tv The Next Revolution With Steve Hilton FOX News April 15, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
>> democrats and republicans agree on one thing, james comey is guilty of politicizing the fbi and meddling in the 2016 election. in your eyes he may be guilty too of self-righteousness, self-regard and the inappropriate production of a petty cash for gossip revenge attack on president trump. but no one is above the law, even james comey. so tonight, is he guilty of federal crimes, we ask that. in a moment top lawyers for the prosecution and defense goes head-to-head in the next revolution special as we put james comey on trial.
>> welcome to this special edition of the next revolution. i'm steve hilton. i'm joined live in new york by the best legal team in television standing by to cut through the spin and politics and focus on the three areas where there are grounds to believe that james comey may have broken the law. his handling of the clinton e-mail investigation, his role in leaks of confidential government information, and the actions he took in connection with that infamous russia dossier. as we investigate the charges, let us know what you think. you might see your comments on the bottom of the screen ae with will read your verdicts later in the show -- and we will read your verdicts later in the show. for the prosecution, cohost of the five, former prosecutor, and fox news legal analyst. for the defense, former u.s. attorney who worked at the department of justice, with james comey, and former united states department of justice assistant chief deputy.
and over here, at the other table are our legal analysts who i will be going to for details on all of the charges, former u.s. attorney and trial attorney. okay. let's get right to the first set of possible charges against james comey -- comey involving his handling of the hilary clinton e-mail investigation. the charges we are talking about are obstruction of justice and perjury. let's get some insight now from you about those charges and then we will debate them. >> perjury is pretty well known the traditional elements are knowingly false statement under oath in a proceeding whether before congress, a grand jury, obstruction is more open ended. it's one of the prosecutor's best friends. traditionally the elements include falsification of documents concealing evidence or making a false statement. but it also has a broader category, the interfering with the proper administration of law. the key to obstruction is showing a corrupt intent.
what would have been an improper purpose of james comey? well, consider that he's recently said that in october 2016, he was considering the political presidential inevitability of hilary clinton as a factor in a decision he made. >> about that investigation? >> about that, was he in fact influenced or is a factor considering clinton's inevitability in july 2016, when he in a highly irregular fashion shut down the clinton e-mail investigation. >> you've said it first those are the potential charges, perjury, obstruction of justice. let's remember we're not interested in anyone's opinion about james comey. what we're interested in is whether or not he broke the law. kimberly, those charges relating to the clinton investigation. >> it's very interesting because we're beginning to see a lot of the facts come out. we have his statements in front of congress. we have now of course statements in the book that is about to be released. we also have the ig's
investigation. we won't really know for sure, and i want to point this out to the viewers whether or not he committed these crimes until that report is completed and released. so based on what we know now, we know that this was an individual that specifically seemed to have an intended purpose in an outcome. he said that he made the decision after speaking to hilary clinton, but there's investigation reports saying that in fact, he had already predetermined the outcome as to whether or not she had broken the law. to me, i think that's very interesting because of the tremendous inconsistency there. did he make knowingly a false statement when he made that assertion and said he waited? and why in fact were her aides given immunity? it was almost to help push the intended outcome along to get to a certain determination. >> so greg, before the defense get a chance to challenge the arguments, what would you add to the case against james comey, in relation to the clinton e-mail investigation on the specific charges there of perjury and
obstruction? >> the evidence against hilary clinton was powerful, overwhelming evidence, under a variety of statutes that she broke the law. and if james comey cleared her for political reasons, that's obstruction of justice. that's a corrupt intent. >> uh-huh. >> and i find it very curious in his book that on the reopening of the hilary clinton case, he admits that politics was influencing him. >> uh-huh. >> that leads me to believe that it influenced his original decision to exonerate her. i don't know how in the world you write an exoneration statement two months before you even interview her. >> that's the perjury point, isn't it? he said that it wasn't written until the interview, but actually turns out that it was -- >> it was his testimony before the house judiciary -- >> on the obstruction a lot of people have pointed to the lack of a grand jury being impanelled. >> right. >> subpoenaed and so on. could you talk to those points a little? >> yeah, i think it is very
telling because again it really goes towards the -- almost like a goal, an ideological goal, a predetermination that hilary clinton was going to become president of the united states and why would you not talk to the people, the aides, the people that were involved with her right away from the beginning? why wasn't an impartial grand jury impanelled to get to the actual truth of the matter? why ahead of time were her aides people who would have been directly involved and acting in concert with her given an immunity? -- given an immunity? almost like an assist. >> those two actions not impanelling the jury and immunity for the aides, how is that a crime? >> comey said in his very public statement that there was evidence of potential violation of the criminal statutes. that should have been enough to refer it to doj and impanel a grand jury to decide. but then he leaps to the conclusion, but no reasonable
