Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Today In The Russia Investigation; Possible Release of Highly Debated Memo. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 31, 2018 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:00:22] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN TONIGHT NEWS SHOW HOST: This in CNN tonight. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington in tonight for Don Lemon. A huge day in the Russia investigation. Breaking news coming fast and furious tonight trying to keep up. We will do our best to help you through. The battle raging over the likely release, possibly as soon as tomorrow of the Chairman Nunes highly debated memo claiming that the FBI abused authority as the bureau sought clearance to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. The President's own hand- picked FBI Director today issuing a rare public warning, saying, that that memo leaves out important facts, raising, quote, grave concerns about its accuracy, that after the Justice Department warned earlier this week that releasing the memo would be, quote, "extraordinarily reckless" and that the DOJ is unaware of any evidence of wrongdoing.

Now this, in the last few moments. Congressman Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee charging tonight that Chairman Nunes sent a different version of the memo to the White House, different than what the committee voted on and approved.

Also tonight, more breaking news. Robert Mueller's team zeroing in on the cover story for Donald Trump Jr.'s infamous Trump tower meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, Mark Corallo a former spokesman for the Trump legal team reportedly planning to tell Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with the President and Hope Hicks -- a call in which he quotes Hicks as saying that emails written by Trump Jr. expressing interest in getting that political dirt on Hillary Clinton from Russians would quote "never get out." 2

This raising further serious concerns about possible obstruction of justice, that according to "The New York Times" tonight. Joining me now, CNN political correspondent Sarah Murray, CNN justice reporter Kara Scannell and CNN political Analysts Michael Bender and Ryan Lizza. Sarah Murray, if I could begin with you, we have the letter from Congressman Adam Schiff really a remarkable turn in a story with many turns. In effect he is saying that Nunes has sent an entirely different version of the memo, it was voted on in committee that was already highly disputed in committee but changed it in some way before handing it to the White House.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Right in case the movie didn't seem controversial enough and Democrats didn't want to take it out the hand pick FBI Director Trump selected didn't want it out. We have the 11th hour from Adam Schiff to keep the memo private. He charges that Nunes has supplied the White House with a memo that he says is materially different. He says in in letter that he put out to Nunes tonight, this is deeply troubling, because it means the committee majorities transmitted to the White House an altered version of a classified document that is materially different than the version on which the committee voted. The White House has been reviewing a document since Monday night the committee never approved for public release. Now, he goes on in this press release he put out to say this is still a memo that is inaccurate, still misleading. He doesn't lay out exactly what is different between the version of the memo that he saw and the one that Nunes transmitted to the White House. But I think it gives you a window into the partisan rancor in this committee right now.

SCIUTTO: No question. There is confusion lined later on the first page. It says the majority found it necessary to make changes without informing the committee signifying the committee majority, the Republicans, no longer stand by the representation it made to house members there. I reached out to Congressman Schiff to explain that. But Kara it sounds like it indicates Nunes made changes taking out some of the more spurious allegations.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: That is the suggestion. But all of this is -- we're all in the dark on this. We don't know what was in the first memo. We don't know the controversial elements are. Now we don't know what has been removed. We don't know at this point which version of it the FBI got so upset about and felt compelled to put out the statement. I think it's -- we're still having to wait and see what happens. And like Sara said this is inflaming the politics around this even more.

SCIUTTO: And Ron and Michael there are enormous politics here. Let's get at what is truly remarkable. Because this pits the FBI against the President and a reminder to folks at home this is a FBI run by Christopher Wray he is chosen by President Trump after firing James Comey. It's ran by a Republican and Trump administration appointee. How unusual is it for a Federal Bureau of Investigation Director to publicly defy the President and say, you know -- because clearly the FBI is going after that not just they think it's unusual, you are revealing stuff people shouldn't know. They are saying it's fundamentally misleading.

