> i'm michael smerkonish in philadelphia. we welcome viewers in the united states and around the world. the president up and tweeting. quote i hope the fake news media keeps talking about wacky congresswoman wilson in that she as a representative is killing the democratic party. you're going to get your wish, mr. president. so deep is america's political divide that we are now arguing over comforting gold star families. i have a solution -- and it's

not what you might expect. and the president also tweeted this answer to a question i was about to ask. subject to the receipt of further information, i will be allowing as presidented long blocked and classified jfk files to be opened. president trump was the only remaining hurdle to this thursday's legally required release of more than 3,000 classified documents from the kennedy assassination. what might they reveal? plus with north korea threatening nuclear war and the president headed to south korea on november 7, is it too risky for him to follow protocol and visit the demilitarized zone? also there's a senator on trial for bribery, robert menendez. but will a recent supreme court case make it impossible to successfully prosecute any government officials for corruption? and this, another trump football controversy, but it doesn't involve kneeling.

is this banner at a high school football game racist? but first i want to be heard on the controversial over presidential notification of the passing of our finest. by now you know the story, on october 4, four u.s. soldiers were killed in niger. on monday, october 16, the president was asked by cnn's sara murray, why haven't we heard anything from you so far about the soldiers killed in niger? and what do you have to say about that? the president responded that personal letters to the families were sent or going out that night. the following day, the president called the widow of sergeant la david t. johnson and what exactly he said became a subject of debate. representative fredricka wilson said that the president told her he knew what he signed up for, but i guess it still hurt. johnson's mother took issue with

the president's message. but president trump flatly denied the account. he tweeted this, democrat congresswoman totally fabricated what i said to the wife of a soldier who died in action and i have proof. sad. and then on thursday, chief of staff general john kelly who lost his own son to warfare said there's no perfect way to make the phone call. and that he had advised president trump against making them at all. well on that issue, delly was right. presidents should not as a matter of course always make such calls. it's impractical to think that they can call all of the families of those who make the ultimate sacrifice. take a look at this grid, it's one of the many periodically produced by the brookician institution during the iraq and afghanistan wars. it shows this, in may of 2003, we lost 37 troops in issue. two years later in the same month, 80, two years after that, we lost 126 in one month. and in may of 2009, 25 more.

how could president george w. bush possibly call 126 gold star families or four or five per day for 31 days in that one month? and to call over some of them would only invite disappointment from other who is don't get that personal overture. the last thing we want to do is exacerbate their grieving. a better approach is a personal letter from the president to each, a call from a local member of congress and an invitation to periodic gatherings where gold star families are invited to the white house in groups. maybe this will spare us the spectacle of what developed this week where the families of our very finest became political pawns. and if you watch this play out and you found yourself instinctively rooting for one side to quote-unquote win, regardless of the facts. then ask yourself if we, each of us, need to step back, take a deep breath and vow to analyze

all things trump on the merits and not on the politics. our soldiers deserve that from us. now, you remember this scene from the 1991 oliver stone movie "jfk"? >> there are hundreds of documents that could help prove this conspiracy, why are they being withheld or burned by the government? >> all of these documents are yours. the people's property. you pay for them. but because the government considers you children who might be too disturbed or distressed to face this reality or because you might possibly lynch those involved, you cannot see these documents for another 75 years. >> that scene is particularly relevant this week, the movie and the conspiracy speculation that it generated led to the 1992 law known as the jfk assassination records collection act. which requires that more than 3,000 previously classified documents and parts of 30,000 others must be made public by

the law's 25th anniversary which is this thursday. october 26th. jfk's assassination has haunted america for generations and inspired endless conspiracy theories about whether other forces were responsible besides just the shooter, lee harvey oswald. the ohm person who could have prevented the release is president trump. he tweeted subject to further information, i will be allowing the long blocked and classified jfk files to be opened. joining me to discuss and what the papers could reveal, gerald posner who wrote the book on the assassination, "case closed." in which he concluded that oswald did it and he acted alone. i should begin with this. pretty amazing that you wrote a bestseller on the kennedy assassination and came to the nonsensationalist conclusion that the waurn commission got it right. >> the conclusion is the same,

oswald alone what i did as you know, 20 years ago in my book and what the files are doing and they're important that they continue to come out. they fill in the history of the face and they show us how the fbi and the c.i.a. misled the warren commission, how they were hiding things to cover up their own bureaucratic behind and they gave the evidence of a conspiracy. it wasn't a conspiracy for murder as you just showed in the clip from stone's "jfk." but a conspiracy of their own bureaucratic reputations. that's what we're finding out in history. the truth is, oswald killed the president, but there was also a cover-up by the agencies to mislead the government to protect themselves. >> what do you think we're going to learn in the 3,000 files? >> you know these 3,000 files, when you say that, tens of thousands of pages of documents inside of them. there are files and larger materials in between. everything from files about the watergate and files about a attorney for carlos marcelo.

