>> exactly. we're so glad to have you with us. we're going to see you back here at 10:00 eastern for "cnn newsroom." stay with us "smerconish" starts right now. ♪ i'm miking smesh connish in philadelphia. we welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. a blockbuster "washington post" report confirms president vladimir putin gave direct orders to meddle in the 2016 u.s. election. putin sought to damage democratic candidate hillary clinton and help elect her opponent donald trump. given what president obama knew and why he knew it, why, according to a former senior obama administration official, did that administration quote/unquote choke when it came to responding to the russian interference? i'm about to ask general michael

hayden, formerly the held of both the nsa and cia what the white house could and should have done. and green party candidate jill stein back in the news this week with a round of finger pointing over hillary clinton's loss. she's here to respond. plus in wisconsin. the partisan voting map let the gop win 48% of the votes, but they got 60% of the seats. will this be the supreme court case that finally ends gerrymandering? and bill cosby's assault case ended in a mistrial. and the prosecutor immediately declared that he would retry it. but isn't he forgetting all of the costs? financial, human and otherwise. but first, did we all misread a critical tweet about taping from president trump? let's review. on tuesday may 9, president trump fired fbi director james comey. and then three days later, friday the 12th at 8 oochlts 26 a.m., the president tweeted

this. james comey better hope that there are no quote/unquote tapes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press. the tweet seemed to be a reaction to "the new york times" scoring that day by michael schmidt under this head line. in a private dinner trump demanded loyalty, comey demured. in that story, two comey confidants offered a version of that dinner. the president said loyalty was never raised. everybody assumes that in the tweet president trump was suggesting that he had taped their conversations. and that he was threatening comey that he might release them. i have a different interpretation. maybe red trump wasn't threatening to release tapes. he was saying hey, jim comey, you better not have taped me. it all depends on how you read the president's tweet. comey better hope there are no tapes. i immediately lot of thin

trust's book remember "eats, shoots a s an s & leaves." on thursday, six weeks after that first tweet, the president sent out a new pair of tweets. they said this with all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, i have no idea whether there are tapes or recordings of my conversations with james comey, but i did not make and do not have any such recordings. notice, he's still not saying well i didn't tape comey. he's saying he didn't tape him. he's not ruling out the existence of any tape or recordings, he's leaving the door open that the president taped him. and then yesterday, the president appeared on fox news. >> when he found out that there may be tapes out there,

governmental tapes or what else, who knows, i think his story may have changed, i mean, you'll have to take a look at that. because then he has to tell what actually took place at the events. >> so, now, he's saying that his tweet forced comey to be an honest witness but there's never been evidence of comey as a prevaricator. put it all together, the president fired comey, then he told nbc he would never ask for loyalty. then he was contradicted by comey with specificity in "the new york times." he, the president, worried he had a tape. so he issued a tweet as a warning. and only after the pass of 45 days satisfied that comey wasn't taping him because there were no further reports, he put the issue to rest. it was never about him taping comey. it was the concern that the reverse was true. of course, the whole comey conversation is just one aspect

of the russia meddling investigation. and according to a detailed report by "the washington post," news of russian interference first landed on president obama's desk early last august when a cia courier delivered an eyes only file directly to the white house. inside was intelligence, a report, showing that russian president vladimir putin personally ordered a cyber dpavn to damage then candidate hillary clinton and help elect donald trump. so the administration was forewarned but was it forearmed. did the president do enough, meaning president obama? to head off the russian meddling joining me now the head of cia and nsa, general michael hayden. just out the obama administration knew far in advance of november 8th election of russian meddling, and did nothing about it, why?

all caps and then tomorrow, this tape has been released. roll it. >> cia gave him information on russia a long time before they even -- you know, before the election. if he had the information, why didn't he do something about it? he should have done something about it. >> the president is the same guy who said tell may be the chinese or a 400-pound guy sitting in his bed. is he trying to have it both ways saying hey, why didn't obama do something while at the same time being dismissive of it? >> well, michael, i think he is. now, look, there's an element of truth, i think in what president trump says. i think the obama administration was light in its response. it's not that it didn't do anything, it actually did several things to try to warn the russians away from this kind of activity.