[23:05:05] RYAN LIZZA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Institutionally at war with their own President. At first this was mostly Republicans in congress going after them. The FBI leadership thought they would get back up from the White House. That never appeared. They took this extraordinary step of putting out a public statement FBI Director disagreeing with his own President and obviously disagreeing with lots of Republicans in congress. And in latest development with Schiff pointing out the differences in the memo to me speak to the ham handed process by which the memo, the saga off of memo apparently a version has been bouncing around since January 18th. The Democrats and Republicans on the intelligence committee all saw and agreed that was the memo they were voting on. What Schiff says tonight is this vote was not correct, because we voted on a document that is not actually now been sent over to the White House. Now we don't know if the differences between the two memos are substantive or not. But he suggests in in letter that they are. And I guess the ball is in the White House court to say wait a second send us the right memo before we decide whether to release this or not. And Schiff is trying as Sara pointed out is trying to stop and delay and maybe get another vote on this.

SCIUTTO: Let's be fair here though Michael Bender, it seems that the motivations here of a Nunes and other house Republicans are very similar or perhaps identical to the White House. This is part of a broader effort we've seen unfold over many months to undermine the credibility of the FBI and the Russia investigation.

MICHAEL BENDER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That is right. For one there is the tension between the legislative and the executive branch is always there. If you sort of consider the FBI the as the executive branch here. They're taking the position they did everything with the FISA warrants right. Nunes and Republicans are raising questions about that. And really the tensions between an FBI and a President aren't all that unusual. What's unusual here is sort of the frequency that Trump has inserted himself in this and the -- the public battle that this has become here, right.

SCIUTTO: Right.

BENDER: And I can tell you inside the White House they are furious right now with the FBI and with the Department of Justice. They see the leaks over the last few days as coming directly from them, which is you know something to sort of for the White House to identify other people as leakers is quite a moment here. But the Monday meeting where Wray and Rosenstein came over to the White House, made a private plea, there was only a few White House officials in that meeting, Don McGahn was one of them White House counsel. John Kelly was chief of staff, and to have the meeting leak out a day later has infuriated the White House and now we're at the point where the FBI is putting out public unsigned statements urging the White House to take a specific action.

SCIUTTO: Right. To be fair, there is not only one building in Washington that is leaking on this story for sure.

BENDER: Absolutely.

SCIUTTO: There are a lot of axes to grind. We do of course have the other headline coming from "The New York Times" and I have one the reporters who broke this news from "The New York Times" just a reminder to the viewers, "The New York Times" reporting tonight and in the discussions about this famous Trump tower meeting in 2016 during the campaign that Hope Hicks, communications adviser to the President at the time made a comment that Don Trump Jr.'s emails would never come out. Mark, you reported this story and tell us the significance of this.

MARK MAZZETTI, NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER: I think it's significant when Corallo goes and testifies to Mueller this is a conversation he had with Hope Hicks. This is how he interpreted her statement. He believes she was perhaps trying to bury some of the e-mails or ensure they didn't come out. This would be maybe his word against hers. This is a senior member of the legal team who is going to testify to the Mueller investigation that he was concerned about how in whole 24 hours went down. This is the day after the statement had been put out, the misleading statement aboard air force one describing the Trump tower meeting in a certain way. He know that the meeting happened in a very different manner.

SCIUTTO: No question. As you refer to, there, the initial statement from the White House said that in Trump tower meeting was just about Russian -- or rather U.S. adoptions of Russian children when I believe it was "The New York Times" that broke the news within 24 hours there were email that showed in fact Donald Trump Jr. with went to the meeting expecting to get damaging information from the Russians. Hope Hicks has a statement out tonight responding to the New York Times story. It goes like this, as most reporters know it's not practice to comment in response from questions from the media. She never said that and the idea that Hope Hicks ever suggested that emails or other documents would be concealed or destroyed is completely false.

[23:10:03] Mark, according to your report one of the things that troubles Corallo who as you said was a legal spokesman was that this conversation took place without the presence of a lawyer and so no attorney client privilege. But also I understand that he was concerned that there was possible obstruction of justice going on here.

MAZZETTI: And, yes, the question has to be raised. I mean, how would you actually obstruct justice in this case? I mean, the e-mails as we reported in the story had already been in the hands of several different attorneys, the different clients involved in this case. They were spread around far enough that it wouldn't have certainly been easy for Hope Hicks to get rid of them. So it's going to have to, you know, fall on Mark Corallo to explain what his concerns were, how he interpreted her statement. And what else he knew about that whole period of time, you know, that 24 hours when they were first approached about this meeting. You know, who said what ten and when. So, you know he will have to explain what specifically his concerns were to Mueller.

