starr landed in little rock. >> can you talk to us, ken? >> no, i won't be making any statements. >> starr began filling out his staff, including maryland prosecutor bob bittman. in little rock, he brought in hickman ewing jr. a former u.s. attorney from tennessee. >> there was the washington office and the little rock office. i was on the washington team. >> i got a call from someone, and they said that ken starr's looking for somebody experienced in white-collar crime and corruption cases who can speak southern. well, that would be me. >> as the new team assembled and the investigations ramped up once again, media attention intensified. >> we really tried to concentrate and focus and to steal ourselves and to shield ourselves as much as possible to what was going on in the public square, so to speak. >> by late summer of 1994, it was unclear if anyone yet realized just how hard that would become. by august, the whitewater headaches had damaged the white house's messaging. not only had a new independent counsel begun digging around, but re

let's talk to ken cuccinelli and mike zeldin. what ken starr says matters. what does it mean in the context of an actual investigation? >> so i think that the context with which judge starr was talking about this was lies that further interfere with the ongoing investigation. in clinton's case, his lies to the american people, according to the ken starr report to congress, were lies that were intended to delay or impede in some way the investigation that he was under taking. and i think it's a fair standard to look at. it's not a crime, per se, to lie to the american people. but if your lies there are endeavors to distract independent counsel or involve themselves in an effort to delay the prosecution, then it's worthy. if it's worthy of consideration, the bigger lies here is whether he was going to fire mueller or not was the lies about the meeting on june 9th on air force one. i think that takes front and center stage because it is is a written document which was proven to be a lie. and whether or not it's a lie that he never asked, according to him, he ne

katty: ok, ken starr, thank you very much for joining us. ken: my pleasure. jane: you are watching "bbc world news america." still to come on tonight's program, as donald trump approaches when year in office, we look at what has shaped his foreign policy. scientists say 2017 was the hottest year on record without an el niÑo. they say man-made climate change, predominantly co two emissions, is dwarfing the influence of natural trends on the climate. the figures have been published by nasa and compiled from thousands of measurements taken across the globe. reporter: last year's wildfires in california not caused by man-made climate change, but likely influenced by high temperatures drying out parched mudslides,wed by the caused by an unusual combination of heat and extreme rain. say co2ts they emissions are the main thing heating the planet. there was a big spike reforming things to the el niÑo current. warming thanks to the el niÑo current. that was beaten by 2015 and 2016. last year, though, was nearly one celsius above normal, but crucially, there was no

katty: ok, ken starr, thank you very much for joining us. ken: my pleasure. jane: you are watching "bbc world news america." still to come on tonight's program, as donald trump approaches when year in office, we look at what has shaped his foreign policy. scientists say 2017 was the hottest year on record without an el niÑo. they say man-made climate change, predominantly co two emissions, is dwarfing the influence of natural trends on the climate. the figures have been published by nasa and compiled from thousands of measurements taken across the globe. reporter: last year's wildfires in california not caused by man-made climate change, but likely influenced by high temperatures drying out parched mudslides,wed by the caused by an unusual combination of heat and extreme rain. say co2ts they emissions are the main thing heating the planet. there was a big spike reforming things to the el niÑo current. warming thanks to the el niÑo current. that was beaten by 2015 and 2016. last year, though, was nearly one celsius above normal, but cruclly, there was no el

i mean, i remember the ken starr investigation. and bill clinton came out and said, this guy spent millions of dollars and nothing to show for it. the president is frustrated. he's told me a thousand times and everybody else. i didn't collude with no russians. we'll find out if that is true. i have seen no evidence of collusion. the president is frustrated. no doubt about that. he didn't fire mr. mueller. if the report is true, mr. mcgahn did the right thing and to the president's credit, he listened. this is something more mueller to look at. >> you heard the president saying last august when asked directly about whether he had considered firing mr. mueller, he hadn't given it a thought. so -- if this reporting is true, then the president was lying to the american people? >> this is for mr. mueller to determine. we're not going to stop looking at the president because he claims "the new york times' fake news. we're not going to convict him based on a news article. as a matter of fact, i think mr. mueller is the perfect guy to get

former independent counsel ken starr. always good to see you, sir. >> thank you. >> first procedural question. senator blumenthal this morning said i think mueller is going to have a face-to-face with the president of the united states. possible, probable? >> probable. he needs to in order to round out, complete his investigation to come to a decision. he needs to look the president in the eye and ask the appropriate questions. >> is that legal? is it appropriate? >> yeah. it is certainly legal. it is appropriate. and it will probably be negotiated. that is the last thing that we would want would be for the president to actually be subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. there are dignity issues, the presidency and so far. just politics aside. so the office of the presidency demands our respect and deserves our respect. so the right way to do it is so to, through counsel, to negotiate and hear the terms of the interview. >> so ken starr says it would be okay for the president to be interviewed directly by bob mueller.

