Some say he should step down, some say he should recuse himself. The latest here in whats at stake at the Justice Department where Catherine Herridge is. Were setting the scene here. There will be a twominute warning that Jeff Sessions is about to speak. I want to set the scene. Weve seen a highly series of un usual events today. This press conference was called with less than an hours notice. Highly unusual with reporters of every News Organization descending here on the Justice Department. The key question here is whether the attorney general announced he will recuse himself from any elements of the Russian Investigation or whether he will stand his ground and that he has the confidence was President Trump and he does not see that theres a conflict of interest. What is really under the microscope is then senator Jeff Sessions should have been more forthing in his confirmation hearings on capitol hill when he was asked about any contacts he had had with russian officials. He said that he didnt have any contacts with russian officials and then in a written statement for the committee, he was asked more specifically if he had met with russian officials and talked about the 2016 election, and he said no, that is technically correct. What we know now that senator sessions had met twice with the Russian Ambassador, one at a large gathering in washington hosted by the Heritage Foundation and a second time in his office on capitol hill. What the attorney general said this morning to nbc news is that he had had those meetings, but it was really in his capacity as a lawmaker. Critics are saying he should have been more forth coming about his contacts given the gravity of what was at stake and russias interference with the u. S. Election last november, neil. Neil thanks. She touched on it, the white house is standing firmly behind its attorney general, saying that he did the right thing and even find its not sensical to talk about recuse al let alone stepping down. Jeff sessions is brutally honest. Heres what i think happened in my mind. They were asking about Campaign Contacts with the russians. He said he had none. I believe him. He claims the conversation was about being a senator and i believe Jeff Sessions. Neil all right. That is the view from Lindsey Graham here. John roberts at the white house with how theyre dealing with this right now. Hey, john. Hi, neil. Good afternoon. Here in washington, you can glean what is about to be said in a press conference by looking at the body language of the people close to the person giving the press conference. Heres what we with tell you in terms of the white house posture in recent minutes. Sean spicer a Board Air Force one a few minutes ago saying the president still has full confidence. This is not the type of confidence that he had in general flynn but the president still supports his attorney general. The white house pushing back on senator sessions, now attorney general sessions misstated his contacts with officials during his confirmation hearings. The president has not spoken to sessions we should say since last night. Sessions this morning, if you remember, neil, said he would accuse himself wherever appropriate. Perhaps he thinks its appropriate to recuse himself in this particular investigation, perhaps not. Im sure well hear from him on that. In terms of the president himself when he was on board the u. S. S. Gerald ford said that he had total confidence in Jeff Sessions, when asked if he told the truth during his hearings, the president said i think he did. He said he wasnt aware that sessions had met kislyak twice, once on september 8 in capitol hill and another time in what was described as a casual encounter after a lunch time speech on the sidelines of the Republican National convention in cleveland in july. When asked if general sessions should recuse himself, the president said i dont think so. So if you take those together, the president saying he shouldnt recuse himself, sessions saying he will recuse himself wherever appropriate and sean spicer saying the president has full confidence in him, we can probably expect to see a more further explanation of what he said during his confirmation hearings to senator franken and in the written questions to senator leahy as catherine was talking about and more detail on what the conversations whether when he met with sergey kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the u. S. Well see. Neil were about a minute away from the attorney general coming out. Do we know how it came to light that he had this conversation . Certainly as recently as september with the Russian Ambassador in his office. How did that get out there . How did that come back . Somebody clearly knew, neil, what the schedule was in his Senate Office and the fact that kislyak came to visit him there. He would have gleaned some sort of information about what went on at the Republican National convention. The white house thinks the timing of this is very curious coming around on the heels of the president s wellreceived address to a joint session of congress. The white house this was dished by somebody on the other side of the political fence to try to take away from the president. It worked. He wanted people to talk about what was going on in the u. S. S. Gerald ford. All everybody was talking about is his attorney general. Neil especially after a couple days after the address of congress. You mentioned Something Interesting here. Obviously this conversation got out there that he had with the Russian