they broke the fisa laws. schiff said well, the fisa court will show was properly advised about the political connections. >> sean: but why? >> that's a lie. and his memo points out he was lying about that. you go through every part of schiff's memo, and it corroborates and supports nununes' memo. >> sean: that's the point. the steele dossier was key, sara, no dossier as mccabe said, no dossier, no fisa application. never mind warrant. they withheld the clinton bought and paid for this thing. i mean, everything was corroborated that nunes and the grassley graham memo said. everything they corroborate. >> absolutely, sean. they implicate themselves. this is the fbi director, former director james comey. and others implicate themselves with their own words. if you think about the time line, october 21st, 2016, they get the fisa warrant to spy on carter page. then on january 5th. they debrief then president obama. on january 6th, they brief president-elect trump. and james comey himself says you know it's salacio

it was used to apply for a fisa warrant and became the bulk of the fisa application. >> let me get this straight. this is based upon upper-level fbi management, not the rank and file -- >> sean: correct. >> james comey, who literally wrote a letter 11 days from an election, that are proven my book cost or the presidency, this is a left-wing conspiracy of fbi agents? seriously? >> with all due respect, this is a problem because these are the same people, dan bongino, that overlooked or mishandling of classified information, or deleting a 33,000 emails, acid wash, and then busting up devices so that she could continue. they wrote an exoneration for an investigation. the investigation happened in july. they were writing the exoneration and may. >> it's interesting how he never answers your question and immediately want of a conspiracy theory, look at the red squirrel. sean, let's stop calling thisst the steele dossier. it's the clinton dossier. theou information, if you read e memo tonight, is. hillary clinton's team essentially hijacked the fbi and the doj to use it to launder information

they broke the fisa laws. schiff said that the fisa court will show, properly advised about the political inaction -- that is a lie, and as ♪ ♪ points out that he was lying aboutwa that. you go through every part of the memo, and it corroborateses and supports nunes' memo. >> sean: that is the point. that dossier was key, sara, no dossier, no fisa application, never mind warrant, they withheld the clinton bought and paid for part of it, everything was corroborated that a nunes and the grassley-graham memo said. everything, they corroborate. >> absolutely. the implicateve themselves. this is the fbi director, former director james comey, and others, implicating their cells with their t own words. if you think about the timeline, october 23rd, 2016, they get the fisa warrant to spy on carter page. then on january 5th, they debrief and president obama on january 6,mp they briefed president-elect trump, and james comey himself said it's salacious, it's unverified. thenie you have christopher stee himself telli

the actual applications for the fisa warrants? >> i asked director wray this back in december. show us what you put together to make application to the court. they could bring that not judiciary committee. but i'm for making that public so the american people can see what took place here. they took a salacious and unverified document, they took it to a secret court to get a secret warrant to spy on a fellow citizen. when they went to that court they didn't tell him who paid for the document, not once, not twice, not even three times. four times they went to the court and didn't disclose who was financing this document and they did the in the context of a presidential campaign. david: they were people who were anti-trump. we know the strzok men owes or texts with lisa page that they were going to do anything to keep trump out the white house. even having some sort of insurance policy. they kept treefg -- kept referring to andy. they had a friend in the justice department, bruce ohr, housewife was work for fusion gps. >> these top p

they are lying to a fisa court. fisa means okay, secret, top secret, spy on american citizens. on this case a presidential candidate, but all the information is coming from your opponent. why bother to tell the judge that part. >> there were some chances. the fbi and the department of justice, to do the right thing and at every turn, time after time, they did the wrong thing. >> sean: who is in legal jeopardy tonight, gregg jarrett. >> nibble who signed off on this fisa warrant penalty of perjury. anybody who represented themselves as an officer of the court and mitt add fraud on the court. when they first learned that all of this came from the russians, experts on lies and deception, they should have said, mr. steele, goodbye and take your dossier with you. >> sean: the eye ron any, real quick, we are running out of time. the irony of all of this is hillary clinton paid for russian lies, dr. gorka and sara. >> the collusion. russian collusion is right here. it's right here. this is your russian collusion. hillary clinton, her lawyers, the dnc and the doj under obama. there it

