tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN March 30, 2017 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
good evening. thanks for joining us. we begin tonight with breaking news on the russian investigation. and it is potentially thermonuclear. the "wall street journal" is reporting that michael flynn, the national security adviser who lasted only 24 days on the job has offered to talk to the fbi and others. flynn was fired for phone conversations with the russian ambassador in washington. joining us is carol lee who is on the story byline. what have you learned that michael flynn has offered to the fbi and others?
>> well, we've learned that through his lawyer, he has had conversations to achieve some sort of immunity in exchange for his testimony. or for cooperation in terms of the fbi. those discussions our understanding have happened in recent days there is a statement now out from michael flynn's lawyer who is saying that he would agree to testify under certain circumstances, and that they have had these conversations. and his lawyers are saying that their concern is not so much that michael flynn has something to hide. they're saying he doesn't, or that he has something that he should be concerned about. but that in this political environment, he would not be treated fairly. so he is asking for he's asking for immunity from any prosecution to be able to give his testimony and cooperate and not have any consequences should something arise that could be criminally prosecuted. >> and i think, in your story, you cited the fbi as well as the house intelligence committee and the senate. the house intelligence committee
spokesman for chairman nunes has said that michael flynn has not asked for immunity. the lawyer's statement does talk about the house intelligence community and the senate. i just read it very quickly. it doesn't directly mention the fbi, is that correct? >> no, his statement -- i just took a quick look at it. it does not. but the fbi is obviously a natural place to go and fear trying to seek immunity or if you're going to be investigated. we know that the fbi had interviewed michael flynn a couple of months ago, when he first was under scrutiny or it was reported publicly that he was being -- his communications with russian ambassador were being investigated. and other potential communications between him and russian officials were being looked at. and he was, at that time, interviewed by the fbi and so, it would be -- it would make sense for him, obviously, to have that discussion with the fbi, because they're conducting an investigation. and then, obviously, the house and senate intelligence committees are, as well.
>> i guess the statement -- i mean, when i first read the statement from chairman nunes' spokesperson, saying that he had not asked for immunity before the house intelligence committee, it seemed at odds with your reporting, but also the lawyer's statement. but when you read the lawyer's statement closer, it basically -- it doesn't use the term "immunity." so -- and the lawyer does say that they have had talks with the house intelligence committee. so really it's kind of maybe a question of semantics. >> it's maybe a question of semantics, but if you look at the lawyer statement in our discussions with various sources, you know, he is seeking immunity. what he's asking for is to be able to cooperate and to deliver testimony in exchange for not being prosecuted in some way, because of something that he were to say or something that may arise in that. so, it's -- everyone's kind of parsing words here.
but certainly, his lawyer, as his lawyer says in the statement, has discussed this with the house committee. >> and do you have any details on what flynn has you ever aed to talk about? >> no. we don't know what he has offered to talk about. we don't know if it's, you know, specifically things that he did or experiences he had when he was on the trump campaign. we don't know if it's -- if it has to do with some of the that he himself did as a consultant. there's a number of things that michael flynn has done for foreign governments. we know he's done some work for the turkish government. we know he's been paid tens of thousands of dollars by russian companies and he has -- he was made a very, what got a lot of attention and appearance in 2015, for instance, for the russian media organization, where he sat at the table with vladimir putin. so we don't know exactly what he's offering to talk about or what they want him to talk about. >> do you know if the fbi or congressional officials from the
house or the senate have responded to flynn's offer of immunity? >> no, we have not -- our understanding is that there has not been any sort of deal as yet worked out. and that these discussions were ongoing and that they've been happening in different forms over the last couple of days. >> carol, it's obviously a stunning story. if you can, just stay with us. i want to bring in jeffrey toobin, and matthew rosenberg who has quite a story of his own run right now and gloria borgia and ryan lizza as well. from a legal standpoint, kind of explain how immunity works and what you make of this. >> it means he is refusing to testify without immunity on the grounds that it might incriminate him. and frankly, the idea that the national security adviser to the president of the united states
is taking the fifth is pretty big news in and of itself. what it means, though, he will not cooperate either with the fbi or the congressional investigations without getting immunity. here is where things potentially get complicated. they make those decisions simply. -- separately. oliver north got immunity from congress. didn't get immunity from the independent council where i was one of the prosecutors. so there is going to be a difficult investigation about whether they want to give imhim immunity. but it is usually a smart move. and certainly, flynn's lawyers are acting prudently by saying we want to get immunity. we have a great story to tell. we're going to tell it if we can. but you better give us immunity first. they're protecting his client.