Ambassador. Follows similar leaks not only involving general flynn and his conversations, but even down to the australian Prime Ministers conversation, that phone call between he and the president. That also got out there from someone in the state department, a lot of leaks. The great thing about being a journalist in washington, theres a lot of leaks. The bad thing about being a president , theres a lot of leaks in washington. You have a lot of people that want information out about policies that they dont like, some people want to be the big dog on the street and say i have the information and i can do with it what i want. Neil the one thing that does come up in this though, you know, hes a smart guy, the attorney general. I can understand the context in which he was saying, i was not in the role of the surrogate in this. But he would know that just that conversation alone should get out. I mean, it was a classic case of compartmentalization. He was asked that question during his confirmation hearings. He took it to mean neil john, i dont mean to cut you off but were getting word he will come to the microphone. He will recuse himself from and maybe he will spell that out shortly. Thats just coming in to us. What do you make of that and what signal could this be sending . As i said, you could probably read it a couple ways. He did said this morning that he would recuse himself where appropriate. A growing chorus of republicans, number 16 now, including prominent senators, senator portman, collins of maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina that said that he should recuse himself from this particular investigation. The democrats had opinion calling for a special prosecutor to look into all of this. Senator schumer suggesting that maybe neil thanks very much, john. To the attorney general. Welcome to the department of justice. Jody, thank you for being with me. He is my chief of staff and jody is has been almost 20 years in the department of justice. Let me share a few thoughts. First about the comment that i made to the committee that have been fed to be incorrect and false. Let me be clear, i never had meetings with russian operatives or russian intermediaries about the Trump Campaign. And the idea that i was part of a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump surrogates and intermediaries to the russian government are false. That is the question that senator franken asked me at the hearing. Thats what got my attention as he noticed it was if first just breaking news. It got my attention. That is the question i responded to. I did not respond by referring to the two meetings, one very brief after a speak, and one with two of my senior staffers, professional staffers with the Russian Ambassador in washington. Where no such things were discussed. In my reply to the question my reply to the question of senator franken was honest and correct as i understood it at the time. I appreciate that some have taken the view that this was a false comment. That is not my intent. That is not correct. I will write the Judiciary Committee soon, today or tomorrow to explain this testimony for the record. Secondly, at my confirmation hearing, i promised that i would do this. If a specific matter arose where i believe my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, i could consult with the Department Ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed. Thats what i told them at the confirmation hearing. I have been here just three weeks today. A lot has been happening in this threeweek period. I wish i had had more of my staff on board but were still awaiting confirmation of them. Much has been done, much needs to be done. But i did and have done as i promised. I have met with senior officials shortly after arriving here. We evaluated the rules of ethics and recusal. I have considered the issues at stake. In fact, on monday of this week, we set a meeting to announce a final decision on this question. On monday we set that meeting today. So this was a day that we planned to have a final discussion about handling it. I asked for their candid and honest opinion about what i should do about investigations. Certain investigations. My staff recommended recusal. They said that since i had involvement with the campaign, i should not be involved in any campaign investigations. I have studied the rules and considered their comments and evaluation. I believe those recommendations are right and just. Therefore, i have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump Campaign. The exact language of that recusal is in the press release that we will give to you. I said this i have now decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaign for president of the United States. I went on to say this announcement should not be interpreted as confirmation of the existence of any investigation or suggestive of the scope of any such investigation. Because we in the department of justice resist confirming or denying the very existence of investigations. So in the end, i have followed the right procedure just as i promised the committee i would. Just as i believe any good attorney general should do. And a proper decision i believe has been reached. I thank you for the opportunity to make those comments and would be pleased to take a few weeks. Okay . Just to clear up any confusion over this. Could you just explain a little bit about the september 8 meeting, who on your staff was there and what was discussed with the Russian Ambassador . The Russian Ambassador