HANNITY: Mark of "The New York Times" thanks for taking time with us tonight.

MAZZETTI: All right. Thanks a lot.

SCIUTTO: I want to go to my panel. I mean this centers attention again on the Trump tower meeting in March 2016. Rather June of 2016. There were already questions about this meeting, because the President was involved, it's believed, in drafting that initial misleading statement. So you have that. And then you have the President's close adviser Hope Hicks throughout and now still in the White House apparently saying according to Mark Corallo that the emails won't get out there. If it doesn't meet a legal standard of obstruction of justice it certainly doesn't look good.

SCANNELL: No, I mean it -- it's perhaps bringing Hope back in for additional questioning depending on the types offences she gave the team when she was in there two days a couple months ago. It's going to be something that they're going to have to see what the documents made contemporaneously also show.

SCIUTTO: Mark Corallo is unique in this ceremony right, he was on the inside serving the Trump campaign. He was present for many conversations and he at the time made a judgment that this doesn't seem right. He is not necessarily a trial lawyer here. But he made a judgment that looks like this was an attempt to obstruct justice. Certainly a valuable witness to the special counsel.

MURRAY: Right and I think part of what was going on at that time was they were kind of beginning to realize in the White House that they needed some other apparatus to deal with in constant daily (inaudible) of Russia questions we brought in the Mark Corallo to be the legal spokesperson what you saw time and again particularly in this moment on the plane was that the President and his aides, family members, continue to sort of insert themselves when there was a story about Russia that needed to be responded to. So instead of leaving it to lawyers, instead of leaving it to the legal spokesman, the President would insert himself. The people around him that he trusted for decades in business and certainly during the campaign would insert them. And that is sort of what added to messes like this one.

SCIUTTO: Yes. If you're having trouble keeping track at home there is more news font in this regard process Peter Strzok an FBI official involved in the Clinton email investigation who was then removed. We have learned new texts- involvement in this investigation going back what did we learn today?

SCANNELL: CNN obtained emails that the FBI Peter Strzok was one of the co-authors of the letter that then FBI Director James Comey sent to congress saying they were reopening the Clinton investigation. This was on October 27th. Just days before the election.

SCIUTTO: From the Clinton campaign perspective that was extremely damaging to them when the news that that investigation had been reopened came to close to Election Day.

SCANNELL: And our sources tell us that Peter Strzok was in favor of reopening it. And of course now he is on the other end of the criticism that he -- when he was working on the Mueller campaign that he had exchanged text messages with Lisa Page who he was having an affair and he was viewed as critical of Trump. That became a real baton for the Republicans to say that the Mueller investigation was bias.

SCIUTTO: To this point he has been a poster child for bias, alleged bias within the FBI. But we are learning now that he not only penned the letter but was involved in the decision to get the renewal of the Clinton email investigation going days before the election.

SCANNELL: This was the emails found on Anthony Wiener's laptop. Were these new emails or not? Ultimately the FBI determined they were not new information.

SCIUTTO: Okay quick top before we go.

LIZZA: Big competition for what the biggest story. To me this is the biggest story of the day. This person is probably more responsible for electing Donald Trump than anyone in America.

[23:15:00] If you look at the polls most of the analysis of that election that reopening of the investigation was the gift from heaven for Donald Trump. It changed the entire campaign. It is probably what made him President in the final stretch.

SCIUTTO: Changed the story but he had other strengths going in.

LIZZA: In terms of the final stretch of the campaign this was a monumental development. This guy now becomes this allegedly pro Clinton person who highlighted for Donald Trump to being the guy who set in motion a series of events that were very, very beneficial to Trump.

SCIUTTO: Michael quick final thought before with he go.

BENDER: I think that is right. We're reporting at the "Wall Street Journal" that the deputy Director McCabe was actually the one who sat on the emails for the better part of a month and which raises the questions what his motivations were and if they were to help Hillary Clinton, you know, to your point, it didn't go so well.

LIZZA: It looks more like these were professionals making decisions on the merits rather than the political actors.

