we have to be very careful about distinguishing between those two. >> this is a real inflection point for facebook. how they handle this going forward. there could be a real backlash if it's -- >> well -- >> go on. >> i'm sorry, don. i was going to say, i agree with you. and frankly, as speaking as a lawyer, facebook's got very good lawyers. one thing those lawyers are telling facebook is when the justice department looks at whether or not there's any liability for facebook, which is something people have been asking me a lot about on twitter, and i'll be writing about soon, one of the factors that they're going to look at is how cooperative facebook was, how cooperative they were with the government, how much they came forward. and so not only is there a pr component to it, which i agree is part of it, i also think that part of it is a legal component where being as cooperative as possible with authorities is the best way to ensure as little liability as possible for them. >> jameel, the last word. >> i think he's right. it's important the government

and facebook work together on this effort. i think facebook's made good progress in the last few days. what they'll do to work with congress to disclose the ads going forward. i think there's a real opportunity in the government and industry to work together. people talk about the need for regulation laws. when you talk about technology, you have to be careful when you talk about regulation, because technology moves very quickly. american values are at stake here. the first amendment and the like. we don't want foreigners in our election, we don't want to overlegally try to put too many laws in place. >> thank you all. appreciate your time. have a good weekend. >> thank you. it's 11:00 p.m. on the east coast. breaking news on big stories for you tonight. president trump speaking to a cheering crowd in alabama, doubling down on his rocket man rhetoric against kim jong-un. >> rocket man should have been handled a long time ago.

>> and he has set off a firestorm with his dig at colin kaepernick. >> wouldn't you love to see one of these nfl owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, get that son of a -- off the field right now? he's fired. >> president trump also blasting senator john mccain tonight for announcing he would vote no on the gop's health care bill. i'll talk about it with former u.s. senator, rick santorum, one of the architects of the graham-cassidy bill. and barbara boxer, she joins us now. we're getting her shot set up there. so senator santorum, this afternoon senator john mccain said he cannot in good conscience, those were his words, vote to repeal and replace obamacare. you worked on this drafting of this legislation. could it survive this blow? >> it sure can. you know, we have -- there's still votes out there that can be gotten.

look, as anybody who's ever worked in the united states senate knows, no vote is counted until it's counted. some people may say they're not supporting it. john mccain gave three reasons. one was a congressional budget office score. there's going to be a congress budget office score before the vote. so we're down to two reasons, neither of which are about the bill. he's actually told senator graham and others he actually likes the bill. he thinks the bill is the right approach. he said that his governor has been a strong proponent of this bill. it does a lot for arizona. it's going to be beneficial to the state. it is not something that he disagrees with fiphilosophicall he just doesn't like the process. >> there won't be a full score from the cbo. senator john mccain said, not commented on the legislation, what he has said is that he wanted to go through the normal process. he wanted a bipartisan bill.

that doesn't accomplish any of that. so you're not going to get john mccain back no matter what. >> well, all i would say is, that people -- we'll have a hearing on monday. we'll have a cbo score on monday. we're going to have -- >> partial cbo score. >> partial in what respect? with respect to the budget act? the budget act says that the congressional budget office has to give what the impact is on the federal budget. everything else at cbo is not required in the budget act. >> the number of people who could -- >> that's not required under the budget act. >> but that's important for viewers. and for people who are americans. >> if you believe cbo, and i don't think anybody in the congress, republican or democrat, they want to believe cbo, because it supports some of the things they say, but even jonathan grouper, who is one of the architects of obamacare throws away the cbo estimates that literally millions of people, more than half the people they say are going to

drop coverage because if the republican plans, ours or anybody else's, will drop the plan because the mandate, the individual mandate goes away. jonathan grouper said that's ridiculous. that's not the reason people drop coverage. it's because the government's not forcing them to get it. >> let me ask you, senator santorum. who are the americans supposed to believe, the republicans who want this bill, the democrats who don't want this bill or the nonpartisan cbo? >> i think what you have to do -- what they have to believe is actually what's before them. look at what the bill does. >> isn't that what the cbo does? >> look at what the bill does. it takes one $1.2 trillion, all the money that is spent on obamacare with the exception of the money that is taxed on the american people, working men and women, who are getting taxed right now by obamacare for not buying insurance. we're going to stop taxing people who are being punished by obamacare for not purchasing insurance. we're removing that tax.

