i'll be back in one hour from now. for more of cnn's "newsroom" in the meantime, "smerconish" starts right now. ♪ i am michael smerconish in philadelphia. we welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. it is another saturday and another major revelation. "the washington post" is reporting president trump's adviser and son-in-law jared kushner talked to the russian ambassador seeking a back channel to the kremlin to avoid monitoring. i will ask general michael hayden about the possible explanations. and america's newest member of congress charged with assault of a newspaper reporter the night before he was elected. you'd have thought that would cost him the election. wait until you hear from one of my sirius xm radio callers and what this violence says about our partisan divide.

plus a new study from harvard confirms the media is indeed biased. not in liberal or conservative way, biased toward negativity. i'll explain with the author. and some advertisers are fleeing fox news host sean hannity after he peddled the conspiracy about killing of a dnc staffer. hannity calls it liberal fascism. i will ask the man that orchestrate boycott of bill o'reilly, angela kara sewn, whether he is trying to sensor hannity. and the jury has been chosen for bill cosby's trial. which side benefits from racial and gender composition? first, the latest bombshell in the unfolding inquiry into russia's connection with the trump campaign. "the washington post" reporting trump son-in-law and senior adviser jared kushner allegedly discussed with russia's u.s. ambassador possibility of

setting up a, quote, secret and secure communications channel between trump's transition team and the kremlin. the post labels this an apparent move to shield preinauguration discussions from monitoring. according to intercepts of russian communications reviewed by u.s. officials, russian ambassador sergei kislyak told his superiors in moscow that kushner made the proposal during a meeting december 1st or 2nd at trump tower. also at the meeting, michael flynn at the time about to be trump's national security adviser. the post reports the fbi now considers the encounter of investigative interest, along with another meeting with a russian banker. cnn hasn't corroborated the report. "the washington post" got no comment from kushner, white house or lawyer for michael flynn. joining me now, general michael hayden, the perfect guest. i say that, he is former head of the nsa and cia. general hayden, is this nefarious or naivete? >> michael, right now, going

with naivete, and that's not particularly comforting for me. what manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt, would you have to have to think that doing this with the russian ambassador was a good or appropriate idea? so, again, naivete out, doesn't make me feel good about many things. >> some will read this as another sign of potential collusion. i get a more benign explanation, but not in my view defensible, is the idea the incoming trump administration felt they couldn't trust the obama administration, the intel community or both, and therefore thought they had to go this direction. >> yeah. that's one of the points i was trying to raise a second ago, michael, what degree of suspicion of the existing government, what degree of contempt for the administration they were replacing, would be required.

again, to think this was acceptable course of action? it says an awful lot about the campaign, michael. says an awful lot about us as a society, that we could actually harbor those kinds of feelings that the organs of the state would be used by my predecessor to come after me or to intercept my communications or to disrupt my administration in a way that made it seem legitimate to me to use the secure communications facilities of a foreign power. and oh, by the way, a foreign power that some in government alleged you are cooperating with to affect the american election. here you are willing to risk the perception of secret communications with your alleged co-conspirator because you fear the existing government so much. boy, michael, that suggests we're in a really dark place as a society. >> "the washington post" says it

was the communication between kislyak and the kremlin that was picked up, that it was not the meeting december 1 or 2 at trump tower that was surveilled. let me explore this with general hayden. is it possible kislyak was lying and that this was part of a disinformation campaign? that's not a question i would have asked but for the report this week about jim comey as fbi director having to deal with misinformation pertaining to loretta lynch. >> always a possibility, michael, given how much manipulation the russians were doing, how much fake news they were putting out there. by the way, fake news that some members of the trump campaign were pushing out forward into our own information sphere. my instincts here, michael, no, they weren't. this is kislyak reporting to home base along the lines of you won't believe what they just brought up to me. i think this is perhaps as off putting to kislyak as it is to you and me. goes so far out of the norm that

he was probably shocked by the request as well. >> i take it this is unprecedented, general, that there are no such side arrangements for any particular nation where an administration sets up a back channel like this going through that organ of the state as a means of having dialogue. >> this is off the map, michael. i know of no other experience like this in our history, certainly within my life experience. but michael, one additional footnote to a sub plot you and i have talked about in previous exchanges. let's assume. >> please. >> for a moment that communication intercepted, and let's assume for a moment that the u.s. entities that were being referred to in that russian to russian communication were masked, now we might begin to understand why the national security adviser, susan rice, might ask for those identities to be unmasked so she can understand the intelligence value of that conversation. makes sense to me.

