Latest Breaking News On - Rob astorino - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
he has a pattern. what the pattern we have from donald trump is a lot of times he'll lie about something that happens and he'll do what he wants to do. >> all of this -- >> i'm convinced -- >> symone -- >> i've convinced her. >> i think you made a lot of progress with symone. all that matters, what will this mean if the president does meet with special counsel and asked about this? if he gives answers he's been giving to the media and others, it may not go well. our coverage continues right now, "cnn tonight" with don lemon. >> this is cnn breaking news. >> it is bombshell breaking news on the russia investigation, really. this is" cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. this is hugely significant. the president, president trump ordered robert mueller, the special counsel heading up the russia investigation fired this past june. and the only thing that stopped him was when his own white house counsel don mcgahn threatened to quit rather than carry out the order. this story was first reported by
the rosenstein firing, the rosenstein the president has not trusted for quite some time, really, if ever. again, that was another reason he kept being discussed. the president kept saying to people that rosenstein comes from baltimore, which is not true. and the idea that he is trying to suggest that he is a democrat. but rosenstein has been in the president's craw future some time. and the idea is if you get rid of rosenstein, then you would have someone else become the attorney general. in this case, it was the number three, rachel brand, and perhaps she would be a better overseer of the special counsel. >> maggie haberman, tremendous reporting. thank you very much. we appreciate you joining us on cnn. >> thank you. >> again, this is our breaking news tonight. hugely significant. president trump ordered robert mueller, the special counsel heading up the russia investigation, fired this past june. and the only thing that stopped
him was when the white house counsel don mcgahn threatened to quit rather than carry out the order. again, the story supported by "the new york times" has been confirmed down now by two other news organizations. let's bring in cnn senior political analyst mark preston, cnn political analyst carl bernstein and white house reporter kaitlan collins. also john dean, who was of course white house counsel, nixon's white house counsel and cnn legal analyst laura coates joins us as well. man, what a story we have here. i'm going get to all of you. but mark, i want to get to you first. let me read this. this is from maggie's reporting. it says the west wing confrontation is the first time mr. trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. mr. mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior white house officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice. so, mark, what's your reaction to this breaking story? >> you know, unfortunately, don, i'm not surprised by it at all. and i don't think anybody who is watching tonight should be surprised by it at all. he has been very adamant about his opposition to this
investigation, which leads you to wonder why has he been so fervently against it? at the same time, there is a track record. he fired james comey because he wasn't considered loyal enough to him. he wanted jeff sessions to leave his job as the attorney general because he would recuse himself from overseeing the mueller investigation now. we know that jeff sessions had offered his resignation, and it wasn't accepted. this is another very big red flag that i think those people out there that are watching that think this has just been going down rabbit holes and that this is a partisan attack or criticism of donald trump that. they need to stop and start looking at the evidence right now. >> of course, if you're only paying attention to conservative media, you might not believe that you might not even get the news on conservative media. laura, i have to ask you this. the president didn't ultimately go through with it, okay. can this be used as evidence against trump for obstruction? >> yes, obstruction is a crime
of endeavoring. you can endeavor to actually obstruct justice, and that can be enough to move the needle towards obstruction, even if you did not accomplish that crime. and all the things you're talking about marks a discussion about a pattern. these are all patterns of consciousness of guilt. these are all contextual clues telling you can infer what his intent would be, and he is endeavored to not only do these things, but in one case, if his own statements to lester holt are to believed, he actually accomplished one form of obstruction by trying to fire and actually firing james comey because of his handling and continuation of a russia investigation that circled around him and his inner circle. >> john dean, i wanted you to hear some of the reporting first before i got to you. what do you make of all this? i'm sure this is reminiscent of when you served as special counsel. >> well, in a way, it is. laura is right in saying that under the statutory law, this is clearly an endeavor. what we have, though, is another
set of laws called the law of impeachment. whatever that is what the majority of the house of representatives says it is. and whether they decide it is an impeachable offense, of course, is a majority vote. but they all draw from statutes and make those the relevant standard. but i think we're just piecing another piece in this big puzzle as to what is intent. and he is making very clear his intent was to obstruct. >> if this had taken place, john, would this have been on par with the saturday night massacre under nixon? >> oh, absolutely. absolutely. i think that don mcgahn threatened to resign because he had no choice. he realized he was engaging and possibly joining a criminal conspiracy to remove or to obstruct justice. and that's what a lawyer has to do in a situation like that is either threaten to resign or quietly resign.
in some jurisdictions, they actually have to make a noisy withdrawal when they do it. >> yeah. you were shaking your head in agreement when you said this is another piece in the puzzle, and a big piece. >> it is. because we see the pattern above all things. donald trump through his first year in office has done everything possible to undermine, obstruct, demean, and halt this legitimate investigation into his campaign, the conduct of people in his family. it doesn't mean they're guilty. he doesn't want this investigation to go forward at all costs. he now has engaged the republican party, which is staking its future to some extent in trying to undermine the investigation. what we've seen in the last two weeks from republicans trying to undermine mueller's version is quite extraordinary thinking has to speak to deeper concerns the president might have to this investigation, carl, and where it might lead, no?
>> well, of course he's concerned. look, i can't be in donald trump's head. that's a very dangerous place to be. but i think it's obvious, and he hates where this investigation is going. he tells his friends, oh, there is nothing there. that this is a witch-hunt. they just want to get into my finances. but this is about his conduct, about his conduct in the campaign, about his conduct in the transition, about his conduct in possible obstruction as president of the united states. and it is deadly serious. and the people around him understand he is in legal danger. he may or may not understand he is in legal danger. but that's what we're dealing with here. but there is an extraordinary second element of that. and that is what we are seeing once again with the white house counsel restraining the president of the united states from following his instincts. what is going on in the white house now is trying to contain a president whose basic instincts
are out of control very often, and to do things that are neither reputable, often not legal, and certainly not in keeping with the presidential oath to defend the office in a responsible way. >> with the tradition of presidents who came before him. what is the white house saying, if anything tonight? >> the only statement they put out is from ty cobb, a white house lawyer saying they respectfully decline to comment on this out of respect for the special counsel's investigation and its process, which is a very interesting comment especially in light we just saw anthony scaramucci talk with our colleague chris cuomo saying it's irrelevant president wanted don mcgahn to fire because that's not how it works. it's interesting if you look at what has happened over the last 36 hours. because the white house has put out this information to reporters saying 20 people from the white house has spoken with robert mueller. we've given them all these documents. we fully cooperated. they're putting on this front that they're fully cooperating with the special counsel's office.
but as maggie, who broke the story just pointed out, the white house has spent the last seven months lying to not only reporters, but the american people because they have said that the president did not consider firing him. he did not threaten to fire him. it was not on his mind at all. from sean spicer to sarah sanders to kellyanne conway, to the president himself, these people have lied to the american people saying to the president was not considering firing the special counsel when in fact he was. >> mark, kaitlan, laura, john thank you very much. carl bernstein, john dean, i want you to stay with me. when we come back, president trump tried to fire special counsel robert mueller last june, and the only threat by his own white house counsel to quit stopped him. did the president learn nothing from the firestorm over firing james comey?
president trump called for special counsel robert mueller to be fired in june. but backed down when white house attorney don mcgahn threatened to resign rather than carry out that directive. back with me carl bernstein and john dean. gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us here and continuing to join us here on the program. john, there have been multiple times since june that the president has denied he has considered firing mueller. watch this. >> mr. president, you've sought or thought about, considered leading to the dismissal of special counsel. is there anything bob mueller could do to send you in that direction? >> i haven't given it any thought. i've been reading about it from you people saying oh, i'm going dismiss him. no i'm not dismissing anybody. i want them to get on with the task. but i also want the senate and the house to come out with their findings. >> a quick follow-up on an earlier question to sarah. you discussed the special counsel and the investigation currently. are you considering firing robert mueller? >> no, not at all. >> are you considering firing mueller? >> no, i'm not. >> so, john, his staff and his attorneys also denied it at
least five other times. yet we know now that's not true. >> it is not true. and this all will be used or could be used against him at some point. it's going to come up when he is questioned by mueller, asking him how could he make a public statement that is 180 degrees from the truth when he clearly has evidence that the exact opposite happened. his staff is complicit as well. whether this is sufficient to join a conspiracy to obstruct is not clear, but it's certainly ooh willingness to play along. we need more evidence to see if they actually agreed to conspire. but this is serious stuff, don. and it's a remarkable breaking story because it does show and complete the pattern that we've been seeing. >> yeah. carl, i've got to ask you, and i asked in the tease before the break, did he learn nothing? did he learn nothing from the blowback from firing james comey? has he learned anything over the past year?
>> well, actually, he's been very successful in his own terms, which is to say he acts as if nothing sticks to him. and in fact, very little has. and he, if you talk to the people around him, they will tell you, this is his operating presumption. that if he can get his base riled up about a witch-hunt, that is more important than the lying we just saw, more important than firing mueller or giving pardons. he believes on some level i'm told he can get away with just about anything. and in fact, he has in many regards. and now he has for the last two weeks the republicans on capitol hill tethered to him, tooting a line that is so much in his defense at a moment when they ought to be saying the president of the united states is not above the law. this investigation must go forward. we must find out what happened here.
and instead, mcconnell, ryan, have done nothing to say to their members let our position be we want this investigation to be completed. we support it. let's find out what happened and then we can move on. >> cnn has now confirmed the president ordered the firing of special counsel robert mueller in june. the directive was not followed through. has he realized, john, and maybe people in the white house, maybe they haven't realized because they've never worked there before. many have never held positions in washington that very little remains secret in the white house. you know that. >> that's very true. while they can stay secret for a while, inevitably, they slip out. particularly that was evident going in with this presidency, that he was going to have great trouble with leaks. and it is borne out. one of my earliest tweets about the presidency is how porous it was going to be just watching the campaign. so he's got to assume everything
he does is basically going to be reported at some stage. and he ought to be acting in a way it will not be any problem to be reported. one thing i can say for him, he speaks his mind, which if he was doing this behind closed doors as nixon did, and then it came out, it would be even more devastating. it's pretty devastating coming out the way it is. but at least it's not behind closed doors. does trump know -- does he have to admit to mueller that he tried to fire him when he interviews him in a face-to-face, john? >> well, he is likely to be caught in a lie if he doesn't. mcgahn obviously got the instruction, understood it, realized the implications of it, the criminal implications of it. the conspiratorial. >> it's perjury, right, if he lies? >> well, it depends whether he is under oath. of course he said he would like to be under oath. but it's more likely he'll just be interviewed by mueller with
other aids and other maybe some fbi agents present as well. and there his threat is under 18 usc 1001, which is the false statement statute. you cannot fake false statements to federal official, especially an investigative setting like this. so, yes, he has to tell the truth. >> carl, i want to read more. this is from "the times." this is the president's argument for why mueller should go, okay, why he should be fired. first he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at trump national golf course in sterling, virginia, had prompted mr. mueller, the fbi director at the time, to resign his membership. the president also said mr. mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for law firm that previously represented the president's son-in-law, jared . finally, the president said mr. mueller had been interviewed to return as fbi director the day before he was appointed special counsel in may. are those legitimate reasons, any of those? >> no.