i want to hear from ken starr who was also a white whaurt independent counsel. the president seems to have lied to the american people when he said i never thought about firing robert mueller. the story's came out last week that he basically ordered him to be fired and don mcgahn refused to do it, said he would quit rather than do that. >> right. >> listen to what ken starr says. ken starr says he thinks this should be looked in to. >> lying to the american people is a serious issue that has to be explored. i take lying to the american people very, very seriously. so absolutely, i think what dan was talking about was this effort of getting rid of the investigation. you're now talking something called lying to the american people and that is something that bob mueller should look at. >> should bob mueller be looking at the fact that the president apparently lied to the american people? >> respectively to you and ken starr i didn't like that aspect of the referral during the whitewater era and i don't like it any more now. i do not think that is a job for a prosec

. >> with ken starr. >> with ken starr. but at the end of the day it's going to be a big question about how much if the president and more importantly his attorneys and advisers want him to push back and how hard he is willing to push back. i talked to people who are arguing that the last thing in the world that president trump should do is go and be sort of, from their perspective, the trump world's perspective, a sitting duck to question after question after question. just number one, given the fact that it's precedent, but, number two, given the fact that it's not unheard of that president trump does -- doesn't stick to script. >> i remember, by the way, when ken starr, the independent counsel at the time, wanted to question bill clinton. they did it for four hours. >> yeah. >> he was at the white house. they let him do it at the white house out of respect for the president, but there was a video link to the grand jury that listened to the q&a. >> to add to dana's point, unless he is sort of compelled to do so, i would b

ken starr himself has had misgivings about the way it went. >> right. but also, if you look at the way the media handled it, it was like today with trump, 24/7, every single day, cable, front pages, for more than a year as the president was impeached and acquitted by the senate, the public, majority of the public, didn't care as much about the 24/7 sex scandal as the press did. leading pundits saying bill clinton was going to resign. slirpt the public was disgusted but more people cared about the boom commission and own lives than the fact he lied about the sexual encounter. >> martha: i mean there are fascinating parallels even with the burying of the story, you think about nbc having the harvey weinstein story and not publishing it. the way that that story ultimately came out. i want to ask before i let you go we've been seeing if the fake news awards are going to happen. apparently there's some debate within the white house whether or not this whole thing is a good idea given the climate. what do you think? >> the elusive awards. i think the presiden

because i'm -- we just spoke to a former aid, to ken starr, he initially said don't go after mueller, he has since joined the bandwagon that senator dorgan was just criticizing, and paul ryan has struck a different note, take a listen. >> firing special prosecutors tends not to work, as we all learned from watergate. >> i think the best case for the president is to be vindicated by allowing the investigation to go on independently, so the best advise would be to let robert mueller do his job? >> if that's your position, don't you stand up and say, it sounds like you came so close someone was going to resign over it, don't do that? >> at this point i think the republicans are trying to play whac-a-mole to try and play down on your position, and on the other side, their silence is deafening. nothing from mccarthy, nothing from are paul ryan, nothing from mcconnell and i'm not surprised at this point, i think we have to stop waiting for them to speak up, i don't think it's going to happen. >> thank you both and we'll go to break looking at these live pictures of air force one landing bac

the man who investigated president clinton was prosecutor ken starr. his pursuit of clinton began in 1994 with an investigation into property investments. but, famously, it led to the door of monica lewinsky and a sex scandal. eventually clinton was impeached on grounds of perjury. ken starrjoined us from dallas, texas a short time ago. you know from investigating president clinton that these investigations can't take unexpected courses. you started with a fraud and financial dealings investigation and financial dealings investigation and ended up with monica lewinsky. do you think the same could happen with donald trump and that robert mueller investigation, that we start with collusion and end that somewhere totally different? with collusion and end that somewhere totally diffe re nt7m with collusion and end that somewhere totally different? it is conceivable but not slightly and one of the reasons is there is greater controlled by the justice department over the course of this investigation, whereas the entire idea the statute under which i served w