SCIUTTO: Or sometimes making mistakes but not for political accommodations. All right. Thanks very much with the help. When we come back much more on the breaking news. "The New York Times" reporting tonight Robert Mueller zeroing in on the cover story for Donald Trump Jr.'s infamous Trump tower meeting with Russians, bringing up question base Hope Hicks, obstruction of justice. I'm asking the White House counsel for President Bill Clinton to weigh in. He will join me here just after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back, our breaking news tonight, Robert Mueller team zeroing in on the cover story for Donald Trump Jr.'s infamous Trump tower meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton. A former spokesman for the Trump legal team reportedly planning to tell Mueller that Hope Hicks said Donald Trump Jr.'s emails about getting that dirt on Clinton would quote never get out. That according to the "New York Times" tonight. It raises serious concerns of possible obstruction of justice.

Hicks, I should say, denies saying the emails would never get out through her lawyer. Also tonight, sources telling CNN exclusively that President Trump asked the top Justice Department official in the Russia investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein whether he was in the President's words, on my team. Echoing the President's attempt to get a loyalty pledge out of then FBI Director James Comey.

The Rosenstein exchange coming after the deputy Attorney General went to the White House in December to ask for the President's support in fighting off document demands from House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, joining me now is Jack Quinn, White House counsel for President Bill Clinton. Jack thanks for joining us tonight.

[23:20:04] JACK QUINN, CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT AL-GORE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Sure glad to be here.

SCIUTTO: Let's start if we can on "The New York Times" story. We're coming back to this Trump tower meeting. Already controversial, because there was an initial misleading statement put out with the President's involvement about what this was about. We know it was about in part getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. Now we learn from Mark Corallo on the inside that he is testifying to Mueller that he is saying in fact Trump's right hand woman, Hope Hicks indicated to him that, well, maybe there is a way the emails explaining what the meaning was really about, they're never getting out. You're lawyer. You hear something like that. Is that concerning?

QUINN: Yeah, I mean, it could be concerning. But you really have to have it in context. You know, it is part of what might be a pattern that is very concerning. But in and of itself I don't think it would be fair to say that, you know, this is a smoking gun.

SCIUTTO: Um-hum. Pattern. You mentioned, because that story.

QUINN: Yes.

SCIUTTO: That story is not in isolation. Because we have a series of things even in the last 24 hours, a series of stories that at least add to the pattern. I'm curious, the CNN story we broke my colleagues broke earlier today, when Rod Rosenstein met with the President. He issued one of these what sound like, are you on my side questions, or are you on my team. Not illegal for the President to ask that. But fitting into the larger picture is that worrisome for a legal stand point?

QUINN: There is a litany of things you could ask me about each and every one. Whether asking the intelligence officials to intervene with the Department of Justice, a host of efforts that were clearly made to -- that indicated some concern on the part of the President about the investigation. In and of themselves, taken one at a time, they don't indicate the criminal intent. But that -- that is going to be the key question, ok.

To obstruct justice, to demonstrate a corruption of justice requires a showing of corrupt intent. All right. Now, how do we know if someone has corrupt intent no we can't read minds? We figure that out by a pattern of behavior. We look at all of the factual circumstances involved. And reasonable people draw the inferences drawn by it. At the end of the day someone is going to have to look at all of these concerning things and see if they fit into some kind of pattern.

On the other hand, you know, no doubt, President's lawyers will be offering explanations that make each and every one of those -- that is slice the loaf of bread and say each one has an innocent explanation. Bob Mueller is going to have to make a decision at the end of the day whether those are innocent slices of bread or a reflection of a corrupt intent. SCIUTTO: We know that Bob Mueller is investigating this based on the

people he is calling in for interviews and based on what he is telling them in those interviews what he is interested in. Trump tower meeting exhibit A, but other things we have heard from other witnesses. The President of course is a key with witness in all of this. We heard earlier this week from the President's lawyers telling CNN that well, Mueller hasn't made the case to require the President to sit down. What is actually the law? Does the law require -- if a special prosecutor says, I'd like to speak to you, Mr. President, does he have to show up?

QUINN: There is absolutely no question, no argument about this.

SCIUTTO: Meaning question he has to show up.

QUINN: Yes. The Supreme Court decided in the case against Richard Nixon that he could not use executive privilege as a shield. No one is above the law. Courts are entitled to every person's evidence. That is the law of the land. Now, so he could be subpoenaed to provide evidence. There is no doubt that in deference to the office he holds they would have to work out accommodations so that his providing that evidence is at a time and place and of a duration that, you know, accommodates the duties he has as President of the United States. But, yes, he can be subpoenaed. And he will have to provide the evidence that is required by that subpoena.

