Presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage. That was something that troubled me greatly. How long was it after that that you decided to start the obstruction of justice and Counter Intelligence investigations regarding the president . The next day i met with the Team Investigating the russia cases. I asked the team to go back and conduct an assessment to determine where are we with the efforts and what steps do we need to take Going Forward . A lot of jawdropping headlines there. They dont stop there. Mccabe claimed there were meetings within the Justice Department about removing the president by invoking the 25th amendment. There is clearly a lot to get to this morning. Lets go to laura jared from the Justice Department who joins us. Wow, where do we begin . Wow, indeed. A remarkably candid interview from the former acting director of the fbi, the man who opened the investigation, the early investigations into russia back in 2016 or as of 2017. He describes not only the turmoil within the fbi and the Justice Department at the time, the chaotic time after james comey was fired but he goes on to explain how he sought to preserve the record on russia. Take a listen. I was very concerned that i was able to put the russia case on absolutely solid ground in an indelible fashion that were i removed quickly, reassigned or fired that the case could not be closed or would vanish in the night without a trace. I wanted to make sure our case was on solid ground and if someone came in, closed it, tried to walk away from it they would not be able to do it without creating a record of why they made that decision. You wanted a documentary record. Thats right. That the investigations had begun because you feared they would be made to go away. Thats exactly right. Earlier this morning 60 minutes anchor scott pelley described that mccabe will confirm for the first time on the record that there were, in fact, discussions about invoking the 25th amendment to recruit cabinet members to try to oust President Trump from office. The discussions, as we reported in december with the Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein. At the time, Rod Rosenstein fiercely pushed back on it. I want to read what he said at the time about the reports including that he sought to wear a wire to record the president. He said, i never pursued or authorized recording the president. Any suggestion that i have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false. More to come on this. The book isnt even out yet. On the other issue here because the man who may soon oversee the Mueller Probe is, of course, william barr, trumps pick for attorney general, you have new reporting that hes already consulting with top doj officials about how to handle the Mueller Report. The challenge for william barr is how to balance that the Justice Department doesnt typically reveal derogatory information. So problematic information about uncharged individuals. They do not typically do that. At the same time he has to balance the publics right to know what happened to the russia investigation, what mueller found. So those are the things hes balancing here. The Biggest Issue is how much does congress find out about the Mueller Report . Under the regulations they have to say very little other than the investigation is closed thats it. William barr is in consultation with top justice officials about exactly what hell say to congress. No decisions have been made. He hasnt seen the report. He hasnt seen any of the findings or been confirmed yet. He wants to hit the ground running. Popup a poppy and jim . Stay with us. We have laura coats and sunlen kim. One thats catching our attention is that this idea about the 25th amendment, the idea of using this provision to remove the president from office, Andrew Mccabe according to Scott Pelleys account says this was not a theoretical discussion, but they were, quote, counting noses, canvassing how many cabinet members might support such a removal. You have been covering this white house for a long time. Is that consistent with your reporting . There is a lot of dispute about what the reports really meant. We do have an on the record denial from the Deputy Attorney general about the conversations. On the broader mccabe interview which was stunning as we have been discussing for the last several minutes, i had to imagine that what he said and the revelations that his assertions are something that will be infuriating to the president if he hasnt seen the interviews already, he will. I presume he may tweet about it in the imminent future. We have seen how Andrew Mccabe has been such a punching bag, a target for the president. In the cbs report the white house already called what Andrew Mccabe the probe Andrew Mccabe opened up baseless. So thats something from the president i expect shortly. Laura jared just laid out for us part of Rod Rosensteins response to the article that contained allegations of him talking about wearing a wire and the 25th amendment. I was reminded of rosensteins remarks at the time. Let me be clear, based on my personal dealings with the president there is no basis to invoke the 25th amendment. The word choice is important. He doesnt say in the response a few months ago we never talked about invoking the 25th amendment. He says there is no basis to