they're not only not legitimate reasons, they're obviously the product of some, quote, opposition research to find out everything they could about mule mueller that might be some kind of potential conflict of interest. none of them seriously are. what all of this is about is only his -- trump's desire to make this investigation go away. that's what he has been doing for a year, to discredit in everywhere possible, to make sure somehow that his family is not brought into this any further. and now the tentacles of this investigation are around members of his own family. those closest to him in his business organization, in this campaign organization. it doesn't mean that they're going to be found guilty or even indicted. but this investigation has touched and surrounded the people he's closest to. and now himself.
he knows he is in the crosshairs of this, particularly with the obstruction element. and he is still determined, according to those that he talks to somehow find a republicans to find a way to out , make this investigation go away so that he is not further burdened by it. >> do you remember that red line, john dean, that he set back in july when he told "the new york times" they cannot look into my finances. they should not be looking into my finances. that was a month after he tried to fire mueller. >> that's right. and he is no position to draw red lines, or his staff. mueller is going to decide the scope of his investigation. he can always go back to the deputy attorney general who is his superior in this instance because of sessions' recusal and get broader authority if he we understand from testimony before the house judiciary committee by rosenstein that indeed he has done this. he has constantly been in touch
about this investigation. so that red line comment is really meaningless, don. >> and he is looking at those financial aspects. we know this from the lawyers for other people who work at the white house who have been asked questions by mueller's investigators about these specifics having to do with trump organization finances, with jared kushner's finances, with donald trump's finances. he is looking into donald trump's finances, particularly as they relate to russians, russian nationals, possible russian businesses. and why would that be? because if indeed there is some suggestion or evidence of going along with russian efforts to undermine hillary clinton's campaign, there might be a financial component aimed at making the president open to ending these sanctions. >> john, i think it's important.
i want to put this tweet up. this is from walter schwab. before you canonize mcgahn, remember, he pressured sessions not to recuse. i bet his objection was not that firing mueller was wrong, but that it was dangerous. also, this is not the first leak to paint mcgahn in a good light at trump's expense. if i were trump, i would wonder about mcgahn. is he implying that mcgahn could make the same decision that you did with richard nixon and cooperate with investigators? >> well, i don't think he has any choice in this instance. his client is not donald trump. it's the office of the president. he is going to have to respond accordingly. i think walter makes a good point about canonizing the counsel for doing what he is supposed to do. but he obviously i think it also suggests that he saw the peril in this and the potential criminality of it. and that's why he backed off and was wise to do so. and that might be why trump has
also changed his tune and say i look forward to talking that to this guy. he may realize he crossed the line. >> by the way, we're going talk to walter schwab at the top of the next hour. thank you, gentlemen. i appreciate it. thank you so much. when when come back, much more on our breaking news. president trump ordered robert mueller fired last june. the only thing that stopped him, a threat of resignation from the white house counsel. we're going to tell you what sarah sanders said just days ago when asked about the president firing mueller.
yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. here is the breaking news. a source confirms to cnn tonight that president trump ordered the firing of special counsel robert mueller last june, backing off only after white house counsel don mcgahn threatened to quit. joining me to talk about this now, cnn political analyst ryan lizza, as well as cnn political commentator robby mook and scott jennings. gentlemen, good evening to you. ryan, i want to start with you. the president tried to pull off his own saturday night massacre, except he couldn't. what is your reaction to this? >> well, it is part of a pattern that we've seen now for a year with this investigation, whether it was, you know, demanding loyalty from comey and of course
so that doesn't mean just because he didn't -- it didn't happen, that he didn't try to do it. his intent was to do it. >> i'm not disputing the reporting. but he has actually gone through with other things. i mean, he obviously fired comey. there have been moments where he did things and there have been moments where he didn't do things. i think the interplay there is important context for this conversation tonight. >> robbie? >> he had -- comey, he had someone at the justice department as a sort of fig leaf and an excuse to do it, right? the rosenstein memo. i think he was probably hoping he would get the same thing here where mcgahn would go through it and he could say oh, my white house counsel did it. he said it was fine. >> go ahead, robbie. i know you want to weigh in on this. >> yeah, first of all the fact that the white house is lying about something that happened, that's not news. but this is another big piece in a picture that's been unfolding as ryan was saying. and this investigation has only
this going to be too much and republicans are going to start flaking away. >> do you want to take a crack at that, scott? >> well, i don't think the republican party is going to peel away from the president of the united states based on one article in "the new york times." i think most republicans will watch what mueller does. will see how it plays out, and they'll make decisions from there. we tend to have this conversation after every story. when is the republican party going to move? well, look, they're going to let the process play out, and we don't know anything yet. we don't know yet when the president is going to talk to the counsel. we don't know what charges, if any more are coming. we don't know what the results of this are going to be. and i don't think one story in one news story is going to cause republicans to go running for the hills. if they haven't already, they've decide heard this going to stick with the president until they have seen some real evidence that they've done something wrong here. >> ryan, is it just one story? >> well, no it's obviously the accumulation of stories. and with each of these stories, we get a little bit -- the picture comes into focus a little bit more. but the general pattern is the president of the united states
doing everything he can up until certain lines to shut this investigation down. it seems like the comey firing was so politically disastrous inside the white house. and i think a lot of republicans warned him that doing something similar to mueller would end his presidency. so it does seem that cooler heads prevailed when he ordered mcgahn to do this. if you remember, there were republican voices on the hill when this was being floated this summer, saying don't do that, don't do that. that would be a red line. so firing mueller has for a lot of republicans, it has always been the red line. and it looked like trump couldn't figure out a way that he could pull the trigger on firing him without it being his direct decision. i think it's very interesting that the president wouldn't do it himself. he wanted his white house counsel to do it, but he wouldn't do it himself. for some reason he was scared. >> i have to ask you this,
because anthony scaramucci, you know a little bit about anthony scaramucci. he seemed to try to pin the blame for this story coming out on steve bannon. that was a short time ago. he spoke with chris. listen. >> i find it very ironic that this information is coming out while he is here in davos, while he's had great fanfare. so, you know, you and me, i would love to get a look at somebody like steve bannon's phone records to see who he is talking to and how this information is out there. second thing i will say is that the president talks to everybody. and so this information apparently happened in june. why it is coming out right now like a big water balloon on the president when he is having a fantastic trip here in davos, meeting with world leaders? >> ryan, how do i don't think the news tonight is going to reverberate in trump world, or is reverberating? that won't be the only finger-pointing going on, will it? >> yeah, i'm sure like anthony, i'm sure there will be a lot of people in the white house trying
to figure out who leaked this. if i remember correctly"the times" had four sources, and other news organizations have now confirmed this as well. look, scaramucci has had a long running feud with steve bannon. and steve a sort of easy scapegoat because he is outside of the white house. he obviously is unhappy with how he was treated there. but just to clear up what he said, there is no evidence, of course, that bannon did this. i think this is just scaramucci trying to point the finger at a sort of the current trump enemy. >> robby, not to give you short shrift, but sarah sanders has been standing at the podium denying this, also saying the president is a looking forward to speaking to the special counsel, and so on. but it seems some of the answer given over the past -- i guess over the past year really have been disingenuous to say the least. >> yeah, but the sky is blue. these guys have lied about
things every single day on his campaign, and now as president. that's not surprising. you know, what is also not surprising, frankly, is the double standard here. i think this is another example where donald trump, for whatever reason appears to get away with things that nobody else can. we obviously had the scandal about him paying a woman off. and we're looking at other elected officials. congressman pat meehan was removed from the ethics committee immediately when allegations came out and evidence came out against him. but donald trump, it just seems to bounce off him. and it's because -- it's ironic the sheer volume of scandal, the sheer variety of scandal means that nothing ever sticks. and i'm sure we're going to be talking about something outages he says at davos tomorrow. but mueller's investigation means this will culminate at some point. and i really think some republicans are going to regret how cozy they got with him and
how hard they defended him when there was no evidence with which to defend him. >> gentlemen, thank you so much. i appreciate your time. >> thanks, don. >> we've got much more to come on our breaking news that president trump ordered robert mueller fired last june, and his white house counsel threatened to quit rather than carry out that order. we'll be right back. new year, new phones for the family. join t-mobile, and when you buy one of the latest samsung galaxy phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. yahoooo! ahoooo! plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included. spectacular! so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. whoa! join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free. all on america's best unlimited network.
opportunity to go after steve bannon, no matter what the issue is. bannon is a convenient target. he made himself that. could bannon be one of the four people that perhaps talked to maggie? very much so, sure. >> does that really matter? >> no, of course it doesn't matter, because it's true. >> but i think it may matter in one respect. i sort of look at don mcgahn and wonder, you know, the story puts him in a very positive light. why now is the story coming out? we've learned recently in this week we've learned jeff sessions was interviewed by the special counsel's office. other intelligence leaders -- it's been reported recently that they too have been interviewed. there are other reports that show that this obstruction of justice element of the investigation has moved forward, is moving forward. and so i wonder if the president isn't maybe returning to this idea now as the investigation intensifies, returning to the idea of getting rid of mueller. and this isn't somebody leaking to stop that. >> oh my god, if he did, that really. >> you think people are concerned possibly that he might try to fire him from the white house?