we'll see what he has to say. i don't know. >> i want to read our viewers. part of flynn's lawyer's statement. general flynn certainly has a story to tell and he very much wants to tell it. no reasonable person with benefit of advice from council would admit to testifying without assurances against unfair prosecution. they're basically painting a picture of this as kind of -- they are saying it's a witch-hunt environment. it's a politicized environment. kind of indicating that the entire investigation is unfair, and that's why he needs immunity, not that he did anything wrong. >> right. and that the lawyer is trying to tantalize the committee and the fbi by saying, wow, if you give him immunity, you're going get this bombshell. now the way sober prosecutors work in circumstances like this is they have what is called a proffer session. or sometimes known queen for a day where the witness goes in under effective immunity and
said if you give me immunity, i will tell you the following. that is what should happen, i think. but it's got to be negotiated with both congress and the fbi. and it just shows why these investigations sometimes take a long time. because these negotiations are complicated. even before you get any testimony from the witness. >> so, jeff, just to your earlier point, this would be negotiated with all, with the fbi, the house and the senate all at once, or as with what happened with oliver north, could the senate grant him immunity to testify and not others? >> right. in part as a result of the north case, the congressional committees and the justice department try to coordinate their efforts. they don't have these conflicting situations much anymore. but as a strictly legal matter, they are separate decisions, but consultations between the two certainly should take place. a proffer session should take place involving all these parties. but it's a lot of moving parts.
it takes a while to negotiate. and then, only then we find out perhaps -- then presumably if he testifies in public, then we hear what he's got to say. >> you know, gloria, it's interesting about how the trump administration is going to handle this. i saw on twitter an old tweet from sean spicer back during the whole hillary clinton e-mail buildup where he was kind of gleefully saying, you know, grab the popcorn. a bunch of people have asked for immunity or been granted immunity around hillary clinton to set up the server. and even general flynn when talking about hillary clinton's e-mail people don't ask for immunity unless they have committed a crime. >> and don't forget, he was out there at the convention as the lock her up chant went and led a "lock her up" chant. so this is somebody who has been
very political. i think what's sort of stunning to me is this notion that this notion that something who is a national security adviser to the president of the united states, albeit for a very short time would be saying to congress and to the fbi i'm going to plead the fifth. i am not going to tell you what i know. it's -- it's -- it is kind of shocking. >> not only that this could happen, but it could happen within the first what, 60, 70 days of a new administration. >> ght, right. and then my next question is, and maybe jeffrey can answer this, i don't know, that when he teases out to authorities what he might offer, the question is whether what would they go for. you know, do they want him to give up a bigger fish? do they want him to give up -- i don't know why it would be of such interest to them if nobody in the transition had been actually communicating with our
dealing with the russians during the election. and would they all do this session together or simply? >> let me follow this. jeff, would conversations between general flynn and the president or then president-elect, would those be something he could discuss? or would there be presidential privilege? >> things start to get very complicated. i mean certainly nothing that donald trump said with between him and flynn before january 20th would be off limits at all there is no such thing as executive privilege for candidates. after january 20th, that possibility would certainly exist. particularly during the clinton investigation, the kenneth starr investigation. there was extensive lengthy litigation about what conversations are covered by executive privilege and what are not. and the answer is it's complicated. and it's not easy to say.
but certainly nothing prior to january 20th of this year could conceivably be covered by executive privilege. >> carol do, you have any sense of why the house intelligence committee, why charms nunirman would come out and say now general flynn didn't ask for immunity before his committee? >> no, except that maybe they're parsing words here. we do know that they have clearly been having conversations about him getting some sort of immunity. so i'm not really clear why. the only other thing i would say just in terms of bringing it back to the white house, what gloria was talking about, which is a really important point. this is the former national security adviser to the president. and when you -- when i talked to white house officials earlier today about this, you know, they're at least outward posture is well, we don't care. it's fine if he gets immunity. we have nothing to hide. and he can say what he wants. but certainly would be a very
uncomfortable place for this white house to be in if this were to go forward. >> ryan lizza? what do you make of this? >> well, the question of course is one, the tantalizing thing that jeff was talking about, the story he has to tell here is that who is that a shot at? who is he saying, oh, you have something to worry about with the story. is he talking about people in the current white house? is he talking about people from the trump campaign? remember, this is a guy who up until recently was the top foreign policy adviser to trump, not just for the entire campaign and the white house. and he was fired, right, and was not very happy about the way that he was treated by the white house at the end there. so one question would be what does he know about other white house officials or even the president himself. and then the second thing is we don't -- and correct me if i'm wrong, carol, from your piece, we don't really know the area around which the fbi is looking