>> and it's something you referred to in the past as an attempt at criminalization of routine intelligence gathering. >> right. and this example kind of stands out that if this were one of those cases where she asked for unmasking, she would be derelict in her duty if she didn't try to find out more. >> okay. let me try and be generous toward the trump administration with regard to this inquiry. the fact that "the washington post" broke the story, the fact that general hayden, former head of nsa and cia is on cnn now able to discuss it means someone leaked it. do they have a point when they say national security is being jeopardized by all these leaks? >> they absolutely do, michael, and it is very discomforting for me, anybody of my background, and should make all of us as a nation uncomfortable. we have seen a degree of leaking here in the 120 days of the trump administration that's

unlike any i've seen in the past. i can suggest some reasons for it, some background that may indicate why there's more, but doesn't forgive it or excuse it, it's still wrong, it's still very bad. >> right. it's wrong, it's very bad, but yet but for the leaking, we as citizens wouldn't know about this extreme case of the incoming administration wanting to set up a back channel with russia. i don't know who to root for. do i root for leaking to continue? >> well, you know, with my background i view leaking is bad, taking on responsibility as an individual, it should be the responsibility of government processes. what i see going on here, michael, again, not an excuse for the leaking, but perhaps an explanation as to why we're seeing so much is that you're seeing government professionals who think they're reaching their limits in terms of containing

damage because some of the things the administration has done or is about to do, and they don't see any self-correcting mechanisms within government itself. it's kind of like squeezing the toothpaste tube tight with the cap still on. under that kind of pressure, that toothpaste will come out. here it comes out in the form of leaks which again, i can't endorse, i can't support, but i agree with you, an awful lot of this would be unknown to the american people. michael flynn could still be national security adviser without these leaks having taken place. >> my final observation because when i gave you a choice between naivete and nefarious, so far you said you are going with naivete. you can't say kushner was naive, but flynn had been around the track. surely he had to know how extreme this was. >> he would know that it was

extreme but again, michael, i don't think we have a prima facie ia case, even if this took place, that anything here would have been illegal. he would have known it is outside the norm, but general flynn had a reputation at the tactical and operational level that made him quite successful of breaking china. this may be another example of mike being willing to color outside the lines for what he viewed to be a higher purpose. >> it is memorial day weekend. thank you for your service, general hayden. we appreciate it. >> thanks, michael. >> what are your thoughts? tweet me or go to my facebook. i'll read some responses through the program. hit me with one, what have we got. doesn't matter. naivete is not a defense for breaking the law or committing trees on or espionage. right. i am trying to discern if it is evidence of collusion or inexperience. whatever it was, i am not excusing it. up ahead, it was the body slam heard around the internet. what did now congressman

gianforte and his alleged asolid of reporter tell us about the partisan divide? new study from harvard confirms media bias not tilted to the left or right but toward the negative and the author is here.

i've been blind since birth. i go through periods where it's hard to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. learn about non-24 by calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com.

welcome back. another rorschach test for accomplice cal bias this -- political bias this week. came the night before the montana election when greg gianforte allegedly assaulted ben jacobs. what caused the candidate to snap? scoring about the american health care act. he didn't help us discern the truth, his campaign issued a statement seems full of falsehoods. the whistle for some? a line in the statement labeling jacobs, a reporter, a liberal. having been told that, not even an audio tape and eyewitness

accounts that supported the reporter's version as a victim could stop some from donning partisan jerseys, like this caller to my sirius xm radio show yesterday. >> the journalists are making the news instead of reporting the news. ben jacobs is now a celebrity, sticking a microphone in a man's face, demanding he respond to a question he is pursuing. it seems like the journalists are getting way uncivil. that we need more stability in this country. >> not even the fact that the victim's account was supported by a fox news reporter that was there could take such partisans off their message. alisha acuna wrote that gianforte grabbed jacobs by the neck with both hands, slammed him into the ground behind him. in the end, he won the election by seven points where donald trump won by 20. there was more to the race.