apparently sent a staffer to my office. I did not see him. He asked for a meeting as so many of the ambassadors were doing. We set up a time as we did, as we normally did. We met with him. Two of my senior staffers were there. Maybe a younger staffer, too. They both retired Army Colonels and not politicians. We listened to the ambassador to what his concerns might be. [question inaudible] it was normal things like i started off by saying i dont remember a lot of it. I do remember saying i had gone to russia with a church group in 1991. He said he was not a believer himself, but he was glad to have Church People come there. I thought he was pretty much of an old style of soviettype ambassador. So we talked a little bit about terrorism as i recall. Somehow the subject of the ukraine came up. I had the Ukrainian Ambassador in my office the day before to listen to him. Nothing that russia had done nothing that was wrong in any area and everybody else was wrong with regard to the ukraine. It got to be a testy conversation at that point. Wrapped up. He said something about inviting me to have lunch. I did not accept that. That never occurred. [question inaudible] i dont recall. Most of these ambassadors are pretty gossipy. This was in the campaign season. I dont recall any particular police call discussions. Do you recall meeting with ambassador kislyak any other time . I dont recall having met him. Its possible. Im on the Armed Services committee. Things happen. I dont recall having met him before that. On the question of sanctions. We did he have a meeting with you . Did he consider you a representative of the Trump Campaign . Ambassadors are always out trying to find out things and advance their agenda. Most of the countries that ambassadors i met with, they would lay out their case or ukraine would lay out his case, poland, latvia, japan, canada, australia. I met with all of those ambassadors over the year. So i think thats why. Did you consult with the white house about your decision and just to follow on the last question, with hindsight, do you believe that this is a co incident that the russians asked you for a meeting or do you believe it was targeted because it came at the height of the interference and up trump said he didnt believe there was anything to the reported interference . I dont recall and dont have a sense of any connection whatsoever about that. Im not sure i knew when we set up the meeting, what was going to be going on in the world at the time. So i cant speak for what the Russian Ambassador may have had in his mind. Have you met with any folks connected to the russian government since . I dont believe so. We meet a lot of people. From those two meetings that you discussed with the ambassador . I dont believe so. The White House Press secretary and the president both said today you should not recuse yourself from these top investigations. Did you i did share with white house counsel, or my staff had, that i intended to recuse myself this afternoon. But i feel like of course, they dont know the ethics rules. Most people dont. But when you evaluate the rules, i feel like that i should not be involved in investigating a campaign i had a role in. One more question and well wrap this up. Two questions, if i may. One, you were already considering recusal before today. Is that correct . Secondly, when you answered senator frankens question, were you not thinking of the meeting with the Russian Ambassador or did you not consider it relevant . I was taken aback a little bit about this brand new information, this allegation that surrogate i had been called a surrogate for donald trump, had been meeting continually with russian officials and thats what i struck me very hard. Thats what i focused my answer on. Retrospect, if i should have slowed down and said but i did meet one russian official a couple times. That would be the ambassador. Thank you all. Take care. Neil all right. You heard it. Apparently this was in the works before these revelations today. Attorney Jeff Sessionsecusing himself from future investigations into the trumprussian ties. A number of democrats have been urging theres a need for special prosecutor to look into this. But this got so big today there was even talk that maybe the attorney general should just step down. Now, you hear a lot of this. I want to get to judge napolitano on this. Not before we play the question and comment that triggered this latest fury. That is crucial to this. It provides context. I want to play the long question. Because whats been left out is what is really being debated here. Conversations about operatives for the Trump Campaign, surrogates for the Trump Campaign. It was in that context, in that light that senator Jeff Sessions, who was going through confirmation hearings to become the next attorney general, that is how he was thinking and responding to this question. The full question. Take a look. Cnn has just published a story, and im telling you this, about a new story that has just been published. Im not expecting you to know whether or not its true. Cnn just published a story alleging that the Intelligence Community provided documents to the president elect last week that included information that russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and Financial Information about mr. Trump. These documents allegedly say there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government. Now, again, im telling you this as its coming out, you know. But if its true, its obviously extremely