at flynn. is it related to the conversations with kislyak and the possible logan violations? does it have to do with the fbi investigation of potential collusion during the campaign? and depending on what the fbi is looking at, it's not just flynn that has some serious potential exposure here. and the other thing is this is the first time someone has asked for immunity, right? a lot of the other names that have come up in this investigation seem to have gone to the committees and say look, i'll come in and talk, right? roger stone, manafort, kushner. so this seems like a separate category some of the things he has much more exposure than the other names that have come up so far. >> if i could just interject in terms to answer a question, we do know that they were -- the investigators were looking at his contacts not only with the russian ambassador in december, but earlier contacts. and we're not quite sure exactly how far they go back. but we wrote right after the
inauguration that those contacts and contacts going back through the campaign were also being looked at by investigators. >> sorry. >> sorry. go ahead. >> go ahead. >> matthew, go ahead. >> sorry. i was going to jump in and say we've spoken to people on the senate side in the last hour. and they told us that, yes, the conversations have been ongoing in recent days. but the senate is not interested at the moment. they may at some point be willing to grant immunity. but right now they were not interested in the offer. >> and matthew, put this in perspective if you can. today we have your reporting that chairman nunes' two sources were in the white house, which we're going get more into later. we have the deputy chief of staff leaving the white house. and now michael flynn saying he'll testify for immunity. >> i mean, and we're like three months into the thing around. already. it's pretty amazing. i think we've seen a number of
situations where the line between political and, say, policy and national security policy is very blurry in this white house. and there is real danger there. because you do things with intelligence, with foreign relations in pursuit of political goals, purely political goals that very quickly take you to treacherous territory when you're trying to run a government. >> we have to take a quick break. a lot more to talk about on the flynn story and more. take a break and we'll have more in just a couple of minutes. we'll be right back. hey! you know, progressive
took the kids to soccer practice. you want me to jump that cactus? all right. aah! that lady's awesome. i don't see a possum! fixodent plus adhesives. there's a denture adhesive that holds strong until evening. just one application gives you superior hold even at the end of the day fixodent. strong more like natural teeth.
we're back talking about the breaking news. they're reporting in "the wall street journal" michael flynn is offering to talk, presumably about russia in exchange for immunity. before i bring you back to the panel, i want to play a clip of something general flynn himself said on "meet the press" back in september of last year. he was talking about hillary clinton and immunity. >> the very last thing that john podesta just said no individual too big to jail. that should include people like hillary clinton. five people around her have been given immunity to include her former chief of staff. when you are given immunity, that means that you probably committed a crime. >> well, that was then. back with the panel. also joining us is cnn legal analyst paul callan. before -- i just want to go back to carol for a second.
just to viewers who are just kind of tuning in, if you can just explain what it is you know at this point. because the house intelligence committee, chairman nunes has said he hasn't asked for immunity. but his lawyers have put out a statement that very clearly indicates that's what he wants. and discussions have gone on. >> right. that's our understanding. we have spoke with a number of people who have said that general flynn through his lawyer has spoken with the house and senate intelligence committees about immunity as well as the fbi. his lawyer's statement clearly says that they have had discussion discussions they are clearly trying to frame this as him not wanting immunity because he has done anything wrong, but wanting immunity because of the political environment in which this investigation is taking place. so that's not what their argument is there. we know that. and we know that we don't know exactly what general flynn is
offering to testify or to cooperate with. his lawyer in statements said he has a story to tell if they're willing to cut a deal with him. we also know that no one has cut a deal with him yet. that these conversations are ongoing. they've been going on for the last couple of day, and they're continuing. >> jeff, based on your experience with this sort of thing, how did these discussions go? you talk about sort of he gets kind of immunity for a day in which he can tell what he would say, and then they can judge whether or not they're going to offer him immunity. these discussion since they're happening with the fbi reporting according to the house and the senate, do they happen if a room together? is this on a conference call? do they all have to be together? >> no, it's almost always face-to-face. because one of the things that a prosecutor or an investigator is trying to decide in whether to grant immunity is whether someone is telling the truth. that's the most important thing. you're certainly not going give immunity to someone you think is
lying to you. this is a face-to-face encounter. i think it's interesting while the senate, in carol's story, the senate committee said we're not prepared to deal with this now because that makes sense because you want to do background investigation first. you want to look at the documents. you want to read the e-mails. you want the see if there are national security intercepts so that you can test whether michael flynn is going to tell you the truth. you want to have background information to be able to test against what he says. and only then will you decide whether to grant him immunity. yet another sign of why these investigations take so long. we're not talking weeks. we're talking months here. it's just as a political matter it gives you some idea for how long this is going the plague the trump administration. >> just to conflict, just