gianforte's opponent ron quist had liabilities, unpaid taxes and loans, a video showed him to be working in a band when he claimed he could not work, and many voted by the time the incident took place. still, not too many seemed motivated to let the violence alter their vote. the billings gazette reported only 2,000 registered to vote on election day, where in 2012, 8,000 did so. there was no election day ground swell to protest the behavior. the newspaper polled readers as would change their vote, it was nearly evenly divided. gianforte went into hiding, after the incident, didn't emerge until claiming victory, only then did he express remorse. to me it represents a new low in s national discourse. i don't blame president trump for gianforte's behavior, but trump's labeling of reporters as quote, the enemy of the american people certainly didn't help. neither does the response of the

texas governor, greg abbott, at a gun range. held up a bullet riddled target and said this yesterday. >> carry it around in case i see any reporters. >> it seems appropriate to me that the same week in which gianforte was elected ended with yet another bombshell political report. a lot of those lately. this one on front page of "the washington post." while some are training their grit and guns on the press, not since watergate has the media played such a vitally important watchdog role. so is the media biased? that's the go to in american politics. people across the spectrum love to holler about being treated poorly because of a slant against them. well, guess what? a new study found there is media bias, it is not what you might think, not pro-liberal or pro-conservative, pro-negativity. that's a fascinating finding from kennedy school of government.

and in an interesting twist, people are using even this study to suit their own agenda. consider that back on may 5th, fox news host tucker carlson trashed a study from shorenstein done on general election coverage saying he didn't trust the source. watch this. >> these independent studies are done by political hacks posing as journalists. shorenstein center, i am a journalist. i know people that work there. you're not going to tell me because i know them that they're politically independent because they're not. >> these political hacks at shorenstein. two weeks later, shorenstein released a new study about treatment of trump, same professor, staff, methodology. this time carlson was praising their accuracy because this time he agreed. >> but exactly how liberal, how biased is the press? for the answer to that, we have to go to social science and now for the first time in a while, we actually have some real data.

a new study from researchers at harvard university looked at ten major news outlets, found the overwhelming majority of coverage of the new administration's first 100 days was hostile. >> yes. thank god for social science. joining me, author of the study, thomas patterson, professor of government and the press at shorenstein center at the harvard's kennedy school. i want to talk about the presidential race and the first 100 days. coverage of both major candidates was incredibly negative. 62% of the time for hillary negative, 56% of the time for trump was negative. you point out there was not a single week when it reached into positive territory. explain. >> well, i think the bias of the press is a negative bias. i think the reason that tucker carlson didn't like our first study is that it showed that hillary clinton had more negative coverage than donald trump during the election but

the point was that press when it looks at the political world picks up what's going wrong rather than what's going right. if you look at the last eight presidential elections and look at the coverage of the nominees, there's only one of the nominees who received, on balance, positive coverage during the general election, that was barack obama in 2008. >> i have a graph that displays what you referenced. we will put it on the screen. the question is, if it has been negative since 1984, are the candidates to blame? is it their messaging or is the media looking to pick at that scab? >> i think there's a little bit of both going on here. you know, i do think that watergate and vietnam changed the relationship between the politician and the press and the press ever since has been more critical in its perspective on politics. at the same time, we have the polarization, you had that wonderful tape out in montana about people's reaction to the body slam.

you can see that we are polarized. a lot of that is working its way into political discourse. so it is more negative but the press is concentrating on what's going wrong. >> professor, we love to claim that we yearn for more substance. there's a pie chart that says coverage was 42% in the 2016 race about the horse race nature of this. only 10% of coverage was on policy. do we really want policy coverage or do we just say that? >> well, i think to a degree we do say that. you do surveys, people say they would like to hear more about the issues, and then they do the issue coverage and we don't pay much attention to it. to me, striking thing about coverage in 2016 was how much these policy and leadership controversies, how big they were. they got twice as much coverage as substantive policy issues.

