Skip to main content

tv   CNN Tonight With Don Lemon  CNN  May 17, 2019 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT

7:00 pm
united states of america is working for the people's interest or his own. this is "cnn tonight," i'm don lemon and at the end of a week when this president brought us to the brink of war with iran, a week when he doubled down on his trade war with china, one that's getting more and more costly for more and more americans, now this administration is flat out unapologetically breaking the law. the treasury secretary steve mnuchin refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena from the house ways and means committee for six years of the president's tax returns even though the law does not allow him to decide for himself whether to comply. that is illegal. you don't think the attorney general would be advising the president to order his administration to follow the
7:01 pm
law? and in another administration that might be true, but this attorney general is doing the president's bidding, as always, speaking to an audience of one, as always, acting more like the president's attorney instead of the attorney general. the former fbi director james comey tweeting just tonight, and this is a quote, the ag should stop sliming his own department. if there are bad facts, show us, or search for them professionally, and then tell us what you found. an ag must act like the leader of the department of justice, an organization based on truth, donald trump has enough spokes people. former fbi director. wow. all of this as barr is slamming the mueller investigation. >> the president calls this a witch hunt. he calls it a hoax. would you agree with that? >> well, as i've said, if he were the president i think he would view it as a witch hunt
7:02 pm
and a hoax because at the time he was saying he was innocent. and that he was being falsely accused, and that's -- if you're falsely accused, you would think that something was a witch hunt. >> let's remember, in his confirmation hearings william barr said exactly the opposite. >> do you believe mr. mueller would be involved in a witch hunt against anybody? >> i don't believe mr. mueller would be involved in a witch hunt. >> well, now he apparently does, or at least he is willing to say he does. as long as it's what the president wants to hear. even though he's essentially throwing his good friend bob mueller under the bus. remember he said in his hearings he and bob were really good friends, no wonder they haven't spoken lately. >> when did you speak with him last? correspond with him? >> the last i talked to him was, i think, the thursday after he delivered his report when we had a telephone call. but there's no --
7:03 pm
>> so that's been several weeks? >> yeah, but there's no -- that's not because of any strain between us or anything. >> and that call, the attorney general mentions, the last time he talked to mueller, that call came after mueller said not one but two letters to barr, criticizing his summary of the special counsel's report for not fully capturing the context, nature and substance of mueller's work and conclusions. here's what barr says about his summary. >> which he will say and democrats will say is that you were spinning on behalf of the president, with the principal conclusions that you released, they leveled charges that you held back the mueller report for several weeks. were you spinning for the white house to buy some time? >> no, i wasn't. i think what they're really perhaps annoyed about is that they didn't have an opportunity to spin and that the fundamental findings of the report were out there for everybody to see. and they were not in a position
7:04 pm
to spin. >> shouldn't the a.g. be above partisan? a lot like the -- i know you are, but what am i defense. attorney general barr goes on fox to spin the mueller investigation, denies spinning for the white house, and accuses democrats of being annoyed because they were not in a position to spin. is your head spinning yet? mine is. that's actually the point, to distract and deflect. fox's chris wallace saying barr, and this is a quote, "clearly is protecting this president and advocating his point of view." but in another corner of fox news the president was getting blowback where he might least expect it. listen to this, this is from fox news legal analyst andrew napolitano. >> it is dangerous when presidents write their own laws, impose their own taxes, spend
7:05 pm
money how they want and congress looks the other way. it's dangerous. because it's too much of an accumulation of power in the presidency, and it imbalances that delicate balance that the separation of powers created. we need to be careful about too much power in the hands of too few. >> with all of that going on the president started his day today with a twitter tirade, including his false claim that his campaign was spied on, a claim that was knocked down by his own fbi director. >> do you have any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the campaigns or individuals associated with the campaigns by the fbi occurred? >> i don't think i personally have any evidence of that sort. >> so the president going on to tweet it now seems general flynn was under investigation long
7:06 pm
before it was common knowledge. it would have been impossible for me to know this. but if that was the case and with me being one of two people who would become president why was i not told so that i could make a change? as we always say on this program and on this network, facts matter, facts first, the fact is, and i'm going to show you the evidence, he and his campaign were told over and over and over. flynn himself told don mcgahn who was a top lawyer on the trump transition team that he was under federal investigation for lobbying work he did secretly for turkey while he was working on the trump campaign. that is according to "the new york times." then president barack obama in the oval office two days after trump's election win warned him not to make flynn a member of his national security team because his name kept popping up