because somebody does insist on immunity, it does not mean automatically they are guilty of something. his lawyers are setting this up, well, he's got a story to tell. but he needs protection because it's such a politicized environment. and, you know, this is a witch-hunt going on. that could very possibly be the explanation, that he is going to defend himself. he says he has done nothing wrong. but it's too politicize an environment for him to do anything without getting immunity. >> yeah, general flynn's statement was i think totally inaccurate. i represented a client two or three months ago who we asked for immunity. and i can assure you she wasn't guilty of any crime. that's just lawyers being careful. however, it's like asserting the fifth amendment. it certainly looks like you have something to hide. and also there is sort of a doctrine that the first witness through the door usually gets the best immunity deal. and from what we're hearing now, he seems to be the first person
who may be openly shopping an immunity deal. so that would suggest i think that in his case maybe there is something to hide. and of course we do know that he had dealings with the russians. and we also know that the thing that trips people up more than anything in these investigations is lying to the fbi or lying to federal investigators. we don't know all of the details of his prior statements with or to the fbi. and that may be something that the general is worried about and his lawyers are worried about. so we'll have to see the details as they develop. >> if i can just add one point about that is that immunity deals never give you immunity for lying to the fbi in the course of your immunized statements. >> right. >> so you still have to tell the truth once you get immunity. and that's why they don't want to give you immunity unless they are pretty sure that you're telling the truth, which means they have to do all this other
investigating first. >> and ryan, i want to read again the first line of the statement from general flynn's attorneys. general flynn certainly has a story to tell and he very much wants to tell it should the circumstances permit it. it's a very loaded sentence in terms of what could be coming. >> yeah, maybe that's just to tantalize the fbi into, you know, getting serious about an immunity deal. but if i were in the white house right now and i heard that, i would be thinking this is a guy we fired. this is a guy that a lot of white house aides said some pretty negative things about. i don't get the sense that he has much loyalty anymore to the trump administration. and so if the fbi's investigation is as broad as comey suggested last week, i would be a little bit worried if i were in the white house right now. because flynn knows everything.
>> anderson, when i hear a witness say through his lawyers i've got a story to tell, that's very, very aggressive by the defense attorneys and very suggestive that flynn's got something of substance to put on the table to trade for a deal. so that's an unusual statement to hear from a criminal defense attorney at this stage. >> paul, can i ask something? do you think it suggests, do you say it suggests well, there is someone else here who maybe did something worse and that's what i'm getting at? >> yes. i would say the only way you get an immunity deal is if you're trading somebody else for your scalp. and this certainly would suggest that he has information about possibly improper, possibly criminal activity. obviously we don't know who. but when i hear a statement like that, that's what i'm thinking as a criminal defense attorney. >> well, if i could just offer a little skepticism on that. it's very much in the defense
attorney's interest to try to tantalize the prosecutors, try to tantalize the committee. because he wants immunity. that's what he wants. >> but jeffrey, you say they would hear in advance in a private meeting what he would offer up. and that's when they would decide whether to offer immunity. theoretically about paul's point to giving up somebody else to get immunity, if all his story is i've been wronged in the public discussion of all this, i did absolutely nothing wrong, there is no there there, there is nobody else, there is nobody else i'm pointing a finger at, do you give immunity for something who is basically saying i've done everything fine? >> it depends on what the other evidence in the case shows. that's why you have to get the documents. that's why you have to get the other material. this is a case. again, the complexity of this case is so enormous. because it deals with national security information. information in possession of the
national security agency, which hates to divulge anything. so there is going to be a tremendous amount of negotiating between the nsa, between the -- with these committees. and it's only after the nsa has disclosed this material, if they do that, you can make an intelligent judgment about whether michael flynn is telling the truth and deserves immunity. >> gloria, the other thought is if you were michael flynn and you are giving information to these committees, including the house intelligence committee to chairman nunes essentially, you know, if i was doing that, i would be concerned that any of this stuff would leak out if i'm talking to the senate or the fbi or the house, or that it would get back to the white house in advance. >> right. well, of course you could because you're dealing with congress. i think right now that's not his main concern is getting immunity. and i was thinking about this.
the real precedent, and it's not exactly the same we have here, as jeffrey mentioned here earlier, the iran/contra committee. and oliver north. oliver north was given immunity by the congressional committees. but there was also an independent council. and the independent council separately convicted oliver north. but that conviction was overturned because he couldn't prove he was able to sustain this conviction without using the immunized testimony that was given in congress. >> gloria is telling the story of my life. i was part of the prosecution team. >> right. >> and it's because of that destroyed prosecution, all our years of work down the drain that there is this coordination now, at least in theory between the fbi and the congressional investigations about immunity. >> and the question is will there be coordinations.