but i think in retrospect even the obama team thinks they should have done more. but, michael, one of the reasons they were reluctant to do more was the narrative that then candidate trump had that the election was going to be rigged. and so, any overt activity from the white house would have fed that narrative as well, and may have delegitimized the election in a different way. even candidate trump, there's some responsibility here for what happened. >> in other words, the concern, if you buy into the narrative of the "post" and i think it makes logical sense the concern on the part of the obama administration was the political ramification of whatever they might do on the 2016 election. and the consequence was, we really didn't treat it, perhaps, like the national security matter that it was. >> i think we appreciated it as the national security matter that it was, michael. the article in "the post"

yesterday just drips with urgency from the intelligence guys, john brennan and jim clapper. and they've remained urgent about this even out of government. the problem is what do the policy guys do about this? again, i think we're agreeing they didn't do enough. i think they regret, i regret, they didn't do enough. but i understand why they were reluctant to be more active. and look at the circumstances we have here, michael. we have a political campaign. and it's mr. trump's that seemed to legitimate the chants of lock her up at campaign rallies that praise s wikileaks as a legitimate source of information that claim that's election is going to be rigged. now, i don't want to get into a formal witnessing collusion, but that may be all the collusion that the russians needed to have the effect that the russians wanted to have on our electoral process. >> lead of that "post" story

speaks of putin's direct involvement although it doesn't share exactly what's known of it. you ran the cia, you ran the nsa, you know the personality of it, does it comport with his mo as you understand it? >> it does. michael, i don't go back for briefings. i did read the very detailed article in "the post" yesterday, and it does have a powerful ring of processability, in terms of all of the elements in the article, based upon my life experience, yes. >> president obama spoke, the date was october 18, right in the midst of the election. and addressed spome of the aspects of this. let's take a look at what he said and then comment. play it. >> there's no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig america's election.

in part because they're so decentralized. and the numbers of votes involved. there's no evidence that that has happened in the past. or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. and, so, i'd advise mr. trump to stop whining and try to go make his case to get votes. >> but general hayden, president obama surely knew at the time, according to "the post" that the russians were trying to tap into 21 different states' electoral systems and at a minimum to foment chaos and to screw with us? >> i think that's a possibility, michael. so, you had the president warning vladimir putin in a face-to-face meeting i believe in september not to meddle in the actual election process. and something that the president i found striking at the time,

now it makes sense, out of the blue, he suggested that the united states has the greatest concentration of cyberplower on the planet, both offense and defense. i wondered who he was talking to, it's clear now he was talking to putin. and i think the president was fairly grounded in the bio diversity of the electoral process i think does give it a fair amount of resiliency. i do understand why he said what he did but again, michael, i return to the earlier point, as saying obama now being more specific, more direct with the information they did have in hand. >> but what could the white house have done? what could the obama white house have done differently? >> so, what they did do is offer help to state election officials. probably because they weren't as forward leaning as they might have been in explaining the danger to state election officials. telling them what we knew

already. most of them pushed back and didn't want to accept federal help on the grounds of some sort of federal meddling in what were state and local procedures. so, again, michael, being a bit more transparent. a bit more open. maybe a bit more -- can i say this -- alarmist, in terms of alarming, in terms of what it was we were saying about the intervention. now, they did some other things. we warned the russians, according to the story, we quite visibly began to print some things in russian infrastructure. now, i don't know if that is true. but again, it has the ring of plausibility, demonstrating to the russians so far and so farther, we have tools. in this kind of dispute as well. >> what concerned me the most from the story is of the fact that it seems that when those in our political apparatus were in the loop, they were partisans first, and americans second. you know, it used to be that our

par are partisanship ended at the water's edge and we'd be united by a common enemy like russia. but in this story if you read that closely, there was a calculus going on that would benefit their party and the other party. >> michael the saddest chapter in that narrative yesterday was when the administration center the experts up to the hill to brief the senior leadership of american congress, seeking some sort of bipartisan statement with regard to this. and they couldn't get it. the republicans particularly backed away. speculating here, because they felt joining that kind of consensus might have hurt their candidate's chances. i don't know. but coming out of that meeting, you now have the administration pulling back, not being as forceful as i suggested they should have been, again, to avoid the appearances, if they were partisan and they were