invoke it. What do you think . Well, both things can be true. Based on his personal experience with the president of the United States he has now come to the conclusion that the 25th amendment is not warranted. It can be true that what Andrew Mccabe has said that there was a discussion about whether to pursue it and whether to wear a wire in the instance of trying to figure out and assess whether the president of the United States would be removed by the 25th amendment. He was careful with the economy of words. Its an interesting dynamic here. Andrew mccabe sets up the president between a rock and a hard place. Either he can say he believes now that Andrew Mccabe is not a liar, which he has branded him as such for quite some time. Hes been the punching bag my colleagues spoke about. Because he believes hes not credible. If the president were to act on this statement, he would be selectively assigning credibility to something in contrast to what he believes and said openly about Rod Rosenstein. Whats it going to be . Is Andrew Mccabe a liar or should he be believed . If he should be believed a pand pand pandoras box is opened about statements hes made about james comey. Real quick, one of the issues here is the fact that the Justice Department and obviously people close to Rod Rosenstein will point to the fact that Andrew Mccabe has been discredited as a lying. He was fired for lying to internal investigators about an issue related to the Clinton Foundation and his work on that at the fbi and his role in a report that went to reporters back then. Theyll say this is not a reliable narrator. The problem for Rod Rosenstein is mccabe kept memos. He has contemporaneous notes about all of this. Not only does mccabe have memos but his top deputy, his lawyer at the time lisa paige who we have heard about from the president given her text messages, she also kept notes. There are more. The fact that hes seen as a problematic character now given what happened with the watch dog report at the Justice Department, the internal investigation is one thing. I think we have to balance that against the fact that he did keep notes. Its a good point. I was going to ask you about this. Lets be clear the president and his surrogates call every witness a liar. With Michael Cohen, they used it with everybody. There is basis because Michael Cohen has a record of lying as there is with Andrew Mccabe. From a legal standpoint, does that affect how a court sees mccabe or a judge sees mccabes testimony and how does a judge see contemporaneous notes . Does he treat them as credible, as evidence thats credible evidence . Contemporaneous written memos are helpful for credibility. If it is close in time to the incident and written in a time when it is fresh in your mind and there is no motive to lie or motive to concoct then the court will look at this in a way it doesnt discredit it entirely. It can be in front if that were a jury as part of a case of evidentiary conclusions. Remember, a court of law in particular, not the court of Public Opinion is used to there being unsympathetic witnesses who also can offer credible testimony. There are people, old adages who testifies against drug dealers . Drug users. Who testifies against pimps . Prostitutes. There is a credibility crisis at all times but it doesnt fatally undermine their credibility. What lara jarrett said is important. You have a host of people writing contemporaneous memos about similar points. That could lead somebody to conclude either there is a general conspiracy they decided to write the same memo with the same material about the same points to try to undermine the president of the United States or they independently drew the same conclusions. Thank you very much, all of you. Laura jared, great reporting. Laura coates. Coming up this hour, a federal judge ruled extrump Campaign ManagerPaul Manafort intentionally lied to the special counsel, bob mueller, about his russia contacts. Thats the latest. So many lies about the investigation. Plus, we are just hours away from a vote on the spending package to avoid another Government Shutdown. The big question today, of course, will the president then sign it. If you have moderate to severe psoriasis, Little Things can be a big deal. Thats why theres otezla. Otezla is not a cream. Its a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. With otezla, 75 clearer skin is achievable. Dont use if youre allergic to otezla. It may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. Tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. Some people taking otezla reported weight loss. Your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. Upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. Tell your doctor about your medicines, and if youre pregnant or planning to be. Ready to treat differently with a pill . Otezla. Show more of you. Ready to treat differently with a pill . My mom washes the dishes. Before she puts them in the dishwasher. So what does the dishwasher do . Cascade platinum does the work for you, prewashing and removing stuckon foods, the first time. Wow, thats clean cascade platinum. Youre smart,eat you already knew that. But its also great for finding the perfect used car. Youll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. Now youre even smarter. This is truecar. At to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. Because when youre ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward. When you switch out you an old car part. But you do when you switch to Jackson Hewitt. At Jackson Hewitt we help lots of people like you. Thats why you get 200 when you leave your old tax service for us. So switch to Jackson Hewitt today and get 200. thunderclap if your day doesnt unfold as predicted. Unfold this. New neutrogena® makeup remover single. And remove 99 of makeup. 