word for the fisa court. i'm wondering if that's true. the biggest thing i have the concern that chris hayes interviewed carter page in october. at that time he said the ryan would come out with a memo. how did he know that in october? >> host: how are the judges picked embedded? the court is comprised of 11 federal district judges. books have been nominated by any president than their chosen by the chief justice to be designated to the fisa court for a seven-year term. to there's a situation where the judge was nominated by the last couple presidents but then i think it further dissipates the charge that we start to see over the weekend that we should trust the judges but president obama. >> again, the real question is not so much the timing. i think it's always been a part of the plan to try to raise concerns about the carter page application, the real question is why are folks buying it given how much objective information is out there. second, even if it was in doesn't call into question the mueller inves

then they get a fisa warrant. so the fisa warrant is issued. in january before the president was sworn in james comey as fbi director meets with the president, tells him about this, as his words were salacious and unverified dossier but said the president was not under investigation and that not to worry about that. yet seven weeks before then, he obtained a fisa warrant based on that dossier. then it was renewed a day before the inauguration and then renewed subsequently again. and so when you look at just the chain of events, that's why i want people to focus on the timeline here, it's very very not only dangerous but i mean, what did they tell the fisa court? they didn't say this was political opposition research, they didn't say it was unverified. christopher steele leaked the information to a media source. the fbi said they cut off formal relations with him. did they tell that to the fisa judge? i think the real issue is as the nature of what they did but also what they did to the courts and i think that all has to be reviewed. and i think

loretta lynch knew about these fisa warrants. yates, the deputy attorney general, the extensions rod rosenstein, now the deputy attorney general. he knew. fbi director comey, mccabe, strzok, page, his girlfriend. who else would know these fisa applications and warrants? these are counterintelligence warrants. you have to assume the national security council and the white house knew. why would the fbi, justicecu department, keep that from the national security director in the white house? why would they keep it from the deputy director in the white house? so why would be left out of the president's daily intelligence briefing -- [clearing throat] which i mentioned in march. congress also needs to get a hold of. i am telling you, looking at the fbi, looking at the department of justice, we are not looking at all at the white house. hillary clinton paid for a warrant. that's the easiest way we can put it. hillary clinton colluded with the russians. but it appears the fbi at the seniormost levels colluded with the russians too. wheth

the fisa court better get busy. they are either incredibly grossly negligent. >> laura: thank you. >> or they were lied to. and don't you think they should care? and shouldn't they have some kind of a hearing, a process? >> laura: could the carter page, even with sovereign immunity, could carter page file in court an action for abuse of process or sanctions against justice department attorneys for omitting a material fact in a fisa application? is there any grounds for that? >> he could file something with the d.c. bar. wherever these people are members of the bar. he has filed a case in new york. >> laura: um-huh. >> he did it pro se. but he has a case. >> laura: comey's chief of staff chuck rosenberg all over television today look, if they really had concerns about this. if the trump people or the republicans were worried about this, they could have gone to the inspector general and voiced their concerns. they could have gone to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board and they could go to the fbi. that's w

it was to stop abuse of the fisa process. >> okay. by the people named in this, many of whom are still in power. if rod rosenstein, who is named here, approved of these fisa warrants or at least one of them, did he abuse the fisa process, and does he belong in the justice department? >> here's what we do no. comey's gone. mccabe is leaving. jim baker, the chief counsel, has been reassigned. peter strzok has been reassigned. lisa page has been reassigned. bruce ohr has been demoted. when you talk about the fbi, we know the rank and file agents are doing a great job. i'm talking about the key people at the top of the photocofbi. we've seen them leave,i be demoted because they've down things wrong. we called for six months ago a second special counsel. i don't like second special counsel -- >> do you want him to go? >> no, i want a second special counsel to look did. >> dana boente was just hired as the fbi general counsel. if he signed off on one of these fisa warrants and you've got a four-page memo here saying that it's awful -- >> in