ken starr says the key to him is whether donald trump does ultimately lie about firing mueller. that would bring consequences. >> reports are correct that president trump sought to have mueller fired, then his public denial would be false, so would that be grounds for impeachment? >> i think lying to the american people is a serious issue that has to be explored. i take lying to the american people very, very seriously. so absolutely. >> want to bring in robert wray who succeeded kenneth starr. robert, you look at this kind of point from ken starr, who had at once defended mueller, then seemed to turn on him. now seems to be striking this line. if donald trump ordered the white house counsel to get mueller fired, as the nyt reports and as the white house does not deny, would that be good or bad? >> well, it would be bad in the political process, and obviously, there are consequences to it. although we're talking about this seven months later and mueller is still in the position and so it didn't happen. i think the story should be that the system has worked. the president has adv

. >>> you might remember white -- i will get it right, whitewater investigator ken starr saying that the president could be in a pickle if it turns out he is lying, that lying is absolutely ground for a president to be impeached. he was referring to the possibility, the president was looking to fire mueller. now of course he never did. mueller is still in that capacity but the read from robert ray, another whitewater independent counsel who might have slightly difficult take on all of this. hi, i'm mindy kearns. it's great to finally meet you. nice to meet you too. your parents have been talking about you for years. sorry about that. they're all about me saving for a house, or starting a college fund for my son. actually, i want to know what you're thinking. have a seat. yeah. knowing that the most important goals are yours. with 15,000 financial advisors, it's a big deal. and it's how edward jones makes sense of investing. neil: did you guys see the ratings on the grammys last night? record low 30% viewership from 2017. wasn't that hot in 2017. so maybe it was all the heavy-handed p

starr investigation including the monica lewinsky scandal. let me get your reaction on a conversation between president and the then acting fbi director andrew mccabe. shortly after james comey's firing last year. the president asked mccabe who he voted for in the 2016 election. does that worry you? >> deeply. look, the notion that some of your guests, that this was just a casual conversation. and people do it in small talk. let's not forget the context. the fbi director comey had just been fired in part because of the russia thing and because he didn't swear loyalty to the president. it is in that context that mr. mckab is summoned to the white house and asked this question. completely inappropriate. another remind per this president, the oath is to serve the people of the country and the constitution. not to serve the person of the president of the united states. it is another example of not understanding the fbi, the department of justice, do not work for the individual donald trump. they boriwork for the american people and the constituti

the most recent one being that of ken starr and bill clinton and what they did in that investigation is ken starr and his team came over to the map room at the white house and they recorded the interview. and they gave it on of to the grand jury after nine and a half hours, and they were done. so it if it was good enough for bill clinton, it should be good enough for donald trump. >> i think that the white house counsel is going to let donald trump be in front of a grand jury? >> well, if you asked me the same question 20 years ago, do you think bill clinton's counsel would let him be in front of a grand jury -- >> i think there are different levels of confidence in terms of how the person would comport themselves. >> right. i understand that. but what i'm saying, chris, is in the end mueller has the authority to require an interview. so the issue is not if it will happen -- >> but how. >> if mueller wants it to happen, it will happen. it will just be where and when. they want to make sure they are respectful of the office of the president and they do it in terms that people feel com

i share those concerns. >> bill: ken starr, hope you come back. really hope you come back and enlighten us. thank you for your time today. >> sandra: great to get him on the program. he will be featured in a new special here on the fox news channel. scandalous is a seven-part series that dives deep into the drama of the 1990s. it premiers this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. and it is a case that has been shocking the nation. the parents of those 13 children now facing life in prison after being charged with torture and abuse. details straight ahead. y y in just two weeks yaaay! the complete balanced nutrition of (great tasting) ensure with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. ensure. always be you. [ click, keyboard clacking ] [ keyboard clacking ] [ click, keyboard clacking ] ♪ good questions lead to good answers. our advisors can help you find both. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. yours. >> sandra: california couple accused of starving and torturing their 13 children plead not guilty on dozens of charges durin

president clinton lied to ken starr's grand jury and it did not end well. this would not be the first time for president trump. as a private citizen, he gave plenty of testimony, not all of it the whole truth or even close. we'll talk about that. this weekend he said he is a genius, a very stable genius.

