Question. Why isnt adam schiff saying, yeah, lets go look at it . Instead just like yesterday when he said hell go look at it. Let me finish. He was almost about to sign the invitation for comey to come testify, but suddenly, there are stipulations. There was no reason to have stipulations. Same thing today. He was invited jack, youre rewriting jack, youre rewriting history. Stipulations, what are you saying let me answer the question. I know this not because ive talked to him, but because ive read the documents and read the public reporting which you can read as well and you probably already know, which is that he was willing to sign the letter. In fact, he said today, hes willing to have comey and rogers come in behind closeddoors testimony, but he also wants a guarantee that clapper, that yates, and others are going to testify openly and that hasnt been assured. Even today, he still hasnt gotten assurances from nunes thats going to occur. And jack, let me also ask you, if you were devin nunes right now and say you just
walked into this, unwittingly, do you think you were set up for this . Or were you a part of it . Or is this just innocent . That all of these if you look at this timeline, if you look at the timeline, everybody is im a former english major. I know about foreshadowing. Every action was foreshadowed from the president to sean spicer and suddenly devin nunes is over at the white house. I mean, it just chairman, other than collusion, what is the explanation here . I really do not think that the white house and i say this are respectfully, but i dont think theyre organized enough to have such orchestration of this in a way jack talk to by the way let hold on, jack. If you call this orchestration, you know, god help us all. Because thats not orchestration. No, but what youre assuming is that the president said, okay, on monday, im going to say this. Sean, on wednesday youre going to say that. And devin, on friday youre going to do this. I dont think thats possible. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What were forgetting about the ryan lizzas reporting. Ryan, explain your reporting, because you have a senior white house official saying i mean well, explain. A senior white house official who would have had, if he wanted it, access to this information. But, i mean, the bottom line is, he knew what nunes was going to say on monday, before he said it. So, that right, he told you, watch what nunes is going to say. Hes going to lay the predicate and he referred you to a hill article, which talked about incidental collection. Ryan, the question is, why would somebody hate his job or his employer so much that he would be that disloyal . I mean, i understand how its useful to you, if i had that kind of mold, but that sounds like a real sleazy person, frankly. And im not going to make that the subject. But i want to get back to adam schiff. Well, we were talking about
the hearing and i was asking what we should expect but hes undermining his team. If he goes around saying things are you surprised that a white house official would leak something, from this white house . It gets back to what we republicans say about the deep state but jack, they wanted us in the press to focus on incidental collection. I dont know how theyre there. Jeff, we havent heard from you. Other than collusion, is there any explanation for this . Well, i do think that devin nunes is such a uniquely clueless individual and so out of his depth in this whole investigation that ascribing too much planning and motive to him might be wrong. But it is true, also does that mean youre on my side . Im not sure. I think your side basically wants to make the whole thing, what did Evelyn Farkas know and when did she know it. Its like, who cares . And who is she . But the question that i think, you know, that we need to focus on, is, what is the underlying truth here of what were the relationships from the Trump Campaign and the russian government. And russian oligarchs. And how can that information come to light in the most fair and efficient way . I think its quite clear that the House Intelligence Committee is a hopeless mess. The Senate Judiciary committee seems to be doing a better job. But giving devin nunes any responsibility for this, and trusting him to be doing the publics good as opposed to Donald Trumps good is just its a fools game. It seems to me, actually, i was thinking about it tonight. I think that the Senate Committee is going to come out with a very balanced report that some people are going to like. The House Committee report is going to be called political regardless of what they find. Because both parties, you could argue, have been very, very political and running to the
press, as opposed to what warner and burr are doing, its a totally different approach. And burr gloria, weve got to go. And theyre doing an investigation into russia, period. Not into leaks. Well, they should be i want everybody on the panel. To our viewer who just joining us, President Trumps former National Security adviser, who was fired for lying about contact with russia, is now offering to testify to the committees investigating that contact and talk to the fbi as well, in exchange for immunity. The Wall Street Journal broke the story just about two hours or so ago. Were doing our own reporting, just a short time ago, General Flynns attorney put out a statement. It reads in part, quote, General Flynn certainly as a story to tell and he very much wants to tell it. No reasonable person who has the benefit of advice from counsel would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized Witch Hunt Environment without assurances against unfair prosecution. The story first broke in the Wall Street Journal. I spoke with correspondent carol lee in tonights first hour. Take a look. Carol, first of all, what have