prosecutor would ever bring such case. >> right. >> which is speculation. i interviewed five former fbi top officials. they all said that what comey did was wrong. >> uh-huh. >> and it's not up to him to be a prosecutor. the fbi does -- >> may have been wrong, what we're trying to establish is whether it was illegal. what's your response to the charges there that what he did in relation to the clinton investigation could have broken the law in relation to perjury and obstruction? >> kimberly i think makes a terrific point. her first point is we need to know the facts. we need more facts. we need more information. and that's where really i come down because look, i will be the first one to tell you, steve, there are some procedures here, having been at the department of justice for a long long time, having tried a number of big cases national cases and investigations, i saw some things here that i didn't quite
understand. and i still don't understand. for example, why is the fbi director himself taking over the case, announcing a declaration and not interacting with the doj? in my experience, i have never seen that. but kimberly's point is well taken. i would like to know why, who else was involved in those decisions. what's the paper trail what would lead -- >> can i just focus you on this question? >> yes, of course. >> of obstruction. the two questions, obstruction and perjury. let's take perjury first, actually. a lot of people have been very focused on that. he said that he was -- that he only made the decision to exonerate her after the interview, but there are documents that show that the exoneration decision was being prepared before that. is that perjury, the statement there? >> well, first of all, now it is
three on one, thank you, guys, i really appreciate that. [laughter] >> it is not perjury, number one, because everybody talks about perjury and we all think look this guy said something, seems false, that's perjury. perjury is a really tough crime to prosecute as somebody who has done it and defended it, it is really hard to prove. first of all drafting an opinion is a lot different than making a decision. >> sorry to cut you, but people can't understand if they really were interested in learning from the interview, why the exoneration was prepared beforehand. >> well, regardless of why it was prepared beforehand, and people don't understand, you're asking whether you can prosecute him for something. whether they understand or don't understand doesn't really matter. the question is could they prove it? and the answer would be no because any time you're drafting a memo, and i could say to anybody, look, i think x and this is what my opinion is going to be, but i'm going to wait to find out until we have the interview with hillary done before i issue my decision. >> the perjury charge is about what he said to congress. >> right.
he said to congress he hadn't decided. he didn't say he hadn't drafted an opinion. >> you are saying that proving he was lying then is going to be -- >> proving that he was lying is almost impossible. >> perjury is a tough charge. >> one for the good guys. >> let's go to the obstruction point because the way in which the investigation was carried out, all the points you made, not impanelling the grand jury, the failure to get warrants to search -- there's a set of things that normally would be expected to have happened that didn't happen, does that add up to obstruction? >> the basic argument i would like on this. break it down simpler. cops all the time do investigations and make thousands of mistakes, not that they are trying their hardest, not that they are incompetent, but they are people, they make mistakes. any investigation can have a lot
of mistakes. on comey is not on the prosecutor side. he's on the cops side. if i was defending this, they ran the show, they could have prosecuted hillary if they wanted to. as a matter of fact -- >> it's not the prosecution. it was the way it was conducted >> it doesn't matter how the investigation was conducted. >> you are claiming that president obama directed the way that the fbi -- >> i'm not claiming anything. i'm saying i have a credible argument to give immunity to any witness, that has to come to doj. that can't come from the fbi directly. doj has to approve that. it's not like he's by himself saying hey here's an immunity agreement. that's not the way it works. >> you can be the head of an investigation and obstruct it yourself. >> right. >> if you are making decisions for a corrupt purpose. that's the language of the obstruction. >> just so everyone understands that, because when, you know, to a layperson that word corrupt
means money changing hands. that's not the legal definition of corrupt, is it? >> it is defined five different ways under the statute. lie, threat, bribe, concealing evidence, destroying documents, those are the examples in the statute, but there are others. clearing somebody for a political reason and ignoring the law would also qualify as a corrupt purpose. >> the statute of limitations didn't even run until after trump was in office. so nobody's been cleared of anything. anybody could have picked up that investigation at doj. anybody could have followed through with the prosecution. i think on some charges the statute of limitations still exists. so when you say that he ended the investigation or he stalled it, well, maybe, and if that was the case, why didn't somebody else pick it up? >> yeah, but i think this is very telling. i mean, let's be honest. this was james comey's show. he was the one running the investigation. he was the one deciding when he
shouldn't have improperly -- whether or not that charges should be brought. what i'm saying there is a trail from corrupt intent from beginning to end >> he doesn't have the authority -- >> let kimberly finish. >> they weren't able to issues subpoenas to be able to gather evidence for congress to be able to get it. why such a delay in being able to obtain necessary items to show before items were destroyed, destruction of evidence in a case? he should have right away gone in and made sure that they had those items, the ability to get them before there was enough time to destroy them. that's stripped the american people of justice in this case and he was calling the shots, and that's how i believed he showed corrupt interpret and obstructed -- corrupt intent and obstructed justice. >> we have to leave it there. we need to take a break. we will take a look at charges and leaking.