we're going to remove the tax that is starting right now, next month, on employers. i don't know if you know this, don, but president obama delayed the implementation of full obamacare. full obamacare was an employer mandate. there was $5 billion in tax bills going out next month to employers, about 90,000 employers in this country, and it's probably going to cost $5 billion to $10 billion to comply with all the accounting they have to do. >> i want to get barbara boxer in. i didn't have her responding. i was doing my best to channel you. barbara boxer, your shot wasn't ready. but how do you respond to what the senator is saying? >> well, you know, i served with rick. hi, rick. >> hi, barbara. >> for many years. rick santorum would no sooner vote for anything that didn't have a score. so let's put that one aside. you cannot say you're a fiscal conservative and push ahead. secondly, not one thing my friend said that addressed the issue here.

what does this mean for america's families? that's what's important. that's why john mccain is so brave to do this. because what he's saying is, when you have a bill that is essentially going to throw a hand grenade into the health care system, which is one-sixth of our economy, millions of people got health care because of the affordable care act. now you're just trying to meet an artificial deadline. what is going to happen to our families is terrible. don't listen to me. listen to the american medical association. the cancer society. the diabetes association. even the health insurance companies. you can just go on and on. jimmy kimmel, people who know, they've had to deal with preexisting conditions. this is not the way to govern. and i am so touched by john mccain, because -- >> can i ask you something? >> -- because he's put his country ahead of anything else.

>> can i ask you something? john mccain is calling for -- rick santorum and i were talking about this before you joined us, he's calling for a regular order bipartisan approach. >> yeah. >> is that realistic at this point? >> of course it's realistic. this is an artificial deadline. can you imagine bringing up a bill like this, don, and rick, and you've got 90 seconds to two minutes to debate it? this is all baloney. there is no rush. when the democrats did the affordable care act, republicans said we were being bipartisan. but we -- it took us months and months to do that bill. so what john mccain is saying, let's not throw a hand grenade into the system. let's slow it down, take a deep breath, let's make sure that people are going to be kept whole while we debate, put every proposal on the table including this one. >> but senator -- >> and let's see where we need

to go. >> senator santorum and others who support the bill, their argument has been that there is no time. that premiums are going up, when it comes to the affordable care act. that it's collapsing. and this is their language, collapsing under its own weight. there's no time. time is running out. how do you respond to that? >> it makes no sense. because we do have problems with the exchanges. but that's only 6% of the people with health insurance get it that way. medicaid is fine. we know medicare is fine. we know that we have to deal with some of the problems. but again, we have 20 million more people who are covered. they can go to sleep at night. i know -- i was a senator for 24 years. people would tell me, and this is fresh in my mind, that they get down on their hands and knees, when they were in their 50s and say, i can't wait until i turn 65 to get on medicare. i'm so nervous. if something happens to me.

or my family. we have addressed that issue. and when you play back senator santorum's words, which he's good at presenting -- >> i want him to be able to respond. >> there's no emotion in it. there's no talking about our families. the fact of the matter is, obamacare, or the affordable care act, either way you call it, it's being subverted because this president doesn't like it, and he has cut out all the funds to advertise the exchanges. but we still are signing people up. and we can fix it. last point i'll make. let's bring back bipartisanship. lemar alexander, patty murray, i just talked to patty before i got on the show, she said she's so excited to work with him. she loves working with him. let's get back to those days when republicans and democrats worked together. >> rick, i want to give you the last word and give you a chance to respond. go ahead. >> two points, first on patty

and lemar. lemar alexander said in a lunch i happened to be in attendance, that there was no bipartisanship going on. patty murray actually wouldn't negotiate any changes to obamacare. there wasn't anything substantive that could be passed in the united states senate. the democratic demand was just give us the money and you're stuck with the way if is right now. that's the bipartisanship that -- >> no. >> i'm just telling you what lemar alexander said. number two, i love this idea that somehow or another, if you're out there advocating for a system that you believe better treats the people of this country is that you don't care about families. i'm someone who's on the obamacare exchanges. i'm someone who has a child with preexisting conditions. i pay $30,000 a year for health insurance for affordable insurance, for a silver plan on the obamacare exchanges. the bottom line is, most people can't afford, very few people can afford $30,000 insurance. if that's affordable to you, barbara, if that's affordable to you, don, that's great. it's not for millions of americans. this system is broken.