you learned that former National Security adviser Michael Flynn has offered to the fbi and others . Well, weve learned that through his lawyer, he has had conversations to achieve some sort of immunity in exchange for his testimony, or for cooperation, in terms of the fbi. Those discussions, its our understanding, have happened in recent days. Theres a statement out now from Michael Flynns lawyer, saying that he would agree to testify under certain circumstances and that they have had these conversations and his lawyers are saying that theyre concern is not so much that Michael Flynn has something to hide, theyre saying he doesnt or he has something he should be concerned about, but in this political environment, he would not be treated fairly. And so, hes asking for immunity from any prosecution to be able to give his testimony and cooperate and not have any consequences should something arise that could be criminally
prosecuted. And i think, in your story, you cited the fbi as well as the House Intelligence Committee and the senate. The House Intelligence Committee spokesman for chairman nunes has said that Michael Flynn has not asked for immunity. The lawyers statement does talk about the House Intelligence Community and the senate. I just read it very quickly. It doesnt directly mention the fbi, is that correct . No, his statement i just took a quick look at it. It does not. But the fbi is obviously a natural place to go and fear trying to seek immunity or if youre going to be investigated. We know that the fbi had interviewed Michael Flynn a couple of months ago, when he first was under scrutiny or it was reported publicly that he was being his communications with Russian Ambassador were being investigated. And other potential communications between him and russian officials were being looked at. And he was, at that time,
interviewed by the fbi and so, it would be it would make sense for him, obviously, to have that discussion with the fbi, because theyre conducting an investigation. And then, obviously, the house and senate Intelligence Committees are, as well. I guess the statement i mean, when i first read the statement from chairman nunes spokesperson, saying that he had not asked for immunity before the House Intelligence Committee, it seemed at odds with your reporting, but also the lawyers statement. But when you read the lawyers statement closer, it basically it doesnt use the term immunity. So and the lawyer does say that they have had talks with the House Intelligence Committee. So really its kind of maybe a question of semantics. Its maybe a question of semantics, but if you look at the lawyer statement in our discussions with various sources, you know, he is seeking immunity. What hes asking for is to be able to cooperate and to deliver testimony in exchange for not being prosecuted in some way,
leading chants of lock her up, the guy on, i think it was Meet The Press, back in september a year ago said, people asked essentially, people asked for immunity have committed some sort of a crime. You dont ask for immunity unless youve committed some sort of a crime. Hes now asking for immunity. Its an incredible development. Jeff, appreciate it. Joining us now is cnns senior political analyst, david gergen and the multifacet is, David Axelrod. X files pod caster now host of the x files on tv premires Saturday Night at 9 which know. Looking forward to that. David gergen, you said earlier tonight that, quote, the clouds are darkening over the white house tonight. Any way you look at it, and Congressman Kingston was trying to spin this as or trying to say this was a good thing for the white house. Any way you look at it, this doesnt seem to be good for them, no . Anderson, first of all, weve never had a National Security adviser embroiled in a legal dispute that potentially has
criminal implications since John Poindexter back in the reagan years overs the iranian arms deal. Weve never had never, ever had a president in the first hundred days whose white house is so embroiled in controversies that are increasingly suspicious. So, yes, this is very bad news for the white house, darkening clouds. Im not quite sure how they deal with it, but, you know, if the National Security adviser is ready to sing in exchange for immunity, you know, that has to be worrying to them. Because, you know, this goes to the heart of what the investigation and the fbi is investigating two central issues. One is, to what degree did the russians throw the election toward the president. But the second issue is, to what degree were the russians colluding with Trump Associates. And Michael Flynn is right at the top of that list. And to have him now asking for immunity, you know, sends this message that theres a there is a fire here of some sort. And what weve been seeing for the last two or three weeks is the effort to create a lot of clouds, so we cant see the fire. But the flynn story says there is a fire. David axelrod, flynn was of the president s National Security adviser, one of his closest