trying to rig the election. this is not our finest hour. >> and finally, you will not offend me if the answer is no, but did i convince you with my opening monologue that perhaps everybody misread the intent of president trump's tweet when he talked about comey and the tapes? >> michael, that was a very impressive workable hypothesis. i need to think my way backward now from your conclusion. i will tell you what struck me, you know the preamble there where he said i do not know who may have been taping. i've got to tell you, michael, in the lens i use to look at that, that was just one more example of the president for political convenience throwing his intelligence community understand the bu under the bus. they were a political prop. for at a minimum he's trying to obfuscate what was going to be a client climbdown in the back end

of that tweet. >> i will take my qualified endorsement of that, general hayden. thank you for that. >> what are your thoughts, your tweets? hit me with something, facebook and twitter. smerconish your opening commentary is disappointing. this is exactly what trump's team counts on. hey, nicole, i don't offer commentary with an eye toward whether it helps or hurts the president. i call them as i see it and i've offered you a proce [ applauseproceslausible alternative. next, why would comey immediately write a memo after conversation if he had recorded? well, because he didn't record it. but president trump comes from a place that he's suspicious that everybody is wearing a wire. no comey didn't record it. i'm trying to get in the mind of the president and perhaps the president picks up that "the new york times" and says holy crap, look at the level of detail in

this story. was comey wearing a wire? one more, quickly. smerconish, you are just like the relevant of fake news. how about the good he has done all negative with you. we are safer with trump than obama. atlant atlantis1, there's a story in the front page of "the washington post" today that confirms that russian president vladimir putin directly screwed with our election. sir, do you want me to ignore that? is that fake news? coming up we all know about trump's dinner date with vladimir putin. guess who sat at the table? jill stein, i'm eager to klatt with her next. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. that goes beyond assuming beingredients are safe...ood

to knowing they are. going beyond expectations... because our pets deserve it. beyond. natural pet food. there are the wildcats 'til we die weekenders. the watch me let if fly. this i gotta try weekenders. then we've got the bendy... ... spendy weekenders. the tranquility awaits. hanging with our mates weekenders and the it's been quite a day... ...so glad we got away weekenders. whatever kind of weekender you are, there's a hilton for you. book your weekend break direct at hilton.com and join the weekenders. will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away

for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. and get medical help right away. oh, it's actually... sfx: (short balloon squeal) it's ver... sfx: (balloon squeals) ok can we... sfx: (balloon squeals) goodbye! oof, that milk in your coffee was messing with you, wasn't it? try lactaid, it's real milk, without that annoying lactose. good right? yeah. lactaid. the milk that doesn't mess with you.

only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol® having mplaque psoriasise is not always easy. it's a long-distance run. and you have the determination to keep going. humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for nearly 10 years. humira works inside the body to target and help block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to symptoms. in clinical trials, most adults taking humira were clear or almost clear

and many saw 75% and even 90% clearance in just four months. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal, infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, 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. join over 250,000 people who have chosen humira. ask about the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. humira & go. there's been a whole lot of commentary recently as to the influence that 2616 green party candidate jill stein had on our election. just take a look at all of those headlines, as a matter of fact.

i'm curious as to what she has to say about this and other current events. and i'm thrilled joining me now is dr. jill stein. dr. stein, this "washington post" story today, this blockbuster that points a finger directly at vladimir putin for having directed the meddling in our election, i find to be pretty compelling involvement. does it make you reconsider the dinner invitation that you received in 2015. and whether him giving you that platform was itself a form of meddling? >> so, let's be clear, and i have not yet seen that article from "the washington post." but there's been quite a lot of evidence pointing to the hacking into our election system. essentially voter registration, and local election officials. there are grave concerns about the vaul neshlts of our election system. and that is not true, in fact,

that is why i called for actually a recount so we could examine in fact the voting machines and software. because right now it's acknowledged that we've got a real problem here. whether it's the russians, whether it's other other hostile nations, whether it's other criminal networks we know that our system is wide open and vulnerable. we need to get to the bottom of it and above all, we need to start protecting our voting system right now. and that means paper ballots because you cannot corrupt them. it means odds diting the optical scanners so we know we have an accurate count. and we can go back and recount it if there's a question about it. and we need cyber security best practices at all level of us our voting system. people can go listen to the testimony before congress just last week by alec haldeman, one of the foremost experts, it's not rocket science.