7:07 pm
in the investigation of russia's election interference. that's two examples right there. then, here's another one, the acting attorney general sally yates told mcgahn after the inauguration that flynn could be "essentially blackmailed by the russians". >> i had two in-person meetings and one phone call with the white house counsel about mr. flynn. >> chris christie, chris christie says he warned trump multiple times that flynn was trouble. >> i didn't think that he was someone who would bring benefit to the president or to the administration, and i made that very clear to candidate trump and i made it very clear to president elect trump. that was my opinion, my view. >> chris christie, supporter of this president. so why is the president on such
7:08 pm
a tear about flynn today? well, maybe what we're learning about him is getting a little too close to home. there's this, at the same time, he was cooperating with the mueller investigation, flynn may have been playing both sides, sending direct messages to congressman matt gates who was publicly criticizing the investigation. one message reads kw"you stay o top of what you're doing, your leadership is so vital to our country right now, keep the pressure on." if that doesn't make his point clear enough, there's also an eagle and a flag. that as we are now learning more tonight about court documents showing that flynn told mueller that people connected to the trump administration or congress contacted him, potentially trying to influence him not to cooperate with prosecutors. he gave mueller a voice mail of one of those conversations. and now a judge is ordering that the transcript of that conversation be made public,
7:09 pm
along with flynn's calls with russian officials and potentially redacted parts of the mueller report. and all of that may not play into the president's preferred and false narrative that he has been 100% exonerated. so what does he do? what he always does. deny, get angry, attack. he's doing it today. the question is, will it work? i told you about the former fbi director james comey slamming attorney general william barr. is this kind of unbecoming sniping exactly why we need to hear from robert mueller, to settle all of this down? that is the question for jim sciutto, john dean, phil mudd, next. (music throughout)
7:10 pm
need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites - even our competitors - so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done.
7:11 pm
green things and brown things don't mix. just eat the food. i'm allergic to all things green. (sigh) ♪ who can say why your heart sighs ♪ kraft. for the win win. your control. like bedhead. ♪ who can say why your heart sighs ♪ hmmmm. ♪ rub-a-dub ducky... and then...there's national car rental. at national, i'm in total control. i can just skip the counter and choose any car in the aisle i like. so i can rent fast without getting a hair out of place. heeeeey. hey!
7:12 pm
ah, control. (vo) go national. go like a pro.
7:13 pm
wa we're back with our breaking news, james comey taking aim at attorney general barr, he should stop sliming his own department. the last bit was a quote from him. john dean and phil mudd, what extraordinary times we're living in. these new tweets come from james comey. it says the a.g. should stop sliming his own department. if there are bad facts, show us and then tell us what you found.
7:14 pm
an a.g. must act like the leader of the department of justice, an organization based on truth. donald trump has enough spokes people. and then there is a second one, the president claiming the fbi investigation was treason reminds me that a russian -- what a russian once said, that a russian said -- i'm reading it off the monitor, because it's just in, a lie told often enough becomes the truth, that shouldn't happen in america. who will stand up? again, this is all coming from the former director of the fbi tonight. what do you make of all this, jim sciutto? >> listen. it can't be good for the departments, right, to have this public sniping between current and former leaders. it's an expression of where our political discourse is today in washington. i suppose we shouldn't be surprised by it but we should pay attention to it and we should be concerned by it, i mean, what strikes me here is the contradiction among sitting heads of these agencies right now, and you highlighted it,
7:15 pm
don, at the start of this program, bill barr is saying very publicly that he has concerns, seemingly evidence for concerns about how this investigation started, the head of the fbi was asked under oath last week, chris wray, whether he'd seen any evidence and he said no. just as simple as that. the question is, is barr being titillating here by sort of raising questions, perhaps with an eye to how the president will hear that, or has he discovered something and is that in conflict with what the fbi director knows about the start of this investigation? it's legitimate question but rather than airing those genuine concerns you better have something to back it up before you put it out there, you know, for the american public and the president to jump on as well. >> yeah. i've got to ask you, john dean, so now we have the former fbi director, we have the current a.g. and the former deputy a.g. all sniping at each other, which is why we need to hear from
7:16 pm