ken starr was on the show yesterday and he said counselor, yes, mueller should speak to the president. anybody that says this is cheap politics or unnecessary is wrong, he should look him in the eye and ask him the big questions, do you agree? >> absolutely. in fact in the clinton whitewater lewinsky investigation, lewinsky was interviewed three times for over nine hours, and mostly in the white house without the presence of his attorneys, and i think that will be the template that mueller will follow in this case. >> under oath? >> under oath. >> clinton got subpoenaed by the grand jury, and we know how that went. if i am trump's personal lawyer, i say hold on, this is not bill clinton and this man is not the target of your investigation, why does he have to be under oath? if you want to speak to him, we will figure it out, but no oath or recording. do i get it? >> i think you would get it because if an fbi agent is present for the interview, which is what i would expect, and fbi agents are always -- >> let's make sure people understand. even if i am not under oath, if an fbi agent i

starr in that investigation in the late '90s '90s. one of the things the white house does when they are under fire is they do everything they can to discredit our special counsel's investigation so if and when the special counsel decides to bring charges against a sitting president, they try to have undercut their credibility. that worked in the case of bill clinton. he got impeached but he did not get convicted or removed from office and obviously that's part of what you are seeing going on at the white house, they are doing everything they can to undercut the credibility of the mueller investigation so if they come up with any conclusions that are hostile to this president they can say we told you so. >> harris: if you are talking about the precedent and historical past for any of that you would say okay, it's par for the course. but it gets more complicated when the fbi situation makes it easier to criticize them with such anti-trump by text messages, what do you say about that? >> there certainly is plenty of stuff to criticize in

but what made this a story was the decision by ken starr to launch a criminal investigation of this matter. to wire linda tripp in her conversations with monica lewinsky together, evidence to suggest that the president and his good friend verna jordan were trying to cover up the paula jones lawsuit, and that was a stunning development. >> so without ken starr, are you saying this may not have been reported? >> we at "newsweek" knew about the allegations of the relationship for months. i had been talking to linda tripp. she had provided me all sorts of circumstantial evidence, including offering to give me the blue dress, although it was not clear what i could possibly have done with it to use that corroborating evidence, but once the paula jones lawsuit proceeded and it was clear that bill clinton was going to be deposed under oath and was going to be asked about this, we got closer to the story, but it was the intervention of starr that made this the political earthquake that it was. >> and eventually the cover-up that made it a bigger political earthquake. >> and the president vehemently

bill clinton i assume basically knew what ken starr knew, i bet that donald trump doesn't really know for sure what bob mueller knows. >> ken starr's best case scenario from his view as prosecutor was taking contacts between the president and other individuals and finding something that was a crime or impeachable. >> really an effort to obstruct justice. >> basically meant what he did or didn't do, alleged to have done with the people or what he did in the afterward, inevitable cover-up. all of that touched the president. here is different situation. all these other questions swirling around the people around donald trump. did the campaign manager or family or others having contacts with wikileaks, with russian operatives and people linked to russia, what do they all know? it's possible that donald trump could end up in asymmetric situation. >> where he's a witness to conspiracy to collude or break the law by people who work for him. during watergate, if you look at legal jousting over the tapes, seen as evidence in the trial of h.r. haldeman, not sought explicitly to tie the noose ar

ken starr interviewed mr. and mrs. clinton almost nine times during the course of their investigation but that's abnormal. >> you said that mueller's team is relishing this prospect, although you do expect it comes near the end of this investigation for them. if you are the president's legal team, knowing that, that this could be -- there could be pitfalls for the president, even though we know he's done depositions before, how do you prepare him for this? >> well, there's two questions there. one, do you allow it to happen at all. if it gets to a point where there are senior operatives that have flipped and cooperating with bob mueller's team in addition to michael flynn, you may get to a point where you don't want to put your client, the president, in this case in that situation. now i have to acknowledge that -- >> he would have to take the fifth, right, the only way he can avoid a subpoena -- >> if he's subpoenaed. my understanding this is a voluntary process. to your point you're correct if he were to be subpoenae

it brings us to the point that ken starr made. if anybody knows what it's like to be accused of overreaching with ken starr who began with a land deal and ended with monica lewinsky in a blue dress. senator blumenthal said i think mueller will have a face-to-face with the president of the united states. possible, probable, what do you think? >> probable. he needs to, to round out his investigation, to come to a decision. he needs to look the president in the eye and ask the appropriate questions. >> so, david gregory, what are the stakes? >> well, the obvious danger is that the president doesn't perform well, that he fields questions and says things that aren't true, that can be proven to be untrue, that are inconsistent and that it goes into the realm of the unknown. that's why they're trying to limit the scope of the discussion. the upside for the president is that he feels confident that he can put a lot of this to rest, either because he didn't know certain things that were going on, but what he knows about was entirely proper