in hillary clinton's case, her e-mails got about four times the coverage of what she was saying on all of the issues of the campaign, domestic and international. and she said a lot about the issues. so it wasn't as if she wasn't talking about them, but the press was concerned primarily about her e-mails. >> shifting to president trump's first 100 days, we'll put another graph on the screen that shows that 80% of coverage has been negative. he never had a honeymoon. the viewers can see that puts him at odds with his predecessors. is that in and of itself indicative of bias, that 80% of his coverage was negative? >> well, again if you look at the chart, obama is the one exception, the one president who did get a honeymoon from the press in the first 100 days. the other three on the chart did not. but it's not cater of bias. but it's not an indicator of bias. it is an indicator of negative bias.

the press is looking for what's going wrong in an administration. when you look at trump's first 100 days, it is more negative than clinton's or george w. bush's, but this has been a tough 100 days. i think even if you asked donald trump would you like to do it all over again, i think he would say yes, let's restart the clock. so this has been a very rough 100 days. i think press coverage reflects that. >> and to your point, if you roll out a travel ban and it gets stymied by the courts, and you campaign on a pledge of repealing and replacing obamacare despite control of both houses of congress, that gets report negatively, that doesn't mean it is biased, it is factual, right? >> that's true. if you look -- we did -- fox news was one of the seven outlets we looked at in coverage of the first 100 days. if you look at fox coverage of the health care issue and of the immigration issue, it's also overwhelmingly negative. there wasn't very much good news

for donald trump in those two issues in the first 100 days. so to some degree, the press is reflecting what's going on out there, but again there's a selectivity to focus primarily on what's going wrong, rather than what might be going right. >> finally we put on the screen a graph that shows the seven outlets, overall the coverage they had for president trump and people can see, cnn is at the top of the list, nbc and cbs and the times. but fox news, 52, 48 by a narrow margin. but this needs to be underscored. i'll say it this way. even coverage from fox was more negative than positive of president trump. >> no, that's true. and fox did find some silver linings in the first 100 days. one reason it came close to being positive, they paid a lot more attention to kind of the economic trends since trump took over the oval office. the other thing they did, they underplayed the russian

connection. fox gave less than half the attention as other outlets to possibility of russian involvement in the 2016 election. >> professor patterson, thank you. i encourage viewers to google shorenstein center, read these studies for themselves. they're fascinating, full of good data. thank you, sir. >> michael, thank you. let's see what you have been tweeting and commenting on my facebook page. one body slam does not come even close to the constant assault by mainstream media on all persons conservative. terence, your tweet frustrates me so much. i heard it from a handful of my callers, not the majority of callers. i just don't know how you can excuse that, turn it into a tit for tat. i haven't heard this word used. it was thuggish. it would have impacted my vote. still to come. is an advertiser boycott of fox news anchor sean hannity for pushing a conspiracy theory proper punishment or censorship? the jury has been picked in

the bill cosby assault trial. the only criminal case the comedian faces. does racial and gender composition help or hurt the celebrity? fothere's a seriousy boomers virus out there that's been almost forgotten. it's hepatitis c. one in 30 boomers has hep c, yet most don't even know it. because it can hide in your body for years without symptoms, and it's not tested for in routine blood work. the cdc recommends all baby boomers get tested. if you have hep c, it can be cured. for us it's time to get tested. ask your healthcare provider for the simple blood test. it's the only way to know for sure. it'sand your doctor at yoto maintain your health.a because in 5 days, 10 hours and 2 minutes you are going to be 67. and on that day you will walk into a room where 15 people will be waiting... 12 behind the sofa, 2 behind the table and 1 and a half behind a curtain. family: surprise!

but only one of them will make a life long dream come true. great things are ahead of you when your health is ready for them. at humana, we can help you with a personalized plan for your health for years to come. you didn't know we had over 26,000 local activities listed on our app. or that you could book them right from your phone. a few weeks ago, you still didn't know if you were gonna go. now the only thing you don't know,

is why it took you so long to come here. expedia. everything in one place, so you can travel the world better. moms know their kids need love, encouragement and milk. with 8 grams of natural protein, and 8 other nutrients to provide balanced nutrition. moms know kids grow strong when they milk life. she switched to the best deal in america: total wireless. she gets the largest, most dependable 4g lte network, and 5 gigs of high speed data for $35 a month. make it rain, beth.

