i'm christine romans. >> i'm miguel marquez. new reports the are the is looking to undermine the russia probe? how is he looking to discredit robert mueller? "new day" starts right now. it's inappropriate for the president to try to dictate the boundaries of the investigation. >> the wall street journal saying trump's legal team is working to discredit the investigation. >> bob mueller should look at anything within the scope of the special counsel's mandate. >> if the president fired bob mueller, i think he'll pay a heavy price. >> you can feel tension and anxiety. i've done my time. i have basically spent a conflict-free life. >> his statements were self-justified. showing no remorse. >> the you take a look at what they're supposed to consider, it's a slam dunk. >> thank you. >> this is "new day" with chris

cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. this is "new day." it's friday. july 21st. 6:00 in washington, d.c. chris is off. and john berman joins me from new york. great to see you. >> nice to see you. the new york times and washington post is reporting that the president's legal team is trying to undermine robert mueller, looking for conflicts of interest in order to discredit his russia investigation. the president is asking advisers about his ability to pardon his aides, his family members, and even himself. >> one day after president trump warned the special counsel not to dig into his family's finances, bloomberg reports special counsel mueller's investigation is expanding to do just that. all this as cnn learns the president is shaking up his legal team. the president unhappy with how his lawyers are fighting back.

a lot going on. we're going begin with senior washington correspondent joe johns at the white house. good morning. >> reporter: good morning, john. the reshuffling of the president's legal team comes around the same time he's sending signals that he's gearing up for a fight against special counsel robert mueller's legal team, citing conflicts with an interview with "the new york times. >> reporter: "the new york times" and "washington post" reporting that the president's lawyers and aides are lacking to undermine the special counsel's investigation. "the times" says trump's team is skewering the professional and political backgrounds of robert mueller and other investigators, looking for conflicts of interest they can use to discredit the investigation. "the post" also reporting that the president has been asking about his authority to pardon aides, family members, and even himself, in connection with the

probe. attorney general jeff sessions refusing to answer questions about whether he's discussed pardons with the president in testimony before congress last month. >> i'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. >> reporter: all this as the russia investigation appears to be widening. bloomberg reporting that mueller is expanding his probe to include a broad range of financial transactions involving trump businesses and associates. >> would that be a breach of what his actual purview is? >> i would say yes. >> reporter: the president warning mueller against delving into his finances earlier this weak. >> the president is making clear that the special councsel shoul not move outside of the scope of the investigation. >> reporter: "the washington post" reports that the president has told aides that he's especially disturbed after learning that mueller would be able to access his tax returns. the president has refused to release them, citing ongoing irs

audits. mueller has broad latitude. sources say the president has also vented in recent weeks that his legal team has not done enough to beat back allegations. >> ladies and gentlemen -- >> reporter: sources tell cnn marc kasowitz, the president's longtime attorney and lead lawyer on the russia matter, will see his role reduced, after the spokesman and communications strategist for the legal team resigned. >> mr. president, does jeff sessions still have your full support? >> reporter: president trump ignoring questions about his embattled attorney general, after blaming him for the special counsel probe. >> sessions should have never recused himself. and if he would -- if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and i would have pick ed somebody else. >> reporter: sessions signaling thursday that he has no plans to step down, despite the president's remarkable public rebuke. >> we love this job, we love this department, and i plan to continue to do so, as long as that is appropriate. >> reporter: despite this

morning's reports, a source says the president's team does intend to cooperate fully with the special counsel. the focus on the special counsel and the president's own words in that "new york times" interview overshadowing, if you will, the attempts of this administration once again to focus on policy. today, we do expect to see the president this afternoon, as he meets with the survivors of the "uss arizona." john and -- john, back to you. >> alisyn, i'll take it now. all right, so lots to discuss. we have cnn political analyst, david druker, and david sanger, jeffrey toobin. great to have all of you. i'll start with you, david drurk, because you and i are here together in washington. let's start with this. is the thinking of president trump's legal taeam that if anyone on mueller's team has ever, say, given money to a democratic candidate, that they

therefore cannot be unbiased and impartial and that would sthomew taint the investigation? >> that's the message the president is trying to send. in some ways, this is reminiscent of the special prosecutor that looked into bill clinton. where there was an all-out war from the white house trying to discredit ken starr, so any result of his investigation would be tainted. so what you're seeing here from this president, with the difference, that the president can actually -- although it would be complicated and politically explosive, could actually fire mueller, because there's no longer a special prosecutor law protecting mueller, but what the president is trying to do, like he tries to do with all of his political adversaries, is undermine his credibility and legitimacy. so at least in the eyes of his very loyal base and the broader republican electorate, which has kept republicans on capitol hill at bay, because they still support him, they are not going to buy anything that mueller comes up with. and i think that's the shot across the bow that we've seen this week. >> you know, it's been really