the bottom line is, i'm out here fighting for it, doing this out of my own time because i want american families to have -- people who have children with disabilities to have the ability to get affordable insurance. get the money closer to the people, allow innovation, quit doing this one size fits all. >> with all due respect, senator, wouldn't you actually pay more if you didn't have the affordable care act, if you weren't on that plan? wouldn't you be paying more money than the $30,000? >> let me just say this. i believe that we should have preexi preexisting condition coverage. let me say this one more time, i think the graham-cassidy is better. let me explain why. i wrote it. so let me explain why. i helped write it with lindsay graham and bill cassidy. it says that every state has to comply with preexisting condition. but if you don't want to comply with it, if you want to waive it, you have an extra added

burden that the obama -- that the aca, obamacare doesn't have. that burden is, you have to prove to the secretary of health that you can provide affordable and accessible health care to people with preexisting conditions. >> the fact check shows you have the option -- >> that's not what the experts say. >> they haven't read the bill. excuse me, they haven't read the bill. it hasn't been released. >> yeah, they have. >> no, they haven't, barbara. the bill hasn't been released. i'm not going to calm down. >> cam down. >> i'm passionate about this. >> rick, you're losing it. >> people and families need to get quality care. right now they're not getting it. >> take a deep breath. i'm doing this on my own time as well. rick, i know you well. and you got very excited. i appreciate it. the fact is, the experts who know this, who understand this, people who have looked at this, have told us very clearly, that

it's true. there's words in there, keep the coverage for preexisting, but there's no cap on it. you can tell someone, yeah, your kid is born with a defect. but it's going to cost you, you know, thousands of dollars a month. >> excuse me -- >> and rick, your -- >> i've got to go. >> affordable and accessible. and it has to be signed off by the secretary. >> okay. >> telling you what the language says. >> you cut out all the money for planned parenthood, 3 million people without that. i want to thank john -- >> one at a time. we're going to take a little more time. go on. >> well, first off, we're not cutting money for women's health care. the money for planned parenthood is being reassigned to other women's health clinics. that's number one. >> no one wants it reassigned. the men of the senate -- >> i'm just telling you what the language does. >> the men of the senate, you

and i have gone on for years and years on this subject. people want to be able to go to planned parenthood. and you have cut out the funding. that's 3 million people. and the fact of the matter is, every single group that we trust the american cancer society, you name it, they oppose this bill. and why don't you just admit that we should do the regular order, get back to regular oerd, hold a hearing, have the experts, you can testify, i can testify -- >> as a matter of fact, i am testifying. i am testifying on monday. >> whoa, whoa. well, i'm not. >> well, i am. because i've actually had something to do with this bill and i actually know what's in it. >> a lot of these organizations who are opposing this bill haven't read the bill. the bill's just finalized today. here's what i would say. watch the hearing on monday. i'll be there. i'll be testifying before the senate finance committee. and look at the report, look at

the score. look at how it treats states. most states in this country do better under this plan. get more money and more ability to care for people. >> why don't you come back on after you do this and we'll discuss this. >> love to. >> this bill is a disaster. i'm proud of john mccain. >> thank you, guys. president trump blasting kim jong-un tonight calling him little rocket man. but what will happen if north korea makes good on its threat to test an h-bomb over the pacific. building a website in under an hour is easy with gocentral... ...from godaddy! in fact, 68% of people who have built their... ...website using gocentral, did it in under an hour, and you can too. build a better website - in under an hour. with gocentral from godaddy.

the president in a speech planting kim jong-un, saying rocket man should have been handled a long time ago. could north korea make good on its h-bomb threat? a theoretical physicist and best selling author, and former director of the central intelligence agency. good evening to all of you. so good to have you on. president trump doubled down on his rhetoric against north korea at his rally in alabama tonight. take a listen to it. >> now, he's talking about a massive weapon exploding over

the ocean. pacific ocean. which causes tremendous, tremendous calamity, where that plume goes, so goes cancer, so goes tremendous problems. and i want to tell you something. and i'm sure he's listening, because he watches every word. maybe something gets worked out, and maybe it doesn't. but i can tell you one thing, you are protected. okay? you are protected. nobody's going to mess with our people. nobody is going to play games. nobody's going to put our people in that kind of danger. >> jim, how do you think north koreans will react? >> well, they would react negatively no matter what he says. but i think he would be better advised to speak softly and carry a big stick. the things that are going to happen and go wrong if he should detonate an h-bomb up above the