a mob boss some thought involved in the assassination, a psychological profile of lee harvey oswald by the c.i.a. but the biggest news that researchers are looking for is the area about mexico city where oswald was only seven weeks before the assassination. he went to the soviet mission twice and the cuban mission, he was thrown out of all of them. what did the c.i.a. learn about his visit there? did he make a threat against kennedy as some have reported over the years? that might be in the files. that's one of the reasons that people were afraid they might not be released. sources are disclosed in there. informants for the c.i.a. in the mexican government. some might still be alive. it could be embarrassing for the mek cans, mexicans. it looks from the tweet from the president we might see the files in the next few days. >> let's parse this, because he does say subject to the receipt of further information, is he

hedging? >> no, you're right. and that's the lawyer in you, michael. and i'm a lawyer as you know. but my tradecraft as well. he is hedging a little bit. what's happening here as i understand it, the "washington post" has a story, they quoted unnamed national security council member who says both the c.i.a. and the fbi have come to the president and they've said some of these files can't be released. there's still information in here. the only reason he can withhold them under the law is he has to show an identifiable harm to either intelligence, law enforcement military defense or foreign relations, so the question the end about the possible embarrassment about people that could be in the mexican government or former mexican officials who actually spied for the c.i.a. now they appeal to him and if he doesn't find that harm outweighs the public disclosure, he's going 0 release the files. i think that tweet is putting the c.i.a. and the fbi on notice saying i'm going to set the files free by october 26th, unless can you make a stronger case to me that some of them

need to be withheld. they haven't made it yet. >> you know maybe ironically, if it happens thursday, the person that we owe a debt of gratitude to is oliver stone who floated all of these conspiracy theories to begin with. >> it's so interesting i often say about the ole thing that stone got right in the film, is the date that kennedy was killed. he's the true empty barrel in the kennedy assassination. but it is the result of that film going so far out on the conspiracy fripg that congress reacted with this law that started to open up the files. the files should have been released decades earlier. warren made a terrible error by holding on to the material. five million pages have been released. guess what all of the people who thought there would be something in it that would show conspiracy, michael, they never came out. and the last batch of files, the hundreds of thousands of pages, time documents, i'll tell you on this show, there's going to be

no smoking gun in there. there's nothing about a second shooter on the grassy knoll. it's going to fill in our understanding of the history of the case. anybody who thinks it's going to turn the case on its head and show there are three or four shooters at daley plaza, that's not the case. >> you have said to me previously that the truth about the kennedy assassination is that the c.i.a. and the mob did increed come together to kill a head of state. but it wasn't president kennedy. >> you know, it's one of my favorite things, you have to popular conspiracy theory, the c.i.a. and the mob together killed kennedy. the c.i.a. and the mob were in league to kill the head of state. it wasn't kennedy, it was castro. they tried seven different times, they couldn't even wound him and somehow beare to believe that the very same keystone cops who couldn't kill somebody they really wanted out of power, the mob wanted their casinos back in cuba. 90 miles from the united states

shoreline, they couldn't get rid of castro. but somehow these same guys who are pulled off the perfect crime in dallas and 54 years later we can't find a shred of evidence about it i don't buy it. >> final question for gerald posner, the author of "case closed," the remaining kennedy family members, do they care at this point about the release of this information? >> i think that they for a long time would prefer that this information is public because they know eventually it will be. they need to get it out. they would like to have this chapter of history and controversy finally closed. maybe this will help do that for them. >> gerald, nicely done, thank you for being here. >> thank you, michael for having me. >> what are your thoughts? tweet me @smerkonish smerkonish. i'll read responses during the course of the program. here's a tweet that just came in it says glad you will address this i want the roswell file

opened. maureen, i think that the big take-away from gerald posner and from this issue is that oliver stone floated what i believe to be wild conspiracy theories and he did wrong, my good friend, united states senator arlen spector, in the process. and yet it's because of him that now you're going to see it all. because congress' response was to say we can't have all of these conspiracy theories, in 25 years it comes out and now to president trump's credit. apparently that will be the case. president trump is about to head to south korea. the question is this -- has his war of words with kim jong un made a visit to the dmz too risky? plus, take a look is this high school football banner racist? that's how the visiting team took it. and i'll explain.