interesting. in a way, the president's interview with "the new york times" was checkov's gun. overnight in "the washington post", these stories are pointing out alleged conflicts in a concerted direction they're doing from this legal team. let me read you what the president said again in that "new york times" interview. he, mueller, was up here and he wanted the job, the next day he is appointed special counsel. i said, what the hell is this about? talk about conflicts. but he was interviewing for the jobs. there are many other conflicts that i haven't said, subtext, but may come out tomorrow night in "the washington post" and "new york times." jeffrey toobin, what is a real conflict of interest which would be grounds for rod rosenstein to fire bob mueller? >> i don't think -- it's hard to know in the abstract of what is -- what is a conflict of interest. >> if robert mueller were talking about the fbi job, would

that be a conflict of interest? >> absolutely not. as a journal who spent a good time investigating ken star and their staff and their political inclinations, i think it's entirely fair for trump's team to point out if mueller is hiring lots of partisan democrats. i don't think he is, but if that's true, it'ses a perfectly legitimate issue for trump's people to investigate. they are not mueller. mueller is the decisionmaker. and if there is a less political person in a prominent place in american life, i don't know who it is. mueller has a very clean and apolitical record. >> so david sanger, much of this comes from "the new york times" reporting, your outlet, but there's also some "washington post" reporting this morning that says that the president and his team are also exploring how far-reaching the president's pardon authority is. obviously, the implication is, if don jr. in trouble, maybe, if

jared kushner were in trouble, what could the president do about that? >> well, when you read into the story, it says, he's asking the question, but not necessarily with an eye toward trying to do that anytime soon. what you don't know with this president is that he is obviously a man of some passions, and the question is, could the same moment of passion that led him to fire james comey lead him to issue the pardon or attempt to fire mueller or take one of these other steps. now, it was interesting in "the times" interview, he said again that he does not regret firing james comey. but when you think back to it, it was the firing of comey that basically brought all of this upon him. it's what forced the deputy attorney general to appoint bob mueller as a special counsel.

it's what then triggered the rest of this set of investigations. had he kept comey in place, there would certainly be an fbi investigation underway, but there wouldn't be any of this structure that we're seeing now, that clearly the president finds so disturbing. i think the last point, and this goes back to something that jeff got at before, which is that at the moment that mueller was appointed, you heard a lot of republicans saying that, you know, he was a perfect choice, he's very nonpartisan, his war record in vietnam is remarkable, his time as fbi director. and so the president probably realizes that it's going to be an uphill battle to go make the case for partisanship that he's now pushing. >> it's interesting, david sanger says, you don't always know what the president's thinking. in some cases, you know exactly what he's thinking. you know the words conflict of interest are seared on his brain

right now and he wants to say it out loud in his interview with "the new york times" and has his people talk about it in articles. and we also know, because, again, this is part of his interview, we've heard him say it out loud, and his people have been saying it since, he's very worried about the parameters of the bob mueller, the special counsel's investigation, and the president does not think it should expand into his business dealings before he was president. listen again to the president himself and now the president's staff talking about this. >> mueller was looking at your finances and your family's finances, unrelated to russia. is that a red line? >> would that be a breach of what his actual purview is? >> i would say yes. i would say yes. >> i think the president, the point he's trying to make is that the clear purpose of the russia investigation is to review russia's meddling in the election and that that should be the focus of the investigation. nothing beyond that. the president's making clear

that the special counsel should not move outside of the scope of the investigation. >> you know, david drucker, the president says he doesn't like to give red lines, but that sounds like a red line there, despite that rod rosenstein's charge for robert mueller includes matters that may arise from the investigation. >> i don't see how you look into an investigation for russia meddling and how his business dealings don't include that. if the president were to move to fire robert mueller, the most things you've seen in washington would be coming from capitol hill. because republicans do not want to have to deal with this. they would rather focus on mundane policy matters, important policy matters, but things that are a lot less political. and they don't want to be in a position where they have to act against the president or move against the president. at least not before they've seen a signal from republican voters, that that's what they would like

them to do. and so that's -- that's who would be most concerned about this, because it would put them in a really difficult political position. and that's why you've heard, you know, some complaints from the hill about where the mueller investigation might go, but you haven't heard a lot, because they understand what the scope of the investigation needs to be. and they had shoved this off on mueller, so they could get out of having to have anything to do with it. >> so, jeffrey, "the washington post" is reporting that president trump has expressed concerns about mueller getting his tax returns. as you know, the president did not release his tax returns. legally, can robert mueller pull those? >> absolutely. there's no doubt that he can. in fact, in white-collar investigations, it is routine for the -- for prosecutors, u.s. attorneys, to get tax returns as, first of all, to investigate whether there are tax offenses that may have been committed,