pacific would possibly include knocking out the gps satellites, if they're near -- if he's near south korea, if it's detonated near south korea, or japan, knocking out their electric grids with electromagnetic pulse, there are a lot of things that kim jong-un could create that would be terrible. and i don't think that president trump has hit on them yet. >> mark, listen, the claim that they're considering testing a hydrogen bomb sent shock waves throughout the world today. general hertling, is that a realistic claim? what type of response would that bring from the u.s.? >> there's no indication right now that they can do that, don. that's not to say that we shouldn't be concerned about it. because they could potentially do it in the future. the issue, though, is as they were bluffing, as the foreign minister of north korea was

bluffing this, saying that it might happen, there are a variety of ways, i could probably outline about 20 different courses of action of a way that they might do it, if they had the device they could put on a rocket and launch over the pacific ocean. if it's an mauskic blast, or ocean level blast, different things would happen, if they give a warning beforehand so ships and airplanes could get out of the area. this could not knock an airplane out of the sky. it could cause problems with navigation in the ocean. it could kill a lot of people if it's near ocean blast. if it's an atmospheric blast like ambassador woolsey said, it could cause the m.p. problems. but none of that is -- there's no intelligence that they can do that, that they can launch it in the middle of the ocean. the other thing that you have to concern yourself with is, north korea is not any signatory to any proliferation agreement. they're literally not violating

any rules of law, or laws of land and warfare. it would be a test. it would all depend on what the results of that action would be, whether it killed people, or caused great deal of disruption on what our reaction might be to such provocation. >> don't you think it would be catastrophic, even -- i mean -- >> this represents a very dangerous escalation, and a very volatile area. think back to what actually did happen back in 1954. the united states detonated a bravo test, 1,000 times more powerful than the hiroshima bomb. but a japanese fishing boat wandered near the kill zone. the results were hobible. 23 seamen came down with radiation poisoning, blood came out of their gums, hair fell out, nausea, skin lesions. now, replace that fishing boat with a cruise boat. replace it with a navy vessel. anything could go wrong to set

off an international incident. remember what happened to the people in the marshall islands. they had to be evacuated. they went back. it was too radioactive to go back to the marshall islands. they were evacuated a second time. they came down with elevated rates of birth defects, cancer, thyroid problems. something like this could have international implications if something goes wrong, and fallout spreads in the area. >> jim, this is all very frightening. what are the possibilities? because there are some who say, it's never going to happen. but sitting here listening to mitchio, and listening to mr. hertling, general hertling, how possible is this? >> i think it is quite possible. and it does not need to be a huge blast to cause a great deal of difficulty. blast is not what's relevant, it's really the gamma rays. if you are talking about

generating an electromagnetic pulse, which i think is the most dangerous thing because it could take out the electronics of important areas, either in asia, or if they could get it over here to the united states on a satellite, detonating it would cut out our electric grid. there are some very serious problems that could be caused by this. the emp commission has gone into substantial detail, very distinguished physicists on it, substantial detail on these points. and an america without an electric grid is like what the situation is in puerto rico now. everything stops. >> yeah. possibility? how likely? is it realistic? >> first of all, i don't think the north koreans have a true h-bomb. an h-bomb is a two-stage device or three-stage device depending on uranium and hydrogen. the last detonation they had was

five times or so more powerful than the hiroshima bomb. it was probably a boosted weapon. not a two-stage device, but 1 1/2 stage device. they're fudging it basically. however, i don't doubt that one day they will be able to do this. the same thing was said about china back in the 1960s. people said china would never be able to create a hydrogen bomb. well, they did. in fact, the last detonation was in 1980. it was a chinese hydrogen bomb. so i think that even though they don't have it now, i don't think they have it, i think it's only a matter of time before they do. we have to act as if they will get it. >> frightening prospect. thank you, gentlemen, i appreciate it. frizz night lights for the president in alabama to a cheering crowd. president trump takes on the nfl and one player in particular. >> wouldn't you love to see one of these nfl owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, get that son of a -- off the field right now? out? he's fired.