and leaking. we will continue in a moment. are finding themselves morin a chevroletple for the first time. trying something new can be exciting. empowering. downright exhilarating. see for yourself why chevrolet is the most awarded and fastest growing brand, the last four years overall. switch into a new chevy now. get 20% below msrp on all cruze and malibu lt models. that's over fifty four hundred dollars on this chevy malibu.
find new roads at your local chevy dealer. having mplaque psoriasise is not always easy. it's a long-distance run. and you have the determination to keep going. humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for over 10 years. humira works inside the body to target and help block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to symptoms. in clinical trials, most adults taking humira were clear or almost clear and many saw 75% and even 90% clearance in just four months. humira can lower your ability to fight infections,
including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal, infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. join over 250,000 people who have chosen humira. ask about the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. humira & go. swho live within five miles of custyour business?-54, like these two... and that guy. or maybe you want to reach women, ages 18 to 34, who are interested in fitness... namaste. whichever audience you're looking for, we'll find them
we're the finders. we work here at comcast spotlight, and we have the best tools for getting your advertising message out there. anywhere, any way your audience watches. consider them found. oh hi sweetie, i just want to show you something. xfinity mobile: find my phone. [ phone rings ] look at you. this tech stuff is easy. [ whirring sound ] you want a cookie? it's a drone! i know. find your phone easily with the xfinity voice remote. one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. >> welcome back to the next revolution special, the trial of james comey. comey himself has admitted deliberately leaking memos of his meeting with president trump. that may be unethical, but is it
illegal? we will talk more about this particular charge, about the leaks of the memos. >> there are a couple of different statutes that could apply. one of those says that where you are a government official and you come into classified information, and then you remove the documents, with the intention of keeping them off site and you don't have authority to do that, that's one type of a crime. and that can be punishable for up to five years in prison. there's a second type of crime where you are somebody in a position of trust, it could be an employee or contractor, and you also remove documents, but this is more like an embezzlement or a theft, you do it without knowledge, conceal, and then in this particular statute, you have to have the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently from the use. and so in that one, there's a lot of controversy over the terms and whether that gets into whistle-blowers. there's quite a bit of law on that second statute >> which one do you think is most relevant to this question of the memos that comey himself created in order to be leaked?
>> i think it is the first because he is an official of the united states government, and so that is a statute that has been used to prosecute other high government officials. it's been alleged against hilary clinton, david petraeus and other high officials, that's the more likely statute. >> thank you very much. gregg jarrett, you lead off on this one. the documents, he may have been wrong, may have been unethical, may have been underhand, but was it illegal? >> absolutely. in the federal regulations, code of federal regulations, and the privacy act, as well as the federal records act, anything that's in the course and scope of your employment is government property. and every fbi agent signs a document that says when you leave government, all of that is the government's to remain behind. you are not to take it with you. comey took it with him. >> does it make any difference that he created the documents himself? >> no. everything you do in the course
and scope of your employment is government property. he was acting as the fbi director when he spoke to the president. he wrote about their conversations. it is clearly government property. and he stole that government property, including according to senator grassley, four classified documents, which would make him just as guilty as hilary clinton. >> you're referring to the memos or something else? >> i'm referred to the presidential memos. >> kimberly? >> just because he's the author and the one that produced it and created it doesn't mean that then he has some ownership right or entitled to be able to remove it. i totally agree with gregg. i think this is actually one of the strongest points and there's compelling evidence to show that he in fact knowingly leaked and also lied about it when he testified and said no, he didn't leak any documents or information under oath. but nevertheless, he did. so this is a problem for him. and shared them with a friend. >> he admitted that he did this.