remember, ken starr interviewed president clinton twice, and fisk interviewed clinton once. so there were three interviews by the special counsel off clinton. so there's not an absence of precedent for doing it that way as well. >> michael zeldin, appreciate your time. i want to bring in the panel. david, how much room do you think the president's team really does have to negotiate? he could be subpoenaed? >> i think they have room to negotiate, but ultimately they may be forced far more than they want to. looks to be so far they're having a good cop/bad cop routine with the president. his lawyers are going to come along and say, yes, but. the real is that of scope. steve bannon thought that the ultimate issue was going to be mund laundering. the president said i'm not going down that path. that's a red line. so will they try to force that and will that be a negotiating ploy of the trump people? if mueller thinks there's a serious question about mund laundering, i would assume if you're not going to come voluntarily, here's a subpoena. >> i think the last thing that donald t

in the past, president clinton voluntarily went along with giving an interview to ken starr in order to avoid a subpoena. that could have been litigated up to the supreme court. >> that's where he perjored himself. >> you have to -- here's a guy who couldn't even answer, are you stable? instead of saying i've got 25,000 down and 4% -- call me unstable, whatever you want. he's so not nimble. they've not let him do an interview other than hannity. they wouldn't let him do the "60 minutes" interview. and instead of taking a questions on the go -- >> he always takes the bait. >> if there is any legal way from keeping faface-to-face, they'll do it. >> they are afraid of a lester holt moment. robert mueller doesn't have to be the closer. but you get donald trump in a room and you poke his ego, you frustrate him and he's going to say something. and if it doesn't get him in trouble, it might get someone in the administration in trouble. >> you want me on that wall. it will get to that point where he blurts something out. >> we've seen donald trump in litigation in the past. he's been sued ma

i think mueller would follow ken starr's room, they took a video in the map room, under oath and tell ported to the grand jury live time. >> and lawyers with clinton lawyers were not present. is that right? >> they were present in the paula jones civil action but i do not believe they were present in the map room when ken starr's 5 1/2 hour grilling of president clinton took place. >> so what does the timing of this -- of whatever the interview would be, tell you about the length or status of the investigation, because i would assume that mueller would want to talk to the president toward the end of an investigation after he's already interviewed and has all of the information rather than earlier in the investigation or mid investigation and then, you know, have there be something else later on he would like to talk to the president about and can't talk to the president about. >> that's right. however, they could also break it up into work streams. so they may come to a conclusion or the point that they are ready to interview the president with respect to the conspiracy to interfere w

ken starr. saying that you know he was unfit. and had an agenda. all to protect president clinton. so it's not like we haven't seen this before. >> that's very true. we also learned this week thursday night that the president ordered the firing of robert mueller last june. here's how he responded to those reports yesterday. here he is. >> mr. president, why did you want to fire robert mueller. >> fake news, folks. fake news. typical "new york times," fake story. >> he messages "the new york times," seshl news outlets, including nbds, have confirmed this. what do you make of this development? will you support legislation to protect bhul centre. >> y-- robert mule centre. >> yes, i would support this, i know don mcgann, he's the one at the center of the story. he's a very fine man, a fine lawyer. a man of integrity. if the reports are true, he did in fact prevent an archibald cox moment or a saturday night massacre. good for don mcgann. he's a very fine person, i've known him for many years. i gue

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 the couple of points i'd be watching on this, there is no way, no way that mueller wil

. >> reporter: ken starr who investigated president clinton for several years spoke about that denial. >> you're talking about something called lying to the american people and that's something that bob mule are should look at. >> reporter: and congress is trying to pass a law that shields bob mueller from being fired. >> 63 days at sea and a successful mission. the coast guard cutter stratton returned to port after making a substantial contribution to stopping international cocaine smuggling. stratton and other ships seized a staggering amount of drugs. >> offloaded 21 metric tons or 47,000 pounds of cocaine with an uncut street value of $721 million. that came from a combined 23 different cases from multiple coast guard vessels, including a royal canadian navy vessel, and this crow contributed to about a quarter of that success. >> reporter: the stratton patrolled the waters off the central and south america stopping five suspected drug smuggling boats in less than two months. >>> a matter of seconds made all the difference for a truck driver in florida. we'll show you the heart pou

