or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com. growing out ramg at how widely known his reputation was. also new reporting tonight on turmoil at the white house and their exclusive investigative reporting gets action in the

rattle over one of the planet's last unspoiled wild sam on fisheries. saving lives and properties in another piece of paradise, northern california's wine unlt can. the death toll now stands at 21. evacuation went out. the winds continue to playing firefighters there. cnn's dan simon. tell us what you've been seeing on the ground there. >> reporter: well, anderson, first of all, this fire, this largest fire in son oh ma county is zero contained. the smoke obviously there's fire in the hills. and the concern is tonight that the winds could kick up and send this fire to more communities, including wineries in the area. it has been obviously a very difficult four days. this is now considered the most destructive wildfire in california history.

anderson, i spent some time this afternoon on a black hawk helicopter and two things really stuck out. first, just the utter devastation that you see obviously from that bird's eye perspective. you really get a full appreciation for all of the burned areas, street after street, home after home. and also just how much active fire there still is. and that's why people are still being evacuated. authorities are still going door to door trying to get people out. you just talked about the evacuation order in cal i togethera. so by no means are we over this. anderson. >> and this fire has the potential, i understand to be the deadliest that california, the deadliest california wildfire on record. >> reporter: that is the fear, anderson, at this .21 people are confirmed dead. the deadliest fire, you have to go back to 1933 when 29 people died. obviously you don't like to talk about it, but we're getting close to those kind of numbers.

and at this pint you've got 500 or month people who are reported miss lging of the that does not mean that they are feared dead. it just could mean that there's a communication problem. the cell phone towers have gone down and people may not have reported that their loved ones are safe. but obviously that is the elephant in the room that that death toll number could go up. >> how does it work? do people get advance notice that the fire is heading in their direction? i mean, are there public warning systems? do people go around with mega phones saying you've got to evacuate this area or it just a blanket evacuation of the entire -- i mean, it's such a widespread area. >> when they have that rapid urgency when it's time to get out, certainly there is door to door. if in fact authorities can get to those homes in time. of course, they're also alerting people by social media. they've had a this be of news conferences and of course, you've got the traditional news media as well. and they're also alerting people by cell phone.

so just a be in of ways to let people know to get out. and the biggest concern for authorities is that people heed those evacuation orders. that's one thing that human beings can control. they can control what they leave. one thing, of course, nobody can control is the weather. and every one is hoping that the winds die down, but there is a flag warning tonight, so unfortunately, the winds are going to kick up and we could see more devastation, anderson. >> yeah. dan simon, i appreciate it of the another accuser has just come forward with allegations against harvey weinstein. actress and model car adelevingne. a year or two later an encounter in his hotel room. in the phone call she says he asked her whether she slept with any of the women she had been seen out with in the media at the time, which she said troubled her. as for the hotel episode she writes that there was another woman in the room with him he asked her to kiss. i swiptel got up and asked him

if he knew i could sing and i began to sing. ry thought it would make the situation better, more professional, audition. i was so nervous. she then said she left. she kept silent afterwards because she didn't want to hurt his family. i felt guilty as if i did something brng on. i was also terrified that had ha happened to so many women i know, but no one said anything because of fear which exactly what was hang. more than two dozen women have leveled allegations. anything one italian actress who said he groped her in a new york hotel room in 2015. she went to someplace who asked her to see him again and record that encounter. she did the next time. >> what do we have to do here? >> nothing. i'm going to take a shower and you sit there and have a drink. >> i don't drink. >> have a dallas of water. >> on the bar. >> no. please, i swear, i won't. just sit me s. don't embarrass me mountain hotel. i'm here all the time. >> i'm very uncomfortable right

now. >> please come in now in one minute and if you want to leave. >> touch my breast. >> please, i'm sorry. just come on. i'm used to that. >> you're used to that? >> yes. come in. >> well, despite that, the manhattan da declined to bring charges. he defended the decision today and is taking considerable heat for it given everything we now know, but also crucially given all the plenty people knew back then before that. his alleged behavior was apparently an open secret, open to the point of a cheesy emcee isn't that correcting about it at the oscar nominations. for the women involved, though, this was no inside joke. with us now is ronan farrow who is reporting in the new yorker. he has brought so of this to light. the stories of 13 women who claimed to have been sexually harassed or assaulted. >> good to be here, anderson? ? your piece three women detail how harvey weinstein raped them and sexually assaulted them. for some it's been years after these alleged assaults took place. why do you think they decided to speak now?