you have jeff sessions who has recused himself from this. and that's probably a very good idea since he was a member of the transition. i know the president wasn't happy about that. but now, you know, the fbi has to decide what it's going to do. and will they work with the congress? and comey's got a counterintelligence investigation going on. very tough. >> one of the things to watch is what do nunes, schiff, bury, and warner say about this. especially nunes and schiff. so far nunes has mostly acted as a protector of the white house. and it will be interesting to see how he decides the issue of whether flynn should get immunity or not. >> right. >> i think that will tell you what he thinks about who he thinks this would damage. >> i want to turn to that story when we come back. everybody hold your places. carol lee, i know you got to go. great reporting. thank you so much for joining us tonight with your story from "the wall street journal." coming up next, we'll go to the white house and capitol hill for reaction and take a look at the
timeline of general flynn's ouster from the white house, and all the new reporting that matthew and others have done about chairman nunes and what we now know about where he got his so-called intelligence from. we'll be right back. i know, we need to talk about this. it's time. it is a big decision for us... let's take the $1000 in cash back. great! yeah, i want to get one of those gaming chairs with the speakers. oh, you do? that's a surprise... the volkswagen 3 and easy event, where you can choose one of three easy ways to get a $1000 offer. hurry in to your volkswagen dealer now and you can get $1000 as an apr bonus, a lease bonus, or cash back. what bad back?gels work so fast you'll ask what pulled hammy? advil liqui - gels make pain a distant memory nothing works faster stronger or longer what pain? advil.
if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores.
liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. could save money on car insurance.nce you know, the kind of driver who always buckles up... comes to a complete stop... and looks both ways, no matter what. because esurance believes that's the kind of driver who deserves to save money on car insurance. in fact, safe drivers who switch from geico to esurance could save hundreds. so if you switch to esurance, saving is a pretty safe bet. auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.
michael flynn left the spotlight weeks ago when he was forced out after just 24 days as national security adviser. he left under a cloud for lying about his contact with russia's ambassador to washington. tonight we're following breaking news that flynn has offered to testify in exchange for immunity. more now on the timeline leading up to his ouster from the white house. wolf blitzer tonight reports. >> reporter: december 25th, flynn texts russian ambassador sergey kislyak. i want to wish you a merry christmas and happy new year. i look forward to touching base with you and working with you, and i wish you all the best. the ambassador texted back, merry christmas. december 28th, the russian ambassador texted flynn. i'd like to give you a call. may i? december 29th, flynn and kislyak connected by phone. the same day the obama white house ordered extra sanctions on
russia and order 35 russian diplomats to leave the u.s. immediately. the call was first reported on the morning of january 13th. trump's team confirmed the call that same day, but denied any discussion of the sanctions. >> the call centered around the logistics of setting up a call with the president of russia and the president-elect after he was sworn in. and they exchanged logistical information on how to initiate and schedule that call. that was it, plain and simple. >> reporter: two days later, on january 15th, vice president pence defended flynn and the call in an interview with cbs. >> they did not discuss anything having to do with the united states' decision to expel diplomats or impose a censure sens russia. >> reporter: the controversy waned until february 9th when "the washington post" reported that flynn did indeed discuss sanctions with kislyak. flynn, who previously denied the accusations, changed his tune.
his spokesman telling "the washington post" that flynn, quote, indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up. then on february 13th, cnn and others reported that the justice department warned the trump administration in january that flynn misled administration officials and was potentially vulnerable to blackmail by the russians. >> according to two officials that we spoke to who have been briefed on this, it was as they described it, a main topic of the discussion. it wasn't some thing that kislyak maybe threw out at the end or anything like that. >> reporter: shortly after the report emerged, flynn submitted a letter of resignation saying, quote, because of the fast pace of events, i inadvertently briefed the vice president and overs with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the russian ambassador. >> all right. so a lot to discuss with the panel. and jack kingston joins us.
jen psaki, former white house communications director for president obama. congressman kingston, is this bad news for the trump administration? >> i don't think it's bad news. i think it's actually helpful. if he wants to come forward, i think people will want to hear what this big story is that he has. but i do think there is a lot of questions. as i read the immunity agreements with the five clinton employees that were involved with the e-mail scandal, there were different types of immunity, for example, for heather samuelson and sheryl mills, they got immunity from the fbi. but apparently not from congress. i'm not a lawyer. i don't know how it looks. but i think it might be a while of going back and forth before an immunity agreement is reached. but frankly, i think it would be good to have him step forward and say what is it that you know? it seems to be the center of it. and this might be where the whole thing -- well, not the whole thing, but where some of
it starts and stops. i think it might be productive. >> jeff toobin, does it seem like it's going to be productive in that way? >> well, it certainly will help get to the bottom of the story if he is telling the truth because he is such a central figure in all of this. there is really only one kind of immunity. it's technically called limited use immunity. but as we have been discussing, it is under that both the justice department and the congress can grant it. and the problem is, can be when they don't agree about who deserves it. >> yes. >> jen psaki, how do you see this as former white house communications director? >> well, i think he is one significant player in this entire unraveling russia connections onion here. and we don't really know how big the story is. but clearly, given the language in the letter from his lars and obviously jeffrey toobin and other lawyers can speak to that.