howie: a lot of democrats during the bill clinton impeachment tried to discredit ken starr. bill kristol of the weekly standard says people at fox are going too far. but bill kristol defied donald trump and has since the campaign. shelby: there is an obsession with instant gratification. we don't have all the evidence and all the facts. to light some bits of char koalg on fire before we know all the facts. mollie: after a year of running story after story based on anonymous stories, to say that's not subject fans yaition after running wild with anonymous sources. howie: las vegas billionaire steve wynn. is president trump somehow to blame for a crazy caller. you know what's awesome? gig-speed internet. you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. howie: a 19-yea

starr produced a report. susan: is there anything more formal going back? niall: i think they would regard this as something counter to the american people who did democratically elect donald trump. one of the fixations of this white house is the idea that are shadowy things going on behind the scenes to delegitimize his victory. the president did call mr. steyer unhinged at some point. the broader question is one in which they see them as an attempt to undercut the president's democratic legitimacy. susan: there was an election on capitol hill in the house, the democratic caucus. jerrod nadler will take over the house judiciary committee, which is very important, especially if the democrats are successful in their efforts to take over the majority in the house. do we know anything about jerrold nadler's attitude towards the impeachment process? darren: for now he is taking the lead, along with what you have heard from nancy pelosi and others. let the process play out. let's have a more proactive, positive me

howie: a lot of democrats during the bill clinton impeachment tried to discredit ken starr. bill kristol of the weekly standard says people at fox are going too far. but bill kristol defied donald trump and has since the campaign. shelby: there is an obsession with instant gratification. we don't have all the evidence and all the facts. to light some bits of char koalg on fire before we know all the facts. mollie: after a year of running story after story based on anonymous stories, to say that's not subject fans yaition after running wild with anonymous sources. howie: las vegas billionaire steve wynn. is president trump somehow to blame for a crazy caller. unrise but with my back pain i couldn't sleep and get up in time. then i found aleve pm. aleve pm is the only one to combine a safe sleep aid plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. howie: a 19-year-old michigan man has been arrested for making repeated calls to cnn in atlanta saying i'm coming to kill you. your cast will be gunned down within a number of hours. >> this is w

ken starr was the last. a very controversial level. i spent over the next few years thinking that an independent counsel is appointed for one case or one topic and although some courageously decided not to most decided to seek indictment. but when you are appointed for the one person case a little subtle pressure to go ahead that isn't a good position. you were appointed for whatever was presented to us. so i thought the first change should be a relatively permanent independent counsel with a ten year term just like a retired prosecutor who is also faculty to take a leave of absence but no pressure to go after one person to have the continuity of his term and no oversight of the independent counsel's life suggested a bipartisan commission and they would select the independent counsel and while they could investigate anything he could not get the indictment without the two thirds vote in those restrictions would make them much more powerful to those political branches. perhaps that could be considered down the road. >> one of the intere

ken starr who investigated bill clinton for several years spoke about the president's denial. >> you're talking about lying to the american people and i think that's something bob mueller should look at. >> reporter: the president enraging an entire continent after he referred to african nations as expletive nations. the president trying to make amends writing he deeply respects africa. >>> the state of the union can be viewed here at 7:00. >>> angelina jolie made a call for peace and to end the civil war in syria today. she serves as a special envoy as high commissioner for refugees. the war began 8 years ago and hundreds of thousands have been killed. another 5 million have e escaped to nearby countries and she wishes they could return to their home land. >> a viable political settlement is the only way to create the conditions for syrians to return to their home, to tend suffering and the strain on host countries. >> both u.s. and russian forces are involved in trying to end the civil war. >>> police arrested vladimir putin's top political rival in russia today. he was barred from ru

starr special counsel team's and dealt with both white house's ability to fight, which is better? mr. rosenstein: i believe in the constitution. the independent counsel was appointed i who? a federal judge. the independent counsel is not accountable to the department of justice. you may agree or disagree with the decisions i make, but i have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate and i am accountable to the political process. a special counsel is a term -- is accounted -- is appointed by the attorney general or me. if our special counsel or his employees were to violate the rules and regulations of the department of justice, our inspector general would have the authority to investigate and to punish them because they are employed by the department of justice. it is a different animal. the goal is to provide some degree of independence from the typical executive branch processes. but an independent counsel is really independent because there is no cowbell of it. but a special counsel is responsible to the department of justice. >> you were appointed by presiden

ken starr is a well regarded judge and personal friend of mine. he suggested on abc news over the weekend if president trump was lying about whether or not he ordered the firing of bob mueller that that lie is an impeachable offense. i respectfully disagree. if a public officials lies, the remedy is at the ballot box, not impeachment. lying not under oath and not in an official government inquiry is not a crime and is not a basis for impeachment and never has been. >> bill: why do you think he said that? >> the whole clinton investigation was based on whether bill clinton had lied. >> bill: it's an entirely different matter when you have it in a private conversation as opposed to under oath. >> agreed. the president had a conversation with members of the press he could say whatever he wants and the remedy is does the truth reflect -- support what he says or does the truth contradict what he says? the public will decide when he runs to election. not to prosecute him for lying. that would destroy the government i agree gingrich. he sounded terrific.