but also as a guide to the assets of the people, of the people you are investigating. and, frankly, given the fact that, you know, what -- the question of motive is at the heart of this investigation. why was the trump campaign so favorably disposed towards russia? financial motive is an obvious possibility, so i would find it very hard to imagine that this investigation could be completed without mueller looking at the president's tax returns. >> you know, david sanger, you've been in washington a long time and covered many administrations. i found this week to be an astounding week from the white house, in terms of their messaging. they had the health care debate and apparently falling apart, maybe not falling apart in the senate, and then completely by choice, electively, the president goes to "the new york times" and knives his attorney general, raises the possibility of taking on the special

counsel, and now in articles in "the new york times" and "the washington post", someone's floating the idea that the president is considering pardons. this seems to be a white house that has completely lost control of controlling any kind of message here. >> well, message discipline has not been their greatest strength in the six months and now a day that they've been in office. when you think about that, it's the other downside of the president's tweeting, the president's determining that he's got to be completely the one who does the communication, because he thinks he does it better than anybody else. the tweets, the interviews, and so forth, always veer toward what he feels most strongly about at the moment. and he clearly feels aggrieved by this investigation. and does not view it as a reaction to anything he's done, including the firing of james

comey, but instead, he views it as an effort to conduct what he's called many times a witch hunt sp hunt. so that tends to dominate it. if it's made in america week, or it's less lett's focus on the d of health care week, his mind is not necessarily there. you saw it in the health care debate, where a number of democratic senators said, the president did not seem to be deeply engaged in the details of what the health care bill should look like. in fact, the white house didn't have it own. instead, he just want to have had a win. and you have to wonder if it doesn't look like he's going to get that, if he'll just move on to the next thing. >> made in america week, when it comes to the russia investigation and the focus on it, it's made in the oval office week, because the president has exclusively created this renewed focus over the last few days. all right, guys, stick around. president trump's relationship with attorney general jeff sessions put to the test. the attorney general says he's not going anywhere. no one would have asked that question if not for the fact

that the president gave this remarkable rebuke to "the new york times." is loyalty a one-way street for president trump? we discuss, next. (vo) pro plan bright mind adult 7+ promotes alertness and mental sharpness in dogs 7 and older. (ray) the difference has been incredible. she is much more aware. she wants to learn things. (vo) purina pro plan bright mind. nutrition that performs. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

your only worry...ty customer first guarantee... will be that one... rogue... cloud. get help with hotels, free twenty-four-hour flight changes, and our price match guarantee. travelocity.® wander wisely.™ i'm karen, i'm a teacher.olfer. my psoriatic arthritis caused joint pain. just like my moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and i was worried about joint damage. my doctor said joint pain from ra can be a sign of existing joint damage that could only get worse. he prescribed enbrel to help relieve pain and help stop further damage. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal, events including infections, tuberculosis,

lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. joint pain and damage... can go side by side. ask how enbrel can help relieve joint pain is dad: flash drives? yup. that's dad taking care of business. laptop setup? yup. but who takes care of dad? office depot, office max. this week, all hp ink, buy one get one 30% off. ♪ taking care of business when you switch to progressive. winds stirring. too treacherous for a selfie. [ camera shutter clicks ] sure, i've taken discounts to new heights with safe driver and paperless billing.

but the prize at the top is worth every last breath. here we go. [ grunts ] got 'em. ahh. wait a minute. whole wheat waffles? [ crying ] why! today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. . we love this job, we love this department, and i plan to

continue to do so, as long as that is appropriate. >> all right. that's attorney general jeff sessions right there. he says he is here to stay, after the president's extraordinary public criticism in the interview with "the new york times." the president's rebuke really making waves now inside the white house. one official tells cnn, no one was more loyal than sessions, no one. another calls this chilling. the big question is, is loyalty a one-way street with president trump? i want to bring back our panel, david drucker, jeffrey toobin, and david sanger. the question we're hearing from inside the white house, jeff zeleny is reporting, look, if the president will do this to jeff sessions, will he do it anyway? >> well, anyone other than his close family members. i think here what is very interesting and important is that when you do this so publicly to a member of your administration, a cabinet official, and usually this is done third hand. so i guess you've got to give the president credit here for not outsourcing this, is that

you've completely undercut jeff sessions' power and influence. because the way politics works, especially in the west wing, but even on capitol hill, is it's all about how much juice you have with the principle. and now, in a tug-of-war over policy, if jeff sessions gets into one, his adversary can say, you know, i don't think the president has that much confidence in your leadership. he was pretty public about that. so i don't really care what you think. and it creates a situation where, especially if jeff sessions as attorney general is carrying out some of the president's more prioritized initiatives, which he is, because on policy and on a lot of the key things that the president has campaigned on, it's within jeff sessions' purview to handle these things, it weakens his ability as attorney general to carry this out. and we talk all the time about, here, well, you know, this one's going to have to leave and there's no way he can stick around, but you really lack at the tongue lashing that jeff sessions got. you look at his career in the