for $35 a month. albreakthrough withyou back. non-drowsy allegra® for fast 5-in-1 multi-symptom relief. breakthrough allergies with allegra®. so the jury has now been selected in the trial of comedian bill cosby for felony aggravated indecent assault. jurors four white women, six white men, one black woman, one black man drawn from pittsburgh area, even though the case will be tried in suburban philadelphia. bussed 300 miles east of the county and sequestered for the duration of the trial which

begins on june 5, and is expected to last about two weeks. the accuser says mr. cosby drugged and assaulted her at his home outside philadelphia in 2004. though dozens of other women have come forward accusing cosby of sexual predatory behavior, this is the only case resulting in criminal charges. of all of the accusers, only one other will be permitted to testify. joining me, criminal defense attorney mark o'mara, civil rights attorney areva martin. prosecutors struck two black females from the voir dire panel. defense lawyer said it was systemic exclusion of black jurors, that sort of thing goes on routinely in cases like this. how important is race where in the end there will be two people of color among the 12? >> race is very important, mike, cases like this. there are studies shown when you have an all white jury pool, african americans are convicted 81% of the time. studies also show even just by adding one additional juror, african-american, to that jury

pool, you get african-american defendants convicted 71% of the time. in the media and those pundits want to say race doesn't matter are absolutely incorrect. race plays a huge role in the conviction rates, particularly of african-american defendants. that's why cosby's expert legal team wanted jurors bussed in from pittsburgh. they wanted more diversity on the jury pool and got two african-american jurors but they're not happy. they wanted more. they wanted more african americans on this jury. >> mark o'mara, it is literally he said/she said, without any forensics because of the passage of time in this case. i want to drill down on you picking a jury in a case like this, how you would regard female jurors because when i represented female clients in a civil context, my experience was often that women on a jury box looking at a female witness could be pretty harsh and maybe

even more so than a male. >> it's interesting, yeah, the dynamics are difficult to fully identify until you go down into it. you're right. females look at other female witnesses and they do look with a great deal of trepidation, great deal of concern. and that will be in this case as well for a number of reasons. one, she waited a full year before the report. that piece of evidence is devastating to the state because one thinking that when a crime occurs, you report it, delay may be for other reasons. those reasons could be such as they're going against a celebrity in bill cosby. so there's that issue. on the other hand of how a female juror will look at a female witness, the other side of it is the maternal instincts, that women instincts where women we know are more sexually abused in our society so they're going to have that sympathy going with a woman. and most devastatingly is the

fact that the judge allowed at least one other what we call similar fact evidence which i think is going to be very compelling testimony for the jury to look at and consider. >> mark made reference to similar fact testimony. all viewers i think know that there have been dozens of viewers that came forward, but only one in addition to the victim herself, only one of those other women will testify. weigh the significance of that. >> this is a victory for the cosby team. the prosecution at first wanted multiple women to come forward. at some point there was suggestion there may be 10 or 12 witnesses that would come forward, tell similar stories. for the cosby team to only have one woman is in many ways a victory, but that's going to be very compelling testimony. when women hear in particular that other women have experienced something very

similar to what this victim is alleging in this case, that's going to be very persuasive, and the defense has to distinguish that testimony. they have to keep those jurors focused on the facts of this case and keep them from making the leap in logic that if it happened to this other woman that it is likely that it happened to the victim in this case. >> mark o'mara, is one enough to be a tie-breaker in a case like this? >> i believe so, i truly do. on a close call, in this case again, if i looked at this case without similar fact evidence witness, i would say the state is going to lose. 13 year delay getting it, memories fade, people don't like making decision on an event happened 13 years ago. which led to no forensic evidence. the argument that a celebrity is being, quote, attacked or focused on. however, the one witness will easily change that because although areva says they have to

focus on the facts of this case, and that's correct, similar fact evidence can be given great, great weight, but when a jury has to say who do i believe and another witness comes out and says he did it to me, too, it's almost game over. having said that, if there were two or three, never mind a dozen other similar fact evidence, this case would be over almost before it started. >> final question. >> about the celebrity piece, it's going to be hard for a lot of jurors to separate bill cosby from his image as america's dad. >> that is exactly what i wanted to end with. how, mark o'mara, does the celebrity factor cut, areva thinks it benefits cosby, might it hurt him? >> it could because again he has presented himself out there. the reason we're at criminal trial is because the judge allowed deposition testimony because bill cosby put himself out there as america's dad after the deposition. he is held as america's dad, held to that high standard. a jury may go back, how dare you, with everything you have been given, how dare you do this?