>> every single woman in this story, 13 of them, talked again and again about a culture of fear, a culture of silence and a vast machine really designed to shut down these allegations. you know, they faced off against pr operatives who planted smear items. that was true in misgi terr rez's case the young woman in the recording you just heard. there were a number of items that began to appear about her past. they faced off against lawyers. and we talk at length in this story about the kinds of restricted none disclosure agreements these women were asked to sign. >> one of the things in your article, and i urge everybody to read it in the new yorker, because i mean it's extraordinarily detailed and it's just really stunning level of detail. weinstein definitely seemed to have a systematic way of basically trapping these women and then trying to cajole them or force them to have sex with him. >> i mean, there is a number of patterns that show up in these accounts. you know, false preteksds that

seem like professional meetings and then are moved into hotel rooms, bath robberies, mass samgz, really ugly details that are shared over and over again. and look, they also describe over and over again a feeling of guilt, that they felt ashamed of these allegations. and i want to particular point to ars ar general toe who is an italian actress who alleges rape in this story. and she did a very difficult thing here, anderson. she talked about the fact that she we want back to her alleged attacker and that was a common theme in a number of these stories and is one of the things that kept these women silent. you know, that is a facet of some sexual assault allegations, that people do go back. >> the people within the company, though, i mean, you talked to multiple people who worked at harvey weinstein's company, that he used as honey pots, i think was the term you used in the story, to help lure women into his office or into a hotel room basically with the idea that, well, it wasn't just going to be him, you know, that there was actually going to be a legitimate meeting.

how would that actually work? >> so we stalked to 16 former and current executives, assistants, and again and again they talked about this pattern of meetings that were ostensiblyel professional general meetings to discuss career prospects with aspiring actresses, aspiring models that take place sometimes several times a week on mr. weinstein's schedule, and you know, for those meetings, as ugsd, female employees would be asked to join for the beginning and to lee them behind in a room, sometimes a hotel room. and a lot of those executives and assistants said they were sturnd by their role in that, that they carried guilt about that for many years and that they're only speaking out now despite sometimes restrictive legal agreements not to talk about this from their employment, because they think that they have to to, you know, prevent other people from being harmed. >> was there -- i mean, was there an hr department within the company, though, that any of these employees could have gone to? because the board seems to be saying that they are, you know, shocked by what they're hearing. >> look, over and over again those employees talked about how

infect wal they viewed the hr department at the company as being. one of the common complaints was that everything told to the h.r. department would be immediately funneled back to mr. weinstein. that is not uncommon in small companies, but they felt broadly speaking there was a culture of fear and retaliation in this company. >> is it -- i moon, you probably can't say based on your reporting, because it would have been in the recall a, but is it possible that harvey weinstein's brother, that the people on the board did not know what was going on? >> like you said, anderson, you know, anything that's not in this very, very meticulously reported article that went through a new yorker fact checking process, i'm not going to speculate about. but i will say broadly speaking, again and again the sources in this story talked about a culture of silence and of awareness of this. >> what about the case the police were pursuing against weinstein back in 2015? because from your sources that were close to the investigation, was there enough evidence to actually bring charges and why do you think that the manhattan

da ended up pg dro the case. >> multiple sources talked about how angered officers on the force were by this decision, by the d. a's office. and, you know, one we quote actually as saying this made me as angry as anything in a long kroer involved in these kinds of investigations. so there was significant dissent about this decision. >> that recording, that bit of the recording that we played, though, that was the model was asked to do that by authorities? >> this was a sting operation conducted in cooperation with officers, and she was shadowed by undercover officers during that operation. >> and it was to the district attorney listening to that taip whether they felt there was enough evidence to move forward. >> the officers involved from the nypd special victims unit worked for some time on this. as i said multiple sources felt they had the evidence and then it went to the da's office, yes. >> obviously the story has a lot of threads, one of which is

harvey weinstein being protected by industry insiders, by the media. nbc declined to go with your story. you ended up publishing it in the new yorker. do you believe nbc was somehow complicit in that cover-up or why did they ke dlien to move forward with this. >> i think it's really important, anderson to keep it focused on a very brave, very important thing these women have done, sometimes struggling after many years. they really tore their guts out telling these stories and endured a lot of fear. so i want to keep the focus on them. i'll say broadly speaking, look, we talk in the story about the many years of media organizations not reporting on this and some of the reasons why that happens. and, you know, in general i think it's pretty clear in each of these women's stories that one reason this doesn't come out sometimes for decades is because media organizations don't act when they have significant evidence about this. >> do you have any doubt there are more women out there. >> again, i'm not going to speculate, but you will say this