serious. If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump Campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do . Senator franken, im not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign. I did not have communications with the russians. And im unable to comment on it. Neil you see why we did that. We want you to understand the entire context of the question. It was a valid question from senator franken. It was done in the context that are you acting as a surrogate for the Trump Campaign. You know the drill. That was the context in which the attorney general at the time is answering that. Is it a distinction . Is it worth mentioning in the attorney general tried to clarify that. Lindsey graham seemed to be signalling that difference. But the finest legal might i know is with us to clarify, judge an draw napolitano. What do you think of that . Im glad you ran the entire question and the entire answer. It shows the context, as you say, of the environment at that moment. It appears from the question, from the answer and from the attorney generals explanation just a few minutes ago that he interpreted the question to mean did you talk to the russians as a surrogate for the campaign about the campaign. The answer was no. Question wasnt did you ever talk to russians at any time during the campaign. The public can decide for themselves because you ran the entire thing if the answer was truthful. If then senator sessions interpretation of the question was a fair one on the basis of the context. I happen to think it was. But the public will decide for themselves. This is not the type of case where a person is prosecuted for perjury. In order to succeed in a perjury prosecution, you have to include all lawful interpretations. The one that we have given is a probable and reasonable lawful one. Should he have said, but i did talk to this Russian Ambassador, it was during the campaign, but i wasnt a surrogate for the campaign at that time. And it had nothing to do with the campaign, that would have been the full disclosure. Neil but when i wasnt he a surrogate . At the moment according to him, the Russian Ambassador with meeting with him in his capacity as a member of the senate Armed Services neil the one in his was a. The one in cleveland, was another matter. All of these guys try to pepper you around. But how can you not remember, judge or recall its one thing when the ambassadors this is the Russian Ambassador. This is the country in the middle of all of this back and forth. What are they doing, how are we getting this information. Much of that came out of the details of this, all of that intelligence later, i grant you. Its not as if youre meeting with the representative from botswana. One would think there were notes made. He said he had three Staff Members there. One would think there were notes there. One would suggest to you, neil, theres another statute governing here besides perjury. One is called misleading congress. One could Mislead Congress with a truthful and Accurate Answer when the answer is incomplete. The obligation is different before congress than before a jury. Before a jury, if you answer truthfully and accurately, yes or no, you dont have to give the explanation. Theres no statute misleading the jury. A separate statute for congress. This is the one that Roger Clemens was indicted and tried for. Misleading. Neil is it misleading to leave Something Like that out . Im going to make it stronger. Is it misleading for a lawyer who is about to become a attorney general of the United States who is as a senator is a member of that very committee to leave something out . Neil he would have to know, right, that this kind of stuff would come back. Im surprised it took as long as it did. Talking to john roberts about it. Someone obviously put two and two together. I asked his date book, his list of meetings. Sure enough, he met with the Russian Ambassador in september. The july one im going to leaf out. That was at the convention. Bedlam and all that. That is the one conversely john pointed out, its in the senators office. Its not as if theres going to be some great revelation on government grounds. And he has two or three witnesses there. As one of our colleagues said the other day, it was almost inconceivable that he would have said, hey, mr. Ambassador, can you help trump defeat hillary . It would be insane to say that where theres witnesses there. Neil and youre the lawyer. I listened to you enough that i think i have a law degree. Isnt that dangerous . You are the smart one. Neil but that its inconceivable to me that he would not know that, you know, that he had met with the Russian Ambassador. Thats not a meeting you forget, right . Right. Neil he could just add on, i met in a capacity as a senior senator of the Armed Services matter, National Intelligence matters in my office not far from here. So now he did the absolute right thing by recusing himself. Yes. Neil apparently that was in the works before yes. The standard is, does it look bad . Does it smell . Would a neutral person looking at this say, the fbi can investigate the Trump Campaign when their boss was a member of the campaign . Of course not. The boss has to step out. Doesnt mean the fbi cant do its work. Of course it can. It just means the senior Justice Department official to whom the fbi will report on this will not be Jeff Sessions. It will be the number 2 person who has president been confirmed yet neil is that right . Shepard his hearing is monday. You can imagine what theyll will ask him about. Neil thanks, judge. Do you know how smart you are because you know the law without having gone to law school . Neil i did go to law school. I listened to you for years. How long we been together . Decades now . 