tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN June 7, 2017 8:00pm-9:01pm PDT
salacious russian dossier, talked about an uncomfortable private dinner at the white house and explained what the president said about michael flynn. so here with me tonight cnn's david gergen nia-malika henderson, mike ana in a varieso, and van jones. we're walking through the critical february 14th oval office meeting. comey says president trump asked him to let flynn go, he's a good guy. fbi director comey now had a difficult decision. should he report this conversation with the president to the attorney general? the fbi leadership team agreed with me, he writes, that it was important not to infect the investigative team with the president's request, which we did not intend to abide. we also concluded that given that it was a one on one conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account. we concluded it made little sense to report it to attorney general jeff sessions, who we
expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in russ russia-related investigation. he did so two weeks later. the role was then filled in an acting excise by a united states attorney, who would also not be long in the role. after discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed. the investigators moved ahead at full speed, with none of the investigative team members or the deputy of the department of justice lawyers supporting them aware of the president's request. shortly afterwards, i spoke with attorney general jeff sessions in person, to pass along the president's concerns about leaks. i took the opportunity to implore the attorney general to prevent any future direct communication between the president and me. i told the ag that whathood just happened -- him being asked to leave while the fbi director who reports to the ag remained
behind -- was inappropriate and should never happen. he did not reply. for the reasons discussed above, i did not mention that the president broached the fbi's potential investigation of general flynn. nia, you first, should comey have told attorney general sessions about this conversation, about the investigation of general flynn? >> you know, i think that will be a big question that folks have for him tomorrow. if he thought it was such a big deal, why didn't he immediately talk about it if he thought it was a potential obstruction of justice, why didn't he talk about it then? in this passage, he says that he was sort of saving it. he was taking all of these notes, and he obviously told some people about it, but wanted to see where this investigation was going. but then again -- you have sessions there again not really doing his job, right? not interfering when he's asked to clear of room, and he's having this one on one, trump
and comey is having a one on one. essentially you have comey pleading with sessions, and essentially he gives him no reply. i imagine democrats will have a heyday with that. on may 12th, after being fired he tweeted this -- comey better hopes there's no tapes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press. what is the president saying here? is this a threat? are there tapes? >> i don't know if there are tapes, but it does sound like a threat. other threats here, sessions is bizarre in this scenario. you have your subordinate, your direct report, who is sitting there in a meeting with you. the president tells you to leave. leaves your direct report sitting in the chair. what's the very first thing you do when you're direct report leaves? you say, hey, what the heck did the president talk to you about? what is going on? why did he do that?
let's have a conversation. he doesn't even ask. that's weird. then when the subordinate comes begging, pleading, don't make me go through that again, sir, there's no response. there's no reply. that is weird. a lot of this stuff is just weird. this is why i don't watch "scandal" because you have these scenes that had never happen in real life, but it's happening in real life. >> scott, is that a real concern? >> i think jeff sessions and don mcgahn are honorable people. if they had to do it over again, i'm sure they would have stuck around come hell or high water, because this point in the comey testimony is the key point for tomorrow's hearing, but we have to remember a vital piece of information that no one has brought up. it's not in comey's memos, but it is true. we're talking about the president's state of mind. he stated to comey, according to comey, that flynn did nothing wrong in his phone conversation with the russians. why did he say that?
because on january 23rd "the washington post" reported, i think on the front page that the fbi had reviewed flynn's phone calls and found nothing illicit. so not only did donald trump know that, the entire world knew that. if you're looking for some evidence about the president's state of mind and why would he have said that flynn did nothing wrong? it's because he read the fbi had already decided that flynn did nothing wrong in the "the washington post." so i think state of mind is important to talk about. i think the context in the news consumption of the president is important to remember. >> i thought "the washington post," david gergen, was fake news, no? >> we've heard a lot about that, haven't we? if the president had nothing to hide, he would have asked the general counsel, the white house to be with him when he sat down with james comey, to protect himself. there would be a witness to this. what i think will now be interesting is -- we need to hear from several people, from the top leadership at the fbi.