but it indicates he has a story to tell. i would not guess that that is a story to get people off the hook or to clear it up. that is probably a story that will raise more questions about other players involved, maybe players we don't know of, probably more information we don't know of. so i think that's what we should probably expect in the next stages of this. >> and, you know, as this unfolds, what's interesting is that very often congress will have a different goal than prosecutors. in the case of ollie north, for example, i think, and jeffrey, correct me if i'm wrong, congress felt that it was more important to get the truth out there than it was to get a conviction. and it played out that way. >> and, gloria, you're exactly right. and that's not a bad thing on the part of congress. >> right. >> congress does have responsibilities that are different, and particularly, again, just going back to the '80s, the issue was president
reagan implicated in the iran/contra scandal. >> exactly, and congress thought it is more important to get an answer to that question than to preserve the possibility of prosecuting north and poindexter. certainly that was frustrating to us as prosecutors. but i don't think that was an irrational choice. and it just shows how congress and prosecutors can have different agendas. >> right. >> and both of which can be legitimate. >> and that's why they might not agree on what 20 do with this offer here. >> matthew, as someone who has worked for "new york times" and you broke a big story today which we are going to talk about in our next segment, what is this like -- for some people watching, this is maybe their first i don't know if scandal is the right way, but cloud over a white house to this magnitude. what is it like working on this every single day? does this still surprise you? >> yeah, i guess the surprise
but not shocked, shocked but not surprised. i always get that confused. it's sort of relentless. we jammed out in this morning our own story about who is providing representative nunes information. and this evening we end up chasing a very nice story from our colleagues "the wall street journal." it is amazing. and i've lived in parts of africa, in parts of south asia and afghanistan and pakistan. and there is a degree of behavior on the part of the government, a degree of a kind of attempt to obfuscate and to say nothing to look at here, and to kind of not be straight with us that seems familiar to other countries that we would hardly call successful or well run countries. >> sorry, congressman kingston, you were going to say something? >> well, i was just going to say in the case of the five immunities granted to the hillary clinton employees because or frankly, the obama employees because of the obama state department and their --
the private e-mail server situation, congress did have a different view. and as you know, congress criticized the fbi, quote, for giving out immunity deals like candy. so i think in this case, the fact that flynn has made this offer, i think it's going to be viewed with maybe a lot of skepticism by both parties in both houses of congress as well as the fbi. so it could be a long time coming. >> i think one of the -- >> go ahead, gloria. >> how can this be sort of good news, as you say when somebody who is the former national security adviser to the president of the united states is effectively saying if you don't give me immunity, i'll plead the fifth? >> well, i'll tell you why. because the trump administration has said over and over again there is no collusion. so -- >> so then tell the story under oath. then it's not an issue. >> but if there is no collusion, there is no story to tell. >> i want to say that. >> here is the good news. because now we're going get
evelyn fa evelyn farkiss who worked for hillary clinton campaign. i would love to see her testify. >> she left the communication in september of 2015. before trump was a candidate. >> how did she know if she left in 2015. >> she left in september 2015. she was a high level russia expert. >> but she knew that trump was being spied on. how is that possible? >> jack, jack, i'm not sure if you read her introduce. but what she has talked:00 as a russia expert is her belief that there was something up here, and that trump should be questioned, should have to go through almost like a security clearance-like process. >> let me say this. there is no way in the world she is not going to be subpoenaed for the interview. >> fine. >> she said unequivocally, we did not want the trump people to know what we knew about. >> she was -- >> jack. [ overlapping dialog ] >> the difference between her and flynn, she is actually giving interviews right now. she wrote something for the american spectator at the request of jeffrey lord. she is out there talking.