20 years. Neil i have a princeton education. I cant even spell princeton. I want to go to Catherine Herridge at the Justice Department. He has more. He didnt have to do the recuse al thing. The judge touched on that but he did. I dont know if thats enough in this environment especially with democrats calling ifor his head. Update us. Several things jumped out at me. First and foremost, the attorney general said he never acted as an intermediary between Trump Associates and russian intelligence. He said that was flatly wrong. He does agree his answers to the senate Judiciary Committee were not as detailed as they should be and he will give them nuances and in effect correct the record and having looked at the rules, he felt that it was a right and just that he take himself out of this case. What that means Going Forward is that he will be a stranger to the case. He will not be briefed on the case, he wont have a decisionmaking capacity. As you indicated, the Deputy Attorney general, which is an acting position right now, will be that decision maker. Heres what really jumps out at me. I want you to just step back and think about the timing here. The fbi is investigating russias interference in the u. S. Elections. So theyre trying to collect a lot of data points. What weve seen now is that then senator sessions, these were hits words, got a call out of the blue, a request from the russians to meet at his Senate Office. This is the same time we had the height of the hacking and release of the emails. Also at the same time that candidate trump was doing an interview with Russian Television that there was really no substance to these allegations. So what that tells me is someone that works in intelligence reporting is that you can see three lines of inquiry from the russians at that time. The hacking, this probing of senator sessions that was a surrogate for the campaign and the interview with donald trump. You can see this, i would argue, as an element and evidence of coordination by the russians in this campaign against the u. S. Elections, neil. Neil all right, Catherine Herridge. Thanks very much. By the way, joe mentioned West Virginia senator, the democrat, the only democratic senator that voted for Jeff Sessions said that if sessions lied, he should resign. Thats pretty selfevident. But one of the things that comes up is intent. Youd have to prove a lie, that he lied about it. That answer was not unequivocal. The answer he gave today . To senator franken. The statement he gave to senator franken was misleading. Is it fair to conclude from the contend of the question. The question was asking did you talk to the ambassador about the campaign. Not that did you talk to the ambassador, question mark. Neil who cares under what guise . Its a big deal. It is a big deal. They prosecute for people lying under oath. Or if he intentionally left something out neil did he ever come back and clarify this . No. Hes going to try to do that now. It will depend on in large measure how the members of the committee on which hes formerly a member of himself received that. Neil judge, thanks very much. I want to go to alabama republican senator. He replaced Jeff Sessions. Senator, very good to have you. What do you make of this . Thank you for having me. Neil do you think that omission of a meeting is the same as lying about that meeting . I think senator sessions did a great job in his press conference clarifying the situation that occurred and correcting the record. Ive known jeff a long time. Im more than certain that he would never intentionally mislead anyone. The questions were about the campaign. As he understood the question, it was truthful. Im glad he clarified it today and glad he took the step of recusing himself. That was prudent on the advice of the professionals at Justice Department. Neil you might be right. There might be a distinction of meeting with the Russian Ambassador from the intelligence committee. But now many people say you have to re use recuse yourself about the trump ties. Is the surrogate role going to come back to bite him . What do you through . I dont think so. On the democrat side, many democratics were acting as surrogates for Hillary Clinton and meeting with the ambassadors around the world along with the Russian Ambassador. So as a member of the Foreign Services committee, its our job to meet with foreign officials and our duty to the american people. Jeff made it very clear with the Russian Ambassador was held in his official office with his official staff talking about official business. Again, i go back to the question that senator franken asked him. It was in the context of breaking news and the context of the russians interfering with an election related contact. He had no such contacts. I think that was the intentional, maybe inartfully expressed. Neil i do understand it. Thats why we played the full question. I think people when they hear the shorter version, they wonder, wait a minute. I mean, theres a difference here. Much of it had been the minute before this was about surrogates and their role and discussions with the russians. If i were asking the question, i would be thinking hes asking as a campaign operative here what i did. That i understand. That is a big meeting not to recall or add on. And just to say i did