senate and you wonder how long he can stick around in this situation. >> yeah, i mean, jeffrey, it's not -- it's also the public -- the public tongue lashing. it's not unusual to be displeased with a member of your staff, but to vent publicly to "the new york times" about them does seem to be unusual. >> it's unusual, it's weird, choose your adjective. but i also think, you know, jeff sessions is still the attorney general. and he can do all the things that attorney generals do. and yesterday, he -- you know, he announced a major cyber crime investigation. i mean, i think part of what makes this so weird is that in many respects, i don't think sessions is all that weakened by it. i think he's going to continue doing his job. and unless and until the president actively throws him out, i don't think he is in really that much trouble. i think just the weirdness of

this administration is that the president free associates in public a lot, but i think that jeff sessions is still in the position to do the job that he was hired to do. >> and it was interesting with jake tapper yesterday, several republican members of the senate, three on background, one on the record, susan collins, actually rallied behind jeff sessions there. so maybe in a way, jeff sessions, a former senator, will get more senatorial support now that the president's attacking him. could be one of the strange ironies here. next week, speaking of congress, a lot going on up there in terms of the investigation. jared kushner heading the up. he will talk to the senate intelligence committee, not under oath, but he will speak to they will behind closed doors, some staff members there. and the judiciary committee waiting for a response from donald trump jr. and former campaign chair, paul manafort, to see if they will testify on wednesday. and there is this threat of a subpoena if they don't. you know, part of me cannot imagine what it would look like with donald trump jr. testifying there.

on the other hand, part of me can't imagine the fact that the president's son would have toll recei receive a subpoena here. where do you see this heading? >> it's a little bit hard to tell, because those two people, mr. manafort and donald trump jr. are not government officials. manafort, of course, famously was fired as the campaign chairman and donald trump jr. has never taken a position in the administration. so they are not covered by any kind of executive privilege, any of the protections that usually go around somebody who works for the president. while mr. kushner is, because he's got an appointment within the white house. so, it's going to be -- it would be very difficult for the two of them to be able to resist this subpoena. now, they could show up and testify and invoke the fifth. and this is more jeff's territory than my own, but that probably wouldn't look very good, especially after donald

trump jr. has said publicly, and i think you have to believe him on this, that he's perfectly willing to cooperate with the committee and go out and explain this entire meeting. and of course the white house has said and donald trump jr. has said that this was entire innocent, that even though they were there to receive what they described as dirt on hillary clinton, in fact, that none was delivered and nothing came of the meeting and everybody went away. and that's the argument they have to be able to make in public and in private. >> i think manafort, in particular, would be insane to testify without immunity. i don't -- you know, no lawyer in the world would advise him to testify. his finances are obviously the focus of this investigation, by mueller. you know, putting him in a position where he might make false statements would delight mueller to no end. i think donald trump jr. has less to fear, criminally.

but, you know, the big b beneficia beneficiary, if those two testify under oath, will be robert mueller. because he will have juicy new targets to investigate. >> and one thing, i think we need to remember with these subpoenas, and this is very interesting and my republican sources were reminding me of this last night, the subpoena that the judiciary committee is going to issue doesn't have any teeth, unless the full senate votes to enforce it. this is not a court of law. and so the only way the marshals are going to go after manafort or donald trump jr., if they ignore the subpoena and don't want to testify is if the senate goes on record enforcing it, and that could be a very tricky political maneuver for a republican senate. >> very quickly, gentleman, i want to give you a snapshot of how americans are feeling right now. this is a new cnn poll about the russian meeting. should don jr., kushner, manafort have taken the meeting with the russian lawyer? 23% of respondents say yes, 57% say no, 20% say unsure.

if you look at it by party, don jr. should not have taken the meeting with the russian lawyers, democrats say 83%, independents, 55%, republicans, 36%. so that is telling. we'll leave it right there. gentleman, that you have for being with us on the panel. we have some breaking news to get to right now, john, because there's been this powerful and deadly earthquake that has rocked a greek island and parts of turkey. so we'll bring you all of the latest from there, next. the lincoln summer invitation is on. it's time for a getaway. now get our best offers of the season. on the agile mkc. on the versatile midsize lincoln mkx. or go where summer takes you in the exhilarating mkz.

the lincoln summer invitation sales event. ask about complimentary pick up & delivery servicing. right now get zero percent apr plus 1,000 dollars summer savings on the lincoln mkx, mkc and mkz finding the best hotel price is now a safe bet. because tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites - so you save up to 30% on the hotel you want. lock it in. tripadvisor.