it could easily work against him. the o.j. simpson case we looked at and say was he acquitted because of his celebrity status, a lot of people will argue that he was. >> areva, mark, thank you. appreciate you here as always. >> thanks, mike. >> thank you. >> let's check in on tweets at smerconish and the facebook page. what have we got. all these women cannot make this up. joni, i asked exactly that question of bill cosby when i interviewed him a week ago. what do you say to people like joni that say isn't there strength in numbers. he didn't answer that other than to say it was a potential piling on. his quote was something like when the numbers didn't work in the first go round, all of a sudden others came out. interesting. up next, fox news anchor sean hannity champions a conspiracy theory about seth rich. the same progressive media watchdog is publishing hannity's advertisers.

is it working and is it censorship of opinion? ♪ ♪ i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be calling me an energy farmer. ♪ energy lives here. to help provide access to cleanh water to womeng and their families in the developing world. we can be the generation remembered for ending the global water crisis once and for all. ♪

bring you more ways to helps reduce calories from sugar. with more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all, smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels, and signs reminding everyone to think balance before choosing their beverages. we know you care about reducing the sugar in your family's diet, and we're working to support your efforts. more beverage choices. smaller portions. less sugar. balanceus.org.

apparently, i kept her up all night. she said the future freaks her out. how come no one likes me, jim? intel does! just think of everything intel's doing right now with artificial intelligence.

and pretty soon ai is going to help executives like her see trends to stay ahead of her competition. no more sleepless nights. - we're going to be friends! - i'm sorry about this. don't be embarrassed of me, jim. i'm getting excited about this! we know the future. we're going to be friends! because we're building it. ...doesn't happen by accident. but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line.

what's in your wallet? fox news' sean hannity has been pushing conspiracy theory about the death of seth rich about the e-mail hack. after family complained, fox retracted a story from its website saying it was not initially subject to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require. hannity didn't back down, merely pledged to stop talking about it for now, out of respect for the bereeveed. >> unsolved murder of dnc staffer seth rich continues to get a huge amount of attention. however, out of respect for the family's wishes for now, i am not discussing this matter at this time. >> enter media matter, politically progressive media watchdog group that already

spearheaded the advertiser boycott of fox anchor bill o'reilly over his sexual harassment leading to his departure. they published 75 things to know about sean hannity, links to other controversial stances and published a list of advertisers. hannity responded on air and on twitter labeling the move, quote, liberal fascism. media matters is targeting my advertisers to silence my voice, hope to get me fired. rush, o'reilly, beck, imus, and now me. joining me now is the president of media matters. anglo, you say you're not leading this campaign, i read the statement, that he is essentially running a campaign against himself, impair a phrasing, but you're goosing it along. >> i am trying to provide information about sean hannity for people that have to make business decisions about their relationship with sean hannity. if there was nothing

objectionable or concerning to businesses and to sean hannity, i don't think you would have seen reaction from him or advertisers that you've seen. >> i'm referencing posting of a list of his advertisers. we can put it up on the screen. >> yes. >> my question is why not run a campaign that says hey, what he's saying is offensive, turn him off, instead of trying to exert leverage on advertisers. you and i had this conversation before relative to bill o'reilly. to me it gets to the realm of censorship. why can't you reach the audience instead? >> i don't think it is censorship if they don't want to give money to a personality. i'm not saying sean hannity shouldn't be able to say the things he says, i'm just saying businesses should have some intentionality behind their advertising. one thing that happened during the flare-up with o'reilly, it was clear that advertisers weren't intentional where they were putting their money. what we have been doing is working with media buyers to say ask yourself the question, do i know where i'm advertising, is it intentional. if the answer is yes, they have