i've asked chase sapphire reserve cardmembers to find my next vacation. uganda, what are you up to? that's a real silverback gorilla. i'm freaking out! 3x points on travel and restaurants. sapphire reserve, from chase. make more of what's yours. (honking) (beeping) 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.

north korea is threatening the u.s. again and this week official the warn of a quote unimaginable strike against america that could quote a nuclear war might break out at any moment. president trump is heading to south korea on november 7 as part of his asian trip. should he go to the demilitarized zone along the

north korean border? all but one president since ronald reagan has toured the heavily guarded zone that's separated the north and south for 64 years. but in trump's case given all the fiery exchange between him and kim jong un should he hazard a trip to the dmz? blaine harden was a correspondent in the region for the "washington post" and for "new york times" and has written three books about north korea. his latest is "king of spies." he's currently a reporter for "frontline." blaine, should he go to the dmz? >> i think to avoid a chance of bumbling into war, he it would be better if he did not go. if he does go, he should be tightly scripted. there's a problem with president trump when he talks about north korea, he makes threats that are destabilizing. for the region. since the whole idea of

president's visit is to try to find a diplomatic solution. it would probably be best not to risk something that would make the situation worse. >> you have used the word ration al to describe kim jong un. defend that term as it applies to him? >> i think if you look at the record of north korea over the past 65 years, it's that they're in the business of preserving their family business, which is a totalitarian state. they threaten their neighbors. they've done it for decades with artillery. and now they're beginning to threaten their neighbors that are more distant neighbors like the united states, with ballistic missiles and nukes. but it seems to be the same game. which is to preserve their power inside this relatively small country with a small population. and if you look at north korea that way, as a sort of family business that's trying to protect its interest long-term and look at its track record,

that seems to be where the percentages are. and trying to control this regime rather than to go to war with it, makes more sense. >> what does he want? what does kim jong un want? >> i think if you look at the family as a whole, his grandfather created the place in the late 1940s. and he ruled for nearly 50 years and died of natural causes. his father ruled for 20-some yers and died of natural causes. i think that that's what kim jong un wants. he wants to be in power, running this state, throughout his life. without interference from the outside. that seems to be the conclusion that one can make, just looking at the history of the place. they have not gone to war but once.

and that was in 1950 and it turned out very, very badly for north korea. the country was essentially eliminated and kim ill sung, the great leader, spent much of that war in a bunker. was bailed out by the chinese. now the chinese are much less willing to bail out north korea. north korea is bad for china's business which basically is to sell the united states and europe. material goods. so it's a much more risky proposition to go to war against the west and it didn't work out well the first time it seems unlikely they would want to do it again. >> are you suggesting we should be dismissive, not take seriously, not take at face value these provocative statements that kim jong un continues to make? including that which i used to begin this conversation? >> i'm not suggesting that at all. i'm saying that we, we must prepare for the possibility of

war. we must beef up spying. but at the same time every effort should be made to tri to find diplomatic connections at all levels. publicly and privately. try to bring an end to the korean war. try to establish diplomatic relations. try to trade maybe some military exercises in the region to reduce those exercises in exchange for some freeze of the development of nukes and ballistic missiles. to work on all of those things at the same time. but to avoid early-morning threats that tend to do nothing but make everybody tense. >> the president is treating kim jong un in some respects as if he's an opponent and we're back in the iowa caucus or the new hampshire primary with monikers, like lying ted and now it's little rocket man. do you think that has a positive

or negative impact on kim jong un in this situation? >> i don't see how it could possibly help anybody to make threats like that. you know other presidents haven't done it. for good reason. >> but i guess to the president's defense, i would say and what those other predecessors of his have done hasn't worked, because north korea has continued to march on a nuclear path and maybe he's trying to out-crazy him. you know he's trying to as between the two of them, to appear to be the more irrational. >> well you know, that's possible. but it just seems that trying to out-crazy somebody is not a good way to run a country when you're the most powerful country in the world. you should try to talk to people, you should try to have strength and then also project rationality. and an openness to diplomatic solutions, undermining one