we need to make our system protected not just get russian interference or chinese or mafia but also private corporations who, for example, control our voting software and have a stake in the outcome of the election. this system needs to be protected so americans can have faith and confidence in in it. >> okay, i'm for all of that. now, take me inside the dinner you had with vladimir putin in 2015 and the prominence it afforded you. my question is was that in and of itself a form of meddling along the lines of let me give some attention to green party candidate jill stein on any theory -- you know the theory -- any vote for stein say vote that otherwise would have gone to hillary. what was that dinner about? tell me about it? >> let's be clear, that was a conference. and that picture didn't start to circulate until long after the election. it essentially wasn't covered

here in the u.s. there was media at that conference. and it was a day-long conference where my message was very clear. it was the message of my campaign. which is that we need a peace offensive in the middle east. now, this was a message that was particularly friendly to the russians. it was saying to them that we need to stop the bombing. they had just begun bombing in syria. and i want to say that this essentially followed the catastrophic footsteps of the u.s./middle east war. and what we needed was to collaborate on a peace offensive with a weapons embargo with both the u.s. and allies into that weapons embargo along with a fee on the funding of countries, and that is on the bank accounts of any countries that continue to fund terrorist enterprises. so, unfortunately, that message -- i would have loved for that message to have gotten out but there's basically zero coverage.

it's now circulating. it's funny, michael, you have to ask why is that picture kicking up a storm right now? i think it's very related to the fact that the democrats are looking for someone to blame. they're looking at bernie sanders. they're looking at james comey. they're looking at me. can they blame us for the loss of 1,000 legislative seats over the past ten years. for the loss of two-thirds of governors. for the loss of the recent special elections in georgia? democrats really have to look - internally. people have had it with being thrown under the bus. >> right. they're in the worst shape since reconstruction. the democratic party. so, it's much bigger than whatever went on in 2016. no doubt. but i think many of us are now going back and we're -- as we like to say zaprudering every step of the way of the 2016 cycle. you know dr. stein the argument. put up those vote tallies,

kathryn. because i think she ought to have the opportunity to respond. michigan you get 51,000 votes. trump wins by 10,000. what other states? keep them rolling. wisconsin, you get 31,000. trump wins by 22. one more, the state of pennsylvania, 49,000 for you, he wins by 44. will you once and for all respond to the idea but for you hillary would have been elected? >> absolutely. and thank you for the opportunity to get this message out. because the exit polls and the studies have made it perfectly clear and i know from conversations on the ground that greens just don't vote for democrats. in fact, the study shows 61% of greens would have stayed home rather than voted for either donald trump or hillary clinton. and of those that would go out to vote, over one-third of them would have voted for donald trump. so wishing that pigs fly doesn't make pigs fly. so democrats might wish and they

might assume that they own green votes, but they don't own green vote it's. candidates have to earn our votes. and hillary clinton did not earn the votes of greens. and hillary clinton and donald trump did not earn the votes of neither greens nor 45% of the american people who responded to vote for either of these two candidates who are the most distrusted and unliked candidates in recent history. people were clamoring for other choices. go ahead. >> but you can understand, looking at that data, you can understand how will would be an analysis that says vladimir putin was reading the tea leaves in the united states and thought, bring jill stein to dinner. i know you had a meeting as well with sergey lavrov and that you went into red square and recorded those moments. meaning anything he can do to give you prominence is going to pull from her. despite what you just said, you have the final word on this.

>> i also had a meeting with jeremy corbin, i had a meeting with the deputy ahead of climate negotiations in paris. so, you know, this is the job of a candidate, is to represent people. and important policy initiatives that are getting short-tripped. you know, for the students that are locked into a lifetime of predatory student debt for workers who don't have adequate jobs for people who don't have health care and human right which is actually pays for itself doesn't cost anymore. these are critical for our future. and to get that 45% of people back into our elections and to get them voting we need to have more choices. thank you, mikele, for helping to make that happen a little bit today. >> dr. jill stein, thanks for being here. we appreciate it. >> thank you so much. let me see more of what's going on on my facebook page and via twitter. what do you got? jill stein was also in putin's pocket.