in his speech tonight, president trump had a lot to say about one of his favorite topics, his promised border wall. let's discuss it, maria cardon is here, and matt lewis, andre bauer, joining us via skype.

maria, is your family okay? >> yes, they are. thank you so much for asking, don. but it's going to be a tough road to recovery for the 3.5 million americans that live in puerto rico. thank you. >> we're glad they're okay. thank you very much for coming on tonight. maria, tonight the president brought up his plans for a wall along the border with mexico. take a listen. >> the wall is happening, folks, okay? believe me. the wall is happening. in fact, you probably saw -- you know, we have a wall up there now, and we're renovating it already. it's being made pristine, perfect, just as good as new, although we may go a little bit higher than that. and we're building samples of the new one. it has to be a see-through wall. i don't know if you know this. frankly, i didn't know it until about a year ago, if you can't have vision through it, you don't know who's on the other side. >> a see-through wall? what's your reaction? >> you know, it's interesting.

i think the more that he talks about this, the more that it seems like he's trying to go in the direction of when there is -- >> there's a fence there now, see-through. >> exactly. so what i'm saying is, when there's no physical beautiful brick wall on the 2,000-plus-mile-wide border between us and mexico, he can say to his audience, oh, i never talked about a physical wall, i talked about a wall having to be see-through, et cetera. because he knows a physical wall, the way that he talked about during the campaign, and what he has promised his base, is not going to happen. it is not feasible. the majority of the american people don't want it. frankly, the majority of republicans on the hill don't want it either. >> yeah. who said that's not true? is that andre? go ahead. >> andre said that. and that's not true. the majority of americans do want borders. they all realize, look, when we go through security at the

airport, it's to protect everyone. we're american citizens. >> the security is not -- >> you can't sashay in every time you come into the country. >> andre is doing a sleight of hand here. there's a difference between saying americans want borders, and that americans want security. and saying that americans want to build a wall or a fence, some other physical mechanism to really alienate and instill violence. >> even the vatican has because. we have locks on our doors. it doesn't mean we want to keep people out but we want to protect our family more than anything. we love people. this is a great country, but we don't want everything just sashaying into the country. >> nobody's saying that. nobody is saying that. >> that's why you and i have to go through security. the american people do want a wall. they want something to keep people from just walking in without a checks and balances system. >> andre, don't you think it would make your -- your argument -- you would have a

more plausible argument if the vatican wasn't a couple thousand acres rather than -- a couple of hundred acres rather than thousands of miles? >> you look at china -- >> a border is about a physical wall. mark does have a point. there's a difference there between a border and a border wall. >> well, a wall keeps people from crossing your border. it makes it a whole lot more difficult -- >> there's a fence there now. i do think people want something there. >> it ain't working, don. >> do you think that a -- >> actually, it is, andre. >> it's working more under trump than it was working under obama. >> no, if you look at what is going on -- >> yes. >> look at the numbers under obama, the immigration -- undocumented immigration into this country through the southern border was negative, andre. yes, they have come in less and

less. because it started under obama, and because of trump's rhetoric, they are coming in less and less. but that means that the border security measures that have been put in through the eight years of president obama are actually working. so let's fix the immigration system in a sensible way. >> i know you guys are going to enjoy this. the president weighed in on the nfl calling colin kaepernick formerly with the 49ers, drawing national attention for refusing to stand during the star spangled banner. take a listen to what the president said. >> wouldn't you love to see one of these nfl owners when somebody disrespects our flag? to say, get that son of a -- off the field right now? he's fired. fired! [ cheers and applause ] the only thing you can do better is if you see it, even if it's one player, leave the stadium. i guarantee, things will stop. things will stop. just pick up and leave. pick up and leave. >> mark, what do you make of

this kind of message coming from the president of the united states? >> this may be one of the most violent, disgusting things that president trump has ever said. and very long and impressive list of vial and disgusting things. to call people exercising their first amendment rights, to protest, calling them sons of --. he uses that language to al qaeda. he didn't have that kind of lang wamg for people who were white supremacists anti-semite walking through charlotte. he called them very fine people. anti-semite is a very fine person and somebody who's protesting injustice and violence against vulnerable people is somehow an s.o.b.? that is a terrible language, disgusting language reflective of deep white supremacist impulse in president trump's mind, spirit and policy. >> bacari said he tweeted this out and said, you all remember charlottesville, very fine