is a story volg a lot of women, anderson. >> this goes back. he's been in business for a long, long time. >> he's been in business for a long time, but this goes to the very recent past too. the reason i was given over and over again when these women told me why they decided to talk which is all downside for them. they said we thought this maybe could protect the next woman who came along and they realized there was a previous woman before them who remained silent and maybe if that hadn't happened, they could have been safe. >> ronan farrow, a great job of reporting. >> thanks, anderson. >> thanks so much. including hillary clinton now speaking out on camera on cbs about harvey weinstein. and later what president trump said tonight and the prortd reportedly chaotic white house he left behind. goin' up the country. later, gary' i have a motorcycle! wonderful. ♪

♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. copdso to breathe better,athe. i go with anoro. ♪go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way" with anoro. ♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators, that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma . it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain,

mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com. harvey weinstein's wife left

him. he's supposed to be heading to europe by now for some kind of rehab center. and tonight tmz is reporting that his daughter called 911 when he showed up at her house this morning. kooshding to tmz arrived, the police, she told them no, it was just a family dispute. this is not really the alleged serial victimizer and about how he is feeling. it's about his alleged offenses, crimes, and what so many people failed to do even when some may have known about them. it's also about those who court his endorsement and his financial large he is for their political benefit and what they did when this all became known or what they didn't do.

today one big beneficiary talked to cnn about the scandal. >> what was your reaction when you heard the news about harvey weinstein? >> i was just sick. i was shocked. i was appalled. it was something that was justin tolerable in every way. and, you know, like so many people who have come forward and spoken out, there was a different side of a person who i and many others had known in the past. >> would you have called him a friend? >> yes, i probably would have and solid so many others. people in democratic politics for a couple of decades appreciated his help and support. and i think these stories coming to light now and people who never spoke out before, having the courage to speak out just

clearly demonstrates that this behavior that he engaged in cannot be tolerated and cannot be overlooked. and i'm hoping that the -- >> do you think it was tolerated because he was powerful? >> i don't know. >> people say people knew. >> well, i certainly didn't and i don't know who did. but i can only speak for myself and i think speak for many others who knew him primarily through politics. but the courage of these women coming forward now is really important because it can't just end with one person's disgraceful behavior and the consequence that he is now facing. this has to be a wake-up call and shine a broit spotlight on anything like this behavior anywhere at any time. we've had a series of revelations about companies in

silicon valley. you know, just sexual harassment and sexual assault being kind of accepted. that's the cutting edge of our economy. that's where a lot of young people have their first or most significant jobs. this can't be tolerated anywhere, whether it's entertainment or tech or anywhere. >> senator blumenthal says that people should give back the money that he donated to them. he donated money to you directly and indirectly. would you give the money back? >> well, there's no one to give it back to. we're going to donate it to charity. and of course i do that. i give ten% of my income to charity every year. this will be part of that. there's no doubt about it. >> well, the full interview airs this weekend on fareed zakaria's gps. joining us now, gloria, this is the first time that we're hearing secretary clinton speak about this. what do you make of it because

obviously she came under criticism there were several days in which there was silence. >> i think she was late. i think president obama was late and i think one of the reasons for that is they're trying to figure out what to do because this is somebody who has been very generous to them personally in their campaigns and, you know, i think hillary clinton's outrage at this was evident, but it was also interesting to me that she made the case in a way that the political class didn't know. and everything we're hearing is that it was an open secret in hollywood, and if it's an open secret in hollywood, you know, these things get around. so the question is how did the political class not know? and i just don't know the answer to that. if you consider someone a friend and you have a lot of friends in hollywood and democrats do, then

how come this never sort of became front and center while they were taking contributions? i think that, you know, is still a question that needs to be answered. >> susan, i mean, secretary clinton, as i said, put out a statement yesterday five days after the initial new york times reporting on this. there are a lot of people that say should have said something at the very least publicly sooner or to gloria's point is it possible that this wasn't known by a lot of the people he gave money to? >> well, i don't know whether she really knew about it or not. i think we need to take her at her word on that. but i do think as gloria said that she was slow to come out on a sung thch she's been very outspoken in the past. remember how outspoken she was with accusations against donald trump with that "access hollywood" tape. she didn't wait five days then to criticize him. i do think democrats have a special obligation to stand up because they've court harvey