application or fisa generally. so that, i think, sort of bursts the notion this is in the private process and this is about much more than trying to undermine the mueller investigation by attacking one fisa warrant against carter page. and that's not good. and the irony, of course, if you're bob mueller and you have the president of the united states, if it's true, that he's telling friends on the phone that he's going to release this because it's going to interfere with the mueller investigation or undermine the mueller investigation, essentially he's giving mueller exhibit number whatever, 22, in his mosaic of obstructionist behavior as to the mueller probe itself. so the president says, i'm going to try to interfere with the mueller investigation by releasing this memo. mueller probably writes down in his list, all right, here's another thing the president is doing to try to interfere with my investigation and i'll have to evaluate that in terms of my obstruction of justice analysis. incredible. >> michael, than

then they get a fisa warrant so that fisa warrant is issued. in january, before the president was sworn in james comey meets and says dangerous and unsolicited dossier. the president was not uninvestigation and that not to worry about that. yet, seven weeks before then, he obtained a fisa warrant based on that dossier. then it was renewed a day before the inauguration and then renewed subsequently again. so, when you look at just the chain of events. and that's what i want people to focus on the time line here is very, very not only dangerous what did they tell the fisa court? they didn't say this was political opposition research. they didn't say it was unverified. chris steele leaked the information to a media source. the fbi says they cut off formal relations to them did. they tell that to the fisa judge in the real issue here is both to the nature of what they did but also what they did to the court and i think all that has to be reviewed obviously. and i think special counsel is necessary to review this entire matter. because we're not eve

what did they omit to get a fisa warrant. david: we're getting word breaking right now that president trump will not approve a release of this democratic memo. >> wow. david: a lot of people suggested that he would let the time expire and it would release automatically. but now we're being told -- again it has not been confirmed by fox news or fox business but other news agencies are reporting that he will not allow it to be released. what do you think? >> well, look, i've spoken -- david: by the way, excuse me for interrupting you. fox now has confirmed it's true. >> i spoke to a source on the committee who told me that the memo was a mess, it has major security problems and it's full of attacks on congressman gowdy and nunes and it was slapped together at the last minute. and when there was a vote on the republican memo, before that vote the low pressure members had not seen the democratic memo. i would like to see it carefully evaluated to make sure that there are not sours and methods concerned. david: i'm getting word fr

so if you've been through the fisa court process, and i've appeared before fisa court over 20 times in my career, signed off on hundreds of fisa court requests, you know the process. it's loaded with attorney review at doj, at fbi, local field office. it doesn't get through the system without being proper and containing probable cause. so it sounds like we have a refutation of the nunes memo. now the public gets to read this and decide what they will. >> all right. i wanted you guys to listen to something. i think we were just able to turn around some sound here. devin nunes at the cpac convention just outside d.c. commenting on this new memo release. listen. >> we actually wanted this out, so this has been held up for over two weeks. the fbi and doj had right away had told the democrats what was wrong with their memo, or their response to our memo. and they waited for two weeks before they actually did the redactions that were necessary to get this out. we wanted it out. we wanted it out because we think it is clear evidence that the democrats are not only trying to cover this up, but

then they get a fisa warrant so that fisa warrant is issued. in january, before the president was sworn in james comey meets and says dangerous and unsolicited dossier. the president was not uninvestigation and that not to worry about that. yet, seven weeks before then, he obtained a fisa warrant based on that dossier. then it was renewed a day before the inauguration and then renewed subsequently again. so, when you look at just the chain of events. and that's what i want people to focus on the time line here is very, very not only dangerous what did they tell the fisa court? they didn't say this was political opposition research. they didn't say it was unverified. chris steele leaked the information to a media source. the fbi says they cut off formal relations to them did. they tell that to the fisa judge in the real issue here is both to the nature of what they did but also what they did to the court and i think all that has to be reviewed obviously. and i think special counsel is necessary to review this entire matter. because we're not eve

