there are a lot of unknowns about what there are a lot of unknowns about what the justice department is going to offer up to lawmakers. what do we know? reporter: here s what we do know. we know the white house brokered this agreement between the top law enforcement officials and these congressional leaders yesterday, that comes after a meeting here at the white house that included president trump, the chief of staff john kelly, the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, the fbi director christopher wray and the director of national intelligence dan coats. that meeting happened, the white house said it had been on the books before the president s tweet on sunday demanding that the department of justice look into whether someone had infiltrated or surveilled his claim, an allegation the president made with no corroboration or proof, i thshod note here. they walked away from the meeting with the department of justice agreeing to expand an on going inquiry into the surveillance of a
justice officials handing over this question of was there political motivation in using an fbi confidential source with information on the trump campaign. was there political motivation in that? that s now handed over to the inspector general of the department. if the inspector general says no spy here, scott, is donald trump going to accept it, do you think? well, i hope he does, this is the way the government is supposed to work. the inspector general can look into things and the congress with have oversight over agencies. nobody in the government is beyond oversight. that s number one. number two, i think this investigation of the investigators is appropriate because we already know that politics was at least considered in some of the material we have seen. the text messages that have come out between rig right. i hear you, but it becomes this never-ending kind of quest of who is there to trust? when bob mueller was brought on, everybody said he s great. his reputation is amaz
manning many people will tell you that the government hasn t shown that national security has been harmed. embarrassment, yes. many of the cables leaked to the wikileaks organization are hugely embarrassing to the united states, about government diplomacy, that sort of thing. but harm to national security. so i think it s fair to say a lot of people watching the manning case to see if that s a case that can be made or not made in edward snowden s matter. you can t try someone on the basis of embarrassment. thank goodness for both you and i. i m sure we ve had instances ourselves. barbara starr, pentagon correspondent. appreciate it. great chatting with you today. still ahead, the jury found george zimmerman not guilty, but could the justice department turn things around? we re going to ask our expert legal panel coming up next. i turned 65 last week. the math of retirement is different today. money has to last longer. i don t want to pour over pie charts all day.