>> uh-huh. >> this is a tougher one. look, the question i would have, twofold, one was the information classified? i think he testified under oath before congress that he didn't actually take the memos themselves. but he created a non-classified version, according to his testimony, that he then turned over to his pal who was a law professor. >> daniel richmond. >> who then leaked them to the new york times. >> is it not the case that -- i've read -- i think the point has been made that whether or not it's classified is not the point. it's the fact that it's unauthorized. that's what's against the law. >> 1924. statute. >> another interesting point, certainly that comey's lawyers would likely raise in this situation, comey is a person that can classify and declassify information. >> uh-huh. >> as a head of an agency.
now that's an executive order that is in place and was in place when he -- now i haven't heard this -- >> just a second. let the defense in full respond. >> i would respond first of all, thank you, guy, for joining the team finally. glad to have you aboard. [laughter] >> let's talk about the leak. first of all, we have a longstanding tradition in this country which the supreme court has upheld that we're not going to prosecute leakers. they did so in a dhs case where a guy came forward said hey they are removing -- >> by saying that, are you saying that you're conceding that he could be prosecuted? >> the law is pretty clear on this because we have this protection. we want to encourage this behavior actually because when we think that somebody is doing something unethical, jeopardizing the government or the citizens of the government, we want people to come forward and leak information. >> this doesn't qualify -- >> yes it does. >> it was after the fact. >> just a second.
there are aspects of this in the second type of statute where you could be considered whistle blowing. i think that's what you are referring to, but not the first. it is pretty direct. the property was -- >> the property issue as guy pointed out there, he said under oath that he took his memos, he took out the classified information, he summarized them and provided them to his buddy. and he would have the ability to do so. he said they are not classified documents. >> i'm sorry, the content, not the marking is what defines classification. >> even the content, though, if the content is about illegal conversations that the president may have had with me, are you telling me that he could not provide that information out to the public? he could. no doubt in my mind he could. as a matter of fact, we would want him to. >> the one person who is actually read those seven memos is trey gowdy who said that is the exhibit for the defense of president trump than it is for
the actions of comey. >> yeah. >> see the problem i have with all of this, and the counter to all of this would be that what we're doing here is we're taking political events and we're taking people's political perspective and trying to squeeze them into violations of federal statutes. >> when you steal -- >> the reason for doing that i think is that it's very important that the system as a whole sends a message that nobody is above the law, including law enforcement officials, and if he did do things that broke the law, then that's something that's important. >> my question would be because as i understand it, comey has now turned over his memos to bob mueller. we know bob mueller can refer matters up to another jurisdiction for action. bob mueller surely would be able to look at these memos and tell us whether or not they contain classified information or not, and to me that would be a
telltale sign that if he did indeed leak classified information, mueller's -- >> -- about whether the classified nature of it is the legal point -- >> i mean you can remove a label or a header. we saw some of that in terms of the back and forth with huma abedin and hilary clinton and forwarding to her e-mail, etc. what i think is compelling here is the fact that i don't think he has fair claims to any kind of whistle-blower. there's a public interest exception where you feel you must do so, but this is after he became a private citizen. he knowingly took information that he had no right to be able to remove as a government official. it belongs to the united states government, the american people, and with specific intention, he handed it to his friend to get out there, to daniel richmond, the columbia professor, so he's not going to have whistle-blower protection. he's outside of the job already, and he tried to use a conduit, someone to try to say i didn't hand it directly and give to it the new york times. that's what he did. >> i would disagree with you on
that. there's no statute on when you can be a whistle-blower. there's no time limitation on that. that's a very narrow interpretation of that statute. clarence thomas wrote an opinion that we need to have these people out there in order to protect the government and to -- >> arguments on both sides. you will decide. coming up next, we will take a close look at james comey's ties to the infamous russia dossier and debate the possible legal consequences of that, after the break.