takes to get someone to be investigated under fisa? >> there is a lot of public misinformation about the court. but also about the war and process generally. a lot of folks look at the facts that michael steele may or may not of been paid by the democratic national committee and assume that that taints everything you said. ordinary law-enforcement witnesses are often paid informants. that does not prove that any warrant is tainted. more often than not, it is not. this is why the real question is not what of the memo say, the question is what was actually submitted to the five a court -- fisa court? so that was any concerns would dissipate. host: is there a way to release that underlying information that doesn't copper my's national security? -- compromise national security? guest: we could try. the president has the final say on these kinds of classifications and declassification questions. if he really wanted to declassify the underlying application to the fisa court with appropriate reactions. with blackout passages to hide sources a

to be investigated under fisa? guest: part of the problem is there is a whole lot of public misinformation about the fisa court specifically but also about the war and process generally. a lot of folks look at the fact that michael steele may or may not have been paid by the democratic national committee and assumed that taint everything he says. pedro, ordinary law enforcement witnesses are often paid informants. not prove that any warrants the government obtains from that information is tainted. in fact, more often than not, it is not. that is why the real question is not what the memo says, but what was actually submitted to the fisa court, was there enough sufficient, independently corroborated information so that any concerns that we have about the provenance of this dossier would dissipate. host: is there a way to release that underlying information that does not compromise national security? guest: certainly, we could try. ultimately, the call is up to the president. the president has the final say on these

fisa. january than hunt joins us now. >> james comey has been rivalling president trump for tweet tirades in recent days. today was no different. his latest coming after continue versus i can't memo was released and making full use of twitter's expanded character count the former fbi director wrote, quote, that's it? dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the house intel committee, destroyed trust with intelligence community, damaged fisa court and in excuse blue disclosed classified information of an american citizen, for what? doj and fbi must keep doing their jobs. that followed thursday's twitter claim that, quote, weasels and lie as never hold the field. so long as good people stand up. not a lot of schools or streets named for joe mccarthy. a reference to the senator who held hearings in the 1950's it try to root out in the u.s. government. some on the left blaming him for hillary clinton's loss after he announced the re-opening of the clinton email investigation eleven days before the

he signed off on these fisa applications. he worked closely with bruce the dodge official whose wife worked for fusion. you can see dragging him into this saying he's tainted by it. doing a basic read on this, if the president thinks this is so shocking to get rid of the guy, i think there are a few people who understand this who would agree with him. >> democrats want to release their own memo. the republicans have blocked them. the fbi was really against this coming out. correct me if i'm wrong, because i'm not ant expert, i don't see sources revealed here. >> it's hard for us to know what may be sensitive. i'm told there was a push to redact some of this stuff and they were not successful. >> the only thing redacted is the top secret at the top of the page. so the democrats want to push back, the fbi wasn't happy about it. is the fbi going to end up coming out and saying something? we had a former fbi agent and lawyer say that christopher wray probably shouldn't. don't add fuel to the fire but what's the debate internally?

a lot of these fisa judges, people think fisa judges are picked, that they're special for the secret court. no, they are district court judges. there is something called forum shopping where someone decides i want to get this judge or that judge. and maybe, if you look at the number of fisa warrants approved, it's like 97%. come on. does that sound like a rubber stamp to you? as if these people are worried they will be found out? come on, judge. >> sean: i know one judge that i wouldn't be for be before. keep up the good work. >> thanks, sean. >> sean: anthony scaramucci is back and sharyl attkisson straight ahead ♪ multivitamin specially formulated with key nutrients plus vitamin d for bone health support. your one a day is showing. >> sean: all right. it's one of the mainstream destroy trump favorite tactics to prevent you from getting the whole story. it's called bias of omission. today it was on full display. despite the bombshell revelations in the grassley-graham memo and pretty damning text messages from fbi officials lovers. the media is utterly silent. here with reaction s