SCIUTTO: You've been a White House counsel. You were there during the Lewinsky investigation, although you left before the President himself testified. But while Hillary was testifying. You hear it from public comments, from a lot of the President as its allies saying he would be nuts to testify. The President might get into a perjury trap unbeknownst to himself. Let's say you were President Trump's lawyer, what would you recommend to him about an interview.

QUINN: First of all, this perjury trap phrase is thrown around a lot. A perjury trap is when prosecutors themselves kind of corruptly use.

SCIUTTO: Right.

QUINN: To lure somebody in.

SCIUTTO: What I should have said.

QUINN: For the purpose of trying to get them to commit perjury.

[23:25:00] SCIUTTO: I should have said there is a danger of committing perjury. The President has been known to be loose with the facts. If you were the President's lawyer what would you recommend to him on the interview with the special counsel?

QUINN: I don't think the President is going to be able to resist providing the evidence he -- that is asked of him. All right. Now, do I think they may be able to work out -- again, accommodations by which he can provide the evidence in a way that is acceptable? Yes. But if they can't work that out it is not for the President's lawyers to say that the prosecutors haven't demonstrated with sufficient particularity the need for the evidence. That is not up to them. People who wear black robes in court are the ones who make that decision.

SCIUTTO: Jack Quinn thanks for clearing it up.

QUINN: Sure.

SCIUTTO: Appreciate it. When we come back multiple developments tonight upending the Russia story. Our legal experts on the repercussions, just right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We've got a lot of breaking news tonight. Huge developments in the Russia investigation. I want to bring in now CNN legal analyst. Michael Zeldin. Robert Mueller's former special assistant at the Justice Department, also legal analyst Laura Coates and legal commentator Ken Cuccinelli. Ken, if I could begin with you, because you have this charge now from the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee that this now famous memo, about FISA abuses change somehow from what they voted in committee to the one going to the White House for review right now. It's interesting I just heard from someone on the staff of Congressman Schiff to understand what changes they were talking about. Because it wasn't clear from the letter. But they tell me.

KEN CUCCINELLI, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Right.

SCIUTTO: That this -- it appears that the majority, in the words of in aide, trying to water down some of its own assertions here. From your perspective, does -- is this fishy to you? Is it confusing? If they thought there was wrongdoing why do they backtrack before they send it to the White House.

CUCCINELLI: Certainly, yeah -- of course, we're operating without the memo. It would be nice to have it in front of us. If what they're talking about is redactions. That can become a compromise between the house and the White House in terms of what's included in the memo. That is within the process that they're utilizing now. If the substance of the memo changed, then as a technical matter, under the house rules, they'd probably have to vote again. So -- and then the White House gets five more days. So it does depend on that. I think the Republicans want to at least comply with the process. And you know, so this is -- this is a touchy one for them if the memo has substantially changed. And that can be shown -- and obviously easy you have two versions -- other than redactions then they probably have to go through the voting process again.

SCIUTTO: Michael Zeldin, the other dynamic here beyond the politics, the intense partisan politics inside the committee and between the White House and the Democrats on the committee, it's really inside this administration, right, because you have an FBI run by a Republican appointee and Christopher Wray taking a very rare step today of publicly defying the President and saying, not only is this damaging, but releasing the memo is fundamentally misleading. What's happening here from your perspective? And how unusual is that to have an FBI pitted against the President.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think what's happening here taking a step back, is that the President and his surrogates which I consider Devin Nunes one of at this point -- and I don't want to make a political point about it. But they are working together. This is the second time they're working together. They worked together on a previous document review. Went to the White House.

SCIUTTO: Charges of unmasking irregularities.

ZELDIN: All of that including before going back to committee. Now it looks like they're doing that again. So that is inappropriate behavior. Chris Wray is sitting there watching this. And they're getting Wray to release a memo which he says is fundamentally misleading which cannot be redacted by Wray, because it omits things. You can't redact something which is not there. And so he finds himself.

SCIUTTO: Remember the reason it goes to the White House.

ZELDIN: Excuse me a second, Ken. No I understand.

SCIUTTO: We will come back. But if you could finish your point.