secretary of state, with tweets is just not something that's happened before in the united states. it doesn't seem like a productible approach to solving an incredibly difficult problem. there are no easy solutions with north korea. but threats just make it worse. >> blaine harden, thank you so much for your expertise, we appreciate it. >> you're welcome. >> keep the tweets coming and the comments on my facebook page as well what has just come in, here we go. >> absolutely as past presidents have visited the dmz, so should trump, as commander-in-chief, it is his duty. william it might be perceived as his duty, but you have to wonder if it's going to be a match on a powder keg. i can't remember in the modern era, the level of scrutiny and the heightened circumstances that willing surround a november 7 visit of president trump to

that particular low cal. one more if we've got time for it. >> smerkonish, trump should go to north korea boundary and while there, challenge kim to a dual, mano a mano, leave armies out of it. arizona sage, don't go giving him any ideas. still ahead what could possibly be wrong with a banner at a high school football game that just urges the defeat of the other team? well when the other team is called perry and the banner looks like this, we'll look at the fallout of one west virginia community. precisely conforms to your body for up to twice as much pressure relieving power... so you'll sleep deeply... and wake up, feeling powerful. find an exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com

pabut with odor free blue-emu continuous pain relief spray, i can box out any muscle or joint pain immediately. blue-emu continuous pain relief spray,

it works fast and you won't stink.

a friday night high school football game in west virginia. turnpiked into the latest battleground in the polarization over president trump. brook high school was celebrating patriotism week and its football team was going to play a pennsylvania team from pittsburgh. perry high school. so some brook students created what they thought was a clever banner in red, white and blue.

here's what it said "trump perry." a pun, get it? meaning beat perry in the form of a campaign sign. unfortunately, perhaps what they didn't factor in, is that the student body at perry roughly 75%, black, brooks, 995% white. well you could almost script what happened next. the perry librarian saw the sign, tweeted a photo of the banner and called it sickening racism. brooks superintendant responded with a letter apologizing and added policies were not followed by the school administrators to insure a climate free from bullying and harassment. this had some brook county parents calling for the teacher's termination. at a board meeting protesters line up outside the district administration building call for

the superintendant's firing saying she's labelling her own students as racists. the meeting was full of passion. >> you say it wasn't intentional. i'm not sure where the environment of harassment or bullying by your definition, not mine bixt yours. was created. >> right now, in today's society, it means to me as a black person, division. separation. hatred. >> perry parents were so messed up, i felt their pain. you can't tell me how i feel about that sign. >> is there any way out? joining me now the head of the student body at brook high school, ashley eby, ashley thanks so much for being here what was the message being conveyed in that banner? >> so, before every football game, a group of students get together and they create a

banner for the student section. and each week for every home game the student section has a different theme which is determined prior to the beginning of the season. and since the game against pittsburgh perry was the first home game after 9/11, the theme of that week was patriotism and red, white and blue. so when the banner was created, we came up with the idea, trump perry, because trump is synonymous with beat and it is the name of the president of the united states. so whenever the banner was created there was no intention of offending anyone. but once we saw that people reacted the way that they did. we understand it could have been taken as offensive and we apologize for that however the student body wanted it to be known that that was not the intention of the students who made the sign but we are sorry for it. >> i'm sure that the brook players knew who they were about to compete against. did the brook students know the racial composition of perry? in other words, did they have any awareness of the fact that

this was a school coming to town that was 75% black in contrast with the composition of your school? did that enter the equation? did that enter the thinking in any way, as far as you know? >> as far as i know, it did not. i was aware that pittsburgh perry was part of the pittsburgh public school district. so i wasn't completely sure of the demographics. however i was under the impression that there were higher concentration of black students at perry than at brook. however in brook high school it didn't even cross our mind. because the students who made the sign did not have a racist intention. so whenever we found out that it was taken that way, we were kind of blown away and taken aback because that's not what we meant. but as far as i know, no one was 100% sure of the exact demographics. >> right. so this was, this was your school relying on the definition of trump, a winning card, a

winning hand, beat perry. not to say hey pittsburgh team -- 75% black, you're now in trump country. you're now in west virginia, this is hostile turf, so to speak? >> yeah. we would have had the sign regardless of who we were playing. because it didn't cross our mind that it would be taken that way. it was merely a play on words as in beat and the president of the united states fin that it was a patriotic game. >> so the librarian for the other school catches wind of this the following day. she sends out the tweet that i've shown the audience where she regards it as sickening racism. and then it takes on a whole life of its own in social media. as you know. i found most interesting the fact that your school superintendent apologized and said it was insensitive, intimidating and offensive and used the word bullying to describe that sign. do you know whether students were taken into account, consulted before the superintendant responded and put that word out?