it doesn't seem like she is going to have a problem coming forward and testifying. i mean, the story today is general flynn. ryan, there any way to spin this that this is positive for president trump? if you're in the white house tonight -- >> no. . no when your former national security adviser is talking about immunity deals, that's a generally not a good story for any white house. i think one thing to watch here is how does the white house defend flynn or do they attack him, do they cut him loose? because remember, up until this point, if you look at nunes and the white house, the house intelligence committee has a sort of turned flynn into a martyr last week. if you remember, a lot of the questioning that went on in the house intelligence committee last monday, which i know seems like a year ago was about whether flynn was improperly unmasked in the transcripts between flynn and the russian
ambassador. remember, flynn was picked up talking to the russian ambassador. and patiently the transcripts of those conversations were distributed. and nunes has said he believes a crime was committed at the expense of flynn's name being unmasked was a problem. it will be very interesting to watch now if there is a sense among republicans on that committee at the white house that flynn is suddenly not their guy anymore, and there is an effort to distance themselves and start attacking. >> hold on. well got to take a break. we're going to have another panel right ahead. a lot more happening tonight. i want to get your thoughts on matthew's reporting that two white house officials were involved in helping give nunes the intelligence reports that he had gone to the white house for. the question of course is if they were already at the white house, why did it take the chairman to go over there to then good back to the white house the next day and tell the president about it? was that just collusion? details ahead. ever. it's a total game-changer.
so now the whole family can binge,... ...surf, shop, navigate, listen, game, stream and more. all without the hassle of worrying about overages... ...or running out of data. it's less than $40 per line per month with 4 lines. and remember, it's at&t's best, unlimited data deal ever. so get at&t, get unlimited and get everyone more for less. kevin, meet yourkeviner. kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin trusted advice for life. kevin, how's your mom? life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you. our insurance company may not have a name your price tool [ shouting ] but we got disses for days!
your mother is so lame, she never put any notes in your lunch bag. sandwiches o-o-only. yeah! yeah, well if you use progressive's name your price tool, maybe you could use the savings to buy a decent suit. i got this jaime. ♪ you could throw shade all day ♪ ♪ but it'll never land ♪ 'cause we got the name your price tool ♪ ♪ in the palm of our h-a-a-and ♪ mic drop. mime: ouch. what? it was a sweet burn. progressive's name your price tool. word to your wallet.
investigating the white house. it does not get any plainer than that and it adds credence to what we and many others have been reporting for days now. today, "the new york times" reported that two white house national security staffers including a protege of michael flynn's provided house intelligence chairman devin nunes with intelligence reports. now, it is the latest in a drama that has been unfolding for weeks now. we've watched president trump use the story line to justify his early morning tweets, accusing president obama of wiretapping him, which it doesn't do that at all. it doesn't provide any evidence. in any case, when asked this afternoon about "the times" story, press secretary sean spicer said a lot of things, but it was a nuclear-powered nondenial and we'll play a portion shortly. that and the report adds the suspicion that we've all been witnessing a charade put on by public servants to dupe the public. and this all stems from those early morning saturday tweets in which the president has yet to provide any evidence of support for.
instead the administration has latched on to a different story line and it's becoming clear they're using devin nunes to help sell it. using intelligence, whatever it may be worth, that they already had. this has been going on for weeks, and it's more than just spin. many believe it is a diversion. every moment spent on this is time not spent on russians influencing the election or questioning the surrounding contact between moscow and trump team members, or other work the white house wants to do. so you make up your own mind on why all of this is happening. first, an extended portion of sean spicer's answers on the story today. >> we've learned something new since then. so please tell us -- >> no, no, again, major, i've commented on this both yesterday and today, that your obsession with who talked to whom and when is not the answer here, it should be the substance. >> can't the process from your vantage point validate the importance of the substance? >> well, i think there's a review that we've asked for, probably -- >> and you told us that you're
willing to look into -- >> please don't put words in my mouth. i never said i would look for answers. i said i'd look into it. >> did the president direct anyone in this white house or in his national security team to try to find information or intelligence to back up his assertion about what happened? >> i don't -- i'm not aware of anything directly. i would have to look into that. >> when you have that connection of dots all the way along, does the process -- does the providence of this information not become relevant to the overall investigation? >> it's up for the people who are conducting the review to decide that, not for the people in this room to decide it. >> so a lot to discuss with the panel. matthew, your reporting, you broke this story that two white house officials helped give chairman nunes those intelligence reports. can you just explain what you know at this point? >> it's this convoluted tale at this point, where last week, devin nunes gets up on wednesday and says, you know, i've been given these intelligence reports and they show that trump and his associates are swept up in