ZELDIN: So he finds himself in this untenable position of having to protect the national interests, the national security interests of the United States against the release of a memo which he feels is compromising our national security, bad for the FISA process, bad reflection on the FISA court. Perhaps will interfere with allies giving us intelligence for fear it goes through this process, and a President who is hell bent on releasing something, because it appears to be beneficial to his political interests.

SCIUTTO: Undermining an agency currently investigating his administration.

ZELDIN: That is right.

SCIUTTO: Laura if I could go with you. There are a couple issue with the memo one is the release being unusual. But as the central charge from the FBI, which is involved in the memo, involved in this process, saying that it is just fundamentally misleading. It's fundamentally inaccurate here.

LAURA COATES, CNN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ANALYST: That is a huge problem. I mean if the goal here is for the American public in the court of public opinion which is the goal here to get in message out and allow the people to decide for themselves about what they've read, then wouldn't you want them to have every single piece of the puzzle in front of them? Wouldn't you want, even if there are competing interpretations let alone the actual substance of the evidence by which the memo was drafted? Because if you don't have any of those things, if you are missing things about the process to secure the FISA warrant. If you are missing whether or not the dossier was the main and only and perhaps exclusive based on which to file the application which it couldn't have been process it couldn't have been. [23:35:00] It would have been a full investigation which would have

required them to have greater steps and probably lengthier investigation into the dossier. If you leave out those things what have you given the American public besides a note to sell in you interpretation what you hope the truth will be. That is not the justice or the truth. And it misleads the FBI and also the American people.

ZELDIN: Once again it's bad process. Because exactly to your point, if there is a suspicion that there is irregularities in the FISA application process and misleading of the FISA court that is what the Department of Justice and the inspector generals of those departments are there to do.

SCIUTTO: It's a legitimate question.

ZELDIN: Come on come on.

SCIUTTO: There is abuse of FISA Ken. I suppose that is a legitimate question. I wonder on the memo here I wonder.

CUCCINELLI: Jim can we touch on that.

SCIUTTO: Sure.

CUCCINELLI: Can we touch on that.

SCIUTTO: Sure I mean do you think.

CUCCINELLI: It is.

SCIUTTO: It is a legitimate question is this the way to adjudicate the legitimate questions.

CUCCINELLI: Look, I've litigated in the FISA court, sued over their surveillance. To take another step back from Michael's, and address that question, Jim, that is an excellent question. And my answer would be the Democrats have their own memo that presumably has other information in it to Laura's point. I hope they both come out. And the reason is because I understand the abuses that do take place under this veil of secrecy.

SCIUTTO: Sure.

CUCCINELLI: And the national security institution, including the FBI but not alone, is always going to defend it. And the American people need to understand the abuses that happen. They need to understand how the intelligence community was used in a political campaign. They need to understand the unmasking. And we need to never let it happen again whether it's a Democrat President or Republican President. And it's amazing how many people were so reserved on these things on protecting civil liberties are throwing them to the wind to just take shots at Donald Trump.

SCIUTTO: You make a good point.

CUCCINELLI: How about doing things that rein in the power.

SCIUTTO: The FISA court may have approved thousands of applications on a rejected a dozen over the course of a couple years it's a pretty good batting average for folks who come for those applications. Let me ask you this. If transparency is the goal here and if what Republicans Nunes included want to spark here is a legitimate conversation about the potential for abuse, why not then allow the Democrats to release their version of events here as well.

CUCCINELLI: I think that -- I think I just -- I think I just said, Jim that I think that would be appropriate. You know, and then let transparency and sunlight play its role. I don't agree with Laura. I assume she was using hyperbole to say release everything. Surely we're not serious about that. But I do think particularly as it relates to how the decisions were made -- look this is Monday morning quarterbacking. That is what you do in a democracies for accountability. Were the decisions made by law enforcement and national security personnel during an election appropriate? And if they weren't, then what safe guards, legal safe guards do we want to put in place? I would remind you that the person who wrote the surveillance elements of the patriot act Sensen Brenner in the house was shocked to learn that the national security community was sweeping up everyone's cell phone metadata. Literally everything about every phone call you were making except what you said back and forth, how long who you called, et cetera. He was shocked to learn that. That is the guy who wrote the law. And.

COATES: Ken if I can.