100 rain or shine. Neutrogena®. This morning a judge has ruled former Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort intentionally lied to investigators and now faces the stark reality that he may spend life behind bars. The false statements include lies about interactions with his longtime russian associate Konstantin Kilimnik who has ties to russian intelligence. Joining us now, sarah murray with more. This is a series of lies. Is this Cooperation Agreement with the special counsel and manafort done and dusted . Yeah. Thats what the judge says. She said manafort busted his Cooperation Agreement by lying. The judge said he intentionally lied about a payment for legal bills as well as this unnamed criminal investigation that the Justice Department has ongoing. There were a couple of things the judge said he didnt actually intentionally lie about or the government didnt provide enough evidence to prove it. One was his contacts with the Trump Administration and another also had to do with konstantin kilimn kilimnik. The judge said the things he did intentionally lie about were material to the investigation. So this is a busted deal. Here is why this is a problem for Paul Manafort. This Cooperation Agreement was his best chance at getting some of his jail time reduced. Hes already facing, you know, a number of convictions in virginia. He was convicted on a number of financial crimes and now has this guilty plea in washington, d. C. The prosecutors in d. C. Arent expected to bring additional charges against him for the lies. He faces potentially decades in prison when he eventually gets sentenced. Back to you. All right. Big deal. Thank you very much. Laura, to you, what i find so striking about this there are a number of things like why the intentional lies, et cetera, but judge amy jackson noted twice in her order in this decision that manafort lied about Konstantin Kilimnik talking about russias interests and payments received. The fact he lied about it twice was material to the investigation. You know, the idea shes made it clear she wants to send a signal what the nature of the investigation is and just how close the ties are to the kremlin. Shes alerting the public through this Public Opinion and essentially saying, listen, muellers team has been investigating whether there have been ties to somebody, a part of the campaign and ties with russia. The word collusion isnt in the opinion. What is the notion that material lies, material to the actual investigation which means there is an ongoing desire by Paul Manafort to shield some facts or not be fully cooperative. You have to ask yourself why when hes facing so many decades in prison is he trying to circumvent the right thing . Why lie to muellers team the if he didnt have other nefarious behaviors involved . Its a pattern of lies from Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, michael flynn, george papadopoulos. Whats the white houses answer to why so many lies specifically about russia, multiple lies about it . I know they try to use this process crime argument that they were caught in not remembering things, but lets be frank. This is all about russia. The lies are all about russia. Does the white house have an answer . Whats happened over time is they have shifted the explanations over the last two years of the extent of the contacts between Trump Associates and russian officials. I just remember hope hicks saying right during the transition there were no contacts at all. We have clearly seen how this has evolved over the last two years and how the investigations have unfolded over time. I think if anything, what the president may have to say about manafort would be really interesting. He hasnt said anything so far as i can tell. Often times, the president has treated Paul Manafort and his legal woes differently than other people in the circle such as Michael Cohen. I remember being on the tarmac with him that day, that remarkable day when there were essentially simultaneous guilty fees toward the men. He called Paul Manafort a guy with a long history in republican politics even though he distanced himself saying he wasnt with me for a long period of time. It will be interesting to see what the president , if anything, has to say about the latest turn and development. Laura, why would Paul Manafort plead guilty to the special counsel and lie about it . He wants to plead guilty to curry favor in some way to reduce his sentence. Im sure he thinks hes the smartest person in the room and can go ahead and deceive and manipulate through that process of an overture of credibility. Hes talking to seasoned prosecutors and investigators who are well aware of people who tried to manipulate before and have tried to lie in order to curry favor. I suspect he thought he had the upper hand. His attorneys, to be fair,