>> leaks happen often for a reason. sometimes it's just interpersonal battles like he is suggesting. but sometimes there are bigger reasons. i just wonder about that. this story paints mcgahn in a very positive light, but it also makes it much more difficult for the president to make a move on mcgahn. >> mcgahn, bannon and priebus all share the same lawyer. i think mcgahn is like pinto from the movie -- remember the movie with belushi, "animal house." the angel and the devil. i think he was the angel in the voice of trump who might have had the impulse to say enough of this. >> what does that make trump? [ laughter ] but i think, look, his initial reaction is let's just get rid of this guy. but since then, since he was talked into not doing it, if that's what happened, this investigation has continued on for months and months and months.
and it will culminate in a few weeks if trump meets with the special prosecutor. so i don't think they're leaking this to fire him. i think that's well past that. >> that's coming out? >> i don't know why. i have no idea why it's been leaked now. >> let me just say, this whole conversation, and the conversation yesterday about the secret society and nunes memo, the nunes memo. all of it is part of an arc to try to discredit law enforcement, in this case the department of justice. and for those of us who worked in the department of justice, or at least the fbi's got 35,000 people who work there. if trump -- trump was so upset that he wanted to fire mueller, if that didn't happen, he is going to discredit. one way or another he is going to try to undermine and get rid of this investigation. and by doing so, undermining the rule of law. this is why republicans -- i know that he's got an 80% base. but the republicans in congress,
leaders in congress should step up and stay this is not who we are as a nation. put your country before your -- >> how many times, governor have, you said that and other people said that? i don't think it's going to happen. >> there are only so many institutions you undermine. really, how machiavellian can you be to put this, the ends justify the means? we don't care which institutions of this country we're going haul under, including the fbi, including the department of justice, including anything that gets in his way to be able to be clear of this investigation. >> this is the republicans' best vehicle. and the least they can say -- >> the best vehicle is what? >> to get whatever legislation or agenda -- >> oh, i see. . it's an ends justifies the means is what you're saying. >> yes. >> back to roy moore. let's put him in. >> that's the same thing. i asked the evangelicals. the ends justify the means. go on. >> that is horrifying. >> can we rewind the tape back to october before the election? harry reid was throwing firebombs at the fbi. harry reid was saying that the
institution is corrupt and that they might have broken federal law when it was against hillary clinton at that time. so now the tables are concerned. all of the sudden the dialogue is change. both parties have attacked the fbi. both parties have attacked. >> that may be the case. but what we see happening now from trump's loyalists in congress is an unprecedented in modern times attack by congress on our institutions, on our law enforcement. and i have to say there is a reason why this is happening. the republicans could have opposed trump. republican members of congress could have opposed trump in the primaries. many of them remain silent. he won 47% of the republican primary vote. he was weaker then than he is now. now he's got about 85% approval. if they didn't do it then, they're not going to do it now. now they are stuck. and they are the party of government. and they have no one to blame. and so they've got to come up with these conspiracy theories
that unfortunately are eroding public confidence. >> i think that's why most people will disagree with you. because where democrats may have been upset with comey during the investigation, during the election, they said comey did it wrong. they said they had respect for comey. they did not have an orchestrated attack on the institution of the fbi. this has been an orchestrated attack on the fbi and on law enforcement in general from republicans, including conspiracy theories. that didn't happen with democrats. >> i don't think so. >> and mueller and comey are both republicans. >> i don't think it's the top of the fbi is who they are going after. not that the men and women that do the everyday job. i don't think that's who they were attacking. i think they were attack -- >> so people who they're talking about in e-mails and what have you. >> well, but they were higher level. you're stalking about struck and that whole thing? >> 35,000. >> they were talking 35,000 fbi agents. they're attacking the top and the intent of those two.
>> they're attacking the institution. and the two people they're putting a broad brush against it. and now it's infecting what would be normal republicans. like ron johnson. i feel like he had a tin foil hat on yesterday as he was drooling at the thought of a secret society. it turns out he was embarrassed. >> hold your thought. we'll be right back. we'll continue this conversation. don't go anywhere. it's absolute confidence in 30,000 precision parts. or it isn't. it's inspected by mercedes-benz factory-trained technicians. or it isn't. it's backed by an unlimited mileage warranty, or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned, or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through february 28th. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer.
serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.
breitbart. that's become the new normal in the republican party. >> the crazy thing is that all day yesterday, fox news was all over this secret society thing. and other than one anchor today they didn't say one word. >> shepard smith. >> exactly. because they've been embarrassed. but who is the biggest proponent of these kind of conspiracy theories? it's like sean hannity, et cetera, who are out there taking pages from breitbart, from info wars, et cetera. that should be frightening to everybody. because you've got a president who had the whole conspiracy thing down pat with barack obama and born in kenya, you know, ted cruz's father. >> on the grassy knoll. >> and now it's infected the mainstream republican party. and that is such a shame. >> how does one have any credibility, especially when you mention that with any journalist when you had a grassy knoll conspiracy.
when you're the perpetrator of the president not being born, of a birther. how does one have any credibility when it comes to anything? >> i would say we're post facts. the game now is about -- >> i refuse to go along with this. >> we can't allow it. >> let me read your tweet you. you said, and you tweeted this a short while ago. you said for trump to have ordered mueller fired, even when the public backlash over comey's firing was still intense shows just how bent on impeding the russia investigation he was, and just how much he apparently has to hide. what do you think the president has to hide? >> well, i think that the president and his team at least encouraged, if not were more involved in russia's efforts to influence our election. we'll see what happens. i think he's probably got something to hide with regard to his business dealings with russian intelligence and russian mafia figures prior to the
election. and i think also he's got a lot to hide with obstruction of justice now. he's got plenty to hide. we'll see what happens with this investigation. but to think just a month after he fired comey, when there was still so much backlash, that he then ordered the firing of mueller. that tells you. that tells you quite a lot about what lengths he is willing to go to, even when there is plenty of public opposition. >> rob, quickly. >> but everyone has already hung the president. he is already guilty, right? we haven't seen one ounce -- >> no one has said guilty here. >> that's the implication here. it's obstruction of justice. [ overlapping dialog ] >> the implication -- >> tried to fire mueller. >> the implication -- >> fire comey. if he's got nothing to hide. >> he talked to his lawyer. >> he gave the order. >> it didn't happen. >> the reason it didn't happen is because -- >> the pr backlash. come on. >> i got run. i got to run. thank you all. >> nice try. >> fascinating conversation. i appreciate having you.
when we come back, president trump ordered the firing of robert mueller back in june, only backing off when the white house counsel threatened to resign instead of following the president's instructions. is this proof that the president is trying to obstruct justice, or our experts will weigh in, i should say. we'll be right back. not in this house. 'cause that's no average family. that's your family. which is why you didn't grab just any cheese. you picked up kraft mozzarella with a touch of philadelphia for lasanyeah! kraft. family greatly.
directv has been rated number one in customer satisfaction over cable for 17 years running. but some people still like cable. just like some people like pre-shaken sodas. having their seat kicked on an airplane. being rammed by a shopping cart. sitting in gum. and walking into a glass door. but for everyone else, there's directv. for #1 rated customer satisfaction over cable, switch to directv and get a $200 reward card. call 1.800.directv
Don-lemonPresidentDonald-trumpRobert-muellerBreaking-newsCnnRussia-investigationBombshellFlynn-investigationStorySpecial-counselThingA recap of the day's news.
get on with building an economy that is fair to everybody. that's the message that is going to be sent 90 days from now. >> congressman, the house minority leader, nancy pelosi, one way republicans attacked the democrat in ohio's race -- in the ohio race. is she a drag in districts that democrats are trying to flip? >> i don't know where the evidence is that would suggest that. the fact is that that's what they used against conor lamb in the special election in western pennsylvania which trump won by 20 points and conor lamb won. they used it over and over again with danny o'connor in ohio 12 who, by the way, is still running in november against mr. balderson and danny managed to collapse the trump margin from 11 down to less than 1%. i'm not sure where the evidence that that is the case, that that is an effective appeal. it's certainly their standard playbook move in each and every instance. it's not what americans want to
each side. it included an appeal to start talking about an agreement that could limit or prohibit weapons in space. in some ways a very traditional kind of russian diplomatic overture. the u.s. and the russians have been signing these kinds of agreements for decades. and obviously it's in vladimir putin's interests to try and get some of this moving. a lot of people don't trust him. would russia actually live up to these agreements? an open question. i think the bigger question here is is whether or not with all of this white noise, all of these things we're talking about, the way the russians have been acting, the terrorist attack in britain, there are activities in syria, in ukraine, clearly the meddling in america's electoral process, is it possible that washington and moscow could set that stuff aside and keep to the very traditional approach to arms control and trying to prevent an arms race? i'm not sure that that's possible in this era. >> so, bryan, what is the white house saying about this document
you obtained from russian officials? >> well, the white house doesn't confirm or deny its existence. the russians were asked today about it and they were somewhat critical of a spokesperson said, you know, you're talking about russia meddling in american elections, the americans can't even keep a secret, can't even keep control of what the two presidents talk about privately. but more broadly, the trump administration has, and the president, himself, has said that he would like to try and find a way forward on some of these arms control issues. i mean, these are important issues. if the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is not extended when it run out in2020, it would be the first time since 1972 i think that washington and moscow do not have some sort of process in place to limit nuclear arms. so, you know, think it's concerning to a lot of people in the arms control community because even though they may not like the president's approach to foreign policy, they do think these issues are important.
but, again, the question is, can you set aside all the politics, can you set aside all the die stabilizing activities that russia is doing and, you know, get in a room and agree on these things? >> so, max, let's just say, what if all of this is true? what's russia trying to achieve here with these proposals? what do they want? >> well, broadly speaking, what putin wants is to have the united states basically recognize an expansion of russian power. i mean, putin is invading his neighbors. he's interfering in our elections and european elections. he's sent his military into syria. he wants russia to be seen as a great power and he wants nothing more than for donald trump to recognize him as a fellow statesman, a fellow superpower which donald trump essentially did in helsinki in the summit. now, i commend bryan for his excellent reporting which brings up at least one of the issues putin wanted to discuss. what i'd really like to know, what we don't know is what was donald trump saying here?