meet with the russian abbasssador not very far from him. He did do that and he clarified. Later on, he could have and didnt provide an addendum. Thats what sort of is feeding this call for him to go way beyond recusing, to stepping down. That is probably extreme. Do you think he gave them ammunition for that by not doing the kind of thing that you would think being considered for the highest legal office in the land . I dont think he did, neil. He was very clear in his written comments. This was a breaking news story at the time. So i dont think thats the case at all. What i would point out because i sat through the entire day at the hearings as a private citizen and friend of Jeff Sessions, the attitude and the methodology of going after senator sessions has been wellestablished by the democrats. They said certain things about his record that were totally untrue. Really mischaracterized his record as a senator and as a person. Its very unfair to him. This is a continuation of that effort and goes beyond senator sessions. It goes to undermine the trump presidency. Its apparent to me and hopefully to the american people. Neil speaking of the trump presidency, the trump is urging against recusal. But obviously to the better part of valor for the attorney general was to recuse himself against any of these ongoing investigations and potential ties with the russian officials and the Trump Campaign, something that hasnt been proven. I want to let you know. This did play a part on wall street with a selloff. It accelerated when we got wind that the attorney general was going to have this brief conference on fears probably, not exclusively, that this slows down washingtons attention on the things that wall street wants to see done like those big tax cuts that i touched on with the treasury secretary of the United States. Also an Interesting Development that we followed on fox business and involved cat pillar having their offices raided by a number of big folks at the commerce department. We had irs officials involved and the like going to three illinois offices trying to get information and gathering the files with the complete cooperation of caterpillar officials. We dont know to what end. What infnted. Caterpillar is a big multinational manufacturer of equipment and all sorts of stuff. Why they were going to the offices, what they were taking from those offices, we dont know. We know that caterpillar is a dow component and contributed about a third of the dows sell off today. Maybe a little more. Well have more after this. Nviss are made with smarttrack® material to precisely move your teeth to your best smile. See how invisalign® treatment can shape your smile up to 50 faster today at invisalign. Com pay your insurance on time. Tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. What good is having insurance if you get punished for using it . News flash nobodys perfect. For drivers with accident forgiveness, Liberty Mutual wont raise your rates due to your first accident. And if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24 7. Call for a free quote today. Liberty stands with you™ Liberty Mutual insurance mr. President , did sessions recuse himself . I dont think so. When did you learn that he spoke to the Russian Ambassador . When were you aware . I was president aware at all. Neil all right. That was President Trump obviously talking about Jeff Sessions, that he was not interested in seeing his attorney general recuse himself from anything. That he still supports him. He was not aware of the meeting that the attorney general had with the Russian Ambassador then as a role as a United States senator. The fast and furious development from that. We have former defense attorney, gregg jarrett. You dont have to be a lawyer to know this much. When the boss wants you and hes still not hinting or giving you halfhearted brace, obviously he has the president s support. He doesnt think he should recuse himself. He did. Does this put it behind him now . The attorney general. No. Youll always have people like nancy pelosi that hauled off in a News Conference and pronounced sessions guilty of perjury, denounced him as a liar and demanded his resignation. Nothing is going to convince pelosi and Chuck Schumer and a variety of people on capitol hill. It appears they want to take down Jeff Sessions and donald trump. Theyre trying to use this inappropriately. I take my hat off to you. If more reporters had played the full question and answer as you did, then i dont think there would be such controversy surrounding this. If Jeff SessionsDepartment Talk about the election with the ambassador, if he didnt Exchange Information about the campaign, theres no perjury. Hes not lying. He answered the question. I dont think it doesnt remotely constitute it seems to be misleading congress. He was asked a question. He answered it pretty directly. Yeah, he was caught off guard. You can tell he was surprised by this new information in a report that had just come out. Neil but he did volunteer it. He wasnt asked about this, the not meeting russians at all. Leaving that aside and youre a very good lawyer. You guys are good at not answering questions. Although youre very good at it. Its what you leave out, too, right . He could have volunteered that in my role as the United States senator, i just met, you know a few months ago in september with the ambassador in my office. I stress, in my office. He didnt. In the heat of that moment, those were tiring hearings, i can understand. Shouldnt he have