people, black nfl players, sons of -- that need to be fired. what do you say, matt? >> there's no doubt that donald trump has this weird, you know, intensity towards certain things. and he gives -- has he ever said anything bad about vladimir putin? i don't know. let's put that aside. i think you're right about that. that's a fair point, bacari scored one there. i agree with him on the nfl, though. i quit watching the nfl myself. i've got hours of time on sundays free. it's amazing what happens when you don't watch the redskins lose every week. but look, i think, you know, there's a lot of reasons to be upset with the nfl right now. it can be concussions. but one of it is, you know, these are -- the people fought and died for this country. we had 9/11 a couple weeks ago. here you have millionaire nfl players that i am paying money

to wear their jerseys and watch on tv who are not even willing to stand up for our national anthem. i do think that's a problem. and look, if you are an employee, and you're putting on -- if i owned the san francisco 49ers or whatever, and you're part of the nfl, you're part of my league, you're putting on our uniform, you're on the job. and you're not going to stand up? that's a fair point. >> hold on, mark. because as you were saying that, i was thinking, there are millions of people of color who are at home saying the exact same thing about president trump. you're a millionaire/billionaire, who's put on this suit, to be the leader of the free world, and still, you can't stand up to bigotry and racism and white supremacists and anti-semite and call them sons of -- and yet you call -- so what -- >> i'm not a big fan of donald trump either. >> why the double standard? don't you understand why -- >> i would be mad -- i'm not a

fan of donald trump either. but i would be very upset if he refused to stand for our pledge of allegiance and national anthem. >> you do at times defend him. >> of course. >> wholeheartedly you just said, you cast off the entire nfl because you agree apparently what the president says. couldn't the same be said about the president? >> matt, do you think he has the right to do what he's doing? >> that donald trump has the right to do what he's doing? or colin kaepernick? >> kaepernick. >> he does. he's also out of the nfl because he's not a good quarterback. >> no, that has nothing to do with it. >> if i were the coach, if i were the coach -- >> he has the right to do this. >> he has the right to do it and pay the consequences. and pay the consequences. >> absolutely. >> and that's fine. but he has the right to do it. when you have -- >> sure. >> -- a country where the president of the united states fails time and again to stand up for minority communities, and this is the only way that a

person like kaepernick has that kind of voice to be able do it on behalf of millions of minorities -- >> the only way -- so the only way he can express himself, despite -- the only way he can express himself -- the only way he can get his message out is to refuse to stand up and honor this country, all the people who have died defending that flag, he has the freedom to be -- >> exactly. >> maybe he's honoring it by -- >> he has the freedom. >> he does. listen, i think people agree with you. he suffered the consequences. but he has the right to do it. but your facts are wrong that he's not a great quarterback. >> he was once very good, i'll give him that. >> a couple of things. first of all, several years ago he was in the super bowl. there are people right now holding clipboards at third string quarterbacks working at department stores last year. kol rin kaepernick is not one of the -- i don't know, 70 best

quarterbacks in the world, is just absurd. it's also absurd to say he's not in the nfl because he's not a good quarterback. he's clearly being blacklisted here. you talk about the nfl owners. they own teams, they don't own nfl players. part of the problem is we're somehow, because we're your employer, we can own you and determine your actions. >> do you think cnn oh would fire me if i tweeted something inappropriate? come on. is this my plantation because i could get fired if i did something or said something that -- >> do you think you would fire you for not standing up for -- >> they could. they very well -- they would have the right to do it. they could do it. >> i don't think cnn would fire you for that. >> first of all, i come on here every week and talk about white supremacy. i don't stand for the national anthem and cnn still employs me. it's not a plantation logic to

have rules, it's a logic that you can control people's minds and bodies and policies. not standing for the national anthem is not inappropriate or wrong, it's simply that you have a different point of view on. >> its-unpatriotic is what it is. >> let me respond to that. you don't get to define patriotism for everybody else. people didn't die for the right to stand for a flag, they died for freedom and justice. colin kaepernick is putting his knee down because there's insufficient amount of justice for black and brown people. we have a flag that we put at black half mast. his body is standing at half mast because he said america is not free yet. yes, he's a millionaire athlete. that's why we should be honoring him. he has access, he has money -- >> why didn't he do this in the super bowl? when he actually was a good quarterback? in fact, a great quarterback? he didn't do it then.