i mean, these are legitimate issues to talk about. arms control, about russian interference in our elections. about russian actions in ukraine, syria, et cetera. these are all totally legitimate topics for an american president to discuss with putin. but what you want is an american president who will stand up for america, don, who will say, we will not accept this misbehavior and we're in favor of arms control, but by the way, you're violating the intermediate nuclear forces agreement and you need to live up to your prior treaties if we're going to reach new deals. now, does anybody here really think that donald trump did that with vladimir putin when we saw that shocking submissiveness on the part of trump in the press conference with putin where he was accepting his denials, his lies about russian interference in the u.s. election? when he said it was an incredible idea to turn over the u.s. ambassador for questioning by russians. does anybody imagine that behind closed doors donald trump was really standing up for america and sticking it to putin and telling him, laying down the
law? that i found very hard to believe. we still don't know exactly what he said or what went on. >> i find it interesting vladimir putin is stalking about happened in the meeting. even the people around the president, they have no idea. >> right. >> what was said. >> and probably the way the u.s. government finds out what happened is by intercepting russian communications about the meeting. >> thank you, bryan. thank you, max. when we come back, we're going to talk to the man president putin singled out by name who is at the center of the trump tower meeting. kremlin critic bill browder gives us his take on the timing of the just announced russian sanctions. you won't see these folks at the post office. they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how to they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters. ship packages. all the amazing services of the post office, right on your computer.
get a 4 week trial plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/now and never go to the post office again. know about cognitive performance? as you'd probably guess, a lot. that's why a new brain health supplement called forebrain from the harvard-educated experts at force factor is flying off the shelves at gnc. forebrain's key ingredients have been clinically shown to help enhance sharpness and clarity, improve memory, and promote learning ability. and now every man and woman in america can claim a complimentary bottle. just use your smartphone to text the keyword on the screen to 20-20-20. scientific research on cognigrape, a sicilian red wine extract in forebrain's memorysafe blend, suggests not only sharper recall, but also improved executive function and faster information processing. your opportunity to get into harvard may be gone, but it's not too late to experience a brain boost formulated by some of their brightest minds. just text the keyword on the screen to 20-20-20
with your smartphone to claim your complimentary bottle of forebrain. do it now - before you forget. that's the keyword on the screen to 20-20-20.
everyone should read that book. bill, thank you so much for joining us. >> great to be here. >> so today, let's talk about these new sanctions that were announced against russia in response to the poisoning of former russian spy and his daughter in the uk. russia denies responsibility for that, but do you think that these new sanctions have any effect on putin's behavior? >> well, i mean, i think first of all, i think that these sanctions are significant mostly because you now have the united states, the most powerful country in the world, officially recognizing that russia committed an act of terrorism using chemical weapons in the heart of england. and now there's a certain set of sanctions that are going to roll out from that. i think that's very significant. and the way i understand putin, and i've known putin in a lot of conflict over a long period of time, is that he's a guy who likes to avoid consequences. he likes to do stuff where nothing happens when he does bad stuff.
so the fact that there are consequences for this chemical weapons attack against the skripals, i think it very much puts putin on the defensive and makes him think, well, i've got to go do stuff where people and countries aren't going to react and aren't going to respond like this. >> bill, there were a lot of shifting stories as you know on this whole russia, the meeting at trump tower. the president has now acknowledged the trump tower meeting was, indeed, to get dirt from russians on hillary clinton. instead, we're told that all they got was an attorney talking about the magnitsky act, also about sanctions. what's your take on this meeting? >> well, so there were two sides to the meeting. there were the russians then there was the trump family. the russians had something they wanted and the trump family had something they wanted. the russians who are working on behalf of vladimir putin wanted to have the magnitsky act repealed. the act is named after my lawyer, sergei magnitsky, killed in a russian prison.
for uncovering corruption. unpleasant sanctions against putin and his cronies. they went in there and said we want these sanctions repealed. of course, the russians don't to a meeting empty handed. they have to offer something the other side wants so they were proposing dirt on hillary clinton. so that was the quid pro quo. that was the setup for the meeting and everybody had something they wanted. now, whether anybody walked away happy or not is another question. but it's clear what the two sides wanted. >> i've been wanting to ask you this because, you know, since the helsinki meeting, you believe that this private meeting in helsinki between president trump and president putin, you think it was actually about you and the magnitsky act. why do you think that? >> well, i think that for starting out after the magnitsky act was passed, putin declared it his priority to have it repealed. that was back in 2012.
he's been on a mission to get it repealed ever since then. as we just discussed, it showed up as the one thing they asked for in trump tower. and we've known there's a bunch of other approaches and intentions that they had in washington and elsewhere to get it repealed then it shows up in the press conference. we also know in the press conference in helsinki, that -- i should say before the press conference, they had a two-hour meeting where nobody knows what they discussed. it's obvious to me and everyone around me this is what they discussed. it may not have been only what day discussed but surely this someone of the things they discussed. >> bill, putin mentioned you by name in the public part of that meeting offering to allow investigators to interview those indicted by mueller in exchange to allowing russians to have access to you. how did you feel when you heard that? >> well, i didn't feel great. at the same time, i didn't feel
as if i was going to be handed over to the russians any time imminently, and as you may recall, after that sort of offer was put out there, the senate voted 98-0 to reject that offer and so, you know, there's this very strong appetite in the u.s. not to have anything like that happen. >> yeah. >> and so i wasn't too nervous that i was going to be handed over any time soon. >> well, the president called that, this is a quote, an incredible offer, then he was forced to backtrack after a huge backlash. you state would have been a death sentence. >> well, what you have to understand is vladimir putin killed my lawyer sergei magnitsky for exposing a corruption scheme. his government killed him by torturing him to death in prison. they've been trying for the last 8 1/2 years to get me into a russian prison to do the same thing. if i'm handed over, the same thing will happen to me. >> you say you have been under
putin's skin for a very long time, right before the trump/putin summit, you wrote a piece in "time" magazine. that piece is called "i've been putin's number one foreign enemy for a decade, here's what trump should know about handling him." your piece was translated, published in russia and downloaded a massive number of times on a moss wow can website. what was putin's reaction to it? >> i think putin was just going to talk about me privately in the meeting with trump, and i think that he's such an emotional guy that when he got hold of that article in russian, we effectively smoked him out. that's why he mentioned me publicly. i'm glad that whatever happened happened in front of the whole world as opposed to between two guys in a private meeting. >> uh-huh. i just interviewed the gentleman about the politico reporting tonight. you know, there's no real record of what trump and putin actually discussed at the meeting today. politico published the document leaked from russian officials outlining the topic they
supposedly talked about. nuclear weapons, right? you're skeptical about that. >> i think the russians leaked that document as a way to confuse the conversation. the idea of talking about nuclear weapons is exactly what two nuclear powers should be talking about in a summit like that, not handing over dissidents and critics. that is the appropriate conversation and the fact that nobody knows what happened in that meeting a month later in that secret meeting, and then the russians leak a document like that looks to me like just a disinformation exercise. doesn't look like that was the real topic of conversation. >> the book is called "red notice." i urge everyone either download it or pick up a copy. it's a fascinating, fascinating read. thank you, bill browder. appreciate your time. >> thank you. when we come back, some ceos who quit the president's advisory councils over his "good people on both sides" comments after the deadly white supremacist rally in
charlottesville, well, they joined him for dinner last night right before the one-year anniversary of that violent rally. i have a lot to say about that. stick around. this is not a bed. it's a high-tech revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you lose your dad bod, train for that marathon, and wake up with the patience of a saint. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999.
smarter sleep will change your life. oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens.
don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.
really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. the virginia governor and the city of charlottesville declaring a state of emergency ahead of the anniversary of last year's deadly unite the right rally. citing concerns over planned demonstrations of hate. national guard units will be deployed for additional security. of course, it was one year ago that torch-carrying neo nazi racists gathered there. chanting racist slogans and terrifying people. 32-year-old heather heyer was killed and many injured.
in the aftermath, these comments from the president. >> you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. you had people in that group, excuse me, excuse me, i saw the same picture as you did. >> many left president trump's forum and manufacturing advisory council. the groups of business leaders were meant to collaborate with the administration. the president was initially unfazed saying, "for every ceo that drops out of the manufacturing council, i have many to take their place. grandstanders should not have gone on. jobs." as the blow-back grew, a vast majority of ceos on the panel said they were going to call it quits if it was not disbanded. president trump tweeted this,
breaking up with you before you leave me. "rather than putting treasure on the businesspeople of the manufacturing council and strategy and policy forum, i am ending both. thank you, all." well, that was it for the councils. so it was interesting to see who the president dined with last night. some of those very same people who so admirably took a stand last year were at bedminster golf club days before the ugly incident that the president could not unilaterally disavow. take the ceo of johnson & johnson. last august he said this. he said, the president's most recent statements equating with those who are motivated by hate is unacceptable and changed our decision to participate in the white house manufacturing advisory council." pepsico's ceo was who instrumental getting other
council members to stand against the president tweeted one year ago this, she was heartbroken by the violence at the white nationalist rally. the wake of racist violence, mark weinberger, ceo of accounting giant ernst & young said bigotry and hatred have in no place in our society. i'm deeply saddened and disturbed by the tragic, deplorable acts that took place in charlottesville. we at cnn and colleagues at ncbc reached out to ask for a comment from these executives on last night's dinner. ernst & young was the only one to get back to us saying, no comment. perhaps they believe over the past year president trump has showed some evolution of thought and contrition about what happened in charlottesville. though i don't think we have seen much evidence of that at all. they may feel that attending this dinner now, a year later, is the right thing to do for their companies. regardless of their personal feelings about charlottesville
at the time. the white house says that last night's dinner at bedminster was the chance for the president to hear from a number of business leaders but i wonder what his takeaway was. we'll talk more about that when we come back.
astorino, former candidate for governor in new york. welcome, everyone. good to have you all around the table here. last year, some of these ceos, many of them were cutting ties with the white house. what a difference a year makes. >> goes to show you politicians don't have feelings, they have interests. it was in their best interests to go away from donald trump. it's bad for business to stand next to somebody who seems to be supporting white supremacy. everybody knew it was a bad idea to support that march except donald trump. a year later, they understand it's in their best interest to get close to him. >> what's the point of the outrage. if they're back at the table. >> think there's value in saying i can't be on your council if you're doing something like this. that doesn't mean i can't do business and negotiate. they ran away because it was bad for business, not wink, wink, we're still with you. >> yeah?