forwarded that information if not then but shortly thereafter that yeah, my staff is reminding me, yeah, you did meet with the russians . How many times have we been on the air and thought about it on the ride home and said we could have done it better . Neil ive always been picture perfect. No, you raise a good point. Neil but when you get to that point, do you feel compelled to say, you know, the whole russian involvement came up. I did meet with totally night and day. Get it out there. I dont think he even connected the two. Neil really . Isnt that a problem . The clear context was the question was, people exchanging information with the russians about the campaign. His response was jeez, john anything about that. I didnt do that. I dont think he ever thought that anybody would say, wait a minute. You had a conversation about terrorism and ukraine several months ago with the Russian Ambassador. Might somebody misconstrue that . I dont think he thought somebody would. Again, hindsight is 20 20. We can do better second time around. Neil youre very good. Thanks for having me. Lieutenant colonel tony schaffer. What do you think about it . Im not a lawyer. Maybe you are. No. I did some prelaw stuff. I won a mock trial, but thats a story for another day. Neil do you think recusing himself puts this behind him or does it reboil the russian thing and the election thing and what did the trump folks know and sort of feed the beast . Look, i agree with greg more than judge napolitano. I consider the judge a friend. What happened here, i believe, neil, is the continuation this is mike flynn 2. 0. You can see a lot of folks coming out as gregg said, kudos to you for running the entire question and answer. I consider this another trip wire. The Obama Administration put down trip wires for this sort of thing. Let me be clear by that. The New York Times reported overnight about how these Intelligence Officers are whispering about the scene s about contacts. This is benign. He answered the question clearly. On the drive here, i listened to npr, which i sometimes do. There was a former Intelligence Officer that got the question about well, do you believe this to be sinister. He said its all sinister. They took it out of context. This former Intelligence Officer lied and said the senators never talked to ambassadors about the issues even though this is a lie. So what im seeing here is other parts of the media lying to continue to feed the flames. As much as its a good attempt, its not complete. Let me add this. People should be investigating Chuck Schumer for his contacts with iranian officials that have not been disclosed. What is good for the goose is good for the gander here. There are people, neil that have been engaged with the russians. Clinton and podesta making a deal on uranium. Theyve not within investigated. Neil but the leaks. Someone leaked this detail out. Precisely. Neil you can argue. The senator should have and now attorney general should have brought that to light to people. Maybe he did. Well find out. Someone leaked that out. He did meet with the guy just like someone leaked out the conversation that the president had with the australian Prime Minister around got sassy. Now, you know, maybe for very valid reasons, but a lot of leaks are going on that have revealed quite a bit. Im wondering, is this a continuation of that and who is doing it . Yes. The people that are doing it are clearly the former staffers that are involved in the obama white house. I dont want to sound like a conspiracy guy. Theres something going on here. You have former members of the intelligence committee, of the hill, the state department all working together to get information which is either embarrassing or misleading out. Let me be clear. I dont believe what Jeff Sessions said is going to be contradicted that what came out. Its inindictment by implication. I read the New York Times article closely on this. Intelligence officers came forward to say we have information that says theres wrong doing. They never state the wrongdoing and never go on the record. Fox has been good about getting people on the report with the facts and not accepting someone like a john brennan going to a New York Times saying theres something here that you should look at and not giving specifics. Neil thank you, my friend. Big on context here. Get the whole thing. Precisely. Neil tony shaffer, thanks very much. I do know rand paul is a senator. Hes a doctor. Could be a lawyer. Senator rand paul with us. Good to see you. Thank you. Neil are you a lawyer . No. Neil we can proceed in english. I dont want to get into healthcare and so much more going on. This is a huge disruption. It was huge for the market to be disrupted. Obviously its a big deal. Having said that, what do you think of the actions that the attorney general took to recuse himself and he says move on . You know, i think we need to get beyond this and start getting to some of the things that need to be fixed in the country. The biggest debate in the capitol and the country is what to do with health care. I think we need to hone in on that. Hopefully the press conference by the attorney general will help us get on to business. I dont know about that though. Youre closer than i am, sir. Im getting a sense when the top Democratic Leaders are saying the guy has to go and others arguing that, you know, this whole thing might warrant a special prosecutor. Its spiralling out of control. If were going to have everybody go that makes a misstatement on whether they