it's the day ken starr wired for the monica lewinsky. that's the last time a president was impeached. it's worth remembering the critical moment in that scandal was ken starr, the independent counsel, subpoenaed bill clinton and forced him to testify. so the question now with mueller is, if trump dodges and resists a voluntary interview, will mueller do what ken starr did and subpoena the president? >> michael, let me ask you from 30,000 feet since you've been through this before, where are we in this investigation? you have two of the president's men who pled guilty to federal crimes and are now cooperating with the investigation and two of the president's men charged with federal crimes and facing possibly a lifetime in prison. where do you think we are in this investigation, in this scandal? >> if you take things under a microscope, you've got to put the manafort-gates stuff off to the side. that involves conduct that doesn't directly involve donald trump or his campaign. the two wild cards are michael flynn and george papadopoulos, b

starr and others power over -- lot of us have lived through watergate and government coverup and all the stuff you were saying about the devin nunes and rudy jugiuliani's law firm, central questions in any republic, who guards the guardians. can't throw out the special counsel regulations and pretend that appointed officials can do everything. needs to be something in place. not tapping into anything except manafort's lawyer's desire to get paid something more by the hour or something like that. end of this lawsuit will be one big winner, robert mueller. going to get a lay-up win in court. >> constitutional law professional at georgetown university, exactly the man i wanted to talk to about this. thanks for being here. >>> lot of people called this lawsuit frivolous, heard neil call it silly. but last point he made is important. manafort's lawyers have brought something nobody think has any chance of breaking in manafort's direction. if this does get taken up by court and treated the way most observers think it will be, could strengthen mueller by clarifying even more his authority t

judge ken starr is here to explain. good morning, judge. >> my pleasure, thank you. ainsley: so what is the law? what are the facts? he is allowed to do this? >> i believe so. becomes a question then of judgment and wisdom. i don't think it is even close to the line of the criminal law. by the way we tend overcriminallize everything in presidential politics these days. but that aside the president has very broad powers. article ii of the constitution of the united states vests the executive power in the president. we have elected the president. he has all this power. barring some kind of action such as bribery or discrimination, but including just saying i think this guy is not doing a good job or it is interfering with my conduct of the presidency, he is at liberty to do that. the example i use very quickly to demonstrate the point is richard nixon's firing a long time ago of archibald cox aspects prosecutor. no one to my knowledge, i lived through that as young lawyer, no one suggested that is obstruction of justice. now if the president fires jim comey or whatever

>> i would compare all of that to monica lewinsky and ken starr and the activities that surrounded bill clinton in 1998. petime dealing with a special counsel would bring down the democratic party. the reality was republicans didn't gain seats during that election because we had six straight quarters of economic growth. if we remain focus on the economy and things that help americans we'll be successful. the democrats have to distract and divide. republicans want to focus on the agenda we laid out in the election and executing every day if washington >> jon: if democrats want to distract and divide they'll have a lot of help from the headlines, are they not? >> well, certainly the circumstances now are not ideal. you have a biased probe. you have the board of directors for the never trump movement essentially participating in the mueller probe from andrew wiseman who attended clinton's election night party and those defending the clinton foundation. i don't think it will result in major electoral wins for the democrats. in my district and others people are focus on pocketbook i shall ao

let's do it the way ken starr did it with bill clinton in the map room under oath, if you will on your home turf and be done with it. >> you pinpointed a very important point. you know the president has said a lot of things. but the first time he used the term fight back was today. and that is a real tell to what the defense to any charge of obstruction of justice is going to be he is going to say i fired james comey not to interfere with the investigation, but to fight back against a conspiracy of anti trump people including the director of the fbi, the deputy director andy mccabe and i was using my powers of the presidency and my first amendment rights to fight back to the conspiracy. we will see whether mueller or anybody else buys that argument. but this is the first time we heard the argument and i think we are going to hear it plenty. >> also, it sounded to my ear the president is in a pr street fight here instead of a deadly serious investigation. he seemed to want to shift the terms of this. and i wonder if he envisioned himself in a pr battle than more of a serious legal batte