casper makes one perfect supportive and comfortable. premium foam layers. breathable for airflow. perfect rebound, plus perfect lift. pick your size, you get 100 nights to test it out. test the layers, be a layer, casper. on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

we do have some breaking news for you. there's been a powerful earthquake that has rocked turkey's coast and the nearby greek islands, leaving at least two people dead and five seriously injured. you can see people in turkey here, running in the street after the 6.7 magnitude quake rattled that area.

this was the scene on the greek island of k soros. some buildings reduced to rubbles. president trump will not say it outright, but cia director mike pompeo is offering the clearest words yet from a sitting u.s. official that russia meddled in the 2016 election. watch this. >> of course. and the one before that and the one before that. they've been at this a hell of a long time and i don't think they have any intention of backing off. >> director pompeo says that the web makes intervenes easier, cheaper, and more effective. t the cia director also offered comments about north korea, but stopped short of calling for regime change. the minneapolis police chief says that that bride-to-be that was killed by one of the officers did not have to die. the chief placing blame solely on officer mohamed noor for

shooting justine after she called police to report a possible sexual assault outside her apartment. last night, mourners flooded the streets for a march in honor of her memory. her family hired one of the lawyers for philando castile who was shot near minneapolis last year. o.j. simpson will be a free man this fall, but his comments to the parole board, raising eyebrows. our legal experts weigh in, next. mom gets breakfast in bed... you get to do the dishes. bring 'em on. dawn ultra has 3 times more grease-cleaning power. a drop of dawn and grease is gone.

pain can really pain is sometimes in my hands, right before a performance especially. only aleve has the strength to stop minor arthritis pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. this is my pain. but i am stronger. aleve. all day strong.

o.j. simpson will soon be a free man. the 70-year-old former football star could be released as early as the fall after espending nearly nine years in prison for an armed robbery conviction. cnn's jean casarez is live in carson city, nevada, with more. hi, jean. >> reporter: good morning. you know, it was an oddly similar situation. o.j. simpson involved in a legal proceeding, the spotlight on simpson, waiting for a verdict, and his demeanor really spoke vu volumes. he really did express some regret, but really didn't

express a lot of remorse. but remorse is not a requirement in the state of nevada to be granted parole. >> mr. simpson, i do vote to grant parole when eligible. and that will conclude this hearing. >> reporter: after a unanimous decision, former nfl hall of famer, o.j. simpson, set to walk free as early as october after serving nine years in prison for an armed robbery at a las vegas hotel room. >> are you humbled by this incarceration? >> oh, yes, for sure. as i said, i wish it would have never happened. nine years away from your family is just, just not worth it. and i -- i'm sorry. >> reporter: speaking for over an hour, the 70-year-old was apologetic and at times defensive before shocking viewers with this eyebrow-raising remark. >> i've always thought i've been pretty good with people and i've basically have spent a conflict-free life. >> reporter: simpson's comment

blatantly ignore his double murder trial and his long history of domestic abuse allegations against his ex-wife, nicole brown simpson. >> is he threatening you? >> [ bleep ] went nuts. >> okay, just stay on the line. >> i don't want to stay on the line. he's going to beat the [ bleep ] -- >> provoking criticism from her family. >> there's a sense of denial there. and a lack of sense of responsibility, still today. >> reporter: simpson's lawyers arguing his stiff sentence for the robbery was payback for his controversial acquittal in the murders of brown and a friend, ron goldman, in 1995. the parole board stressing the acquittal had no bearing on their decision, deeming him a low-risk release. simpson avoided taking full responsibility for the k kidnapping, armed robbery, and assault that led to his incarcerati incarceration. >> i had no weapon. they didn't feel threatened by me, for what you said, and that i didn't threaten them. it was the other two security guys that did that. >> reporter: the most striking

testimony coming from a friend of simpson, who was the victim in the heist, arguing that simpson deserves a second chance. >> this is a good man. he made a mistake. and if he called me tomorrow and said, bruce, i'm getting out, will you pick me up? juice, i'll be here tomorrow for you. >> o.j. simpson has requested to live in florida and there are definite conditions of role. the commissioners yesterday, when they were talking to o.j. simpson said he had determined that he had a substance abuse issue. he appeared upset, he disagreed with that, he said, i haven't had a drink in nine areas. but the number one condition for his parole is that although he can drill alcohol, he cannot drink it in excess. and at any time, he could be subject to a blood or breath test. another condition, he cannot associate at any time with convicted felons and he cannot participate in any type of