is this indeed what happened? did comey share it with you? if they say he did, that strengthens the veracity or belief. we need to hear from the attorney general. why did he not do these things? most of all, we need to hear from the president of the united states. what is his version of this? is he willing to do it under oath? is he willing to state it under oath? that's extremely important. i want to hear about the legal aspects. michael, what do you think of this? >> i think there's no real way to get around the fact that what this conversation was about was an effort to influence an investigation. i just don't see how you analyze it any other way. whether it rises to a prosecutable level of obstruction of justice remains to be scene by other facts, but the clear fact here is that the president is saying something which i don't think actually is true, that flynn did not wrong. if he's having a conversation about the lifting of sanctions
with the russian officers at that time, i think that's an inappropriate call. it may not be illegal, but it is wrong. i don't think there's any way that you can rationalize that behavior. to say for the president he did nothing wrong at this point to me is just an incredible blunder of analysis. >> i'm wondering, ana -- >> he had read that in "the washington post." the post had reported that the fbi found nothing illicit. that's your analysis, but the fbi had already leaked out to the post he had done nothing wrong. >> let michael respond. >> he's the president of the united states, and if you're telling me that his state of mind is driven by a newspaper article in a newspaper he doesn't even credit as being a valid newspaper, i just don't buy that. i just don't think that's aung acceptable explanation for the president's state of mind. >> ana navarro, i have to ask you -- have we just become too
desensitized, or sensitized at all to the president's actions? when you see it in full context as i'm sitting here reading this, just what james comey is saying, what he put down on paper in all of these meetings and the president's words, it does seem inappropriate, especially considering how few meetings he's had with the former president and other heads of fbi, the fbi have had with former presidents. >> i don't think we've become desensitized at all. if anything, i think america is incredibly sent advertise sitiz. i think the viewership will be through the roof. people who you think are unusual suspects, i'm not talking about political wonks. i'm talking about everybody in every supermarket, every gas station in america is wanting to talk about what's happening. i saw today something i had not seen as much in previous hearings. today we had that hearing with
dan coats, with mccabe, ros rosenstein. this was supposed to be about section 702. i saw republicans go and hone in on the russia investigation, move from the germane subject that was supposed to be the subject matter of the hearing and focus instead on the russian investigation. people like marco rubo did it, who had dinner with president trump last night, mccain did it. the chairman allowed it. if we're now quoting "the washington post" as evidence, it's because "the washington post" said today -- had today on its front page that donald trump had asked coats to intervene with comey, so comey would drop the investigation. that is such a key piece of information to know. david gergen says we need to hear from a lot of people. we need to know that particular answer, and i thought the timing
of the release of the comey statement today was a dramatic jugs taos position to what happened in that hearing when we had the four law enforcement/intel chiefs for refusing to answer the questions, with no legal basis. they just didn't feel like answering the question. >> that was definitely interesting. david, i said to hear from you. >> i'm going to be a bit of a contrarian here. the piece about flynn i find particularly baffling, but i also think that even as people will be watching in large numbers this testimony tomorrow, because it promises to be dramatic, what is clear too is that a lot of americans are just trying to live their lives, it hasn't penetrated yet. you know, the president is still bumping along in the mid to high 30s. his base is intact. yes, republicans are beginning to ask more questions as ana
suggests, but the truth is his support among republicans has been pretty firm so far. it's eroded very little. so i think, you know, someone once told me a wise old politician told me that washington is always the last to get the news. i think that it's also true that people out in the country have a different perspective on all of this, and it's very much more focused on their lives. so we should just keep that in mind, even as we talk about this issue, as we will i'm sure for the next so many hours and through tomorrow and tomorrow night. >> definitely for the remainder of this. van, i'll let you jump in on the other side. when we come back, one uncomfortable phone calls. donald trump calls james comey and said he had not been involved with russian hookers.
♪ ♪ award winning interface. award winning design. award winning engine. the volvo xc90. the most awarded luxury suv of the century. visit your volvo dealer to take advantage of our midsommar sales event offer. visit your volvo dealer to take advantage ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,... isn't it time to let the real you shine through? maybe it's time for otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently.
with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... with reduced redness,... thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you're allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts... or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight... and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea,... nausea, upper respiratory tract infection... and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.