are you with me or ken starr and newt gingrich and the rest? a clear majority were with bill clinton and not with his adversaries. that was a forerunner to how politics was conducted in the day. facts matter less than which side of you are on. >> with the advantage of being able to look back on history, say what you will about bill clinton or donald trump, there is a base line difference between the two men in terms of how they approached the presidency. >> bill clinton wanted i think very much yearned for a kind of traditional successful presidency. he cared what the "new york times" thought about him. didn't like it when he was criticized there. i think donald trump is authentically contempuous of establishment institution including establishment media and could care less about presidential precedence. they are different men that way. i would say they are both really skilled at using media to save themselves in a jam. >> john, i think back on that era and we are talking about the mid 90s as the time when the two parties really came apart. whe

in fact ken starr in 1998 had a subpoena with drawn because they didn't want to push the precedent. if he decides he wants to hear from president trump, he's got a lot of power to get him in front. >> given his history and reputation and the questions before the investigation including why did you fire jim comey? as a public servant even if nothing implicates the president, robert mueller wants to have that president's version in the book. it belongs in the chapter that sums it up. the president's legal team said the president got ahead of himself in saying i don't think there is a need for an interview. that's the clean up. what i come at it is this way. they know so many more things than we know. the president knows his lawyer is involved. they know they are try ing ing negotiate the parameters and in the middle of that, the answer changes whachl does changes. what does he know that we don't know. >> mueller might be able to compel this or bring a big fight as to whether or not he can bring the president in. the second thing is while we don't know there is substance to the charges

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 statements that he's made. not inconsistent with the testimony of other individuals and as sol said, the presid

. >> he said, "you won't believe this, but you have been replaced by ken starr." >> so, that's how it began, with a phone call in the early summer of 1994. >> the stack of papers suddenly reappeared in the white house book room. >> i would like to know how those documents showed up. >> oh, please. really? steve: breaking tonight. the decadent d.c. blame game goes on. i'm steve hilton and this is the home of positive populism. negotiations have heated up on capitol hill to make sure doors are open in the government tomorrow morning. also tonight, clinton cash author peter schweizer joins me after i take on the clinton foundation. and coulter is here to break

can you imagine, fred if bill clinton had ordered the white house lawyer or janet reno to fire ken starr at the height of the monica lewinsky investigation. >> no, nobody would buy it, no -- >> yes, you're getting into richard nixon territory of note here. now, the president, you know, bob muller may not have been fired, but we do know from "the times" reporting is president trump directed the white house counsel to fire him. that was an action. a direction. and gave it. it was only because the counsel stopped him that, you know, that mueller survived. >> okay. we're going to leave it right there. it just -- the beat goes on, yes. all right, selena, patrick healy, thank you. >>> all right two decades and more than 150 victims. the fallout from the disgraced olympic doctor is far from over. members from the house and senate are working together to get answers. we'll speak with one of the main drivers behind that effort after this. >>> and a sea of support flooding the streets at michigan state last night to stand in solidarity with the young women targeted by larry nassar. stay with us. j

unlike ken starr, mueller who really had very little involvement in the actual questioning, he asked some questions related to constitutional issues, but mob mueller has spent his whole life in law enforcement and prosecution and with the fbi. so he is certainly capable ofmo life in law enforcement and prosecution and with the fbi. so he is certainly capable of participating substantively 37 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, if you were representing this president in anticipation of some kind of an exchange with mueller or mueller's staff, what is on your agenda, what are you looking for, what do you want this process to look like? >> well, as i mentioned earlier, i would like to know with as even 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 statements that he's made, not inco

ken starr was supposed to go going after real estate transactions with whitewater and instead it leads to a 24-year sexual misconduct with a 24-year-old intern and both parties realized these people unaccountable with unlimited budgets and don't quit until they have got somebody's neck in a noose. >> i want to point one other thing out. both are proposals they want to tie that stopped gap spending measure and conspires february 8th. do you see a shutdown? >> as a republican, i only hope they try to tie that in to -- >> i'm sorry. can i give that to brent, please? i want to get his take in here! i'm going to get back to you, jack. i wanted to get your take too, brent. >> i think it's unlikely that the shutdown showdown is where this issue was raised. i think it's going to be red hot starring tomorrow as members of the house and senate come back to washington having just heard that apparently trump tried to fire mueller and apparently his white house counsel threatened to resign as fbi director threatened to resign when he was under investigation about mccabe. your segment was right earl