weinstein. they've benefited there the money that he's given and raised. it means the bar is pretty high for democrats to show that they think this is unacceptable. that said, i think it -- i don't think it's all good news for republicans because it is a reminder once again of some of the allegations against donald trump and against other men in power. this is a subject that clearly is getting a head of steam in america. >> gloria, also, harvey weinstein in his initial statement or one of his initial statements seemed to be kind of trying to play to those, you know, to liberals to democrats by saying, you know, he was going to take a step back and he was going to focus his anger on the nra as if that might sort of quiet the liberals from speaking out against him. >> it's ridiculous. it was -- you know, it was completely ludicrous as if anybody given the extent of what he did would listen to that.

you know, i'm one of you, guys, i'm going to focus on the nra. that's where i'm going to put my efforts. i mean, that was -- you know, that was just daush-- it's sill. absolutely silly. the question now the democrats have is how do you unravel all of these donations, anderson. you're limited as to what you can give individuals to a certain amount. so harvey weinstein was limited to that. but he's bundled, you know, way over a million dollars or more. we have no idea. he's bundled all this money for hillary clinton and other democrats. and how do they unspool that to decide what they do with the money that he gave to them. i think it's -- i think they have to figure it out. >> yeah. thank you very much. coming up next, we'll revisit that sting tape from 2015 and talk more about why the manhattan da decided not to pursue a case against wine steer and what kind of charges he

still could face. our legal panel next. and he does it with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. t-mobile's unlimited now includes netflix on us. that's right. netflix on us. get 4 unlimited lines for just $40 bucks each. taxes and fees included. and now netflix included.

my ci can worry about it,ine. or do something about it. garlique® helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally. and it's odor free.

and pharmacist recommended. garlique.® if even a fraction are true they paint a portrait of a predator who wield ld power over women, over their livelihood and power allegedly to make the legal consequences of any wrongdoing go away. we'll talk about all of it with our panel shortly, especially that one incident that ronan farrow brought to light. the da chose not to. more of that from our gary tuck man. >> reporter: harvey weinstein didn't know it, but this model was wearing a hidden microphone given to her by new york city police to capture an encounter between the two that began in a hotel hallway. >> what do we have to do here? >> nothing. i'm going to take a shower. you sit there and have a drink. >> according to the new yorker

magazine, an italian model told police a day earlier that weinstein had touched her breasts while he was going over her modeling portfolio and attempted to put his hand up her skirt. police wired her up and encouraged her to meet with weinstein again. if she could get him to admit to sexually assaulting her, they'd have it on tape. she agrowed and went to the new york hotel where he was staying. >> i'm not doing anything with you right now. you're embarrassing me. >> i'm sorry. >> yesterday was kind of adwressive for me. i need to know -- >> i won't do a thing. police, i swear. i won't. just sit with me. don't embarrass me in the hotel. i'm here all the time. sit --. please sit there. please. one manipulate, i ask you. >> weinstein then asked her to go to the bathroom. she said she wanted to leave to go downstairs. and then came this key exchange. >> please, i'm not going to do anything. i swear. my children, please come in.

on everything. i'm a famous guy. >> i'm feeling very uncomfortable right now. >> lease come in now in one minute and if you want to leave -- >> why yesterday you touch my breast. >> please, i'm sorryment just come on in. i'm used to that. >> you're used to that? >> yes. come in. >> no, but i'm not used to that. >> i won't do it again. sit here. sit here for a mnt, please. >> no, i don't want to. >> weinstein saying he wouldn't do it again and that he was used to it. part of an exchange that seemed to back up gutierrez's allegations. >> please, you're making a big scene here. >> but i want to leave. >> despite those words caught on tape, the manhattan district attorney's office decided not to prosecute. saying it wasn't in you have to prove a crime occurred. >> i want to get the panel's take on all of this. keir stin powers joins me, laura

coats and mark gar agoes, criminal defense attorney. so, mark, what do you make of this audio recording? did the district attorney have enough evidence to bring charges. >> you know, anderson, you know, i'm never afraid to second-guess a prosecutor. in this case i think they were right. the tape is horrifying to most people when they think about it is a layperson, but as a practical matter for hitting all of the wants will, they didn't have enough. i think their explanation today rang true to me is the police should have gone to them, shoved them tell them this is what we need. this tape actually, to my mind, is more devastating if you have a separate case with somebody else and this is what they call 1101 or 401 b or like crimes type evidence. this is a good case to force him