and i'm the founder of ugmonk. before shipstation it was crazy. it's great when you see a hundred orders come in, a hundred orders come in, but then you realize i've got a hundred orders i have to ship out. shipstation streamlined that wh the order data, the weights of , everything is seamlessly put into shipstation, so when we print the shipping ll everything's pretty much done. it's so much easier so now, we're ready, bring on t. shipstation. the number one ch of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get two months free. welcome back to the trial of james comey, this next revolution special. we've looked at comey's role in the clinton investigation and his leaks related to the trump investigation. the next set of potential charges relate to the infamous
trump russia dossier. now, two congressional committees have already found that the fbi knew the dossier was largely fabricated, indeed james comey himself described it as salacious and unverified. the fbi also knew that it was paid for in part by the clinton campaign and compiled by someone with a bias against donald trump. the fbi knew they needed the dossier to spy on the trump campaign and so they relied on it to obtain the fisa warrant anyway. kendall and harmony have more on the charges here. this is so controversial, this russia dossier. let's focus on the potential laws that may have been broken. kendall? >> i'm going to let harmony talk about the abuse of power. but certainly the question of making a submission using the most salacious frankly absurd information from political opposition research raises not only questions about misuse of power, but whether there's a
fundamental falsification and that can implicate all the laws about false statement as well as obstruction of justice. so we don't know the details of what was in that submission. what we know, though, is that it was a submission to the fisa court for an intelligence -- >> with james comey's name on it. >> with james comey's name on it of the likes that no prosecutor that i know of would have ever signed off on a submission like that. >> it was done repeatedly. one of the statutes focuses on the rights of the person whose rights are being deprived then is section 242 which talks about depriving somebody's civil rights really under color of law where a government official knowingly and intentionally violates somebody's rights. that could include submitting a request for a warrant to the fisa court repeatedly but omitting key evidence that the judge would want to know, that would be a violation of carter page's rights to privacy and amendment rights and other rights as well. >> there's a perjury argument
isn't there about the way all this information was described to the public. >> because it is inherently verified. it is sworn to when the submissions are made. if you are using information that's not reliable and you're not making appropriate disclosures to the court, that can obviously be a very serious thing. >> well, serious, again, is it illegal? kimberly, this whole dossier has caused so much debate, but again, let's focus on whether the charges we heard there. >> yeah, i think there is a tremendous abuse of power here, and especially, can you imagine someone who takes an oath to uphold the law and is supposed to be to do a fair and impartial investigation, nevertheless he proffered a document that he knew was largely uncorroborated, that was paid for by the clinton campaign and an individual that put it together that had really no substantial basis, fact and credibility whatsoever. and james comey made the decision to put that in front of a court of a judge and obtain a fisa warrant to then do surveillance on the trump campaign and on the building,
suggesting that perhaps there was some kind of russian collusion. who does that as the head of the fbi? i think this is one of the more egregious examples of his abuse of power and the fact he wanted a specific intended outcome. >> does it meet the legal threshold for committing a crime? >> absolutely, major fraud, conspiracy, obstruction by deceiving a federal judge, abuse of power, all of these are crimes because what you are really doing is you are deceiving a judge and you are concealing material evidence. the only reference to who paid for the dossier is buried in a footnote, and it is so opaque you can't tell what it really means. that's deception. that's lying to a judge. that's a crime. >> that sounds pretty cut and dried. >> well, let's take it out of the fisa court because i'm -- >> take what out of the fisa
court? >> let's take sort of the question about submitting false information because this is -- lawyers and prosecutors, like all lawyers, we look to precedent. we look to cases that we've investigated and prosecuted before. and i'm unaware, again, having done this a long long time, i'm unaware of any prosecution in the fisa court context. now, much better to look at it in terms of what ron does every day, which is defend and file these kind of motions in state and federal court. officers all the time submit affidavits and search warrants, search warrant applications to judges, state and federal. and defense lawyers all the time challenge those based on both omissions and false or reckless information. and again, it's a process whereby the motions are filed. there's a hearing. and the sides testify under oath and -- >> i was going to say --
>> there's no defense there to present the other side. >> well, one second here because the -- yes, it is, the way they got the warrant. however we know now people have been charged and one defending. if any information gleaned from any of these search warrants came from any affidavit that referenced the dossier, i hate calling it the dossier, to challenge the contents of that warrant and would squash the warrant, whatever he wants to do and those facts will come out. but see, we're talking about a lot of facts that frankly i think people know a little bit but don't know a lot about. i will guarantee you, the person who signed the affidavit to say please authorize a search warrant was not james comey. i will guarantee you his name is on it because he's the head of the fbi. >> doesn't he therefore have legal responsibility? >> according to the intelligence committee of the house, it was comey who signed it, sally yates signed one of them, rod rosenstein signed one of them.
