Hey, it's good to have you with us.

You're watching the "700 Club".

And after months of looking into Russian influence

on the presidential election, congressional investigators

are now looking somewhere else.

Guess what?

Former FBI director James Comey, they'll

be trying to figure out if he mishandled

classified information in his memos,

which he wanted to get leaked to "The New York Times".

And there are new details about the meeting

between President Trump's son and a Russian lawyer

just before the election.

National security correspondent Eric Rosales

brings us the story from Washington.

ERIC ROSALES (VOICEOVER): The White House

is again on the defensive following a "New York Times"

report Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email

that damaging information about Hillary Clinton was being

offered was part of a Russian government effort

to help his father's campaign.

Trump Jr. wasn't the only one at the meeting.

So were then Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort

and Trump's son-in-law and current adviser Jared Kushner.

And the meeting took place at Trump Tower

with a Russian lawyer linked to the Kremlin.

According to Trump Jr., she was an "individual

who I was told might have information

helpful to the campaign."

This is the first time that the public

has seen clear evidence of senior level

members of the Trump campaign meeting

with Russians to try to obtain information

that might hurt the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

ERIC ROSALES (VOICEOVER): In the past,

the president's son denied having

any contact with Russians about the campaign.

The White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee

Sanders says the campaign never followed up on the meeting

and that neither Trump Jr. nor the campaign

ever colluded with anyone to influence the election.

And she says the president only recently

learned of that meeting.

Donald Trump Jr.'s lawyer released a statement

saying this is much ado about nothing.

But the same may not be true for former FBI director James

Comey.

A new report reveals four of the seven memos

that he wrote following his interactions

with President Trump contained classified information.

The revelation reported by "The Hill"

undercuts Comey claim during the Senate Intelligence Committee

hearing last month that he believed

that the information in the memos were unclassified.

I understood this to be my recollection recorded

of my conversation with the president as a private citizen.

I felt free to share that.

I thought it very important to get it out.

ERIC ROSALES (VOICEOVER): Comey revealed during testimony

that he shared the memos with a Columbia University Law

professor who then shared the memos with reporters.

"The Hill" points out that Comey's actions

raise the possibility that he broke his own agency's rules

and ignored the same security protocols that he publicly

criticized Hillary Clinton for regarding her decision

to keep classified documents after leaving the State

Department in 2013.

However, Comey's friend disagrees.

In an emailed statement, Columbia Law professor Daniel

Richman told CBN News, "Jim Comey never gave me a memo that

was classified, and the memo whose substance I passed

on to 'The Times' has never, to my knowledge, been classified.

Memos that went to Congress and not

me may well have been classified."

President Trump responded to the report about Comey

by tweeting, "James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

to the media.

That is so illegal!"

Now congressional investigators will

look into Comey's memos, trying to figure out

where and how they were created, like were they

written on an unsecured computer and when the government decided

that the memos contained classified information, before

or after Comey shared them.

Eric Rosales, CBN News, Washington.

Well, Jay Sekulow is with us now.

He's Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law

and Justice and he's a member of President Trump's legal team.

Jay, what is the upshot of all this?

There are all these investigations.

Does anybody find anything of significance?

No.

I mean, yeah, well, one thing of significance,

James Comey leaked information.

Originally, everybody thought it was one memo.

Now we know it's four memos.

Certainly the government's position now

is that this was government material.

So James Comey testified that these

were his-- he called them recollection recorded

his private information.

But the United States government Department of Justice

has taken the position that this is in fact government material.

He then leaked government material

to a third party who then leaked it to "The New York Times".

That's a crime.

So the investigation that needs to be going on right now

needs to be focusing on James Comey.

And by the way, four of the seven documents

that were released, these notes of James Comey, reportedly

now had contained classified information.

Well he also gave four of these memos to this professor.

Originally everybody again thought it was one.

But here's the real problem Pat.

I mean this is what's so interesting as a lawyer.

You've got a situation now where the basis upon which

a special counsel was put forward

was when James Comey said I gave this information to my friend

to leak it to "The New York Times",

these memos and conversations he had

with the president of the United States

for the purpose of getting a special counsel.

He got a special counsel in a sense because of the memos

that he illegally leaked on conversations

he had with the president of the United States.

To me that undercuts this entire special counsel probe.

I mean it's based on illegally leaked information.

I don't think a lot of people are drawing that analysis right

now, but that's the analysis that needs to be looked at.

We're looking at it legally.

We have to look at it legally.

You've got illegally leaked information

that served as a base for a special counsel

to be appointed.

If that seemed to be OK, it's not.

Jay, what are the Department of Justice rules having

to do with the evidence of impropriety?

Have they violated that?

I mean Mueller and Comey were so close together.

Sure.

Well could you imagine if an FBI agent was conducting

an investigation, that FBI agent gets fired and filled

out what's called the form 302s which are basically

what James Comey did, notes of a meeting,

except that's a witness, this was the president of the United

States, and then leaked them after he

got terminated from his FBI position to the press?