criminal activity. alisyn, john? >> oh, my gosh, jean, what a fascinating display of everything -- all the different personalities and comments yesterday. a lot to discuss, john. >> all right, let's brick ng in cnn's best legal mans, mark geragos, paul cowan, and jeffrey toobin. mark, i want to start with you here. you were saying during this hearing and before that parole was essentially a legal slam dunk. why? >> well, because they an evaluation. in fact, they kind of predicted it, if you will, where they do what's called a risk assessment. and there's a bunch of factors. it's the age, it's the prior convictions or lack of prior convictions, things of that nature. and when they did that, he comes out at the lowest end of the scale. and then you combine that, even though it's with the severity of the crime, with the fact that this is a case that the prosecutors offered 2 1/2 years,

and he rolled the dice basically, and he got tax, tip, and service charge of over nine years. and i thought that this was going to be a legal slam dunk. and sure enough, that's exactly what ended up happening. they only needed basically four votes. they have extra commissioners that are waiting, kind of like alternates, so to speak, in a jury trial, who can come in and break any kind of a tie. and he got 4-0 on the first vote. >> but paul. mark geragos is asking us to un-know what we know about o.j. and everything that was just outlined. jean's piece there. how can the parole board say with confidence that he's not a threat to society in the future? >> i really don't know how they could reach that conclusion. you know, mark was talking about the risk factor portion of the analysis. you know, they started out by asking, have you ever been arrested before? and this parole commission that appeared to me to be star struck by o.j. left out the most

important chapter in his life. and it's the domestic violence chapter. because even if you accept the verdict of not guilty in the original murder trial, there were at least 50 incidents in both the civil case and in the criminal case in which o.j. was engaged in acts of violence against women. and more particularly, against nicole brown simpson, who we believe he ultimately murdered. when i say, "we believe," the attorneys who tried the civil case. why didn't the parole board look at that? they -- this suggests a risk to the community, a risk to women where he settles, and while it was a happy day for o.j., it's a tragic day for victims of domestic violence. >> maybe one reason why they didn't ask -- or at least one of the parole officers didn't ask, is because he was wearing a kansas city chiefs tie. like, why? out of all the ties you could have wear, do you wear an nfl tie? but that's why it's good to be a celebrity.

>> jeffrey toobin, you were uncharacteristically outspoken about o.j. simpson's behavior as he was testifying yesterday. as jean points out, not legally required to show remorse. what went over the line in your eyes? >> the statement that he led a conflict-free life. because i thought it was so indicative. the thing that's so rich about the o.j. simpson case, is that it has illuminated so many dark corners of american life. and here's a guy who was a convicted wife batterer, saying, well, that's just private. you know, anything related to domestic violence is a private matter. and one of the things the o.j. simpson case illuminated is how pervasive domestic violence is without regard to race or income. and how the old attitude that domestic violence is simply a private matter, but not a crime against society as a whole, that attitude is obsolete and wrong.

but it was still reflected in how tono.j. behaved yesterday. >> so mark, what about all of that? what about the idea that o.j. still poses a threat to women and possibly the community? >> well, look, the problem is, and i understand everybody wants to judge him by this, that, or the other thing. you've got somebody and the 11 factors that they have to take into account in nevada and what the parole commissioners have to look at is, and the biggest one is, has -- how did he behave over the last almost nine years in prison? and he didn't have a single offense while in prison. that in and of itself is one of the most compelling factors for a parole commissioner. because -- >> but he's not with women in prison, you know? i just don't know if that's -- >> well -- >> -- a natural habit -- >> -- not necessarily -- i understand. but the fact remains that that's the way the system is set up, and that's way that those are

the risk factors they take a look. his age, when was the first time he was ever arrested? was it over 24? all of the things they went through yesterday. and while i love paul and jeff, the fact remains that this was a legal slam dunk and they got it right. this is exactly what they were supposed to do. i know people don't like it, and people want to basically, as one of the commissioners said, there were many letters in opposition, but almost all of them were based on stuff that was not related to this offense, that wasn't related to his serving the sentence now. and that were completely unrelated to what they were supposed to do, what their job was. they got it right. >> paul, i want to ask you, because, again, you were co-counsel to the state of nicole brown simpson in the civil case here. what does o.j. simpson's life look like now once he's released going forward with particular focus on his finances? >> i can tell you one thing he

won't be doing. at the end of the '95 trial, he said he was going to engage in a search for the real killer. i think we can mark that off the list. but what he will be doing is he will be out trying to make money in a way that it will not be collected by the brown and goldman families, because they have a $35 million verdict against him. >> thanks, guys. a quick programming note, we have an exclusive cnn special report, "after o.j.: the fuhrman tapes revealed." that's tonight at 10:00. here's a brief look. >> the notorious case. >> we, the jury, find the defendant not guilty. >> the infamous detective. >> mark fuhrman. >> i wish to assert my fifth amendment privilege. >> and until now, the take place you've never heard. meet the woman who recorded mark fuhrman. >> why did you decide to come forward now? >> it's time. >> a cnn exclusive, "after o.j.: the fuhrman taupes revealed,"

tonight at 10:00. >> okay, make sure you tune in for that. meanwhile, is president trump's legal team's plan to undermine special counsel robert mueller, is it somehow a throwback to bill clinton, as we've been hearing people say? up next, we'll compare president trump and president clinton's responses to their independent investigations with two people who know these presidents better than most. ♪ the opioid my doctor prescribed for my chronic back pain backed me up-big time. before movantik, i tried to treat it myself.