>> they are vouching for the authenticity of this document. >> the way an affidavit works is an officer has to say officer x -- i went out here, i obtained this information, abc this is while i believe this crime has been committed. and then it goes to comey and says based on your affidavit, i'm going to sign off on it. go ahead and submit it to the court. it has to go through a u.s. attorney. he says based on what i see and hear i will sign off on it. then it goes to court. the person swearing under penalty of perjury is not james comey. >> the facts are that james comey is one of the people, one of the individuals you just stated yourself that in fact had to put this forward and proffer it to say let's get the information -- >> we are going to have to leave it there. i'm really sorry. we're out of time. if we had more time, you would win, i know. [laughter] >> when we come back, we take a look ahead at what could be next for james comey. will he ever face real charges?
don't go away. sfx: muffled whistle text alert. i'm your phone, stuck down here between your seat and your console, playing a little hide-n-seek. cold... warmer... warmer... ah boiling. jackpot. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, you could be picking up these charges yourself. so get allstate, where agents help keep you protected from mayhem... ...like me. mayhem is everywhere. are you in good hands?
terminix. defenders of home. vojimmy (shouting): james!as been jimmy's longest. he's survived record rain and a supplier that went belly up. so while he's proud to have helped put a roof over the heads of hundreds of families, he's most proud of the one he's kept over his own. brand vo: get the most out of your money, whether you're using quickbooks smart invoicing to get paid twice as fast or automatically tracking your mileage. smarter business tools for the world's hardest workers.
quickbooks. backing you. welcome back to this next revolution special, the trial of james comey. well you have heard the arguments. this is your last chance to let us know your verdicts. we will read them in the next segment. but now i want to get our legal experts thoughts on what's next for james comey. harmony, we have been discussing this here tonight. the arguments one way or the other. but in the real world, what do you think needs to happen? >> well, what needs to happen, what will happen in the real world are probably two different things. but james comey knows himself very well that some of the things he's been accused of tonight or in the press are things he has prosecuted other people for. for example, sandy berger a figure out of clinton's past who stuffed documents down his pants in the national security archives and then got away with them and got a slap on the wrist when james comey held the position in the department of justice that rod rosenstein does today.
that's in 20004. -- that's in 2004. he knows people can be prosecuted. he's prosecuted them for doing similar things. in the real world right now where we have an attorney general who has recused, deputy attorney general under fire from the president and under pressure by many people to resign or step aside, what would prosecute him? i think the proper case to be prosecuted would be by attorneys in the department of justice and definitely not a special prosecutor. i think what we have seen is special prosecutors are loose cannons that go in search of crimes and are often overturned on appeal. i don't think that's a good use of resources. >> let's explore that and i want the audience to be clear what you are saying. if the view is that he has potentially committed crimes and we have certainly heard that view put here tonight, if that's the case, then he should be prosecuted. who exactly should take the lead in making that happen? >> well, it would be somebody in the department of justice. now, a cautionary note here is that what we're seeing is almost an arms race in escalation, the
political crime prosecution and process crimes, i don't think that's necessarily a good thing for the country because there can be a line between what you think is the right thing. i think comey is clearly on the wrong side of it but the problem is if you prosecute him, the ante is up for the tables to be turned in the next administration. i'm not sure that's a great use of our resources. >> my view is we're not done in collecting the information. as we goes on this book tour attempting to monetize -- monetize and cash in on his allegations, there's more things that he's going to say that may backfire on him. often the fastest best way to a prosecution is false statements. one of the surest ways to prove that is when the subject contradicts himself or is con trakt -- contradicted by others. for example, comey comes out and says yes politics was a factor in my decision in october. how does that hold up with other statements he has made? not just being contradicted as he get out there capitalizing on his book tour by the president of the united states.