we're now just hours away from james comey's testimony to the senate intelligence committee tonight we're reading and analyzing his opening statement remarks. it was march 30th. comey toffee there was an ongoing investigation including possible collusion. president trump calls his fbi director to ask what he could do
to lift the cloud and bring up the unconfirmed salacious allegations. the president called me at the fbi. he described the russia investigation as a cloud that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. he said he had nothing to do with russia, had not been involved with hookers in russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in russia. he asked what we could do to limit the cloud. i responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit if we didn't find anything to our having done the work well. he agreed, but then reemphasized the problems this cause causing him. it sounds like this dossier was on the president's mind big time, doesn't it? >> yeah. actually this part in some ways is the most understandable. it's not understandable that you
clear a room, you send everybody out and talk to the fbi head, and you want to talk to the fbi head because you're concerned about isis or you're concerned about -- no, you're concerned about mike flynn, some loser weird dude? that's all bizarre. this part in some way makes more sense. he feels he's being persecuted about i the media, feels there's a big misunderstanding out there. he's seem comey do weird stuff out of the obama administration, you know, trying to say hillary clinton had been cleared, she hadn't been cleared. so this part is the only part of the whole memo that at least makes some kind of sense, and it also -- i also don't think it makes comey more credible, because everything that comey is saying trump said sounds like the stuff that trump has been saying. if trump now wants to say that comey is a liar, he's got to deal with the fact that at least in this part he seems to be true to trump's concerns and putting trump in a reasonably
understandable light given the crazy circumstance we are in. >> david axelrod, what do you make of trump calling this situation a cloud. didn't he bring that on himself? >> there's no question about it. even this week, not just on this investigation, but in other ways, he keeps digging holes for himself. but i agree with van in that, you know, he seems obsessed with the salacious element of this report, but i think that if you're told by the fbi director and you want to interpret it more broadly than he means it, that you're not under investigation and the impression is that you are, you know, your frustration is why can't you just say i'm not? i think that that is shot through this. the flynn stuff is different.
clearing the room out, asking for him to go easy on a guy, in he did for flynn, including se - delaying his firing for 18 days after discovering he had lied, all of that is suspicious, but it's not unreasonable for him to say, i want to get this behind me. i want you to say i'm not under investigation, so i can move on with what i want to do. >> the ethics of the -- you said this is the equivalent ofs nixon tapes. do you agree? >> no, i think that's a bit overstated. i do understand how one could say this cloud is something the president would like to get behind him so he can move forward with his agenda. the problem is when you move forward a bit in the presentation you'll see on april 11th, he's saying the same thing. what do you do to get rid of this cloud?
ultimately you have to remember where this cloud and failure to remove it ends up is with the firing of the fbi director. so there's a growing frustration. again, i look at these things only in legal terms. i leave the politics to david and others smarter than i in that area, but when he's talking about clouds, interfering with his presidency, and he raises it again, calls comey, even though by now he should know he shouldn't be calling him, and reiterating, i want this thing taken care of, get rid of it, and when it's not gotten rid of, he fires him. that puts all these things together which makes an arguable indication for obstruction. it doesn't help the president that he's badgering the fbi director to. end this investigation, lift the cloud, let me get on with my life. >> nia, what do you think? >> i think that's right. he frames trump there as calling
him, maybe first thing in the morning, i think he says, on march 30th. these after comey's testimony, right? that so upset donald trump, right? he was upset that comey wouldn't back him up on his claims about president obama supposedly wiretapping him which of course was a lie, was not true. he was upset also that in that testimony james comey for the first time basically said, yes, there is this criminal investigation into possible collusion between russia and trump associates. i mean, sort of the aggregate of this, it's this again kind of steady courtship, this obsession with turning comey, with making him loyal, in almost trump seeing the fbi as an arm of his white house, as an arm of sort of the political aims of his white house, and so yeah, i think sort of the way he lays it
out, and we'll see what happens tomorrow and the questions, the more questions that come up. he says things aren't in this memo, right? there are nine instances and conversations that happen i believe in this there are only five, so what's been left out? >> he said he didn't add all of it. when you look at the totality, you wonder if he's trying to co-opt the fbi director. go ahead quickly, david. >> sure. the big difference, with watergate there was a smoking gun people on both sides of the aisle understood it's over. in this case there will be a lot of speed about he said/he said, and a lot of republicans will defend the president. it's not as clear-cut as it was in watergate. stick around, everybody. president trump says it would be good to find out if any of his associates did anything wrong. what did he mean by that?
at bp's cooper river plant, employees take safety personally - down to each piece of equipment, so they can protect their teammates and the surrounding wetlands, too. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. [ light music playing ] you've wished upon it all year, and now it's finally here.