putin is good and funding vulnerable puppets, a little praise some cash and they all go in. how often have we talked about mike flynn taking what was 45 k from r.t. and the dinner. there he is at the table. all of a sudden, we're doing a second check now we're saying, huh, jill stein was there, too. why would putin have invited her to dinner? was that his way of trying to give her some prominence. one more. dr. jill stein don't want to glit she got played by putin. she was an unwitting tool to prop her up in the campaigns again hillary rodham clinton. i think they were squaring off against one another and many people, there was no way they were going to vote for either. up ahead when the bill cosby case ended mistrial the d.a.

made an immediate announcement that he would retry the comedian. might he regret that snap decision? my thoughts are next. ...intelligent. ...explosive. but the true secret to his perfection... was a heart, twice the size of an average horse. wearing powerful sunscreen? yes! neutrogena® ultra sheer. no other sunscreen works better or feels so good. clinically proven helioplex® provides unbeatable uva/uvb protection to help prevent early skin aging and skin cancer all with a clean light feel. for unbeatable protection. it's the one. the best for your skin. ultra sheer®. neutrogena®.

see what's possible. i hate the outside. well, i hate it wherever you are. burn. "burn." is that what the kids are saying now? i'm so bored, i'm dead. you can always compare rates on progressive.com. oh, that's nice, dear. but could you compare camping trips? because this one would win. all i want to do is enjoy nature and peace and quiet! it's not about winning. it's about helping people find a great rate even if it's not with progressive. -ugh. insurance. -when i said "peace and quiet," did you hear, "talk more and disappoint me"? ♪ do do do do ♪ skiddly do do ♪ camping with the family ♪ [ flame whooshes ] the beswith neutrogena® beach? beach defense® sunscreen. helioplex™ powered, uva uvb strong. beach strength protection for the whole family. for the best day in the sun. neutrogena®.

...that had the power to whawaken something old...... ...or painfully dated... ...or something you simply thought was lost forever... ...because it could form a strong bond, regardless of age... if a paint could give any time-worn surface stunning new life... ...you have to wonder... is it still paint? regal select exterior from benjamin moore®. only available at independently owned paint and hardware stores.

tthat's why at comcast,t to be connected 24/7. we're always working to make our services more reliable. with technology that can update itself. and advanced fiber network infrastructure. new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most.

♪ needily after the judge in the sexual assault case against bill cosby declared a mistrial last weekend, the prosecutor d.a. kevin steele announced there would be a retrial. >> we will evaluate and review our case. we will take a hard look at everything involved. and then we will retry it. as i said in court, our plan is to move this case forward as soon as possible. >> where steel said we will take a hard look at everything involved and then we will retry

it, perhaps he should have said, we will take a hard look at everything and decide whether to retry it. first, steel made that announcement without knowing the split among deadlocked jurors. one report now says there was a lopsided vote in favor of conviction. but another says there was even more of a deadlock with votes of 7-5, or 5-7. the quick to retry some raises political overtones. steel was elected after bruce castor said he would not do so. it was testimony cosby had given in his civil case that he only agreed to because castor decided not to prosecute him. if cosby knew he faced prosecution he certainly would have invoked his fifth amendment right and andrea constand would

not have been paid. and another consideration is the age of the evidence. the underlying events are already 13 years old. and the evidence will not get any fresher. it's a he said/she said without forensics. one jury told the philadelphia inquiry, there was no evidence to move the case forward. no stained garment, no smoking gun, nothing. then there's the cost, the financial and emotional. and the first trial had been probably the largest undertaking in terms of what it put on our criminal justice system. in a post trial presser, steel said this. >> you can't put a price tag on justice. and if you do, you're saying that because somebody's wealthy or famous, that they don't deserve the same kind of justice

that everybody else does. >> but actually, only a defendant with cosby's wealth could stain two complex trials with high-priced legal talent. anybody else might be tempted to take a plea agreement regardless of whether the facts warranted it. but the reach of a hung jury or victims of sexual assault. what impact might that have on future victim dps they see an unsuccessful prosecution of a defendant in a high-profile case? might it have a chilling effect against reporting? one of cosby's alleged victims disagrees with me in this respect. and told me there is value in the prosecution of this case because of the conversation that it has begun. last week, before the verdict, here on cnn, i interviewed victoria valentino, one of the many women who have come forward with claims of sexual assault against cosby. valentino asserts that cosby raped her in 1969 when she was