why is he doing it now? >> would it bother you less if he did it then? >> no. but i didn't put any money into it. >> all right. maria for the win on that one. i think there's a very good answer to that. maybe when he was winning, there were, you know, people that weren't being high profile cases of people being killed, that we saw. >> yeah. the times we're living in. >> thank you all. i have to go. great conversation. when we come back, former football player weighs in on what president trump said tonight about the nfl and players who protest the national anthem.

president trump's comments tonight about nfl players who protest the national anthem setting off a storm of criticism. here to discuss, a former nfl player and cnn analyst. sports analyst, and columnist for "usa today." so good to have all of you. i'm sure you heard the conversation before. it was heated and very interesting. i want to get your reaction to a comment by president trump regarding the nfl. >> wouldn't you love to see one of these nfl owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, get that son of a -- off the field right now? out? he's fired. he's fired! >> so, of course, he's talking

about colin kaepernick. >> of course. >> formerly of the san francisco 49ers not standing for the national anthem, taking a knee. what's your response? >> i don't think we need that type of rhetoric right now. colin kaepernick is exercising his freedom of speech and freedom of expression. this country was founded on civil disobedience. colin kaepernick is doing something -- i grew up in the la late '60s, early '70s, he's protesting social justice, or lack thereof, and i'm for him. >> what do you think, christine? >> i think nfl players taking a knee this weekend, than we ever would have thought, even maybe college players, too. the reaction, as you've show has -- >> because of this? >> absolutely. i think that, for example, you have steph curry not talking about coming to the white house. and that he's out there with

that. i think the reaction is just building. you saw the reaction obviously on your show. my sense is that people are going to be angry about this. and that players are angry about it. and they obviously -- for all the reasons we've been talking about. the racial connotations. the fact that trump will talk about this, but not other things. so we'll see. but i wouldn't be surprised to see more protests this weekend, at least in part because of what the president said. >> do you think the owners and do you think they realize what -- maybe the president -- do you think he realize what happened, that by their criticism they may be fueling, i wouldn't say backlash, but fueling the protests? >> i think owners are -- they've pretty much are trying to concentrate on the season and the next game. they're trying to temper down talking about him. they're about the next game and the next day. this topic is going to bring more protests, like christine said. and it will permeate down to the

college and the high school level. i can see this happening starting tomorrow, and going on to sunday and monday. >> do you think it should? >> i think players should have the right to express themselves. i think they will, to a certain extent. >> i want to talk about cte, aaron hernandez. a doctor at boston university examining aaron hernandez's brain said he suffered from severe cte. just to clarify to the viewers, cte stands for chronic encephalopathy. you've been trying to create awareness about cte and other brain injuries. why is this such an important issue? what do you think of this? >> it doesn't surprise me at all. i kind of called this when aaron hernandez was going through this a couple of years ago when he was first arrested. one of them was lawrence phillip

committed suicide last year. i reached out to dr. ben and told him to get his brain. and this is something that is a safety issue in the nfl, and unless they get their hands around this, in 20 years, i don't know how the game is going to look. youth participation is down. down 10% in california over the last ten years. down in texas. this thing is bringing awareness to parents to say, i don't want my kid to have a disease if he plays this game. >> christine, on long island, where i know people who live there that say, who go to high school there and have kids in high school there, they're saying the football programs are being shuttered, because they don't their kids involved in this. let's listen to this and then i'll get your response. >> today, if you hit too hard, right? they hit too hard. 15 yards, throw him out of the

game. they had that last week. i watched for a couple of minutes. two guys just really beautiful tackle. boom! 15 yards, the referee gets on television. his wife is sitting at home, she's so proud of him. they're ruining the game, right? they're ruining the game. look, that's what they want to do. they want to hit, okay? they want to hit. >> do you think that some of the president's stature should be so dismissive? do you think he understands what's happening? >> i don't think he should be so dismissive. maybe he's playing to his base, i don't know. this goes against everything we are hearing from doctors, from science, from medicine, about correct tackling. not to say the end of football, but to do it the right way. i think marvin's right, there are some major issues with high schools and the pipeline. what is it going to look like in 20, 30 years. there's a more important issue about the health of young american athletes. obviously the president didn't seem too concerned about that.