loretta lynch has now come out and directly contradicted one of his accounts. so this saga is to be continued not just in terms of where the prosecution efforts might go, but the information being generated about comey and the potential for false statements >> andy mccabe has also accused him of lying. we have seen in the inspector general's report that just came out that mccabe's attorneys have said comey should not be believed. comey did authorize him talking to the "wall street journal." there's that. then you also have senator grassley who has written to rod rosenstein saying let's talk more about these seven classified documents and we want some more details. did he give them -- i don't think it is clear at all that he simply gave an excerpt to his friend. his friend retroactively claimed attorney-client privilege. there's a lot of stuff going on there. we're not even close to the fact finding there. >> appreciate your perspectives. lots more to dig into. thank you very much. just time for some thoughts from the table. let's go around the table.
what should happen next? i suspect you're going to say not much in relation to james comey in terms of what should happen next? >> what should happen next is we should have a lot more light on the situation. i agree with that. but more importantly here we should stop mixing politics with prosecution. it's like mixing good whiskey with coca-cola. you can do it but you shouldn't do it. >> i think a lot of people's reaction to that well tell that -- >> tell that to james comey. >> you are asking what should happen to him. >> yeah. >> you know, when you start mixing with politics with prosecution, it is a bad result. we're seeing that with mueller now. we're seeing it with special counsels in the past. it is a bad result. it should stop. >> i agree with harmony in as much as the department should take the lead on this. i do not want to see another special counsel. >> uh-huh. >> this one's costing us a fortune. clinton's special counsel cost us 70, 80 million dollars and we got nothing out of it. i think it is a huge waste of money. and i would like to see it frankly shut down. >> okay.
gregg? >> well, i don't think you can put a price tag on justice. >> yes, that's true. >> i do think that the inspector general's report will be very revealing. he is examining closely james comey, andrew mccabe, peter struck, lisa page, and others at the fbi and at the department of justice. so he may find that there is a criminal referral to be had. >> kimberly, i think there's -- so many people are so angry about this whole situation. >> uh-huh. >> and they feel like all of the weight of the legal effort has been on one side. against president trump. whatever you think about what he did or didn't do, or his team, it feels like it's all coming from that direction. do you think that people will be satisfied that justice has been done if there's nothing coming back on the other side? >> no, and can you imagine the president of the united states not being able to have justice and have the due process and have a full and fair and
impartial hearing? right now you see an investigation run amok and greg i agree with you what is the price of justice, if it is warranted based on the ig's report, other facts are put forward to suggest that there was criminal wrong doing on behalf of james comey and we've seen some evidence of it here tonight, of some of the possible charges of obstruction of justice, false statements, abuse of power, mishandling government documents, and also using these documents for his own personal gain and profit in a book that he knew that he was going to come out, i think there's a lot of meat on the bones there and i think the american people deserve answers to it. >> last quick point, how are we going to get them? what should happen next? >> do j should have a full investigation -- doj should have a full investigation and perhaps another inspector general investigation about it >> people watching tonight feeling frustrated that nothing is going to happen. who should they look to?
>> well, i mean this is the part that's troublesome. >> you said sessions. >> yes, i think sessions. >> yeah, you've got the department of justice that will essentially be investigating it itself, the fbi is part of the department of justice. that's like cops investigating cops. it never works. it is apt to be corrupt nine times out of ten. >> what should happen? >> second special counsel. >> we concur over here. >> thank you. >> never ends. >> thank you very much. coming up next, you've heard the evidence. it's time for your verdicts. send us your thoughts. we will read them after the break.
>> welcome back to the next revolution special, the trial of james comey. you've seen the evidence. let's take a look at what you have to say. debbie tweets: james comey presupposed an outcome and made illegal decisions to match his desired results. that makes it crystal clear that his hands are figuratively muddied and dirty. john writes: this is what happens when you manufacture evidence and deceive a fisa court judge. fake foreign evidence bought and paid for by the dnc through a third party law firm. second special counsel coming.