mueller, right, he may be the only person who can settle all of this down. >> he certainly is, and we certainly do hope to hear from him. i understand they're still unable to come up with a date certain. there's questions about executive privilege as to whether that will be invoked or not. but don, i must tell you, somebody who spent some years at the department of justice, there is a professional body there that really just pay much attention to what's happening at the top of the pyramid, if you will. they'll go on about their professional work, and so i don't think we need to worry about that. but we do need to worry about is the fact that this investigation of an investigation is just unprecedented. >> yeah. >> and uncalled for. >> yeah. we're going to talk a little bit more about that but i just want to bring you in, phil, and ask you because as i'm reading all this, as i'm talking about the former fbi director, the former attorney general, the current attorney general, what the
7:17 pm
president has been tweeting, many of his people spreading all these conspiracy theories, everyone sniping at each other, is there any greater victory for vladimir putin? >> i don't think there could be. if you look at the history of what i participated in for a living, the spy business, this is what you call covert action, you're trying to use an operation that you can plausibly deny, that's vladimir putin saying to the president as he said in helsinki, finland, we don't have anything to do with this interference in the campaign, we didn't put anything on facebook or twitter. if you could have said two and a half, three years ago, don, in the midst of that russian operation, that covert action if you could have said this is going to take down multiple cabinet members, this is going to embarrass the president, this is in some ways going to lead the president to get closer to putin -- >> send people to prison. >> remarkable. >> yeah, it's really unbelievable. jim sciutto, so bill barr, he went from -- oh, i don't believe mueller would be involved in a witch hunt, that was at his confirmation hearing, to now
7:18 pm
saying that he is comfortable with trump calling it a witch hunt. i mean, talk about an evolution, or maybe a devolution. >> no question, look at the wording he's used, witch hunt -- >> or spying. >> it colors the work of the entire department and the agencies involved, right, i mean, and he knows, and he's been attorney general before, he knows about the many loyal, hard working people in that building who follow protocol, follow the rules, it's the nature of their job. it's the president who entered that kind of phraseology and attack into the public discourse with ease and he tweets that way a thousand times a day, right, to have the attorney general now echoing that as he sits atop, you know, the very agency the president is accusing of that kind of behavior. i just want -- i speak to folks inside that building all the time. and the gentleman on the air, you know, like phil who served there, and john dean as well who served in those institutions
7:19 pm
before, they know better than me that doesn't make the folks in there feel good or happy or proud or protected as they're trying to do their jobs. >> uh-huh. i want you guys to listen, and this will be for you, john, but i just want you to listen to what chris wallace had to say over at fox news, chris wallace plays it straight on his show. this is the analysis of the barr interview, watch this. >> what really comes across to me, most of all, is that for two years donald trump sat there and said i don't have an attorney general, i don't have somebody out there looking for and protecting my interests, he clearly has that now with bill barr, not saying that barr isn't right in everything he says but he clearly is protecting this president and advocating his point of view on a lot of these issues. >> i want your reaction to that, john, you have that, and then
7:20 pm
you have andrew napolitano saying it's dangerous when presidents write their own laws, impose their own taxes, spend money the way they want. you have folks over there saying this president is acting as if he's above the law, go on. >> they have entertainers over there who get on the air and spout what they're -- they think their base wants to hear. they also have a couple real journalists over there and a lawyer who can call it straight. but don we're in trouble with this whole effort to try to discredit agencies and it's a standard operating procedure by donald trump. he's done it his entire life and he's doing it as president and so obviously he's stirring it up again because there's something he doesn't like that's coming down the pike and he gets enough notice to know. >> well, phil, the president has already made up his mind, right, i mean, he says that he has -- he was conclusively spied on, that's what he says and that is not true. so what happens if this investigation into the investigators comes back, trump
7:21 pm
doesn't like the findings? >> look, i can't believe that will happen. i mean, if you look at investigations that's this unique, this complex, this lengthy, if you put a laser on that kind of investigation you're going to find something wrong. i tell you, my concern as we're looking at that kind of investigation is one thing, and that is that the attorney general keeps using the word spying. what he's telling me, that's very derogatory in the fbi, what he's telling me is he's already anticipating the result. it's like the irs looking at your return and saying we're not going to audit it, don, we're looking for fraud. what would you think? >> interesting. jim sciutto, i want to talk about this, and i have been watching some of your interviews and have been very impressed by it. this is the russian investigation. let's talk about your new book called "the shadow war: inside russia's and china's secret operations to defeat america," jim, talk about the threat russia still poses to the u.s. it is beyond just election interference, correct?