>> i mean, the argument, right, the argument is always if you're not at the table, you can't influence the policies, and apparently, i mean, donald trump even waved over one of his staffers and said go write an executive order on immigration, these guys want high-skilled immigration here. right? i don't know what comes of that. maybe something. maybe nothing. you're not going to have that conversation with the president of the united states if you don't show up for dinner. >> charlottesville was declared a state of emergency. one-year anniversary. heather heyer died. do you think people have moved on? how could they have moved on? >> i don't think anybody has moved on from what the president said or what happened there or, i mean, that was absolutely equating neo nazis and what happened was morally unconscionable. i don't think anybody is stance distancing themselves from the words. marc's exactly right.
they've got shareholder interests. they've got other competing interests at play. and the president after he said those things, you know, a year has gone by and he hasn't, you know, he's continued to make all sorts of other problems for himself. and have other interests. >> what do you think? >> she's right. i think margaret's right. and marc on this one. because, you know, the ceos like indra nooyi i know from westchester, where pepsico's world headquarters is, everything is global now. right? so pepsico is all over the world. and trade and sanctions have an effect on pepsico and all those ceos. so if they were to not sit down with the president, take that opportunity, they would be a dereliction of their duty as the ceo of a major company and their number one responsibility is to their company and their shareholders. so it is dangerous, by the way, when companies go out of their zone of what they're supposed to be doing and make public policy statements or take these kind of
positions because that can tick off half the country. >> mostly -- >> do you think these ceos, though, are effectively telling him that there are no consequences to what you say? or your actions at all? >> no, i think they made those statements by folding the council and making those statements at the time. think that had an effect. also when they're getting invited to sit down with the president, they have to do that. i don't care who the president is -- >> you have to go to bedminster, though? >> no. >> that's the thing -- >> he went to the golf club, right? it wasn't like they -- >> if they were at martha's vineyard. when the president invites you go to the president's table -- >> no. >> if your calculation if you're looking out for shareholders' interests. what's extraordinary about charlottesville is how many ceos were going to put a stand about it. cnbc put out a poll basically saying there's a 70% chance there will be a backlash on brand reputation.
if you make a statement either affirmatively or negatively about donald trump. >> i said why do you have to go to bedminster? why would you have to go to bedminster to do it? you have to think about it. you have to weigh one against the other. same thing with the pastors. >> right. >> hold on, before you jump in. you said they don't have to go. we both looked at each other and said, no. look at athletes, many did not want to go to this white house. >> there are celebrities who didn't go who i think were right not to go. i think if you go, you have to go under your terms and your conditions. i think because they walked away from him, because he's the one in the vulnerable position right now, you're in a position of strength where you can dictate the terms of the engagement. if i'm the ceo of a corporation, say, mr. trump, i'll meet with you but i'm not going to make it look like we're old buddy it is who had an under the table deal the whole time. i'm not hanging out at the golf club like we're friends. we'll meet at the white house,
meet somewhere else where it looks like we're talking brass tax. go straight to business. i think being donald trump's friend right now is generally bad for business. >> it is the summer white house, right? the oval office is under construction. that's where they're having their meetings, running the country's business. it's really not the same as the white house? >> margaret. hold on. hold on. it is a private trump property. not like they were at camp david. >> i'm not favor of the president driving business and reputation and brand marketing to his personal businesses while he's in the white house. i have a problem with that. >> they just didn't get off the 18th hole. they were invited there in the conference room or the dining room around a big table to have a discussion. i think the setting is irrelevant. the fact that they're meeting with the president is very important to their companies and to their shareholders and you always should have that dialogue. when president obama or president bush or president clinton, when they met with ceos, not every one of those ceos agreed with the president. of course, they were going to meet with him because they had
an interest that they needed to take to the table and talk to the president about. >> that's fascinating. i feel like when it's people we like, we say, oh, you have to meet with them even if we disagree. if it's people we don't like, we say you can't dignify them with their appearance. i think both parties do it. lots of people -- some people say we should meet, some people say you shouldn't meet. my point is to say, i think both parties do it. we have to have a consistent standard about what qualifies as a legitimate meeting and what does not. i don't have a problem necessarily with the ceos meeting with him. for me, again, optics matter. i think the setting does matter. i think the setting always matters. in charlottesville, it will be a very different narrative than if they met in d.c. it matters. i think now these ceos partly because of this conversation have to go back, explain what they were meeting about, why they were meeting. they with respect weren't on the 18th hole. appearance matters. it feels like they were on the 18th hole. >> they all leaked.
there were massive stories from the ceos, talked about trade, talked about immigration. go back, all the stories written about it, what'd they get out of it, why did they do it? >> dressed up at bedminster, a private property of the president. if you meet someone on their turf in a private setting, it looks like you're being chummy or cozy with them. >> no. the private setting -- >> it doesn't matter if you support them or not. >> that's his turf. >> that's the people's turf. >> that's where the president -- >> a trump property feels a little less public. >> all right. we're going to take a break. when we come back, why twitter won't ban a conspiracy theorist known to spread dangerous and false information. are they celebrating free speech or passing the buck? you won't see these folks at the post office.
they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how to they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters. ship packages. all the amazing services of the post office, right on your computer. get a 4 week trial plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/now and never go to the post office again.
to request this free decision guide, and learn more. like, medicare supplement plan, give you the freedom to go with any doctor who accepts medicare patients. it's nice to have a choice. and your coverage goes with you, anywhere you travel in the country. we have grandkids out of state. they love our long visits. not sure about their parents, though. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide today.
far right conspiracy theorist alex jones and his media outlet info wars are banned from apple, facebook, youtube and spotify, but not twitter. twitter ceo jake dorsey explained why, saying info wars has not violated the company's rules and it is up to journalists to call out jones for making false claims. back with me now are mark, margaret and rob. let's talk about this. the very definition of truth and reality come under attack, right, and facts. %-p platforms. is twitter, do you think twitter is basically saying, you know, he's not violating the policy, but just -- you can say whatever you want? is that what -- is that good judgment? >> i mean, we let donald trump do it, right? i think there's space to let people flesh out ideas, to debate and go at it.
i personally think that youtube and other platforms have made the right decision by taking alex jones off, because he's violated terms of service and it's dangerous. they're private platforms. i don't have a problem with twitter making a different choice and saying, hey, talk all you want. expose these ideas and let the world engage and debate them. i want the other companies to reserve the right to be able to do it. >> it's the job of journalists, is he -- is he advocating responsibility >> he doesn't see himself as a journalist. twitter has a spotty past of allowing their platform for the free and open use. i mean, there were mothers of victims of isis who were begging twitter, back in 2013 and 2014, even as recently as 2016, 2017, to not allow terrorists, not allow isis fighters to use their platform in order to communicate with each other and, you know, continue their plot to take over the western world. i think there's a fair line to draw there.
don't let isis draw your platform. >> alex jones could be on the other side of that line, right? >> absolutely, absolutely. i'm not likening alex jones -- they've had a hard time drawing the line. >> absolutely. >> and that -- as evidenced. >> rob, after dorsey tweeted out a statement, this is twitter's safety team, they said, as we have stated publicly, we strongly believe twitter should not be the arbiter or truth nor do we have scaleable solutions to determine and action what's true or false. so, if they can't determine truth, lies or hate speech, how can anyone else truth what we see on that platform? >> well, i think it's a really dangerous path right now we're heading, and i would prefer to have the twitter model and just have the wild west on the internet than have some 25-year-old berkeley grad sitting there determining what is and what isn't hate speech. >> it is the wild west on the internet. no one is banning alex jones from the internet. >> look, i think he's a lunatic.
he's an outlier, i have no respect for him or his beliefs. but i would rather him be on the internet and people -- make up their own mind >> he's on the internet. >> i'm saying, him not being taken down -- >> he's not taken down off the internet. he's taken down off private platforms. >> it's an important distinction. >> he's not been banned or threatened with jail. for violates terms of service. if you use a service and you violate it, then you can no longer use that service. >> yes, but what's happening is, it's very subjective on what they determine to be hate speech. and when we start going down that path, it's going to backfire. look, and the opposite is this, the state of new jersey now is spending $5 million out of taxpayer dollars to prop up community newspapers. the state is basically running newspapers now? that's just as bad. >> i get it. as somebody on the left, i don't want a 25-year-old oral roberts grad to check my speech, either. >> right.
>> it's a slippery slope. >> yes. >> if that were what's at stake. but there's a different issue that sometimes gets conflated, and that is, to don's point, this isn't about first amendment at all, and it always becomes a first amendment right for holding people accountable for doing what's way beyond what's appropriate. within a private speech community. people can say what they want on the internet. alex jones, no one's taking his platform. this is about having a free platform. and people have a right to -- we have a right to say, you can't be on my private platform. that's super important. >> especially when you think about what happened, conspiracy theories about what happened at sandy hook, you know, and what happened -- >> absolutely. >> the school in florida. >> so, by the way, twitter makes these distinctions, other internet platforms have decided not to carry him. and guess what, his app is trending. one of the highest trending apps. >> to the point that he's not -- >> have at it. >> first amendment rights have not been violated.