26 and grieving the loss of her 6-year-old son who just drowned in a swimming pool. she attended every day of the cosby trial. after the mistrial, i had her back, this time on my radio show, and asked her about the pluses and minuses of living through a retrial, here's what she said. >> well, the conversation is open, it's on the table. we're talking about people coming out of the wood work because we spoke out. and suddenly, there are so many people coming to us through private messaging in facebook, to finding us on e-mail. telling us about their own personal stories of rape, incest. >> but if the next trial ends the same way, i asked, might it send women the message, you can't win even if you do come forward? >> it's also the reason why women stay silent. they're afraid, they feel not believed. they feel shamed.

they feel dirty. they feel humiliated. and they're just bottom line afraid to speak out for not being believed. and then, of course, historically, the legal system has revictimized them. the victim. so hopefully, we will have a shift. all i can say is that the conversation is open, on the table. we're talking about it. and it's not going to go away. the work goes on. >> she raises good points. don't misunderstand. i'm not judging constand, cosby nor second-guessing the jury's deliberation. they saw the evidence. they weighed the testimony of the witnesses they found inconclusive. i'm just saying the decision of whether this case should be retry said complicated. of course if it ends in a guilty verdict nobody is going to second-guess the d.a. but it's about the only

certainty that remains. coming up, a 200-year mythical creature stalks the supreme court. be ware of the gerrymandering, my friend. a sheer®. neutrogena®. rumor confirmed. they're playing. -what? -we gotta go. -where? -san francisco. -when? -friday. we gotta go. [ tires screech ]

any airline. any hotel. any time. go where you want, when you want with no blackout dates. [ muffled music coming from club. "blue monday" by new order. cheers. ] ♪ how does it feel the travel rewards credit card from bank of america. it's travel, better connected. the travel rewards credit card from bank of america. if you have a garden, you know weeds are low-down little scoundrels. with roundup precision gel®, you can finally banish garden weeds without harming precious plants nearby. so draw the line. just give the stick one click, touch the leaves and the gel stays put killing garden weeds to the root with pinpoint precision. draw the line with roundup precision gel®. and be sure to check out roundup® with sure shot wand. another good-for-the-garden product from roundup. why do people put why does your tummy go "grumbily, grumbily, grumbily"? no more questions for you! ouph, that milk in your cereal was messing with you, wasn't it? try lactaid, it's real milk without that annoying lactose.

good, right? -mmm, yeah. lactaid. the milk that doesn't mess with you. i needed something more to help control my type 2 diabetes. my a1c wasn't were it needed to be. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's suppose to do, release its own insulin. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin.

it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe pain in your stomach, or symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin, increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. once-weekly trulicity may help me reach my blood sugar goals. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar, activate your within.

ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. illegitimate, seriously harmful, incompatible with democratic principles and a mention of the electorate. that's how various supreme court justices over the past 30 years have described the issuing of gerrymandering. redrawing the party lines. it would be unconstitutional based on race and ethnicity. so far, they've gotten away with it based on party lines. the question key is how do you come up with a manageable test. as i've season before, this ended up with map shapes that are incredible. nevertheless, in all of the cases in the court so far, the court has never been able to figure out a way to decide which maps are valid and which are

unconstitutional. perhaps that's about to change because this year this case is going to the supreme court of the united states. this week, the justices announce they had will review a case in wisconsin that struck down a redistricting map that the gop-controlled legislature created after the 2010 consentence customer. here's why. in the 1212 race, republicans only won about 48% and yet they received 60 of the seats. and joining me now is one of the lawyers arguing this before the supreme court. nick stephanopoulos who is a professor at the university of law school. professor, first question before we get to your methodology, why should gerrymandering be viewed in the same way as if it were racial and ethnic in its purpose? >> thanks for having me, michael, on your show. we're not arguing that partisan