tonight we're reading and analyzing james comey's opening statement to the senate intelligence committee. it was released ahead of his testimony tomorrow. joining me is douglas brinkley. it's interesting we're talking about this beforehand, because he hasn't even said it. douglas, what are your first thoughts about what is clearly going to be explosive testimony from the former fbi director tomorrow? >> well, first off, there's no question we're on a rolling freight train that's leading us into obstruction of justice territory. this is a dark day in my opinion for president trump, but it's really the beginning. it may be the beginning of the
end of trump. tomorrow, i think you're going to have -- what -- i was surprised that the seven-page letter came out today, but then it started making sense. i think tomorrow they will be talking about that may 9th letters that trump wrote that comey firing him. i would be curious to find what comey thinking about his own firing. that was not in today's letter. so we'll have to watch and listen to that tomorrow. >> you think what was written in this her -- what wasn't written in the letter is just as important if not more than what was written in the letter? >> absolutely. there there will be a lot of follow-up questions. he did the senators a favor by putting this out early in a sense. it allows them to figure out the follow-up questions otherwise if we heard this the first time tomorrow, you wouldn't have had as good of questioning. i think it was a shrewd move by
comey. it shows he's really trying to cooperate. >> the president asking comey for loyalty, is this new territory? have you ever heard a president asking something like that from an fbi direct oi. having the dinner alone, calling him up, you know, at will, have you ever heard of anything like this? >> no, we're in a real low moment in u.s. presidential history. today in many ways was sad that we have a president operating in such a fashion. it did ring the bell of june 23rd, 1973, that famous moment on the nixon tapes when you hear that they're trying to say, can we get the fbi -- i mean can we get the cia, nixon said, to somehow undermine the investigation of the fbi? so the reason nixon is in the air so much, there are striking similarities. keep in mind, don, what i'm waiting for -- and i saw today
republican senators are starting to get ticked off. marco rubio i thought was quite fierce today. it would be interesting if there does become a gang of eight or ten senators that are really going to hold the president accountable for his actions. it was barley goldwater among many other republicans who nailed nixon. >> it does seem that every question from president trump to comey is really based on self-interests and, you know, he's trying to clear his own name. doesn't appear to be concerned that much about people around him. that would mean other republicans. s. >> well, that's right. the big thing here is donald trump only cares about himself, but i've been listening to your show, david axelrod keeps making an important point -- what is going on with mike flynn? what is this guy up to? why is he, you know -- i mean, i think the big question will be, does, you know -- he doesn't
pond to a subpoena, he's pleaded the fifth, but will flynn eventually if he gets an immunity deal really explain what happened? at this point in time it sort of reminds me of iran/contra in a way. oliver north got into all sorts of hot water, but flynn could be looking at a prison sentence coming up. i'll be curious to see in the coming weeks where that ends up with flynn. >> thank you very much douglas brinkley, we always appreciate your insight. i want to bring in my panel again as we continue reading through the testimony. it's striking how in this march 30th phone call president trump told comey there could have been satellite associates who did something wrong. he said, then the president asked why had there been a congressional hearing about russia the previous week at which i had as a department of justice directed, confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between russia and
the trump campaign? i explains the demands from the leadership from both parties in congress for more information and that senator grassley had even held up the confirmation of a deputy attorney general until he briefed him in detail on the investigation. i explained that we had briefed the leadership of congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating, and that we had told those congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating president trump. i reminded him i had previously told him that. he repeatedly told me we need to get that fact out. i did not tell the president that the fbi and the department of justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open kay on president trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct should that change. the president went on to say that if there were some satellite associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn't done anything wrong and hoped i would find a way to
get it out that we weren't investigating him. back with the panel. david gergen, what do you make of the president alluding to other associates of his who did something wrong or possibly did something wrong. >> i think the president is beginning to recognize, and he said similar things in public here recently that, look, even if they were yet some people like paul manafort and ears who he might call satellite associates -- interesting phrase -- that comey has said to him three times that we're not investigating you. so he may be able to separate out on that issue that, you know what's been said here in public today actually helps him in trying to defend him self-on the question of whether there's been collusion involves not only the associates but the president himself. he's been hurt in trying to protect that investigation, though, he has brought on this whole second line of questions and second charges building up in order to get the investigators to go away, you're
not obstructing justice. the second one may be what gets him. >> michael, how telling is a conversation like this? >> i think it is very telling it again speaks to the state of mind of the president at the time, and is one which says i'm concerned about me. everybody else is collateral damage, which is perhaps why you're having a lot of problem filling positions in the law enforcement community. so i think that there's a lot of concern here that the president raises and that will have to have, though, director comey fill out, because it's just not clear yet what it is that has startled him so that he put it in the opening statement here. >> well, let's remember that president trump hayes said several times in public there has never been collusion from him or anybody anyone on his team.