CUCCINELLI: The notion that there aren't abuses going on here is really beyond the pale. It's important not to lose.

SCIUTTO: Guys I'm sorry.

COATES: I have to address one point.

SCIUTTO: Well I'd like you to it's got to be quick it's a big conversation.

COATES: I understand the idea of hyperbole is what people are trying to prevent by having Nunes memo out without substantiation. The idea of transparency being the goal is, if that is the goal then you must release the appropriate side part. The idea here though is that you would release only part of it in a pre-textual reason to actually undermine an ongoing investigation for the sake of a particular person is not going to buy. It doesn't pass the smell test.

SCIUTTO: According to the DOJ without the underlying intelligence. Unfortunately we have to leave it there. I'm glad we started the conversation. It's not finished. When we come back intelligence agencies across the board expressing concern about releasing the Nunes memo. Agencies led by Trump appointees. Why is he going against his own appointee's advice on this? I am getting perspective from both a former CIA officer and a former FBI agent, just right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:43:18] SCIUTTO: The Nunes memo is part of a much broader, much

longer series of attacks by the President and some Republicans on the FBI. And the Russia investigation as a whole. Together, those attacks stretch back nearly a year, beginning with the firing of the FBI Director James Comey back in May 2017 and continuing to this day.

I want to bring in Evan McMullin, he is a former CIA officer and Stuart Kaplan he is a former FBI agent. Evan if I could begin you, you ran for President as a Republican. The charge you will hear from the President and others is, you know, Democratic bias inside the FBI. They have it in for me. In fact, this is an FBI run by a Republican appointee. The DOJ run by a Republican appointee. From your chair what is the motivation behind the attacks on the FBI.

EVAN MCMULLIN, 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: First of all I want to say it's quite disingenuous for a President who goes around asking senior law enforcement leader for pledges of loyalty and who they voted for or are they on his team. To then accuse people who are trying to maintain independence of bias. Right. It's the irony there. But why is he doing that? He is trying to create a dynamic by which there is in honor, no one is actually doing their duty. No one is following any regulations. It's just people are doing what they're doing for their bias, for their political leanings only. There is no honor, there are no rules, no up or down. He wants us to believe that everyone is like that. And that excuses a whole range of behavior that he takes too. But it's a very destructive thing that is start to infect our political culture in Washington and the country.

[23:45:08] SCIUTTO: You were in the FBI, I wonder how rare it is, unusual it is for you to hear and a FBI Director come out and say so publicly defy a President on something like this, on an ongoing investigation.

STUART KAPLAN, FORMER FBI AGENT: Well, let me put it this way, the early departure of Andi McKay just the other day three months short of eligibility to retire is evidence that there is some major problems at the top. This Director, Director Wray, is very eager to renew the trust and the confidence that has been eroded in the FBI. When you talk about an intelligence memo, it talks about techniques. It talks about the methodology. It talks about sources. It's very different than in a criminal investigation. And I think that this Director is very concerned that if this memo is released that the public is going to have a very difficult time embracing some of the things that have never been disclosed before in the public eye. Such as when you go back to the disclosure of water boarding on the battlefield. We as the general public were not prepared to embrace those type of techniques. I think he has the same concerns now. He is trying to renew the trust and the confidence. And this memo may just further erode that trust.

SCIUTTO: Stewart Kaplan, should the President give that risk more weight than protecting himself from political damage from an ongoing investigation?

KAPLAN: Well, I'd like to believe that the President of the United States would first and foremost protect the FBI and the men and women who each and every day put their lives on the line, and not only in the FBI but also the CIA, all of the intelligence agencies throughout the world. I mean, there are men and women that are standing fast right now to protect us, so that we can enjoy our freedoms here. I would like to believe that this President would never risk that at the expense of trying to satisfy whatever political agenda he has. I mean, this memo potentially could put lives at stake.

SCIUTTO: Evan, these are -- you served in the CIA that also has agents in the field that are risking their lives to defend the nation.

MCMULLIN: Yes. That is right. And that is why when you disclose classified information as well as on the lives and the assets to do that collection and right now we have this process happening over the House Intel Committee, run by the Republicans there, that seems to disregard all of that. And seems to have a political -- a very strong political agenda. I would say it is part of the President's in my view apparent effort to obstruct justice. And they're doing it without any regard for very serious national security risks.