to plead to something. but it was not a god case to bring if you're a prosecutor. >> laura, could harvey wipe steen still face charges based on the allegations against him now by the number of women who have come forward? >> absolutely. and not just the women you're actually talking about from that 2015 incident. you've got criminal and civil liable. on the civil side you may have charges against only harvey weinstein in terms of civil lawsuits but also the company. you also have the issue of criminal liability if some of the alleged conduct did occur within the statutory period of limitations. remember, most of this has to do with new york and california. neither of which any longer have a statute of limitation period that was as long as before. so if these are all recent allegations that could be brought within that statute, then absolutely you will have the ability to say he has a lot of liability and explaining to do. but i actually agree with mark on the issue of the 2015 case. what you're missing there from

the audio alone and of course the nypd said they had nar more. what you are missing is the idea of the criminal, the actual men's raya and whether there was a consent that was given or rejected or not given the day before before the sting operation. >> it's incredible listening to that recording just sickening just the way he's trying to get this woman to do what he wants, everything from ordering her to basically begging her, bringing in his children, you know, swearing on his children. it's just to hear it is -- i mean, it's one thing to read it. it's another thing to actually hear it. >> yeah. it is incredible and it kind of, you know, it makes you think that this must have worked for him in the past, right. i mean, usually people don't do things unless they get the kind of results they want. so somehow this bullying and trying to wear done a woman who is clearly resisting is something that he's not only comfortable with but probably actually really enjoys. and, you know, i think as a

layperson here, you know, listening to lawyers talking about it, it just -- it seems to me inconceivable, right, that this couldn't be used to prosecute somebody. and so, you know, that's -- i think it's just so hard for women because you just sort of wonder what does it take if this isn't enough to prove he admits to it on tape essentially having done this before. >> you know, around son, that's a really good point. i mean, it's a splar point. when you listen to it, viscerally you say to yourself how could this not be a crime. but -- and that's what the disconnect is because the prosecutor -- and mind you, the woman who is head of the sex crimes unit in new york, this is not a shrinking violet. shows somebody who president cases and i know there's a whole domestic knicks strauss kahn, but the fact that is that to hit the elements -- i mean, i'm thinking if i'm the prosecutor

in this case, i'm going crazy. why didn't the police come to me? why didn't they tell me or let me give input into what she should have been asking. because obviously this woman, what was she, 19 years old, she was troubled. shep didn't want to do this. that is a great fact if you're a prosecutor. she's not trying to sue. she's not trying to do anything else. and they probably are frustrated beyond all get out as to why they weren't brought into the loop. >> but -- >> sorry. go ahead. >> if i can, as mb who has prosecuted a lot of sexual phones as well as delayed reporting, one of the biggest frustrations and the hurdles is not simply whether there was a strategic alliance between the police department and the attorneys office. it also is about societyal viewpoint about people who are delayed in their report, and that's normally the hurdle you must face. in this case this is almost an instantaneous report that is not been satisfactory for the prosecutor in satisfying the

elements. but as mark alluded to earlier, this has a lot of parallels to other very famous cases we've heard about where there's multiple women who have made these allegations and those can go towards getting this case together about this mo of this person. this apparently is his mo, as kir teen is alluding to. it's been successful in the past to try to brow beat somebody into submission. those all can come together even if they're outside that period to betrust the claims of somebody who is a standing plaintiff in a case. we saw that in the bill cosby case. dozens of women came guard and only one was able to be able to be criminally prosecuted that that. >> kir steen, though, you read ronan farrow's account and the number of people in his office who seemed to be kind of in on this strategy of, you know, women who were, you know, to sit in on meetings early on so that the potential target would feel

comfortable and then they would leave and maybe the meeting was in a hotel room and it seemed legit at first and then all of a sudden everyone else leaves the room and it's just harvey weinstein and the person he apparently wants to assault. >> right. i mean, the thing is it's not just harvey weinstein that's the problem. and we focus on these people whether it's roger ailes or harvey weinstein who come along. there's a whole system around these people that supports what they're doing and that's something that has to be look at. and every person has to look at themselves as well and say how do i participate in the system. we talk about institutional racism. there's also institutional racism and misogyny and how am i participating this this because these people couldn't do what they're doing without the enabling of the people around them. and that's something that you see over and over. we talked about last night about how similar this was to fox news. i mean, all of the same factors are there of the same type of people enabling this behavior. >> and you want to know something, anderson? part of the calculus of the