7:22 pm
>> it is. and that's really the point of the book, americans are aware of that front, we talk about it a lot, but there are many other front seat to this conflict and they're part of a broader strategy by russia to undermine the u.s., to defeat the u.s. on a lot of these battlefields. americans know about cyberattacks, but they don't know that russia has deployed weapons into space, kamikaze satellites that can maneuver up to america's most sensitive space assets and destroy them in the event of a conflict. and we, as a country, are more dependent on that kind of technology than anybody in the world, our military, our civilian institutions as well. but it doesn't stop there. russia has invaded a european country in ukraine, still occupies that territory. it is also in competition with the u.s. under the waves in the ocean, submarine warfare. i was on the u.s. nuclear subunder the arctic, russia has
7:23 pm
more advanced quieter subs all about projecting nuclear power up to our homeland, multiple fronts, americans, leaders to recognize it, they haven't figured out a strategy to push back. >> how does china do the same thi thing? >> two different countries and different geographies but a similar strategy, china also put weapons in space, attacks the u.s. in cyberspace every day with great success, stealing both state secrets and private sector secrets, china also has very advanced quiet submarines that can get very close to u.s. forces and they're also grabbing land where they can, they're manufacturing land in the south china sea in the middle of waters claimed by half a dozen countries including u.s. allies. they have different names, the russians call it the -- chinese call it winning without fighting, but similar, all intended to undermine the u.s. short of sparking a military reaction by the u.s. and they
7:24 pm
have a tremendous success doing it. that's the shadow war, that's what this book is about. >> jim sciutto's new book is "the shadow war: inside russia's and china's secret operation to defeat america." everyone should go pick it up. gentlemen, thank you so much, i appreciate it, real. how do you gauge the greatness of an suv? is it to carry cargo... or to carry on a legacy? its show of strength... or its sign of intelligence? in crossing harsh terrain... or breaking new ground?
7:25 pm
this is the mercedes-benz suv family. greatness comes in many forms. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional lease and financing offers. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new loaded fajitas. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. ajust wait'll you get to thes. beregister.isn't it? introducing new lower prices on produce. atta boy i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke. could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren)
7:26 pm
because with high bad cholesterol, my risk of a heart attack or stroke is real. ♪ repatha® plus a statin seriously lowers bad cholesterol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. repatha® can cause serious allergic reactions. signs include: trouble breathing or swallowing, or swelling of the face. most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card.
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
conservatives may be one step closer tonight to their big prize, one they have had their eyes on for more than 45 years, repealing roe v. wade, today the missouri state house passed a bill banning abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy, just like the law in alabama signed earlier this week, there are no exceptions in cases of rape or incest. the republican governor says he'll sign the bill. multiple states are trying to restrict abortion rights, setting up a series of legal battles that could lead to the supreme court reconsidering roe. joining ma joining me now the women responsible for a woman's right to choose in this country, that is sarah weddington and linda coffee. they represented jane roe.
7:29 pm
thank you for joining us. i really appreciate it. >> thanks for the invitation, we hear good things about your ability to hold an interview. >> thank you so much. so let me start with you, then, sarah. when you argued this case before the supreme court in the 1970s, and you won, did you ever think that it could be in jeopardy so many decades later? >> no. i thought it would take a little while for the case to be accepted but there were other cases before this that had been, you know, accepted over a period of time and i thought that would be the way it would go, there would be a time period where it was -- sort of ill at ease with some people but then people would accept it and go on. >> well, linda, i understand that you had been predicting challenges to roe v. wade for years and you're surprised it took this long. why is that? >> i don't know.