advisers, not just in the white house, but on the Campaign Trail up until six weeks ago. Whats your reaction to all of it . He was an integral part of the Trump Campaign, when the Trump Campaign was a very trim operation. And as david said, the danger for the white house here is, i mean, the link that will make this a fullblown crisis is if a link can be made between people in the Trump Campaign organization and russians or others who are familiar with the fact of the hack and what was to come. And i think thats The Big Question that people are asking. And flynn would be one of the people who you would look at most closely, because of the ties that hes had in the past, because we know hes had conversations with kislyak, perhaps others. So, this is, this is a really, really Alarming Development from the standpoint of the white house. And i quite agree with david. You know, part of why people are so keenly interested in this and following this so closely is the freneticism in which the president has reacted to any charges of collusion with russia and these charges hes dropped from time to time to try to divert the discussion. So this is a big deal. And by the way, it comes at a particularly inconvenient time, because on the very day that this news surfaces, we learn that one of flynns appointees in the white house was involved
in this nunes escapade. So, it really it couldnt be worse. This is this is, as david gergen would say, a bad news day at the white house. Right. I mean, david gergen, not only somebody that flynn appointed to the National Security council, but someone who the new head of the National Security council, the new National Security adviser, tried to get removed from the National Security council. And according to the reporting by matthew, of the New York Times, President Trump himself intervened to stop that removal. I want to play a clip of something that General Flynn said on Meet The Press back in september. I spoke about this. He was speaking about Secretary Clinton and the people around her asking for immunity. Lets play that. The very last thing that john podesta just said is no individual too big to jail. That should include people like Hillary Clinton. I mean, five people around her have had have been given immunity to include her former chief of staff. When you are given immunity, that means youve probably committed a crime. Now, we should say, i mean, he was, you know, clearly had a political reason for saying that. You can argue that somebody can ask for immunity for a whole bunch of reasons and its not necessarily because somebodys committed a crime, david gergen. Thats very true, but at the same time, its generally true that somebody asking for immunity to protect themselves from criminal prosecution. And its also true that the lawyers at the same time for General Flynn, which came out tonight, cnn has been reporting on, says in the last line that this is all about protecting his client from prosecution. So that seems to be the central motive behind it. And i think the point you made about h. R. Mcmaster, who was highly regarded in the military, and is now the National Security adviser to General Flynns successor, and tried to oust this person. Tried to send him off the staff. Because flynn had recruited him. And this same person was deeply
involved in giving stuff to nunes and the collusion with nunes. Tried to fire him, and the president personally intervened . Ive never heard of anything like that anderson. And it happens you know, i hope for the countrys sake, frankly, i hope for the president s sake, that this is more smoke than fire. Because i think it would be calamitous for the country if it went the other way. But theyre behaving in such a suspicious way that it has to make you doubt. You know, when sean spicer stands up there and says things that you know are not quite true, it makes you doubt. I just wish for the countrys sake they would come forward, be honest, lets face it, lets deal with it, and lets move on. Because it is not helpful to have a corruptful president. If thats what this comes to, its extremely bad news for the country. And this is how these scandals unravel. And they tend to morph into other stories as events develop. So, now theres going to be a great deal of interest in exactly why this young man who
mcmaster wanted to fire, who flynn brought to the National Security council was saved by the president. And it also raises the question of whether he had a pipeline to the president in some way. I mean, The Big Question and if he had a pipeline to the president , why did he need nunes to pass along information . Exactly. And the curious thing about the whole nunes, as Lindsey Graham said, Inspector Clouseau episode, is that he goes down to the white house, he gets briefed on this information, and then he breathlessly runs back to the white house the next day to tell him about the information that he had obtained the previous day, from the white house. And so, you know, it is a it is a hot mess right now. And i just cant David Axelrod is so on point on this. And i think he speaks for a lot of people who have worked in white houses over the years. People who work there feel so privileged. Think really want their president s to do well. They want it to be clean. And this is just a deeply disturbing, you know, moment for an awful lot of people who have tried hard. I think, anderson, one other thing that should be said. I was one wh