prosecutors in this case with this young woman is precisely derivative of what she just said. you know, they floated out today this woman had testified in the italian prime minister case, and they have kind of posttraumatic prosecution syndrome from the domestic knicks strauss case. so there is something that filters into that. it's built into the system. it's not just film. it's hollywood. it's music. it's, you know, movies. it's fame. i mean, that's a real problem. >> yeah. mark gather agoes, keir steen powers rs thank you very much. the president tweets and levels a new allegation against the press. up next. flrn we're on to you, diabetes. time's up, insufficient prenatal care. and administrative paperwork,

your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you too. at optum, we're partnering across the health system to tackle its biggest challenges. that's why a cutting edgeworld. university counts on centurylink to keep their global campus connected. and why a pro football team chose us to deliver fiber-enabled broadband to more than 65,000 fans. and why a leading car brand counts on us to keep their dealer network streamlined and nimble. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink. whyou're not thinking clearly, so they called the fire department for us. i could hear crackling in the walls. my mind went totally blank. all i remember saying was,

"my boyfriend's beating me" and she took it from there. and all of this occurred in four minutes or less. i am grateful we all made it out safely. people you don't know care about you. it's kind of one of those things where you can't even thank somebody. to protect what you love, call 1-800-adt-cares whentrust the brand doctors trust for themselves. nexium 24hr is the number one choice of doctors and pharmacists for their own frequent heartburn. and all day all night protection. when it comes to frequent heartburn, trust nexium 24hr.

the energy conscious whopeople among usle? say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.

the president just lashed out yet begun at the press, not only attacking the messenger but threatening to essentially destroy the messenger. he tweets network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be chal lngd and if appropriate revoke. not fair to the public. here van jones of the jason miller, foerl senior communications adviser for the trump campaign and cnn media correspondent brian stelster. you see this tweet from the president now is there any way

to interpret it other than a threat against freedom of the press. >> you could say he is just venting. he is increasingly venting at the honest, accurate coverage of his presidency and his white house in crisis. but we should take his words seriously. he is suggesting that networks, specifically local stations, should have their licenses revoked and presumably given to pro trump owners. that is against the first amendment and it's unamerican. it is the talk of appear awe toe accurate, not the talk of a western democratic leader. it's a shape when the u.s. state department is speaking out for journalists who are detained and imprisoned in turkey trying to uphold first amendment values that the president of the united states is actually contradicting his own state department and trying to tear down those values. >> jason, do you think this is appropriate? >> well, this is one of the times where i have to disagree with the president. i wouldn't be barking up the tree on this one, although brian, i do have to say i think we might have to get you an

oxygen tank. it sounds like you're running out of breath bringing in turkey and all these different things -- >> it's what rex tillerson's state department said today. >> brian, trying to bring in all that into the president. look, clearly he is frustrated about some things in the media. but i disagree with him on this. i think freedom of the press is very important. and the other thing too is quite frankly if i were still working with the president and i was with him right now, i would probably say mr. president, the press corps right now is focused on two things, one, harvey weinstein and two, the fact that the nation just won a huge game and michael taylor hit a grand slam. you don't need to go and poke the bear tonight. no need to go and get into this one. but i do disagree on the issue. >> van, it is interesting for a president who during the campaign would talk about the second amendment and talk about how he loves the constitution seems, i don't know if it's oh liveous or doesn't understand or just, you know, because he's annoyed thinks, oh, well, this part of the constitution, not so

important. >> well, it's remarkable that we are -- this is happening in the united states of america. this is the kind of stuff that would happen in latin american countries, african kuntsz. the united states would be rushing to the microphone saying it is not acceptable. >> that's right. >> for a leader of a country to silence people, to use and abuse executive authority, to, you know, essentially handcuff and blindfold the public. that we used to fight for freedom of press around the world because it was secure here. i mean, it was absolutely here. the idea that a sitting president would threaten local news outlets, broadcast networks, i'm going to snatch your license? that would have been -- i mean, even a novel with that in it would not have been published because it would have been so ludicrous but here we are. >> and to be clear accident r it's almost impossible. licenses are begun out every eight years. they're almost always renewed. it's a pros through the federal