>> the entire thing has been a witch-hunt, and there's no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but i can only speak for myself and the russians. there's no collusion between me and my campaign and the russians. >> so david axelrod, those were from the president's appearances in may. doesn't this contradict what he told comey about satellite associates? >> he did in that one clip say, you know, he brought it back to himself, i can only speak for me kind of. i thought this was an interesting part, maybe an underreported part of the comey memo, because here he seemed to be throwing some people under the bus, saying, yeah, there may have been something going on there, but i had nothing to do with it. now at the risk of being -- and this horse may have left the barn a broken record. why did he throw those people under the bus and go to such
extraordinary lengths to try and save flynn? >> yeah. >> it may be just that he has deep affection to michael flynn, but that's not really his m.o. it just raises more suspicion in my mind about why flynn was treated as a special case in the president's mind. >> is this the closist we'll get to primp possibly admitting that a trump associate may have been colluded with russia, van jones? >> well, he's beginning to open certain doors to give himself some wiggle room here. you know, give him the benefit of the doubt. i think some people have come to a conclusion about what's going on here. let's just give him the benefit of the doubt. suppose he is as innocent as the day is long, just a nice guy trying to make america great again. it turns out for some reason the fbi is going after folks, and he thinking to himself, well, i
don't know every single person in this campaign. maybe there's someone out there that did some naughty things, but not me. okay. listen, i look at that and i say to myself, yeah, that makes some sense, except the behavior around mike flynn. it is the mike flynn obsession that puts this entire thing in a completely different light, and to axelrod's point, he's saying i am going to the matt for mike flynn. yes, he lied to me, yes he's doing these weird meetings, but i'm going to literally clear the room to try to save mike flynn, but these other people? i don't know. get rid of them. i think you're in a situation where everything that tries to exonerate himself becomes incriminating. he is a bad criminal. if this were a guy in your neighborhood trying to run a neighborhood hustle, he would be terrible at it. he can't keep his mouth shut. you have a crew leader in the hood who can't keep his mouth shut.
shift, he turned the conversation to andrew mccabe, saying he hadn't brought up the mccabe thing, because i had said mccabe was honorable, though mcauliffe had given him campaign money. though i didn't understand why he was bringing it up, i repeated that mr. mccake is an honorable person. >> he stressed that the cloud that was interfering and hoped i could find a way to get out, that he wasn't being investigated. >> i told him i would see what we could do and we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could. immediately after that conversation, i called acting deputy attorney general, ag sessions had by then recused himself -- to report the substance of the call from the president and said i would await his guidance. i did not here back from him before the president called me
again two weeks later. nia-malika henderson -- go on. >> even at the earned of that sentence. i didn't hear back from him when the president called me again. he seems to be blowing up james com comey's cell phone. what's interesting is the way he captures the way that donald trump clearly speaks and sometimes in word salad, bringing up random things. >> make deals for the country. >> yeah, make deals for the country. there are some poll that is subject lying 25% of the public doesn't trust comey on this. that was "the washington post"/abc poll. that's probably about -- that 25% pretty much represents the hard-core support that donald trump has, about you in therms of trump's credibility on russia, well over half the country doesn't trust his version of events in terms of russia. >> so nia, can i ask you -- he
says he called the acting deputy attorney general dana boente to report the substance of this call. what does that tell you? the criticism is that james comey sat on the information. here he's saying that no, he went to at the time the acting ag to report this. again, they didn't say anything. this i think again echos him trying to talk to sessions and say, listen, sessions, please don't leave me alone with donald trump, and sessions essentially offering crickets to that request this thing is masterfully written, so scenic, easy to understand, it has these echos and framings, and really you so he this kind of building obsession that trump has with comey. the through line, of course is
this initial obsession with michael flynn. no one knows why. we read so many stories about donald trump and he's throwing this person under the bus, throwing bannon under the bus, he's upset with sessions, and here he is going through so much to through michael flynn a lifeline, to protect him, and then there is this unknown thing where he says he has they other concerns about felony, that we don't know what those concerns are. they seem to be beyond some of the initial concerns about his conversations with the russians. >> scott, van jones made a similar point earlier -- why did he keep sort of throwing a lifeline to michael flynn. you were shaking your head, do you disagree with his assessment? >> i don't see this as an obsession. there were evidence that the fbi looked at the phone calls and
judged them to have been not illicit. i think that could have been in the president's mind, but let's talk about the greater backdrop. it must be enormously frustrated. you get elected as president, you have a big agenda, and this is taking taking over washington, and prevents him from getting things done despite the fact that he's been told he's not personally under investigation. you have democrats every day of the week in washington running down to the floor of the house claiming that he is, claiming he should be impeached, jumping in front of every television camera every day and twice on sunday to imply that the president is under investigation. trump knows that he's not, because comey told him he's not. he's clearly enormously frustrated. i don't see it as an obsession with flynn. i see it as a frustration with the fact he knows there's truth that he's not being investigated, and he can't get it out. it's stopping him from enacting an agenda he was clearly elected
to enact. stick around, everybody. coming up, the final time the president tomb to james comey. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪
i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7.