>> marvin, christine, thank you so much. rosy perez on what she's doing to help the people in puerto rico in the wake of hurricane maria.

albreakthrough withyou back. non-drowsy allegra® for fast 5-in-1 multi-symptom relief. breakthrough allergies with allegra®.

the people of puerto rico struggling with the devastation brought by hurricane maria. joining me now is actress rosie perez. rosie, thank you so much. i know this is near and dear to you. you have family members living in puerto rico. have you heard anything? are they safe? >> i heard from my cousin, marie, about my uncle and my aunt. they're okay. but they've been without electricity since irma. and they have no water, running water and their house is flooded. but people in prt oh rico, we haven't heard anything.

my brother's wife, jesse, is missing. he's going to fly down tomorrow morning. thank god jetblue has their services going down there. and we're just hoping that it's a matter of, you know, that the cell satellite is out, and they just can't get in touch with us. >> a communication -- >> just a communication issue. right now because of the dam has broken, is overflowing into the town of isabella, it will start to overflow in there, that's right next to aguia. >> what is it like to watch? i know the reason you're here is because you want to do something about it. it must be tough watching this. >> it is tough watching it. it's agonizing. you know, what i want all americans to really understand is that puerto ricans are united states citizens. i hope they show the same passion and support that they did for our other fellow americans in texas, and in

florida. and also, we need to take care of the u.s. virgin islands as well. you know, it's just that with puerto rico, the history with the united states, puerto rico always gets the raw end of the deal. and right now, with this flooding that is occurring, the devastation hasn't even begun because of the toxic ash dumping by corporations, because of the super fund sites of hazardous waste. all of that is going to flow into all that water. and so we don't know what's to come in puerto rico. it's a very, very scary time. >> it is. look at these pictures. >> it's heartbreaking. it's heartbreaking. puerto rico was an environmental tragedy prior to hurricane maria. it's going to be even worse now. and they need support. they need love. they need money. and thank god we have new

york -- i have to give praise to new york. new york statesmen. because governor cuomo is there. >> the congresswoman velasquez and governor cuomo, anybody else? >> they're down there with the first responders with new york power authority. >> what's the plan? that's what i want to ask you. have you heard anything about their plan, what they're going to do once they arrive? >> what they did today was to assess the damage. and they also brought with them an immense amount of supplies of bottled water, coca-cola, food, cots, pillows, blankets, generators, that such. and then they're going to go back to new york and bring all their first responders down there. the mayor, mayor bill de blasio has already sent down a bunch of first responders as well. and mayor de blasio is going to have a fund-raiser in brooklyn

at the firehouse on fourth avenue. so they're trying their best. the best thing that has ever happened is that the governor of puerto rico reached out to governors throughout our nation and said, we need help. it's a tough time for all of us. but we're going to pull through. and puerto rico is going to remain strong and we're going to get over this. we're going to pull through, and the united states is there for puerto rico. >> thank you, rosie. we're thinking about your family down there. >> thank you for this time. i appreciate it. thank you. >> we'll be right back.

childhood can be hard. if you're homeless, living in foster care or in poverty, it can be even more challenging. this year's cnn hero knows the struggle. when he finally emerged from this cycle, he found a passion for car restoration. now he's steering kids just like him towards the road to success. meet aaron valencia. >> kids were gravitating towards the shop to see what was going on. so it was like, let's have them come here, they can learn a trade, learn a lesson. the wiring, the fuel system, carburetor -- >> no crazy cut lines in it,

nothing. it looks great. and the whole time they're working, we're dropping bits of knowledge on how to make the right decisions in life. >> we're not looking for perfection. we're just looking for better than yesterday. >> that's it for us tonight. thanks for watching. the u.s. president blasts senator john mccain after the lawmaker says he can't support the latest republican effort to repeal and replace obamacare. name calling and nuclear threats, u.s. president trump continues his rocketman rhetoric while north korea threat haddens to test a heist again bomb. and the warning to people, get out now. that is the word to thousands in northwest puerto rico as a nearby dam threatens to fail. >> it's all ahead here. thank you for joining us and welcome to our viewers in the united states and around b the world. i'm natalie allen. >> and i'm george