>> not in the least. >> right. >> go to his app. >> i just -- i just don't want me or you or you or you to be a year from now determined by some of these companies to be out of bounds and are taking you down, and not given a platform. because they may not agree with our political views or -- >> i don't think this is about politics. this is about outlandish, crazy -- >> he's nuts. he's awful. >> maybe the lesson is we should be more responsible and alex jones should be more responsible. and especially considering what happened with the 2016 election, i think these companies need to take more of a responsibility, especially when it comes to people spreading lies. >> we have an important job that we're beginning to take even more seriously than we have and we always have, and that is fact-checking. >> yes. >> holding people accountable. putting people's feet to the fire. >> thanks for watching. our coverage continues. thank you, guys. this is not a bed. it's a high-tech revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed.
it intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you lose your dad bod, train for that marathon, and wake up with the patience of a saint. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999. smarter sleep will change your life. . . . are you a christian author with
InvestigationPresidentAllFactRiskLawyersIntentHappeningLiabilityMalpracticeVladimir-putinRand-paulErin Burnett stays ahead of the headlines, delivering a show that is in-depth and informative.
also on this, just breaking tonight, minutes ago, the associated press is reporting that the "national enquirer" kept a safe with documents on hush money payments and other killed stories that were damaging specifically to trump. a safe. do you know anything about that? >> i actually don't know anything about it. i haven't been at the company for quite a while. but then again, it wouldn't surprise me. because when you have ammunition, it gives you a lot more ability to get to people who you want -- david pecker owns a stable of publications. it's not just the "national enquirer." and there's actually been stories of him using -- killing a story in the enquirer to get someone to do something with his other publications. so. >> all right. so carrie, let's talk about the law here. at the same time the "national enquirer" was catching and killing these stories about trump, it was also taking on his opponents, hillary clinton, ted cruz, we just laid all of this out. where the the legal line here? where is the legal issue here that could cross the line into campaign finance violations by
>> and michael cohen said that under oath this week. april, to you. i want to quote a former staffer at ami who told ronan farrow of the new yorker when he did this big profile on pecker months ago, he said, in theory, you would think that trump has all the power in that relationship, but in fact, it's pecker. he has the power to run these stories. he knows where the bodies are buried. does pecker have the upper hand on the president here? >> pecker has the upper hand and the president is not happy about that. you know, anytime that you dance with the devil or know something about what someone is doing, that person doesn't necessarily want it to be told. and right now, it's about david pecker trying to save his own skin. because how deep is david pecker? this president talks about -- and poppy, you said it. he talked about fake news and crafting news. and he, indeed, himself, as a civilian, was crafting news. killing stories. and smearing people's names. this does not bode well for this
president. i mean, you don't know how far this goes. and it's like every day, what level of crazy are we in? what level of reality show, white house reality are we in? it just keeps going and going. this president has something to fear. he has something to fear. >> let me read to you, stu, something from gus winter, who sold "us weekly" to david pecker. this is what he told "the new yorker" about a discussion that he had with pecker regarding then citizen trump. he said, quote -- this is what pecker was saying about trump, okay? he was painting donald as extremely loyal to him and he had no issue being loyal in return. he told me very bluntly that he had killed all sorts of stories for trump. you worked there hand in hand, leading kmupgs ining -- communi. do you have any sense of other stories that would not reflect well on the president that were killed or caught and killed by pecker, by ami? >> well, over the course of the relationship? >> yeah. >> sure there were stories that were caught and killed. because when david pecker would
that the prosecutors would have to file where they'd have to weigh, is it in the public interests for this person to be granted immunity? >> right. >> and then the details of that would be -- would depend on the specific agreement that the prosecutors would have worked out with mr. pecker's lawyers and ami. so i don't think we quigt know enough publicly about what the scope of that immunity agreement is. in other words, whether he has agreed to provide information discreetly about these two particular women and their cases that are described in the cohen documents or whether his immunity agreement is much more broad. but the -- one other point. the important piece about what he has potentially to provide with respect to the cohen document -- what's in the cohen documents about the two women is whether or not donald trump knew that the purposes of the payments was to affect the election. the timing is certainly suspicious. >> sure. >> as it was october and close to the election. but whether or not mr. pecker
actually can give prosecutors that information would be very important. >> very prorimportant. so, april, as we all remember, last june, msnbc host joe scarborough and mike nicco, they claimed -- they went on the air and they claim, look, we were threatened by the white house, they said. they were told, according to them, if they didn't apologize to the president for some of their critical coverage, the "national enquirer" would run some hit pieces on them and their former marriages, right? >> right. >> essentially, they were saying, this is blackmail. just listen to this. >> we got a call that, hey, the "national enquirer" is going to run a negative story against you guys and it was, you know, donald is friends with the president -- is friends with the guy that runs the "national enquirer." and they said, if you call the president up and you apologize for your coverage, then he will pick up the phone and basically spike this story. >> well, they didn't do that. and april, as you know, the
"national enquirer" did run some negative stories about them. i mean, this, this sort of dirty way of doing business was all out in plain sight. >> dirty way -- this is street politics. this is the straeet -- this is not even politics. this is a street game. let me get something on you so i can hold you at bay and puppeteer you. you know, poppy, this is something that i'm very familiar with. you know, myself and two others were told that there were dossiers on us. this is what they try to do when they want to put you -- bring you in control. this is an administration and formally a civilian organization and circle of friends who tried their best to keep you in line. this is what this administration does. they look up things on you, try to get dirt on you, and then try to smear you. the bottom line is, you know, this is what they do, this is not politics that we know. this is what donald trump, who was a ruthless businessman who is now president of the united
states and has not necessarily changed, this is what he does. this is what he does. and if you see it one time, believe it. >> stu, bottom line, you're the one on this television screen, none of us have worked with david pecker, you have, very closely with him, managing crises. >> yeah. >> if you're the president tonight, you are worried, extremely worried, or not worried? >> i would be kind of worried. i do think at the end of the day, however -- >> kind of? >> -- pecker will respond to what's better for him, not what's better for trump. so i guess as he evaluates all the things that are-- presented to him, he'll make the choice that's better for david pecker. the guy's a survivor. he's outlasted many expectations of his demise and always landed on his feet. >> thank you all for being here. "outfront" next, jeff sessions fighting back tonight against trump like never before. my next guest, a longtime friend of sessions. what set the attorney general
off today? plus, breaking news, "the new yorker" reporting trump's advisers have circulated this memo accusing former obama staffers of engaging in a conspiracy theory against them. the reporter who broke the story is "outfront." and kmacongressman duncan hunter leei ileaving court afte pleading not guilty to charges that he and his wife stole $250,000 from campaign funds for a lavish lifestyle. is hunter blaming it all on his wife? ahead. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and now, all beds are on sale. save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery. ends saturday. when mit rocked our world.ailed we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they took care of everything a to z. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege.
...where you can shop withvent! confidence and convenience plus get these 4 benefits from kenmore at sears. up to fifty percent off appliances with your sears card. like this washer and dryer for $539.99 each. and this refrigerator for $899.99. hurry in to sears today. rewards me basically aeverywhere.om so why am i hosting a dental convention after party in my vegas suite? or wearing a full-body wetsuit at this spa retreat? or sliding into this ski lodge with my mini horse kevin? because hotels.com lets me do me, right? sorry, the cold makes him a little horse. hotels.com. you do you and get rewarded. you're wearing a hat. that's funny.
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 you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. introducing zero account fees for brokerage accounts. and zero minimums to open an account. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪
tonight, jeff sessions firing back at president trump like never before. the war of words breaking out after these comments by the president about his attorney general. >> i put an attorney general that never took control of the justice department, jeff sessions. never took control of the justice department and it's sort of an incredible thing. even my enemies say that jeff sessions should have told you that he was going to recuse himself. and then you wouldn't have put him in! he took the job and then he said, i'm going to recuse myself. i said, what kind of a man is that? >> within hours, sessions slammed those remarks saying in part, quote, i took control of the justice department the day i was sworn in, which is why we have had unprecedented success effectuating the president's agenda. while i am attorney general, the actions of the department of
justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. wow. phil mattingly is on capitol hill with more. awkward alert, he then went to the white house for a meeting face to face with the president. okay, there's that. and then there's a flurry of reaction on capitol hill tonight to all of this. what are you hearing? >> reporter: poppy, one of the most interesting elements to the day, we saw the first kind of crack in what had long been a united front on capitol hill saying, please don't do this. it's not worth it for a myriad of reasons. but lindsey graham said after the election, not now, but after the election, it is probably time for a new attorney general. i will note, though, poppy, he does not speak for all republicans. and frankly, he was pretty much on his own there. take a listen to some of the senators that i ran in to today. >> there would be a concern about a domino effect, you know, then what happens to rosenstein? is this a way to go after the mueller investigation? so, it's a big concern. >> i think it would be a mistake and i don't think it would be good for the country.