it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse.
comey's statement on his contact with president trump full of revelations and we have more back with my panel. we talk about april 11, the last time -- the last of the nine contacts comey has with the president. here's how comey, former fbi director james comey details his interaction with president trump. on the morning of april 11, the president called me and asked what i had done about his request that i get out, that he is not personally under investigation. i replied that i had passed his request to the acting deputy attorney general but i had not heard back. he implied the cloud was getting
in the way of his ability to do his job. he said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the acting deputy attorney general. i said, that was the way his request should be handled. i said, the white house counsel should contact the leadership of d.o.j. to make the request, which was the traditional channel. he said he would do that and added, because i have been very loyal to you, very loyal. we had that thing, you know. i did not reply or ask him what he meant by "that thing." i said only that the way to handle it was to have the white house counsel call the acting deputy attorney general. he said that was what he would do, and the call ended. that was the last time i spoke with president trump. what do you think of that, michael? >> well, it's interesting to me that the paragraph before he says, you know, there is this mccabe thing and i didn't raise it, meaning i'm not going to hurt your friend mccabe. then he says, i want -- i've
been very loyal to you and i, therefore, expect you to do stuff. you have this whole loyalty and obligation to him. it's almost like a shake down of comey saying, i'm not going to raise this mccabe thing. i've been loyal to you, but i'm not going to do that much longer if you don't get this thing out about me. that to me is inappropriate behavior, whether it adds to the mosaic of obstructionism, we'll see, but it's just not seemly. >> david gergen, because i have been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know. >> that thing, whatever that thing may be. listen, the next thing that happened after this, may 9, comey gets fired by trump. there is an arc here from trump demanding loyalty at the beginning of his conversations, i need your loyalty, all the way to firing him because he didn't do what he wanted. he didn't show him the loyalty that trump wanted. >> david axelrod, comey's remarks on january 6, 27th, and march 30th, he told him he was
not under investigation. this came up a fourth time between president trump and comey on april 11. do you view these as assurances the president was citing? >> yes, i think they probably were. and clearly what comey wasn't willing to do was, as he said, make a pronouncement that the president wasn't under investigation because the investigation was ongoing and he wasn't willing to say the president wouldn't be in the future. but the president wanted that line -- the thing references one is bar czizarre. maybe it means more to the president than comey. >> president trump feels completely and totally vindicated. has he been? >> no, and if the outside attorney is listening, i just read that president trump's schedule has no events tomorrow through noon. so, that outside attorney should be sitting in the oval office
and have his hand on the twitter because if not, if donald trump is live tweeting tomorrow like shonda rhimes used to do with scandal, it really is absolute negligence. listen, let me finish by saying this. there is no doubt in my mind that this is the tip of the iceberg. there is no doubt in my mind that we are witnessing history. and i just warrant to remind republicans as they go into the questioning tomorrow, there is so much to unpack and this is just the beginning. their duty is not to protect anybody, their duty is not to cover up for anybody. their duty is not to help anybody. their duty is to get to the truth because americans deserve the truth and this is a time to put countries over party, to put truth over anything else. >> that's it for us tonight. thanks for watching. thanks to my panel. i'll see you right back here tomorrow. as the clock says, ten hours left until comey is on the screen live. have a good night.
and good evening from washington where the stakes frankly could not be higher. a fired fbi james comey will tell the senate that the president asked him to stop the investigation into michael flynn. they asked the attorney general to leave the room. those are two headlines of many from his opening remarks which the committee released today.