let me ask you a bit about that, the reputation of fisa and what recourse someone has when a fisa warrant is brought against him or her. >> let me just say, i want to piggyback off what danny said. >> please. >> what this memo is doing is not only omiting important information that gives proper context, but misleading the american people on what the actual process, the rigorous process that danny was referring to is and the legal requirements needed in order to obtain a fisa warrant. they're trying to invalidate this entire investigation by arguing that legal term, legal metaphor, fruit of the poisonous tree. because the fbi intentionally relied on questionable intel, the dossier, in order to get this warrant that somehow everything that comes from this investigation is now tainted. there's so many reasons why that logic is flawed and falls flat. one, no one knows what the fbi, what law enforcement presented to the fisa court. no one knows, including nunes, who authored the memo. two, the memo doesn't concede to theac that major parts of the dossier were vetted, were validated, were verif

when you are applying for a fisa barnett you wou warrant you would mask the names. so the notion that they hoodwinked the judge which of course is the core here, is just not supportable by the evidence. >> was the judge informed it was a democratic source or just a political source. >> that i do not know. like devin nunes i have not actually reviewed the fisa application themselves adam schiff and trey gowdy have. that work was originated by a republican opposition research effort. >> and congressman jordan you haven't seen either. >> no we are not permitted to. i called wray show us the application. show us the information. >> he was suspected for an agent. and that was why they were asking for a warrant to surveil. >> if you had other information on carter page, why didn't you use it. why did you rely on the dossier. >> congressman himes was clear. they didn't tell the court that the democratic national committee paid for it. >> like the nunes memo that is a mi misrepresentation of the facts. remember this, congressman jordan said four times they went to the fisa

and the headline is the foreign intelligence fisa act abuses. and it is the material ps from e hillary clinton campaign used to obtain the fisa warrants against members of the trump campaign or affiliated with the trumple campaign which is inappropriate. it does not matter if you are a democrat or the republican, and that is why the crux of it should be sent out and why it should be part of the debate. and never in a situation of the campaign-funded material are used in this way as evidence in the court. in your broadcast, if you used a campaign materials that were commercially given to you by a candidate as news, that would be wrong, and similarly in this instance, the fbi and the department of justice is taking campaign-funded material from one presidential campaign and introducing it as evidence in a court case is similarly wrong. it is a threat to democracy, and i could certainly hope that i want to join with the director of the fbi in certainly commending the work of people who are at the fbi in their great sack ri are fis, but i hope that

are you going to change the fisa law? after all they just reauthorized a section of the fisa law. as far as we no he they made no changes that would have cured this. so it really goes to the point that this is more of a political issue, not something that they really are serious about privacy and protection of americans. >> it's a great point. because it's certainly a reasonable debate to ask about how far can you go in surveilling americans even in a national security investigation. but if you're making a charge that it's happening illegally you better present evidence. >> that's why this is never supposed to be so public, right. the fbi, this is their concern. they value the work they do on fisa and the courts, fisa courts and they treat it with extreme sensitivity about, because the working going into this is so sensitive and so important in terms the way they view it for national security, that we can't -- they cannot afford to expose anything that goes on in that court. there are people under surveillance in this country all the time. sometimes you go to a regular court or cr

the judge went along with it and signed a fisa warrant. david: judge, that alone to me is a bombshell. why is it not to you? >> because i don't think it will interfere with the bob mueller investigation and it really doesn't have anything to do with it. david: but why do the two have to be part of the same process? why can't they go separately? >> i don't understand the question? david: the point is what we have discovered as a result of this memo, as a result of fisa warrants based on highly partisan smear jobs without telling the fisa court the origin of the trump does a, that is something that needs to be investigated on its own no matter what mr. mueller does. >> absolutely, absolutely. this should call for and result in an investigation with the entire fisa system. what kind of a court grants, write these numbers down, 99.997 of all applications before it. it is just unbelievable. it is a rubberstamp of the intelligence community. no matter how intelligent a judge may be, when there is nobody there to challenge the documents that fbi