>> he's a man of integrity. i've worked for him 20 years up here and you get to know people. and i wish him the best. >> reporter: now, poppy, let me explain the behind the scenes here, one that's really been prevalent for the last couple of months, and that is, what would the fallout be here. essentially, it would shut down the senate. you heard senator jeff flake talk about the ramifications for the russia investigation. firing somebody who's recused and trying to install somebody who wouldn't be recused to oversee the special counsel. democrats would lose their mind and they would never be able to get someone confirmed. you have the potential fallout shortly before a midterm election. and the most interesting element of all of this, you mentioned it, the attorney general was at the white house today for a prescheduled meeting. what we are told from both white house sources and justice department sources, the issue never even came up. so as you noted, kind of awkward. this is a dance that's been going on for several months. but the big difference today, you saw the attorney general fire back. and interestingly enough, in
that meeting, the president more or less sided with the attorney general on a separate issue in terms of the future of criminal justice reform on capitol hill. one thing we know for sure, the vast majority of republicans including senate republican leadership do not want the president to do anything here. we also know that this fight is most likely going to continue, because it certainly hasn't he would -- held off on a weekly basis. >> phil, appreciate all the reporting and getting that sound from republican senators on the hill. "outfront" now, politics editor for "the times," patrick healey, and william huntley joins me, an alabama attorney who has known jeff sessions since 1997. william, you've known the ag for the better part of three decades. he has never before shot back in the way that he did today. and those words were very, very carefully chosen. 17 months of relentless attacks by the president. why was today the straw that broke the camel's back? >> i think today was the day
that attorney general decided that he finally needed to go public with the support of all of the employees of the department of justice, because there's a large number of employees and they needed to know that the attorney general supported and backed them and would prevent them and protect them from political influence. and that's what he did today. and i think he accomplished that very well. >> it was pretty clear he's had it. republican senator lindsey graham today, as you just heard phil mentioned, said he believes that trump very well may replace sessions after the midterms. here's why. listen to this. >> clearly, attorney general sessions doesn't have the confidence of the president. after the election, i think there will be some serious discussions about a new attorney general. >> patrick, how significant to hear lindsey graham, who is a high-ranking republican on the judiciary committee, who would be a senator, who would have to confirm a new ag, how significant to hear that from him today? >> it's infant. i think there was an assumption that the senate would stand by sessions, a former senator himself, one of them, because
they also knew that any kind of confirmation fight over the attorney general would pull in mueller the investigation, pull in rod rosenstein. there's so many ripple effects to this and it's not the fight that the senate wants to have this winter. >> willie, he has been, jeff sessions, just a virtual pun punching bag for the president, okay? let's remind people, lest they need it. >> sessions should have never recused himself. and if he would -- if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and i would have picked somebody else. >> i'm very disappointed with the attorney general. >> the attorney general made a terrible mistake when he did this. he made what i consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country. >> how on earth has jeff sessions taken it this long? i mean, and how do these attacks personally impact him, willie? >> jeff is a strong individual. i think he can take a lot of
punishment and keep ticking. and i think that's what has happened. i think jeff's number one focus and number one goal was the department of justice and all the employees that are impacted by it. and i think he was withholding any type of response or comment out of respect for the president and in order to respect the employees at the department of justice. but i think it probably reached a point where the employees at the department of justice probably thought that they had been abandoned. if they would have been subjected to any type of political ramifications. >> that's interesting. so you're saying, it's not about him and his feelings, he can take this. it's about the people that work for him. i mean, patrick, there is a new tone today. because it's not just this statement saying, you know, i've been running this place since the day i was appointed. also, a source tells cnn that the attorney general said, you know, i'm not going to be quote, blackmailed into supporting a criminal justice reform bill that i don't support, right? he's against taking away
mandatory minimum sentencing. >> right. >> he opposes the president, jared kushner, on that. is it possible in your mind that the president may actually respect jeff sessions more after today for that comment, for the statement he put out? because we have not seen trump punch back. >> right, right. trump, the worst insult that trump thinks he can give to someone is sort of questioning their manhood. you know, what kind of man is this? and i think in some ways, sort of seeing jeff sessions stand up and basically saying, i'm not going to be improperly influenced, it's a strong -- >> i'm not going to be your punching bag. >> i'm not going to be your punching bag or whipping boy. but at the same time, the whole notion of improper influence really does bother trump. he sees all of these people, the cabinet secretaries and toeratty general as working for him. they don't. they work for the american people. but from his point of view, the time had kind of come to say, you know, it was kind of a shot across the bow to the white house, to the senate. i'm not going to be pushed
around, i'm not going to be blackmailed into this. and improper influence, and those words were chosen very carefully. >> totally. every word of that statement. >> right. and this is part of the critique criticism of the trump white house. that essentially, you know, obstruction of justice, part of that is about getting in the face of your enemies and sort of shutting down investigations, pressuring, you know, government officials -- >> who do you think he works for? who's the loyalty to? to the american taxpayer that pays you or to the president directly? willie, before we go, because you have known jeff sessions for so long, do you think he would step aside voluntarily? >> no. i believe jeff believes in the heart and soul of the department of justice. i know this is probably his dream job, because he has an opportunity to impact so many lives. and i just don't think that he would voluntarily step aside. i don't think that is part of the makeup of jeff sessions.
>> thank you both for being here, willie. nice to have you, patrick, as well. all right. breaking news next. "the new yorker" reporting tonight that the trump white house circulated a memo accusing former obama staffers of conspiring against them. and longtime trump supporters on what would change their minds. en ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. does it look like i'm done? shouldn't you be at work? [ mockingly ] "shouldn't you be at work?" todd. hold on. [ engine revs ] arcade game: fist pump! your real bike's all fixed. man, you guys are good! well, we are the number-one motorcycle insurer in the country. -wait.
you have a real motorcycle? and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog! champion.
i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. breaking news. a new report tonight in "the new yorker" revealing that advisers to president trump believed that former obama aides were engaged in coordinated attacks to undermine trump's foreign policy. it is detailed in a memo from last year, a memo called the echo chamber, which says in
part, and i quote, some of the members of the network refer to themselves as the resistance. they are the same obama loyalists using the same media outlets and the same allied journalists who promote their narrative of u.s. foreign policy. "outfront" now, one of the authors of that piece, adam entist joins me. adam, it is fascinating, it is in-depth, and parts of it are just stunning. tell us more about this. >> well, i think the thing that really struck me about the memo is the similarity that it has to what a u.s. military intelligence officer would write about an insurgent network in iraq and afghanistan. the language that is used in this memo really, i think, captures the psychology of the author and a certain group of people inside of the trump white house in early 2017, who felt like they were encircled by opponents, that were both members of the obama administration, former members, and what they referred to as holdovers. career professionals inside the white house, who did not leave when the obama administration left town.
>> right. talk to us about who was named. ben rhodes, for example, a very prominent figure in the obama white house was named throughout this and their response to this. >> yeah. so the, you know, names like you said,bo ben rhodes, it names collin call, and he's identified in this as the ops chief, an operational chief, again, using the language of a military analysis of an insurgency. their analysis was there was no organization and this was a fever dream by those in the white house. that said, in defense -- slightly in defense of those who believed what was in the memo, they -- you can understand why nef they felt besieged during this period. there were a lot of attacks, there were a lot of leaks that were coming out that were very damaging and hurtful to their agenda that they were seeking to advance.
so you can sort of put yourself a little bit in their shoes and understand why they felt that encirclement. >> so given your reporting, what are current members of the trump administration -- because this was at really high levels. this was circulating around the nsc, what are they saying tonight? >> they're declining comment on this. i think the news we had earlier last week about john brennan and his security clearance, this is a function of a similar dynamic. which is this deep suspicion within this white house, held by this president, but also by some of his advisers, some of whom have since left the white house, that there is a conspiracy against them that involves former members of the obama administration trying at every turn, working with what they describe as their allies in the media to undermine the administration. and what trump did not do in 2017 against john brennan and other members of the former obama administration, he seems
more willing to do now in 2018, in part because some of the advisers who told him not to retaliate are no longer there. >> that's a very important point. fascinating reporting, important reporting, adam entis, thank you. >> pleasure. "outfront" now, denny heck, he sits on the house intel committee. nice to have you this evening. and before we get into other issues, let me get your take on this new reporting from the new yorker. >> well, i don't think anybody should be surprised. this administration has been marked by daep, deep chronic suspicion of others since its beginning. there's another word for that, paranoia. they've been dog whistling to the qanon conspiracy network since day one. i think actually what's more interesting about it is, what happens to an administration that is deeply suspicious, if not paranoid and given to conspiracy theories when the pressure really gets on. because clearly, the walls are closing in on this administration. and we have all read or remember what happened to the last days of the nixon white house, what
happened to that -- to the dynamic and the psychology of the people in the inner circle then. so i think that's the more interesting question. people give in to conspiracy theories. what happens when the heat's on and the heat is on. >> i'll get back to your comment on the last days of the nixon white house in a moment. but on this reporting, before we move on, just to push back a little bit, you have seen a complete dismantling of every part of the obama administration's foreign policy that this president can undo without congress, essentially, right? the paris climate accord, the iran nuclear agreement. reason for former officials to fight in a coordinated way? >> last time i checked, poppy, they had a first amendment right to dissent and disagree with that, but that's not really what's being written up about here by adam in a superb piece of journalism. this is about a conspiracy theory that this is super organized and that all of the dots are connected and that the moves on a daily basis are coordinated by some kind of
puppet master and i know ben rhodes, i know jake sullivan. nothing could be farther from the truth. >> all right. so let's get back to your comment about saying this is a bit analogous to the last days of the nixon white house. and obviously, you're pointing to impeachment. today, the president was asked about impeachment. here's what he said. >> if the democrats take back power, do you believe they will try to impeach you? >> well, you know, i guess it's something like high crimes and all -- i don't know how you can impeach somebody who's done a great job? i'll tell you what, if i ever got impeached, i think the market would crash. ping everybody would be very poor. >> as someone who would vote on articles of impeachment, should they be brought in the house? what's your reaction to that? >> so first of all, can i stand up in defense of poor vice president pence, who evidently the president -- president trump is implying would not be able to assume -- >> would crash the economy, was
the implication there. >> right. under then newly ascended president pence. i'm going to stand up for president pence. i don't think that would necessarily happen. look, the only people talking about impeachment are the republicans. you don't hear democrats talking about this -- >> you hear some. you hear some. >> well, but not on any kind of a scale that would suggest that this is around the corner. look, i said last april on this network, poppy, that i actually thought the thing that ought to happen now that is analogous to the nixon administration is that the president ought to be talking with his god and his family and his self about the possibility of a resignation. what is different between now and then is that we had a couple of very principled republican members of the united states senate, notably barry goldwater and howard baker who went to him and said, it is over, mr. president, it is time for you to resign. but the walls are closing in on president trump. i confidently suggest to you that tuesday, august 21st, 2018,
will go down as a watershed day with the guilty convictions of manafort and the michael cohen plea bargain deal. we now have the most corrupt administration in modern history. this is a factual statement. i don't think it's a subjective interpretation. >> because you bring up howard baker, i mean, i have heard very little from many republicans in congress right now. you know, especially on the senate side. and, you know, i get that the house is on recess, but you're still doing an interview. i mean, who is there someone that is the howard baker of this moment who will say, what did you know and when did you know it? do you see that turning point in your republican colleagues right now? >> i absolutely believe that there are members of the united states senate in the republican conference who could step up and do this. but the question really is, will they step up and do this?
and that remainsto be een. >> i appreciate your time tonight, congressman. thanks for being with me. >> you're welcome. "outfront" next, after a week of legal drama for the president, what is the red line for his supporters? >> the president better watch about the pardons, because with the pardons that he does that, it looks like it was set up by him. >> and republican congressman duncan hunter and his wife in court pleading not guilty to charges that he stoe-- stole campaign funds for lavish ships and shopping sprees. is hunter going to throw his wife under the bus? ♪
now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. comdeeper than the oceanrld as unfathomable as the universe a world that doesn't exist outside you, but within you where breakthrough science is replacing chemotherapy with immunotherapy where we can now attack the causes of disease not just the symptoms. where medicines once produced for all, are now designed to fit you. today, 140,000 biopharmaceutical researchers go boldly to discover treatments and cures unimaginable ten years ago and they're on the verge of more tomorrow.