SCIUTTO: Evan McMullin, Stuart Kaplan thanks very much. When we come back a ton of breaking news on the Russia investigation tonight. That is just the past few hours in fact. How did the President who campaigned as a friend of law enforcement end up in such a contentious fight with many of the most senior officials.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:51:08] SCIUTTO: Breaking news on a number of fronts in the Russian investigation. All of these stories could have been huge and a story on their own today. Joining me now is our CNN commentator David Swerdlick, Julia Ioffe staff writer at the Atlantic and political commentator, Matt Lewis. In the maelstrom (inaudible) many related to the Russian investigation. CNN reporting that the President reported that as the Deputy General Rod Rosenstein, was he on his team. That would seem to echoes, if not the exact phrase, but at least the spirit of the request made to James Comey, are you loyal, and is that acceptable for a president to ask to a senior law enforcement official?

MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. It is not just James Comey and it is McCabe and did you vote for me. There is a long pattern of Donald Trump doing this. I don't know if it rises to the standard of obstruction of justice in a legal sense. But if you are involved in some sort of an impeachment which is a political decision, this will not look good.

SCIUTTO: No question. We know at the minimum, David Swerdlick this is a line of in inquiries at a minimum for Special Counsel base on the witness that he is calling in and the subjects that he is focusing on in this witness interview in terms of the Trump tower meeting.

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I keep on going back to Jim of the May 9th letter, the letter in which the president fired James Comey. I asked you three times if I am under investigation and that did not satisfied me essentially. There are things that is still unknown of collusion or whatever or crimes maybe at some future point by special prosecutors. To Matt's point, we have pattern of behaviors by the President trying to take people to take sides.

SCIUTTO: Julia, lets count back 13 stories ago, you know which is, 24 hours.

JULIA IOFFE, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Oh, I thought it was five hours.

SCIUTTO: It was major news a few days ago, the White House did not impose sanctions on Russia as required by legislation passed virtually unanimously by both houses of congress. What happens and how significant?

IOFFE: So January 9th was not the day that the Trump administrations to impose sanctions. That was the day they were supposed to release a so-called kremlin report. They were supposed to hand it over to congress and detail basically the people that holds Putin's power up.

SCIUTTO: These are targets of sanctions.

IOFFE: Potential, right? And there were a lot of experts, people that really know their stuff and people have done sanctions in the U.S., career people that is been doing this years and years, putting the last together and last moment, treasury says never mind, we got this. They basically Xerox the Forbes Russian billionaires list. Just random, you know, everybody is on there so it is meaningless.

SCIUTTO: Right, Matt Lewis, this is a country that interfered in the election. Let us not debate or discuss what affected it had on the election. We know it happened and this happens on the same day that the CIA Director Mike Pompeo says that he expects Russia acts again in the election. How is Republicans letting this happen?

[23:55:00] LEWIS: It does not make sense. Maybe there is a signal that Donald Trump is some way compromised. Clearly Donald Trump likes authoritarians and strong men and maybe he just likes Putin. Donald Trump does not get it. He still sees Russia as an ally of this global world on terror. It is hard to justify this based on anything we have seen the last couple of years and let alone for centuries.

IOFFE: Mike Pompeo met with his Russian counterpart and the CIA. These guys have been coming through town for a long time. Now the situation is differently because of what they did. The fact that they are getting these top level meetings and everyone though if nothing is happening, sure does not smell good.

SCIUTTO: Tomorrow, the memos are coming out. Is this memo going to change the discussion on the investigation?

SWERDLICK: Jim, it is going to flood the zone, put a distraction into the water that appears the Republicans want into the water to at least have how people stop and think about and what the FBI's motives are. If you step back and the theory of the case and chairman Nunes or other Republicans on the hill that the FBI or Department of Justice somehow compromises this, step back and say none of this changes the fact that why did Jared Kushner met with Sergei and why did Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort meet with (inaudible). Why did General Flynn meet with Ambassador Kislyak?

IOFFE: Why did the Russians attack the DNC? That has nothing to do with the FBI or Nunes or anything.

SCIUTTO: We will be following closely. Thanks to all of you, particularly for coming with late tonight. Thanks to all of you for watching. That is it for tonight, I am Jim Sciutto. We hope to see you again tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)