What would be happening to that FBI agent?

He'd be being visited by other FBI agents.

And a grand jury would be impaneled.

And a case would be brought against him

for leaking government information.

By the way, it doesn't have to be classified

to be a crime under 18 USC 641.

So that's what you got to realize what happened here.

So that whole basis of the transaction

on the James Comey's side of this

is suspect from the beginning.

We now know it was multiple memos.

We now know that those memos may well have contained

classified information.

And you know, the protests contrary to the law professor

friend of his, well really?

I mean that's the basis upon which

we're feeling OK about this to the American people?

Ask yourself this question everybody

that I'm talking to right now.

Why is it OK that James Comey leaked conversations

he had with the president of the United States to anybody, let

alone ultimately to "The New York Times"?

Why is that OK?

It's not.

This whole concept of obstruction

of justice, Alan Dershowitz says there's

no way a president could obstruct justice

since he's the ultimate arbiter of when cases are to be brought

or not brought.

And he can also pardon the subject of any investigation.

Can there be obstruction of justice

by a president in the case they're talking about?

Like Comey said, he's going to have it referred

to the special counsel?

Absolutely not.

I mean, just think about what would be happening

if there was in fact charges being made

or investigations take place.

Remember, the president received a recommendation

from both his attorney general and deputy attorney general

that James Comey was no longer capable of leading the FBI

and that they needed new leadership in there.

The president took action and decided

to terminate James Comey's position

as the director of the FBI.

He has the constitutional right under Article 2

to do just that.

He did it.

He exercised his constitutional authority.

You can not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice

for exercising a constitutional right that

vests in the presidency of the United States, period.

And that really should be the end of that discussion.

There is no way that under these facts that

have been alleged and asserted and the facts that we

know that this could constitute an obstruction of justice.

If that was the case then any time a president fired anybody

you could be able to bring an obstruction case.

The president had the authority to make that determination.

He exercised it.

He had the constitutional right to do it.

What about Trump Jr.?

Have you gotten any insight on that as to what

they're charging him?

Well, they're not charging him with anything right now.

I mean first of all, what are they going to charge him with,

having a meeting with somebody to get opposition research

on an opposing candidate?

Well you know, you ran for president.

I mean, that happens.

PAT ROBERTSON: You sure do.

People have meetings.

And they're trying to make this some kind of, you know,

Russian interference.

And Everybody ignores the fact that the Ukrainians

were working with the DNC in support of Hillary Clinton,

right?

That gets a pass.

So a meeting with a lawyer from Russia

who said, initially or reportedly, that she

had information about opposition research on Hillary Clinton,

and ends up not being the case by the way.

So no, that's not a violation.

There's no illegality in the meeting.

And of course there was no follow up and no action taken.

So again, it's a bit of a media frenzy.

But if you get past the frenzy and look at what the facts are,

what's the illegality?

I keep saying that with collusion.

So all this collusion they're alleging,

what exactly is collusion?

First of all, collusion is not a crime.

But what is a crime here?

Well no, this is not a crime.

A meeting with an individual who had opposition research

on a candidate that happened-- and this particular lawyer

happened to be Russian.

Does that all of a sudden change the rules?

No.

As I said, you ran for president.

You know how opposition research works.

Well you have a whole department.

That's what they do.

They find holes in the opposition

to try to exploit them for your benefit

in a political campaign.

Jay, we have tremendous problems facing our nation.

We've got debt problems.

We have trade problems.

We have problems with North Korea.

When is this stuff going to end?

I think the American people are sick of hearing

Russian involvement in the election that's just long past.

Can they shut it down ever?

Well you know, this thing needs to be done quickly.

I mean our goal is, speaking now as one

of the president's lawyers, is to get this matter over with.

Again, at this point, let me just be very clear here.

There is no way an obstruction of justice charge

can be brought against the president

for exercising his Article 2 power.

So that's number one.

Number two, you raised the issue-- let's talk

about a really serious issue, North Korea.

This is a really serious issue that the American people

are facing and the president having to deal with.

So any of these things laying over the president in any way

becomes a bit of a distraction even for our enemies.

So the president's singular focused right now on these--

when I say singular, multiple issues,

focused like a laser beam on them.

But yes, I don't like the fact--

I don't think it's good for the United States

to have this hanging around.

So the president has been very clear, as has those individuals

that have been contacted, that they'll participate

when they need to participate.

But right now there's no investigation of the president.

We've not notified of any investigation of the president

of the United States, period.

Well Jay, I appreciate your work.

And the president seems to have good spirits.

He just keeps on plugging.

He's an amazing man.

Yeah, he's doing his job.

Yeah, amen.

Well, do the best you can.

Thanks, Pat.

We're all with you.

We're doing it, sir.

God bless you.

Thank you.