garland appointed a special prosecutor to look into it. well, today we got the results of the investigation in a report. the special counsel will not seek criminal charges against president biden. so if you re in a fantasy league for presidential indictments, it s still, trump, 91. every other president ever, 0. you got that? clean that up. good morning. welcome to morning joe. it is friday, february 9th. good to have joe, willie and me here together. along with us, the host of way too early, white house bureau chief at politico, jonathan lemire. nbc news national affairs analyst john heilemann. former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor chuck rosenberg. and nbc news justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian is with us this morning. we have a lot going on. we ll start with the special counsel investigating president biden for his handling of classified documents will not bring charges against the president. that s the conclusion. he wrote in the report, wrot
after using russian disinformation to smear federal agents on behalf of the clinton campaign. in breaking today, he testified that hillary clinton herself improve the smear campaign. but denied any involvement in the efforts to involve the fbi. now even the world s richest ma and his tweeting about the case elon missed tweeted i bet peopl don t know that clinton campaig lawyer using campaign funds created an elaborate hoax about trump and russia. it makes you wonder what else i fake. here now with reaction is fox news legal analyst greg jarrett and someone who was in the courtroom today, thank you so much for being here with us, greg, i want to start with you because oh my goodness, hillary clinton personally signed off o this, personally. hillary clinton herself? she personally approved the scheme to peddle phony collusio information to that media. it dropped like a bombshell by her own campaign manager. it seems so incredibly foolish for the defense of all people t have c
Warrants . The concern grows out of the fact that all of the failures and the and The Information that shouldved been given and wasnt given. And the question being what was the intent . What what washa their intention . Their motivation there. And what we determined was we couldnt definitively say what the motivation was. Are these pretty smart people . Fairly welleducated . At least welleducated. I dont know if theyre smart. I dont know if were very smart to beow honest with you. I was b going to say they have law degrees, right . At least somehe of them do. So you think the woods review for people at this level of the organization. To be clear, the stuff that didnt happen on the woods review was basic stuff. Yeah. You didnt need to be a deeplyexperienced fbi agent to be able to do it the right way. Well, thats my point. So wouldnt you think that would almost be muscle p memory for people who are going through this process to know they had an obligation to go through that . They clear
the collusion story when in fac he classified documents show that s exactly what they did. moreover, james comey you will recall was hillary clinton s bf on july 5th of 2016. he stood before television cameras and spent about ten or 15 minutes describing how she violated the law with her e-mai server, and then in a complete about-face in the course of ten seconds he said, but no reasonable prosecutor would eve bring such a case, that s his job, he s a law enforcement official, he s not a prosecutor. in the end, the department of justice for an abuse of power i usurping the authority of the attorney general. so this is him trying to turn a case about evidence and the law into pure politics for inequitable. i thought comey was wrong.
if that information is corroborated through other means. and the ig act requires us, actually, the congressional the law says senator grassley obviously has had a role in this. makes it quite clear. we are not unless we re legally- obligated to provide e information, the law requires us to do so. it s our obligation as igs to keep that information. well, i appreciate that because, as you know, we may face that question here in the senate relatively quickly. last quick question and i m running out of time. so i just would like a quick answer if you could. i m trying to find out who brought the steele dossier to the attention of the fbi for the investigation? was that andrew mccabe? or was that bruce ore? so it was steele in july 5th of 2016 going to his handling agent. the agent there is a dispute whether he was a confidential source or not. we spend a number of pages on