spent time, money. no go. but i didn't back down. i talked to my doctor. she said: one, movantik was specifically designed for opioid-induced constipation-oic- and can help you go more often. number two? with my savings card, i can get movantik for about the same price as the other things i tried. don't take movantik if you have a bowel blockage or a history of them. movantik may cause serious side effects including symptoms of opioid withdrawal, severe stomach pain and/or diarrhea, and tears in the stomach or intestine. tell your doctor about any side effects and about medicines you take. movantik may interact with them causing side effects. don't back down from oic. talk to your doctor about movantik. remember mo-van-tik. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. you give us comfort. and we give you bare feet... i love you, couch. ...backsweat and gordo's

everything. i love you, but sometimes you stink. ♪ new febreze fabric refresher with odorclear technology... ...cleans away odors like never before. because the things you love the most can stink. and plug in febreze to keep your whole room fresh for up... ...to 45 days. breathe happy with new febreze. going somewhere? whoooo. here's some advice. tripadvisor now searches more than 200 booking sites to find the hotel you want and save you up to 30%. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor.

all right. "the new york times" and "washington post" report that president trump's lawyers and aides are looking for ways to discredit special counsel robert mueller's investigation into russian connections. "the new york times" even suggests that the trump administration is taking a page from the clinton administration which publicly challenged ken starr in the 1990s. i want to bring in jason miller and paul begala. jason worked for the trump campaign, paul worked for president bill clinton. now they both work for cnn, so they have to answer my questions. jason, i want to start with you here. is the white house and the

outside advisers trying to discredit the investigation, present the idea of a conflict of interest? it sure sounds like that when the president was interviewing with t"the new york times"? >> i'm not part of the president's external legal team or external kmauncommunications, but it sounds like these lawyers are doing their job, which is to go through and look for every pushback point to go through and make the case that they're defending the president. and to make sure we're rooting out any conflict of interest. and if anything, the white house would be wise to follow the playbook that the gentleman sitting next to me helped implement 20 years ago. this guy was an absolute genius, calling out the corruption and witch hunts and calling out the political dynamics of an investigation we saw 20 years ago. and paul begala helped write the back. and i think the trump white house would be smart to go and follow that. because, look, here's the bottom line. right after the election, it was the talk about hillary clinton winning the popular vote, in an effort to try to discredit the trump presidency.

>> she did win the popular vote. >> but it was a way to undermine, saying that president trump wasn't really the president. that's what all that talk was. >> i'm not sure that the popular vote has anything to do with the bob mueller investigation. but let's go to your first point, which is, paul begala, you did have an awful lot to say about -- >> i still do. don't get me started. call me in $70 million and five years, when mueller is investigating donald trump's sex life. it's a completely different situation. first, we had a special counsel in white water named robert fisk, a career prosecutor, republican, who was investigating white water. not a peep from us, full cooperation, no criticism. he was a prosecutor, like mueller. ken starr, the white water case was his first case as a prosecutor. he never did a traffic ticket. he was put in there by a political process. republican federal judges forced him in. and he started right away looking into bill clinton's sex life.

it has nothing to do with real estate, a completely different situation. it's not going to work. jason, i can tell you, star was incompetent, star was politically biased, star was forced in there and he was sex obsessed. >> -- >> no, i didn't interrupt you. mueller is a war hero and career prosecutor and fbi director. on top of that, president trump, i sometimes get caught saying that, president trump, our president, my president, goes out of his way to judge gonzalo curiel, who's presiding over a civil case he's involved in, demeans him for being a mexican america, attacks the rest of the judiciary, calls them so-called judges. this is an all-out war on the rule of law by our president. >> that's not at all what this is about. what this is about is making sure that this investigation stays focused on what this investigation is supposed to be about, which was there some supposed cooperation between the campaign and a foreign entity. and the answer is no. >> well, there's one other really important distinction.