gerrymandering ought to be treated in exactly the same way as racial gerrymandering. if you're looking for a final ya analogy for our theory, it's really one person, one vote where 50 years ago, the court said that big variations in district population aren't constitutional. our whole test is based very closely on the framework the courts have used for decades to decide one person, one vote disputes. i know also that there's another similarity here between partisan gerrymandering and one person, one vote. 50 years ago rampant mall apportionment was part of a threat. society, partisan gerrymandering is also something that threatens to undermine basic democratic norms. and that's why again, we're hoping that the court will step in and fix a really serious

democratic malfunction. >> do you anticipate that this issue in the supreme court. united states lines up with the usual 4-4 split where justice kennedy is somewhere in the middle making a decision? >> it very well may. but it's worth noting that partisan gerrymandering is not an issue that follows the predictable ideological cleavages on the court. in the '80s president reagan and president bush you'd to rail against democratic gerrymandering. governor schwarzenegger was a republican who pushed for district reform. in the first gerrymandering case that the court ever took in 1986, the key opinions recognized the theory, were written by center-right justices

not the individuals. today it may lie on the right cleavages with justice kennedy. >> so, this is the most difficult question of all. in 60 seconds are you able to lay out the solution you've devised where the court has said in the past we don't like it, but how are we going to fix it -- what's your fix? >> so, we have a three-part test that we think is workable and the lower court agreed is workable. prong one was a map passed with discriminatory intent. so, in order to benefit one party and handicap another party. prong two has the map exhibited a large and durable discriminatory effect. and this is where measures, or metrics of partisan gerrymandering like the efficiency of it come into play. and prong three, is there any kind of legitimate or neutral

jufr justification for the large endurable partisan effect we've seen. that's what we've seen in under 60 seconds. >> you are able to reduce to numerical a quantitative score whether gerrymandering has crossed the line in a particular state. is that it in a nutshell? >> that's the key to the second prong of the test. it asks whether the map has shown a large and durable discriminatory effect. >> well, i hope you're successful. look, my cards are on the table. i think that gerrymandering needs to be reined in. both parties have done it. they've done it for a long, long time you all the way back to aldridge gerry. it's not just gerrymandering, there's a sort that is associating too much with the white-minded. so it won't be a panacea if you're successful.

still to come, your best tweets like this one -- >> smerkonish, if scotus accepts this formula for gerrymandering, then they're writing law and that's not what they are there to do. by the way, tom brady? you throw a hell of a spiral. it's not that tom brady? i think he makes a compelling argument about one person, one vote. i think it's violative of the equal protection clause of the constitution. and i think it needs to be corrected. back in a sec. or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.

will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away.

ask your doctor about cialis. and get medical help right away. wiback like it could used to? neutrogena hydro boost water gel. with hyaluronic acid it plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in. for supple, hydrated skin. hydro boost. from neutrogena ykeep you sidelined.ng that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love.

ensure. always be you.

hey, i'm telling you now, if i'm not here for the fourth of july weekend, it doesn't mean that i've been fired -- not yet what do we have, katherine? show me some tweets and facebook comments from the show. smerkonish, you pretend to be impartial, but it's so obvious

you're out to hurt potus, if obama did what president trump did, you wouldn't report it. oliver black taylor. mr. taylor, sir, were you not tuned in to the first portion of the program, where i discussed the way in which the obama administration was flat-footed? in their response to the russian meddling? and what you heard me say is, that president trump can't have it both ways. he can't on one hand say, obama did nothing, and then on the other hand himself be dismissive of it. now that's not bias, that's not favoring one or the other, that's criticism that i just offered of both of them. something that i'll bet you are reluctant to do. if you're not calling it out on both sides, you're part of the problem. next. somebody said that i'm too nasty in my responses, i'm just being direct. you give trump too much credit. everyone seems to know he was trying to influence comey except you. hey, hunt, i may be a knucklehead. i just don't feel obligated to buy into the party line on all

these things, and from the minute i saw that first tweet about comey, comey better hope there are no tapes, i said to myself, that's perhaps the president looking at the newspaper, seeing the level of detail and deciding hey that son of a gun might be taping me. one more, we have to wrap, oh, sugar, okay. okay, gang, there you go. what's justice worth? should alleged criminal cosby walk free because the cost is too high? notice the word "alleged" he's been convicted of nothing. i'll see you soon, thanks for watching.

well good morning and welcome to saturday so grateful for your company as always, i'm christie paul? >> and i'm victor black. >> welcome to the cnn newsroom.