2016. in the aftermath of the legal bombshells involving trump's former attorney michael cohen and campaign chair paul manafort, here in liucerne, voters like ann marie is so encouraged by the economy, she says she can overlook allegations of trump's infidelity. >> unless the money came from campaign funds, then i don't think that it's good. >> reporter: i see. so that's where you draw that sort of line. >> yes. >> reporter: i see. >> but i would still vote for him again. >> reporter: trump's win in this part of the state is also thanks in part to democrats like eileen and richard sorocas. >> this is all from president obama's campaign. >> reporter: who after voting twice for president obama switched their vote to trump. this is what the couple told me weeks after trump's inauguration. >> you've got to get a businessman in here, get the
deficit down. >> reporter: the couple stands by their decision. >> our retirement is in the stock market and the stock market has been growing for quite a while now, so i'm sort of happy what's happening with the economy. >> reporter: they say the legal crises involving cohen and manafort as a side show and many others here agree. >> the investigations were supposed to be about russia interference in our elections. and so far, i've seen nothing concerning that. >> as a candidate, trump infamously joked about the dedication of his supporters. >> they say i have the most loyal people. did you ever see that? where i could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and i wouldn't lose any voters, okay? it's like incredible. >> reporter: loyalty only goes so far. and supporters here say it could be tested if trump began issuing pardons. >> oh, the pardons. i don't agree with them. >> reporter: barbershop owner aldo satorio is an independent
voter who supported trump. if the pardons started coming down, would that change your mind about voting for him? >> that's going to be my decision. that would be in the decision, sure. >> sure, also mine. >> the president better watch it about the pardons. because with the pardons, that he does that, it looks like it was set up by him with the last couple of tweets that he had, where he sticks up for, who is it the guy out there they're talking about. >> manafort. >> he says he's a great guy and he's wonderful and everything else. and he's kind of sending the message that if you stick with me, i will pardon you. >> reporter: and poppy, in addition to the pardons, the other line in the sand for many of the trump supporters that we spoke to would be if the mueller investigation found any collusion between members of the trump campaign and russians. again, that would be another line in the sand for many of the folks we spoke to here. but they also expressed a great deal of frustration that the mueller investigation had not wrapped up yet. poppy? >> that was a fascinating piece,
jason. thank you so much for that. let's talk about it. "outfront" now, rob astorino, who is serving on the trump 2020 advisory board. he is a new cnn contributor. and jen psaki, former white house communications director for former president obama. nice to have you both here. >> great to be here. >> good to have you. so rob, to you first. the voters were clear in that piece. it was fascinating. i didn't know that they would say that and they would be so concerned about potential pardons here, but they were clear that's a red line. still tonight, the white house, and i quote, sarah sanders, the president has not made a decision on pardoning paul manafort or anyone else. that's not a "no." in your opinion, should the trump white house right now close the door on a possible manafort pardon right now? >> i don't think it matters right now, because the action is going to speak. and if he doesn't do it or at some point he comes out and says, no, i'm not going to do it, or doesn't ever speak about it again, it's a closed issue. >> why do you think it doesn't matter when all of those trump voters just told us it does matter. >> i agree with them. i don't think he should. not because he can't.
he has absolute power to do that. any president does. >> but why even give them the rue to speculate or worry. >> i don't think he should. i honestly think he should not ever even consider it or issue a pardon. because i think that sends the wrong message. >> all right, jen, to you, would a presidential pardon of paul manafort be a gift to democrats? >> yes, in the sense that it would are continue to energize democratic voters about how outrageous this violation of the rule of law is. and it might make, as we just saw in that piece, some independent voters, some people who are on the line question whether this is a guy who is draining the swamp or if he's a part of this, you know, corrupt washington that they hate so much. >> i mean, just on that point, bob, to you, the swamp, right, that the president said he was going to drain, paul manafort was convicted by a jury of his peers of some pretty horrible things, right? of defrauding american taxpayers. and the president still called him a good guy who he feels bad for.
isn't that bringing the swamp right along with you. >> well, i think what he meant there, and maybe i'll do a trump translation, he worked with him, he helped him, and so he thinks he's a good guy. he should have said, comma, who did a bad thing. and you can't excuse what he did. >> okay, i just need to know that you work on the trump 2020 advisory committee, and therefore you have signed an nda that includes a no non-disparagement clause. so you can't really tell me, then -- you really don't believe the president's own words, "he's a good guy"? about paul manafort. >> are you talking about paul manafort? >> yeah. >> no, look, i've known people, have you ever met somebody that you knew well or knew or worked with -- >> that became a convicted felon? no. >> who did something wrong. >> who became a convicted felon? no. nor would i say after the fact that they defrauded the american people, they're a good person. >> they can be a good person who did a bad thing. we can make that distinction. >> eight counts. >> yeah. you know how many people commit
fraud who evade taxes? i'm not saying it's the right thing. >> i do not -- >> poppy, let me get this straight. it is not a good thing and he should go to jail for what he did. >> you're down -- okay, jen psaki, your take? >> i think there's a really dangerous lowering of the bar here of what's acceptable. people have served in governments for the white house and for the federal government for hundreds of years and we have trump supporters what is happening in this country? of course, paul manafort is a bad guy and trump is trying to keep him in his corner. we all know what's happening there. i don't think it's an easy thing for him to explain especially for his recorders. >> every time a president issues a pardon, it's somebody who did a bad thing. they're paying their debt to society. >> i think we can all agree there's a big difference between pardoning. >> for this reason or that reason i'm giving you a pardon. >> there's a big difference between pardoning somebody who served time for dealing drugs and served 30 years and served
an extended period of time and pardoning someone who has violated and potentially colluded with russia, we don't know yet. there are huge differences here. pardoning somebody like paul manafort, this is trump again putting out there he's above the law. that's what people don't like about it. >> you say, look, you know people who have done this, done a lot of bad things. shouldn't there be a different standard this high in politics? shouldn't there be a different standard if you're running a campaign for five critical months? >> yes. i'm not making any excuse and neither are those in pennsylvania. here's the big issue, i think voters are understanding that. it has nothing to do with russia at this point that we know of and it has nothing to do with the campaign of president trump, everything to do with what he
did 10 years ago and paying those prices. >> money he got from the ukrainian government -- >> he's wrong. >> that was propped up by the putin regime. by the way, he's the man who led the change of the republican platform, having to do with ukraine and russia at the rnc. >> and in republican politics back to president ford. >> i get that. that does not change there are ties to russia when you look at the money. that's what i'm saying. >> not to do with the collusion what mueller is looking into. we have no facts whatsoever. what he went to jail or will go to jail for is for tax evasion and hiding money. he should go to jail for that. >> he faces money laundering charges in three weeks in washington, d.c. thank you. nice to have you. important conversation. jen, thank you for being here as well. >> thank you. republican congressman, duncan hunter, pleading not guilty to misusing a quarter of a million dollars in campaign funds. hunter defiant today as he
walked into court to protesters shouting, lock him up. >> out front. >> instead of the halls of congress, representative, duncan hunter, entered the halls of justice in san diego, he and his wife making their first court appearance after being indicted by a federal grand jury, accused of stealing more than $250,000 of campaign funds to furnish a lavish lifestyle including a $14,000 family trip to italy, $11,000 at costco, $3,000 on fast food and hundreds of dollars on clothing, some of which prosecutors say they tried to pawn off as charity for wounded veterans. both remained defiant, pleading ng to the 60 counts against them. the day before court, representative hunter went on the attack against the justice
department. >> i paid the money back. this is political, period. >> reporter: that is also what he told the crowd at a town hall in 2017. i am a representative to you and the campaign finance stuff, i was not watching it close enough. i have fixed it now. it's all straightened out. >> reporter: a grand jury didn't see it that way. prosecutors said even his campaign staffers kept warning the couple they were violating the law. the assistant u.s. attorney said the couple wasn't a flight risk due in part to their dire financial condition. hunter racked up $137,000 in overdraft fees on his personal accounts, hunter as much as admitting his family is going through financial troubles. there's nothing illegal about being poor. i don't think there's anything illegal about not having money in your bank account. >> reporter: there is something illegal about using campaign funds to shore up your finances.
he's paid $174,000 out of tax coffers. few would call that poor. outside the court, democratic voters make clear they are sickened at the charges and gunning for his seat. his democratic opponent says he commenced hunter as a former marine who served his country abroad. he says hunter appears to have served himself during his time in washington. >> i think washington chewed him up and spat him out and engulfed him in the corruption that has plagued washington too long. i think the voters come november will change that and hope to have real representation for the first time in a long time. >> reporter: something else interesting happened inside and outside court. we noticed that mr. hunter and his wife entered at different times in different ways and they did not sit together while in court, and when representative hunter was asked about those
thousands of overdrafts to his account, he seemed to put that on his wife saying while he was overseas serving in the marines he gave her power of attorney over those accounts and he was simply unsure about those details. >> fascinating development. thank you very much, sarah. up next, jeanne moos on trump's late night all caps twitter rant. up to fifty percent off appliances with your sears card. like this washer and dryer for $539.99 each. and this refrigerator for $899.99. hurry in to sears today. let your perfect drive come together during the final days of the lincoln summer invitation event get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models
plus one thousand dollars bonus cash. we'll leave the light on for you. >> reporter: it's 1:10 a.m., do
you know where your president is? he's tweeting, with the caps lock on no collusion rigged witch hunt. at a recent rally the coughed up five no collusions in 10 seconds. >> where is the collusion? they're still looking for collusion. they're still looking for collusion. find some collusion. we want to find the collusion. >> reporter: when critics found no collusion at 1:10 a.m. in a tweet, they colluded to mock him in tweets. it's 1:10 a.m. and the president is in an all caps scream. journalist howard fineman says nothing says innocent like a random 1:00 all caps tweet screaming the same nonsense you spout everyday. another commenter saw shades of nixon. this is the equivalent of nixon walking through the white house, talking to the portraits.
>> you don't want end to up like me. >> reporter: what better time to hunt witches than after midnight. >> no collusion. >> reporter: the president is making it again, the last time a tweet got this much attention, the president dozed on the keyboard. >> what is that? >> reporter: that time he might have had trouble staying awake, mr. president, if you're having trouble sleeping ask your doctor if covfefe is right for you. >> this is a witch hunt like nobody has ever seen before. before you go, we want to welcome the newest member of the "out front" family. that beauty is aaron thomas born to our own erin burnett august 20th. he is getting to know his big
David-peckerCitizen-trumpProsecutorsReportingImmunityPersonPublisherTurning-on-trumpProtectorNational-enquirerTabloidAlly