that would belie the entire process of going through a fisa court and a fisa warrant. it has to be a full investigation. it's not based on one or two documents but the compilation of context and vetted information and a lot of accurate facts that are there. to suggest we should discredit one organization or agency because they leave key things out, doesn't that tell me i should do the same thing with this? we were promised a kraken and out pops a minnow. >> they say it was obtained using just this dossier and a yahoo news story that talked about carter page's ties to russia and he had been under investigation. is that possible? >> this is not a partisan statement. it's impossible that the dossier alone could have been used as the justification. >> the dossier with the yahoo news story. >> even with the news story. you have to understand that the bar for getting a fisa warrant is extremely high. the reason that most fisa warrants are granted is because the fbi and the intelligence community know how high the bar is. when they go to the court, they present a wealth of in

doesn't work that way with the fisa court. you have to show that you've gotten something from the first couple of attempts to do this. now, rod rosenstein apparently signed the last one of these, the fourth one. there were three before him. and what nadler is saying here in essence is don't blame rod rosenstein for approving these things because his three predecessors all thought that there was value out of what they were getting and he was just continuing on what had already started. so that's one of the legal points he makes in this letter. >> uh-huh. and, jeff, looking forward here, nunes saying yesterday on fox news with sean hannity this is just the beginning, that we could be seeing, what, 70%, 80% more. there's just a fraction thereof and president being involved in this initial one having to declassify certain parts of what was released here, any readout there from the white house in terms of what may be next and whether the white house will be part of these next phases? >> well, not on that specific point, but the whi

i've testified in fisa court many times. some of these testimonies take hours and there's a rigorous review. so i think people need to understand that. it's not the rubber stamp that you hear some people say. >> thank you for that. the last time we had how on the broadcast i was reminded because you had just written an article about how robert mueller writes a case, for time magazine. let me take you back to your med line and tell me how do you think he's working this case? what do you think is going on? >> i think he's going to keep doing exactly what he's doing. this memo is not going to slow him down one bit. what i read today further substantiates the investigation that mueller is conducting is righteous and forthright investigation which actually substantiates the allegations written in the fisa package merchandise so i think the memo does nothing but strength that case, and i think mueller is going to drive straight ahmed. >> what if the man before him is in peril? what do you think he'd do? >> i think, first of all, y

to be investigated under fisa? guest: part of the problem is there is a whole lot of public misinformation about the fisa court specifically but also about the war and process generally. a lot of folks look at the fact that michael steele may or may not have been paid by the democratic national committee and assumed that taint everything he says. pedro, ordinary law enforcement witnesses are often paid informants. not prove that any warrants the government obtains from that information is tainted. in fact, more often than not, it is not. that is why the real question is not what the memo says, but what was actually submitted to the fisa court, was there enough sufficient, independently corroborated information so that any concerns that we have about the provenance of this dossier would dissipate. host: is there a way to release that underlying information that does not compromise national security? guest: certainly, we could try. ultimately, the call is up to the president. the president has the final say on these

the fisa application was denied. then the dossier, well, they added that to get the help that was needed so they could "get it approved". and they lied to the judge. what it means is we have three congressional memos that prove a key fact. the f.b.i. lied to a fisa judge about the clinton and dnc financing the dossier, which was filled with uncorroborated russian lies, and they did it to spy on the trump campaign. the attorney general, jeff sessions, glad he's moving. he needs to move quickly. everybody involved needs to be held accountable. we need to resource the rule of law. all right. also breaking tonight, we have more news about broward county and the sheriff's department missing countless warning signs about the florida school shooter, and utterly failing to properly respond to this deadly rampage. now this is one huge, massive, giant, beaurocratic failure after another in this case. and broward county sheriff, scott israel is flat out refusing to take any responsibility. instead he's blaming pretty much every