to deal with consequences if that's who they associate with. if the answer is no, i don't know that, inform yourself, then see if you're comfortable with your decision. that's where we're at now. >> kind of presupposes that they don't know what they're buying. i would think if i'm one of the advertisers, i investigated the product and made some value judgment, that is until media matters leans on me. >> we agree. they actually don't know what they're buying. that's the exact issue. that's why you see the reaction you see. that's why a campaign or attacking advertisers or criticizing them or pressuring them to leave sean hannity was not necessary because they actually don't know. many of them do not know their ads run on programs like sean hannity. to the extent they become aware, they don't know the depth of volatility or riskiness associated with that programming. might think of him as another conservative talker. they don't fully recognize just

how volatile he is. he is at war with fox news and advertisers still on the program. the guy is an incredibly volatile and a bad bet. >> i want to ask which of two headlines is more accurate. both on the screen. both from yesterday. one from "new york times" says hannity isn't seeing advertisers exodus that o'reilly did. "los angeles times" -- sean hannity goes on vacation as some advertisers drop out of his show. what's the deal according to media matters. are advertisers fleeing hannity like they did o'reilly? >> i think both those headlines are accurate. no, advertisers are not leaving sean hannity's program at the speed as which they were leaving, that's just the case. that's because there isn't a massive campaign here. it is literally asking the question. all we have done is hold up a mirror.

however, it is true, advertisers are leaving sean hannity's program. the moment that many have become made aware of that, they made decision that's not what they want to be associated with. one company, crown plaza were so upset ads were running in the first place, they fired the media buyer. that's a lesson to all media buyers, if you place ads, do it intentionally. that's all i'm saying. have intentionality over that. >> has it occurred you may create another conservative behemoth, if you're successful dislodging hannity, maybe he heads over to o'reilly and news max. >> that calculus further reassured the idea that i am not out there driving to drive people away, have censorship. i want intentionality over where people put their money. frankly, i think media buyers are grateful for what we're doing. what we're doing is educating and informing about a risky

business association they have now, and they have a chance to avoid the next controversy. what sean hannity resurrecting this conspiracy theory from last summer, hurting these people's family, this is not a one-off. this is part of a business model, it is a bad business model. many companies that are paying for that business model don't even know it. i'm not trying to shut them down, i think if you're going to, you should have intentionality. sean hannity leading the campaign to pressure advertisers, stoking it, we go if he goes boycott he started is not going to help matters at all, is only going to further antagonize and inflame the situation, and reinforce the point that sean hannity is volatile and bad business. >> angelo carusone, thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> still to come, best and worst tweets. . >> your best and worst tweets. what do we have? carol, i'm happy to hear him out

just as i did relatively to bill o'reilly. to me, its does reach the realm of censorship and i think it would be right to say, hey, here's what they're doing. maybe you want to change the channel. except for right now because i'm coming back in just a moment. point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance. call

for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine.

alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night,blind. and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com.

. hey, it's mechld weekend in the united states and we thank all those who have served. what do we have via twitter or my facebook page. i can't decide if you're a shock jock or an idiot. >> probably more the latter. leakers are the heroes. i said exactly that to general

flynn in the course of this program. i said but for the washington post story today we wouldn't know that jared kushner had made contact in an earth to each up a back channel connection. with what's next? let's not treat nefarious and naive as mutually exclusive. it seems to characterize this, gang. lawrence tried, nice of you to watch from harvard. i appreciate that. maybe they are both naive in thinking they could get away with i would. let mow underscore something. lieutenant general mooim mike flynn was in that room. maybe jared kushner is bit of a governmental rube. flynn is sitting there while kushner is saying let's have a backchannel communication.

i'll see you on facebook and see you here next weekend. enjoy the weekend.

. here in the cnn newsroom. great you have to with us. we have breaking news on cnn right now. turn mile awaiting president trump when he arrives home in a few hours. it's the latest and potentially the most damaging development in his administration's ties to russia. this news involves his son-in-law and son-in-law jared curb her. kushner discussed a plan to set up a secret communication channel with russia. a man regarded by