no matter how much we criticize ken starr, the president, president clinton, had no power to fire him. he didn't work for us. bob mueller, at the end of the day, is not protected by the law that protected ken starr, because that law, thank god, has lapsed. it was a crumby law. but when president trump goes after mueller, after the attorney general and the justice department, he is purposefully trying to undermine the rule of law. the investigation into whether or not he was corrupt. >> rod rosenstein, who is the person who i a pointed special counsel robert mueller, the drections, his charge, robert mueller, was look into possible connections that might have come up in the russia investigation, which he hasn't determined yet. you say it's over, it's not over yet. but also, matters that may come up in the investigation, which lawyer ds s -- jonathan turley,n lawyers who have defended the president in some cases, lawyers will note is an incredibly broad apartment. matters that may come up in the course of the investigation. if the investigation turns up

things of questionable legality, why not look into that? >> and i think it's perfectly fair for this administration and the administration's legal team to call out what appears to be a big fishing expedition. i think it's perfectly fair for the administration to call out where there might be conflict of interests. this is what legal teams are supposed to do, to set the stage and communicate their message to people. i think they're doing their job and it's good they're pushing back. >> i agree with that. no one's above criticism, including mr. mueller, who is a war hero with an unblemished record, and his team. but when you fit into the context of this all-out war of our president attacking the actiac acting fbi director, former fbi director, federal judges, this guy, i'm telling you, like he's one pair of sunglasses away from standing on the truman balcony, rolling tanks down constitution avenue. >> one of the things that trump allies have pointed out, is that there are members of robert mueller's staff who gave to democrats. >> which raises the important

question -- >> so what? >> well, if you were reversed, you wouldn't point out -- >> absolutely. but let's look at the proof. let's look at how they conduct their investigation. star was appointed to an investigative real estate deal, he winds up prying into clinton's sex life. mueller has been appointed to investigate whether not just the president but larger entities corruptly tried to buy us our election. and other matters that come up, like obstruction of justice and perjury. and we got to at least let him do his job, let him try. >> should the president fire robert mueller? >> i'm not going to wade into that. but i think the point that paul is getting to, if you look at it from my perspective, what democrats are really upset about here is the fact that hillary clinton lost and they're trying to have this cloud. they want to have a cloud. >> but is it actually democrats were not involved in the president talking to "the new york times" and suggesting there should be parameters of bob mueller's investigation. they weren't in that interview. nor were they part of these stories that came up talking about robert mueller. >> we see the partisanship

coming from the hill -- >> but do you see it coming from robert mueller? do you see partisanship coming from robert mueller? >> i haven't seen anything yet, but i think it's smart for the president's legal team to go ahead they're pushing back, and make sure there aren't conflic s s of interest and make sure they do their job. >> bill clinton even had to give blood to ken starr. will our president obey the rule of law and turn over his tax ifs mueller asks them? >> stay tuned. >> that will be in our next episode. of the russia investigation, guys. thanks so much. al singh, alisyn, back to you. >> so how much authority does the president have in terms of pardons? of course, her pardon his aides? can he pardon family members? can he pardon himself? we discuss the law, straight ahead. when heartburn hits fight back fast with new tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite.

crunchy outside. chewy inside. tum tum tum tum new tums chewy bites. whimper yap yap yap yip is your dog trying to tell you something? allergic itch in dogs is a medical condition that's more common and treatable than you think. that's why there's prescription apoquel: the revolutionary medicine that's giving millions of dogs the relief they deserve. apoquel goes to the source of the itch to provide relief in as little as 4 hours. woof and apoquel is safe without many of the side effects associated with the use of steroids. apoquel is for the control of itch associated with allergic dermatitis and the control of atopic dermatitis in dogs. do not use apoquel in dogs less than 12 months old or those with serious infections. apoquel may increase the chance of developing serious infections and may cause existing parasitic skin infestations or pre-existing cancers to worsen. do not use in breeding, pregnant, or lactating dogs. most common side effects are vomiting and diarrhea. don't wait. ask your veterinarian

about apoquel today. apoquel. it's itch relief worth barking about. bark dad: flash drives? yup. that's dad taking care of business. laptop setup? yup. but who takes care of dad? office depot, office max. this week, all hp ink, buy one get one 30% off. ♪ taking care of business

casper's truly changed our lives. buy one get one 30% off. ♪ a mattress of unparalleled value. love at first night. ♪ (grunts) i'm a softer, happier, friendlier version of myself. (surps drink) perfect sleep changes people. (kisses baby) transform your life at casper.com try their mattress for 100 nights with free shipping and returns. casper.

new reporting that the president's eleg ee's legal teag to undermine the special counsel. >> the special counsel should not move outside the scope of the investigation. >> he was basically saying, i'll fire you if you go beyond this limit. >> the president has asked the question about whether he can pardon his family members, himself. >> there's something about russia that sets him off. i'm sorry it happened. nine years away from your family is just, just not worth it. >> he claimed that he had led a conflict-free