government. but the chilling effect of the words, the veiled threat, even though it's an empty threat, a toothless threat, it still has an impact because after all fcc staffers are going to readed the president's message. those are the people in charge of deciding what happens with licenses. >> can i just say one more thing about this. the president is a part of the republican party which is a party that is allegedly conservative. and so the idea of the government intruding into the private market even further and imposing its will on private broadcasters should have republicans marching out in the street. can you imagine if barak obama had said that he was going to start snatching licenses? this would have been a declared a constitutional crisis the minute the tweet hit the internet. so the idea that you have republicans who say they love the constitution, who say they respect the free market who don't want government over reach have said literally nothing about one of the most shocking statements from a shocking

president is telling in and of itself. you do not have a conservative party. what you have is an anti-liberal party. in other words, anything is fair game as long as you're attacking liberals. and there's no other principle that could explain the complicit of the republicans in this kind of behavior. >> jason, i want to ask you about the new vanity fair reporting that says steve bannon eventually believes there's an egg timer on the president's first time, only a 30% chaps of making it a full time with the 25th amendment looming in the background. do you share any of that concern? the portrait that is painted in this vanity fair piece of what is employing on in the white house, again it continues this idea of chaos in the white house. it just seems own worse. >> so, anderson, i feel like i'm back on the campaign trail where i'd be traveling around with the president. we'd finish up this great day and be flying on trump force one heading back to trump tower or the next state and some story

would pop up that the campaign was in disarray or crazy happening. i think there are a couple of things in the story that really jumped on the at me as red flags that really seemed disconnected from reality. number one, said that people around the president are trying to control them, which first of all if you're working for president trump and you're surrounding him, that's not the type of language that you use, nor is it -- >> but that is what senator bob corker also said based on what he said is his own knowledge. >> well, and again, i think the point that i was building up to here was this is the kind of thing that somebody who is not a part of the team, a part of the inner circle says to try to throw shade on the president and even the point that you brought up about steve bannon this wasn't a quote from steve bannon. steve bannon is out there trying to recruit candidates who will support the president's agenda. so which one is it had? is he recruiting candidates to support the president or is he saying that he doesn't think he's going to do well? it seems like the story doesn't really match up with the actions that we're seeing in real time.

>> but you're saying that general kelly wasn't brought this to try to kind of restore order and control access to the president, control, you know, the information the president got? >> i think general kelly was brought in partially to go in and put in real structure which the white house definitely needed. but there's a difference between instilling structure and helping to run government, which we obviously need. i mean, there are thousands and thousands of people who ultimately report to the folks in the white house. there is a difference between that and trying to control president trump. i mean, that's silly. and nobody around the president talks like that. and -- that's part of the reason why he won this last fall, because he isn't some politician that has to go and have 22 people read all of his tweets, that he has to go and have everything -- >> i'm not trying to understand the difference between imposing a structure on the president and controlling him. i'm not sure there's much of a difference. but what about president trump's close friend tom ar rack who ran

the president's inauguration telling the "washington post" he has been, quote, shocked and stunned by some of the president's rhetoric and that, quote, he's better than this? i mean, that is a close friend of the president publicly saying that? >> well, and tom bear rack is a good friend of the presidents and i had localel he doesn't match up on a handful of issues. it's a free country. he's free to go and express his opinion. i think on a couple of the issues recently i think particularly on the nfl and the national anthem issue that we've seen over the last couple of weeks, that's one where president trump has really won on that one. i think that's been proven pretty clearly. and, you know, look, if tom disagrees on that, again, that's his right. but, you know, no two friends are going to agree a 100% of the time. but i'm sure if tom went on longer in that interview you'd probably see some other things where he thinks the president is doing a really good job pushing the tax flan and a whole host of

other issues. >> van, last word. >> so we're supposed to be comfort by the fact that maybe the president beat up on some football players successfully, meanwhile you've got corker saying he might start world war iii. you've got his best friend saying he's melting down. you've got him publicly challenging the freedom of the press in our country, but all is well because the nfl might go along with him. this is where we are now. part of the reason i wrote the book i wrote. we've got to have a crew side against the crazy. it's gt to stop. we've got to quit apologizing for this stuff. it's wrong for the president of the united states to at that ak the free press . >> the market is doing great. the gdp is doing great. >> in argentina, they had a good economy, too. but that's not america. >> van jones, jason miller, brian stelter, thank you very much. time for a follow-up to a

keeping 'em honest report. last night on the program, we had an exclusive investigative story. we told you how the head of the epa, scott pruitt, moved to withdraw environmental lawmakers want answers. we'll talk to one of them in a moment. about your brokerage fee. fees? what did you have in mind? i don't know. $4.95 per trade? uhhh and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee? guarantee? where we can get our fees and commissions back if we're not happy. so can you offer me what schwab is offering? what's with all the questions? ask your broker if they're offering $4.95 online equity trades and a satisfaction guarantee. if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab.