intelligence gathering, suggests there's a lot of improper unmasking of their names in these reports. and kind of suggests that whistle-blowers have come to them with this very troubling information, that the trump white house, of course, immediately seizes on to it and says, you know, this somewhat vindicates our claims of being wiretapped. and this kind of goes on. nunes eventually admits he did get the information in a meeting at the white house. but it's a story that makes no sense, because you don't go to the white house to randomly meet with people. it's not like you can walk in and say, hi, i'm devin nunes, this is jim from the nsa. we're going to check out the intelligence. so what's finally emerged is that there were two white house officials who, one of whom kind of dug out and find the intelligence. the other of whom who appears to have provided it to mr. nunes. they provided it to him at the white house, or he went to the white house, then went to capitol hill the next day, had a press conference, and went back to the white house to brief president trump the same information he had got at the
white house. it doesn't make any -- it is kind of bizarre at this point. and this is raising a lot of questions. you have two people who seem to be using intelligence for political ends, there are questions about did they do this on their own, were they asked to do it by others, was this an attempt to find post-facto justification for their actions? we don't have any answers, because as usual the white house doesn't really answer questions about this. >> and one of the people was basically brought to the nse by flynn. and when -- according to your reporting, i think, when the new national security adviser wanted to remove him, actually president trump intervened, specifically at the request, i guess of bannon and kushner to keep him? is that right? >> that's accurate, yes. >> and then what i don't
understand, and maybe it's because it doesn't make any sense, is if this information was already with the national security council, with these two people, at least, on the national security council, on the white house grounds, why did they need to bring, other than to give them cover and make it look like this was something not generated by the white house, but something coming from devin nunes, why did they need to bring nunes in there to then go back over to the white house and brief the president on something that his own nse team already -- that his own nse already had? >> if there's another reasonable explanation than the one you just offered, nobody said it to us. nobody's offered that other explanation, because it doesn't make any sense. it's the most circular thing there. >> but don't you think, if the president has been the one to report this information or they went to the president instead of going to chairman nunes, don't you think his critics would be saying, see, the president is interfering with this investigation. and i -- >> no, jack, not at all! >> that's ridiculous, jack! >> okay -- let me say --
>> it's okay to sneak around? >> and i'll ask you this. you know, i'm assuming there's some crime that has been broken. i don't know what it is, but i do know that anybody who unmasks somebody like general flynn has broken a crime -- >> that's not true, actually. >> it is absolutely true! >> jack, on march 15th -- >> -- check the information had no evidence of a crime? >> the point -- no evidence of -- >> nunes has said -- >> -- american citizen had been spied on by the federal government. that is -- >> look, all we know -- >> they weren't spied on. they were caught -- >> wait -- >> it's amazing how the white house critics don't have any curiosity about the process when it comes to the leakers. they don't have any curiosity when it comes to evelyn farkas. how did she know that -- >> she didn't know. she was speculating. >> jack -- >> you guys all get your marching orders at the same time? because all of a sudden, every republican on tv is talking about farkas -- >> i was going to -- >> jack --
>> jack, can i just ask you one question. jack, the president himself on march 15th, in an interview with tucker carlson, when he was asked about his tweets, and he said, well, it wasn't really wiretapping, maybe it was surveillance, said, you're going to find out more in a couple of weeks. >> he said, maybe some -- >> can i finish? my question to you -- >> i know where you're going, i think, but go ahead. >> okay, well, let me ask you. the question is, what was the president talked about and what did he know and did he actually know -- did he actually know what devin nunes finally learned? >> well, let me say this. i have had the honor of meeting and talking to donald trump. he's the kind of optimistic guy who's always going to say, you're going to be very proud of the wall, we're going to build the wall and mexico is going to pay for it. we're going to have jobs right and left. he's the guy that's going to bet on it.
i don't think there's anything nefarious. i don't think devin nunes, we've got this orchestrated. i really and truly do not believe that they are organized enough to orchestrate something like this. >> why would he say that? >> so you're saying he was just making stuff up? >> he says it -- i think it was a throwaway line. i think it's, you're going to be surprised at the information that comes out. >> and then when sean spicer said, wait until the end of the week to see what comes out, was he also just being optimistic? >> you know, that's -- i -- you know what, i can't say anything about where sean was coming from on that. i just know on the president, the way he talks, i would say, that's the way -- it was a throwaway line -- >> because now two people from the white house -- but that's two people from the white house, one of them, the president, and the other his spokesperson, both telegraphing something's about to come. and then lo and behold it comes. and it comes not from devin nunes, it comes from the white house itself, through devin
nunes. i mean, just on paper, it does seem -- >> it also hasn't come, because the contents -- >> -- at arm's length -- >> the contents was nothing. >> the left has kept saying all along, why didn't the president just call, pick up the phone and ask the fbi or the justice department if he was being wiretapped. he could have done that. but the minute he did that, if he had done it, then he would have been accused of interfering with the investigation. >> that's not what this is about. >> jack, you should be -- jack, you're the one who should be mad here. someone who comes on tv to defend the administration. you should be mad that they've made your job so difficult over the last week. >> no, no, no. >> look what -- they could have done this so easily, jack. >> i'm outnumbered. >> let me make up with point. they could have easily just given the information to the committee. >> and by the way -- and devon -- devin nunes gave an interview to ely lake who has lied. he said something that was not true. ely lake has come back out and said, this wasn't true, what devin nunes told him. >> he may have lied the to spea