met an ambassador or not, were going to have some people going. We had one senator on the other side said she never met with a Russian Ambassador until someone said she did. She forgot. We ought to take a step back here and be a little bit more rationale about whether or not its appropriate or inappropriate for senators to meet with a u. S. Ambassador. Neil i think youre talking about senator mccaskill. When i attempted to talk to the treasury secretary, he thought they would have the bill signed, sealed and deliver by august. I asked him what was going on with the repeal and replace of obamacare. He said it would be resolved by then. Theres no need to play anything back from that to get to you on whether that is in danger. I was telling him then as ill tell you now and you know better than i, that does not look like a smooth sailing thing. It depends. Theres easy ways to repeal it. Vote on what we voted on a year ago. Im not sure why people are not saying this. We vote add year ago. Every republican in the senate and every republican in the house voted to repeal the whole thing or as much as we thought we could repeal under the rules. Why not put forward on what we voted on . They made it more complicated as it has to be. If you add in things that conservatives dont like, like an individual mandate, which their plan has, you add in a cadillac tax, which their plan has and you add in a new entitlement program, thats not conservative, so you wont get conservative votes and they need our votes, so they need to not be dismissive and hide their bill somewhere in the basement of the capitol. They need to let us see it neil where was this meeting going on . Apparently you were not invited. Where was this meeting that they crafted this . We werent looking for a meeting. We were looking for the bill. I promise you the bill does exist. Its written in legislative language. Its been previewed by the cbo, but its not been seen by any senators that i know of. Neil you know this process, senator. The way it works, they cook this up, whatever, then they want a simple up or down vote in the senate on what they produced, right . They want a take it or leave it approach. Im not for that. They say here, it comes from the house, take it or leave it. Thats not the way we ought to do this. We had six years to complain, and sort of give our opinions on obamacare. There ought to be a legislative process where every one is involved, not just behind doors with a secret bill neil i understand that. But what worries some is that i know you feel this way, ted cruz feels this way. That would assure its defeat in the senate. The fear is that republicans are falling apart. Theres another way to look at it, neil. Put forward the bill we voted on and youll get unanimous support and be done with it and move on to tax reform. Neil wait a minute. The bill you voted is a simple repeal. Yeah. Simple repeal. Put forward replacement at the same time but as a separate bill. Id let the democrats but forward a replacement, too. Put forward a vote. Neil not everybody agrees on the replacement. Thats what would happen. Youd figure that out through voting. Republicans and democrats want a new entitlement program, they want Medicaid Expansion and somehow to have federal money paid for all of this. Lets vote on that. As a separate bill neil this is falling apart, isnt it . Seems to me no, no, no. Its simple. You vote on complete repeal separate neil they dont want to do that. I know that. But if they want conservatives to vote for the repeal, they have to give us complete repeal separate from the new Government Programs that they want. Neil so assuming they dont do that, senator, the tax cut things is delayed. Its not off, right . Theres a jockeys going back and forth. They will have to see if they can convince conservatives to vote for their plan. I can tell you right now, it will not pass with the new entitlement program, the cadillac tax and they keep the individual mandate. These are the things weve been campaigning against for years now. They cant keep obamacare light and expect conservatives to vote for it. Neil thanks, senator. We shall see. Maybe they can settle it. Right now the market is getting the drubbing today. Getting increasingly worried, but maybe not. After this. When you have a digital notebook to capture investing ideas that instantly gives you stock prices, earnings, and dividends. An equity summary score that consolidates the stock ratings of top analysts into a single score. And 4. 95 online u. S. Equity trades. Lower than td ameritrade, schwab, and etrade. You realize the smartest investing idea, isnt just what you invest in, but who you invest with. Neil there was good news today, snapchat. Online networking site. The guys are 26 years old, worth 5. 1 billion today. Are you kidding me . We are not jealous. Never mind the company is losing sales hand over fist. This is commerce at its best. A lot of people say could be the next facebook. It was a shining light in an otherwise worded market, concerned that the momentum for tax cuts and rules and regulation relief are going to go down. Market value fourth snapchat, 34 billion. Kimberly im kimberly with Juan Williams dana perino eric bolling, dana perino and greg gutfeld. It is 5 00 in new york city and this is the five. Today in washington a new Storm Brewing over another one of President Trumps top aides regarding they had whether they had improper contact with russian officials. Let me be clear. I never had meetings with russian operatives or r