the morning walk until... it... wasn't. don't let type 2 diabetes get between you and your heart. even if you reach your a1c goal you are still at risk for heart attack or stroke. talk to your health care provider today about diabetic heart disease. and find out more at heartoftype2.com. your heart and type 2 diabetes. make the connection.

time for a follow-up to a keeping 'em honest report. last night on the program, we had an exclusive investigative story. we told you how the head of the epa, scott pruitt, moved to withdraw environmental restrictions for this area, alaska's bristol bay, which is a pristine spot, it's home to one of the largest salmon fisheries. the restrictions for the area were put in place by the obama administration after years of scientific study showed that mining the area would cause irreversible damage. but last may, mr. pruitt quietly moved to drop those restrictions after meeting a mining company ceo who wants to dig a massive mine there. what's more, the lifting of the restrictions was done with no discussion with epa scientists or experts of the region.

in fact, about an hour after that meeting, epa staffers were surprised to receive an e-mail, which cnn exclusively obtained, telling them to start removing restrictions. now, if it goes forward, the protection would be scrapped, wiped away. today the first of two public hearings on the move took place in alaska, for the ceo of pebble limited partnership, it was a huge win. and when he talked to cnn's drew griffin, he had no apologies. take a look. >> reporter: and do you think it was not wrong that mr. pruitt did not even look at what the work had been done? >> not a science decision. it's a process decision. >> you know, the optics on this look -- >> the optics on this are right. they don't look bad a bit. >> this looks like the head of a gold mine went into the new administrator and got him to reverse what an entire department had worked on for years. >> then put your glasses back on, because you're not seeing the right optics. >> well, lawmakers didn't even know about the details of the decision or the e-mail directing the withdraw of the restrictions until drew's report. they do now. some want answers, including the democratic senator from

washington, maria cantwell. she joins me now. thanks so much for being with us, senator. i wonder what your reaction was when you first found out about this and how you found out. >> i'm amazed. i found out from your story that they actually had an agreement, the minute he walked out of his office. look, the taxpayers of america demand that we have somebody in the federal agency that is supposed to protect the environment, to be a fair process. and doing a sweetheart deal for a mining executive, five minutes after he leaves your office, is not the due process that taxpayers want. >> were you surprised how quickly this whole thing seemed to go down? it was just a little more than an hour between when secretary pruitt met with this mining company ceo and when he issued the order to lift the restrictions. >> well, it's appalling. and i can tell you that there are fisherman all up and down the west coast, from alaska all the way to california, who count on these fisheries for their jobs. and to think that you would make a decision about mixing toxins

from a mine with the head waters of the largest salmon estuary in the world is just ridiculous. that somebody would even think that the science existed. so, we went through a process over the last several years, eight hearings, lots of scientific input, that reached this decision. and to have him have a mining executive walk out of his office and minutes later, that's the only information he has and he makes this decision, it's just appalling. >> the mining company, pebble limited partnership, argues that they're just looking for a fair shake at submitting a proposal for their mine and what lifting the restrictions does is gives them a shot at the approval process. i guess the argument is, why not allow them to move forward, given there's still a chance the mine proposal may be struck down. >> because this was a process. so mr. pruitt is wasting taxpayer dollars. he's wasting money that a process took place, eight hearings, lots of scientific

review, that basically said, why consider something that you know is too dangerous. so the issue is that the scientists determined that it was too risky. so we need to base our decisions on that science and quit wasting money from the taxpayers. and ultimately, ruining a fishery that so many jobs and so many family wages depend on. >> cnn did some analysis on secretary pruitt's meetings between april and september, they found that pruitt held 100 meetings with representatives of the fossil fuel industry during the time, only five with environmentalists or scientists. does that concern you? >> yes. absolutely. this is not what we expect the head of the environmental protection agency to do. we expect them to try to protect the environment. it is the resource of all people. it is not a special interest for sale sign that should be in the lobby of the epa. >> so what's next?

what would you like to see happen now? >> well, we're sending a letter from many of my colleagues, asking for hearings on this. by that, i mean, both around the region that's impacted, as well as an accounting of this very issue. and an investigation. >> senator cantwell, i appreciate your time. we'll continue to follow this. thank you. >> thank you. up next, new reporting that suggests the white house is in major chaos. plus, more of the president's threat against the free press.