7:30 pm
it seems like the challenges were just so -- i thought they were just so far out and they just keep getting more and more so. >> so listen, sara, it's not just alabama, missouri, georgia, mississippi, ohio, kentucky, all states have restrictive abortion bills that could end up in the supreme court but as a matter of strategy which do you think the justices will likely take on? >> see, i don't know, but there's been a group of very conservative legal scholars that over a period of years has set up an organization to get kyung lah studenlaw students to help try to overturn roe. it's been a very determined effort for several years now. >> let's talk about the supreme court because you know there are, you know, it's -- the majority -- it's majority conservative right now. and i just want to play what justice kavanaugh said during his confirmation hearing when he
7:31 pm
was asked if roe versus wade was settled or could be overturned. listen. >> settled as a precedent of the supreme court entitled to respect. one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years as you know. >> so linda, he's saying it's settled and it has been reaffirmed, that was then. do you think he would vote to strike down roe now? >> i'm afraid that he would but i can't say for sure. >> do you think any of the justices on the court would vote to strike it down now? >> well, i'm sure two or three of them might. >> yeah. sarah, listen justice briar who sits on the liberal wing of the court issued a dissent
7:32 pm
overturning a 40-year precedent. he said i understand that because opportunities to correct old errors are rare judges may be tempted to seize every opportunity to overrule cases they believe to have been wrongly decided. today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next. do you think that was a warning? >> no. i think it was merely stating what all the justices know, and that is that it could be that the judges s, or a majority of the judges, it takes a majority to overturn president, that maybe a majority would decide to try to overturn it. that's still very difficult. and roberts, chief justice, has seemed very reluctant to overturn precedent and kavanaugh said he would be reluctant, but i'm sure that had to do with politics more than law. >> i'll ask you the same question i asked linda.
7:33 pm
do you think he would overturn it, kavanaugh, vote to overturn it? >> i do. i don't trust him a bit. >> sarah, another question. your landmark case was in 1973. women have had the right to choose for so long. do you think people really understand what they would be losing if roe is overturned? >> i think some do and some don't but i've been amazed in the last several weeks as i've talked to people in washington, d.c., in many of the states, for them to say to me, young people are the real driving force of the criticism of the attempt to overturn roe versus wade. >> what do you think, linda, this would mean if it is lost to women around the country? >> well, i think it would just be -- i think it's just a loss that many people can't even begin to imagine because i think without the ability to control a
7:34 pm
woman's reproduction that you really you just don't have -- it just -- it diminishes the -- your ability to achieve what you're capable of achieving in life. >> well, listen, this is such an important issue and we appreciate your time. we appreciate you coming in, especially since you -- you're the ones who are responsible for this. linda coffee and sarah weddington, much appreciation, thank you so much. >> it was our pleasure. >> thank you. roe v. wade isn't the only landmark case that could be up in the air in the wake of president trump remaking the judiciary. brown versus the board of education could be too. what the president's hand picked nominees are saying about that case next. need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites and lets you see how your baggage will affect the cost of your flight, so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done.
7:35 pm
it's either the assurance of a 165-pointor it isn't.on proces. it's either testing an array of advanced safety systems. or it isn't. it's either the peace of mind of a standard 5-year 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 may 31st. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer.
7:36 pm
with peak season berries, uniqcreamy avocado. and a dressing fit for a goddess. come taste what a salad should be. and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be.
7:37 pm
7:38 pm
7:39 pm
on the 65th anniversary of the supreme court decision in brown versus board of education senator kamala harris is sharing why it was so important for her. she quotes "brown v. board is personal to me, my class was only the second after bussing integrated berkeley public schools, without this decision i likely wouldn't be a u.s. senator, it's critical we combat the racial inequalities that still exist in our schools. that unanimous ruling is widely regarded as one of the supreme court's greatest moments but civil rights groups are pointing that over two dozen nominees have dodged a question when asked about the case." watch this. >> do you believe that brown versus board of education was correctly decided? >> senator, i don't mean to be coy but i think i get into a difficult -- a difficult area
7:40 pm
when i start commenting on supreme court decisions, which are correctly decided and which i may disagree with. >> i do not feel it's appropriate for me to comment on whether or not the case was properly decided. >> i think that would be inappropriate. >> the canons of judicial conduct prohibit us from commenting. >> i'm not allowed to comment on the merits of supreme court -- >> why can't they answer a simple question? let's discuss. erin carmoan is here, the coauthor of "the notorious rbg." thank you both for coming on. good evening. it's just unbelievable. michael, i'm going to start with you. why do you think that so many of trump's nominees can't say whether they support this case, what is the explanation for that?
7:41 pm
>> well, there isn't a good explanation at all. on this 65th anniversary i think we've seen it all. i mean, brown is the most celebrated constitutional law case in our history. the supreme court in a unanimous decision in '54, nine justices, liberal, conservative, democratics republican, southern and northern all said at a minimum the equal protection clause stands for the proposition that government can't separate children in schools on the basis of race. it's an easy proposition. and so there's no good reason not to answer it. and the fact that some nominees have said they won't answer it is really problematic because it's an easy call. brown has become a core principle of american democracy. it's about the promise of american democracy that we can be inclusive, that we can create equal opportunity for all and so
7:42 pm
for nominees to say they can't answer it is problematic. >> erin, we were listening to the sound bite in the studio and just -- i was gasping, what, i can't believe that, as michael higginbotham just said brown versus board of education was a unanimous decision, conservative and liberal judges at the time, why are trump's nominees ducking this question? >> don, the consensus has shifted so quickly that you had brett kavanaugh, you had justice samuel alito, chief justice john roberts all saying they thought brown v. board was correctly decided. these are now judges to the right of those deeply conservative judges. we need to stop and try to understand why indeed this is happening. there's two factors at play here. one is that the rules have already dramatically changed under mitch mcconnell who has really prioritized this makeover of the federal courts. everybody remembers merit garland but what about the fact
7:43 pm
in the waning years of the -- mitch mcconnell kept open over 100 seats that he did not allow to be filled. they're gotten rid of the kal consultation process with senators, they're getting judges who get low ratings from the american bar association and these are really young judges who are getting appointed for lifetime appointments and who are radically to the right even of what we saw under the bush administration and so i think the old rules that even had these conservative justices endorsing this consensus decision are gone. the second thing, i think, has to do with the discussion you just had in the segment before, which is roe v. wade. brown v. board and roe v. wade are two of the most famous cases that involve the constitution living up to its promise of equality to all people and they involve an actist lawyer model in the middle of the last century that the conservative legal movement has spent its
7:44 pm
entire tenure trying to undo. both are in the cross hairs. >> it's very interesting that, you know, senator richard blumenthal, michael, is saying that he believes that these nominees are being instructed by the trump administration to avoid that question. but, you know, is it an open question right now as to whether trump judicial nominees feel bound by precedent even in very well established cases like brown v. board and roe v. wade? >> well, i think they're suggesting that they're not. they should be. we have a principle called starry decisis. most justices, including chief justice john roberts, seem to appreciate that principle, they've talked about being an institutionalist and respecting the court, respecting the precedent. but it seems like some of these nominees want to ignore that principle. and i think that is really problematic but i do think it's
7:45 pm
about abortion. they don't -- if -- they feel like it's a trap. some conservatives say if you answer the question on brown, then you have to answer the question on roe and talk about abortion. that's a weak argument, though, as was pointed out, john roberts, sam alito, brett kavanaugh, other conservative justices all answered the question on brown. there's no reason not to answer the question on brown. and any nominee to the federal court should be able to distinguish between a core principle in american democracy and stuff that is unsettled. it's like they can't tell the difference between a welcome mat and a no trespassing sign. it's easy to distinguish any nominee should be able to do so. if they can't they disqualify themselves. >> i learned a lot from this conversation. thank you, michael, thank you, erin, i appreciate it. donald trump ran on he has reputation as a deal maker. but what do all of his deals have in common? van jones is here to tell us, next.
7:46 pm
girl: dad! keep on watching! amazing, honey. (horn tooting) ♪ who can say why your heart sighs ♪ ♪ as your love flies kraft. for the win win. when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. ♪ as your love flies because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? (vo) be the first to play console quality multi-player games on the go. be first to real time with verizon 5g ultra wideband. get the new samsung galaxy s10 5g. on verizon.
7:47 pm
i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke. could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren) because with high bad cholesterol, my risk of a heart attack or stroke is real. ♪ repatha® plus a statin seriously lowers bad cholesterol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. repatha® can cause serious allergic reactions. signs include: trouble breathing or swallowing, or swelling of the face. most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card.
7:48 pm
7:49 pm
and reduce your risk with repatha®. it's toughcold turkey.king so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix.
7:50 pm
president trump is trying to make deals with china on immigration and peace in the middle east. but if he keeps stone walling does congress have any incentive? van jonz is here the host of "the redemption project" which is a very good show, by the way. congradilations on that. so let's talk about this. just this afternoon steve mnuchin defied subpoenas for the president's tax returns. it's the latest in a string of administration denials for documents and testimony. if the administration keeps
7:51 pm
stonewalling, what incentive do democrats have to work with this administration? >> you mean since the administration won't cooperate with them, why should the congress cooperate with them? 0.0 incentive. we're one subway stop from a real constitutional crisis. because and you say we're not going to oanyway. congress does not have it right to have can anything, it purtsz the courts onvery tough puzugz. they eethver to come unand tell the president you have to follow the law and we don't know will trump obey. or the courts have to say by the way, congress, you're null and void. either way you're playing with the very core of the constitution over stuff that's minor and doesn't matter. so that does put everything else in jeopardy. because when you put the core function of the republic in jeopardy, it's hard to cut deals
7:52 pm
with everything else. >> doesn't it feel like we're pu pulling into the station. >> basically thrown to the courts. do you tell congress it's null and void? do you tell our president and he may not listen? >> one day there will be ea democratic president and then what happens? are they going to try to revert back? >> you got to follow the rules now. now we have a constitution. >> remember what the nuclear option did? >> exactly. >> so yesterday -- and this is something very important to you. you off.b talk about the dreamers. the president failed to address 11 million dreamers. those who arrived in this country as children. the democrats now realize there's a national emergency at the border and if we work together it can be immediately fibbed. we need democrat votes and all
7:53 pm
will be well. i hot that. democratic votes. the democrats now realize there's a national emergency at the border that they can work together to immediately fix. >> the way the trump administration negotiates is a revolution in the way that you usually edo politics. usually you assume your base and goefor the bridge. you say i got my team. i need some people on your team. the first thing they do is thaw want to secure their base. they're more concerned about mocking sure they can consolidate their base than they rereaching out to make the bridge. the first thing they did was try to figure out can they assemble their own forces? and later on we'll deal with the democrats or whatever. it's just not the way it's usually done in politics and people don't know how to respond. and so unfortunately in this
7:54 pm
situation i do think -- i'm an optimist. there probably still is a deal to be done. if you include d.a.c.a., democrats have morof a reason to come to the table. but right now they're trying to herd their own cats. >> so in a new episode of oyour show, you travel to alaska to witness the first ever restorative dulog to take place in the state. >> experienced a horrible tragedy unmy life. an individual caused that tragedy. now i want to have this conversation because there's things that i wanted to say to him that i didn't get to say. when i went to the sentencing, he was not fully accountable. he said ms. walters, i'm real a sorry for what hap rnd to your son. you shouldn't have had to bury your son. he didn't own it. >> do you think that he is
7:55 pm
accountable now? >> i dont know if he's accountable yet. >> tell me about this. why have these conversations? >> because it's a fundamental human thing. we all have made mustalks and want to apologize and don't know how and we've all had bad things happen to us. the incidents are much more powerful. but the reason we get 99% positive response from twitter that's usually hater is this is a deeply human show and gives people an opportunity to esee something beautiful happen. >> i'm actually jealous of your timeline when i read the reviews. i hot you. thanks for the support. it's a fantastic show. proud of you. don't miss a new episode of "the redemption project" sunday night at 9:00. we'll be right back. (paul) when you get a wireless plan, wouldn't it be great to get a phone too?
7:56 pm
switch to sprint and get an unlimited plan with the samsung galaxy s10 included. for just $35 a month. it's a big deal. for people with hearing loss, visit
7:57 pm
(coughing) need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites and filters by cabin class, wi-fi and more. so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done. s... s...u... s...u...v... these letters used to mean something. letters earned in backwoods, high hills, and steep dunes. but somewhere along the way, suvs became pretenders, not pioneers. but you never forgot the difference, and neither did we. there are many suvs, but there's only one legend. hurry in now to the jeep celebration event and get $500 additional bonus cash on select models. hurry in now to the jeep celebration event yesss, i'm doing it all. the water.
7:58 pm
the exercise. the fiber. month after month, and i still have belly pain and recurring constipation. so i asked my doctor what else i could do, and i said yesss to linzess. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. linzess is not a laxative, it works differently. it helps relieve belly pain and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. do not give linzess to children less than 6, and it should not be given to children 6 to less than 18, it may harm them. do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach area pain, and swelling. i'm still doing it all. the water. the exercise. the fiber. and i said yesss to linzess for help with belly pain and recurring constipation. ask your doctor.
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
frmgs this is cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. what happens to people who move into the president's order? are they willing to -- or do they end up showing their true believes and true sevlts? tonight we're looking at the big picture and a good place to start is the attorneygeneral willium barr.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on