>> students were not consulted and that is the source of the outrage within our community and with within our school. within the apology, there was no mention of our intent. and we did not have, we did not have bad intentions, we did not mean to send a racial message so whenever mrs. chute issued the apology. calling the sign insensitive and intimidating and saying it was a harassing environment, the students and the community were concerned because we know that is not the case, we are very welcoming of perry high school there was no problem or taunting by the student section and it was a good environment. so students were not take noon account whatsoever. and as student council president in my several attempts to call student council meetings, my requests were not met. i asked if we could have an open discussion to mitigate the tension because students were very upset and the community was upset and no one took my requests. so -- >> here's what i'm hearing from

the very poised, i might say as a compliment to you, the very poised president of the brook student body. we sure as heck didn't mean it that way. we apologize if we offended you and we're disappointed that our superintendant regarded this as bullying and went as far as she did in the apology. >> right. >> i'm curious this was the first game post september 11th. it took place i believe on the 28th. and you've played other football games since then. for all i know, you played last night. so have the signs now been reined in? all of a sudden now do you have to put up a different kind of message? >> yeah we've not, we've not posted any signs since then. we were instructed that if we were to create a sign for any game it had to be cleared by

administrators. but school spirit within brook high school is pretty low at this point. no one has gotten together to create a sign. >> that would be a bummer, if the net effect would be that all of a sudden at brook nobody put up a sign. so go put up more signs, okay? >> okay. >> ashley, thank you so much, we appreciate you being here. >> thank you, i appreciate it as well. let's check in on your tweets and facebook comments. what have we got, katherine. that's a wild story. in poor taste? yes. racism, maybe. optics, terrible. bobby, i want to be sensitive to those who are on the opposite side of the field but i just don't see it. and particularly after listening to her explanation, i'm willing to accept the innocence of the thought process that it was a play on words and trump to them meant we've got a winning team. we're going to trump perry. but i know from my african-american callers on sirius xm, that's not how many of them saw it. another one?

>> i was prepared to say not racist until i read quotes from the students and how it had a double meaning honoring president. paula isn't it a bad outcome that now because of the heightened scrutiny and the polarization that these kids are not even putting up signs any more? i think it's a step in the wrong direction. one more and then we'll move on. smerkonish, as a teacher of teens, they are absolutely capable of understanding the power of their words, it wasn't meant to be a joke. >> really? melissa? how do you know that? i accept the way that ashley just presented it. but i recognize there's a dispute. and the people are interpreting even that sign, it's like a rorschach test. up ahead, a sitting u.s. senator is on trial for federal corruption. it's bob menendez. but will a recent supreme court decision help senator menendez escape conviction? i'll explain. or discomfortdominal n and diarrhea. i tried lifestyle changes and over-the-counter treatments,

but my symptoms keep coming back. it turns out i have irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, or ibs-d. a condition that's really frustrating. that's why i talked to my doctor about viberzi... ...a different way to treat ibs-d. viberzi is a prescription medication you take every day that helps proactively manage both abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time. so i can stay ahead of my symptoms. viberzi can cause new or worsening abdominal pain. do not take viberzi if you have no gallbladder, have pancreas or severe liver problems, problems with alcohol abuse, long-lasting or severe constipation, or a bowel or gallbladder blockage. pancreatitis may occur and can lead to hospitalization and death. if you are taking viberzi, you should not take medicines that cause constipation. the most common side effects of viberzi include constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain. stay ahead of ibs-d with viberzi.

what comes to mind? your next getaway? connecting with family and friends? a big night out? or maybe your everyday shopping. whatever it is, aarp member advantages can help save you time and money along the way. so when you get there, you can enjoy it all the more. for less. surround yourself with savings at aarp advantages dot com. you know what's difficult? adulting... hi, guys. i'm back. time to slay! no,i have a long time girlfriend. you know what's easy? building your website with godaddy. get your domain today and get a free trial of gocentral. build a better website in under an hour. a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home... ...with neulasta onpro?

strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. neulasta helps reduce infection risk by boosting your white blood cell count, which strengthens your immune system. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,... ...isn't it time to let the real you shine through?

maybe it's time for otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... ...with reduced redness,... ...thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has... ...no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased... ...risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have... ...a history of depression... ...or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla... ...reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper... ...respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take... ...and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.

a sitting u.s. senator is currently facing federal corruption charges, that's a pretty big deal even in this news cycle, what's more fascinating in the bribery case against new jersey senator robert menendez is that a supreme court decision last year makes it more difficult for prosecutors to prove. you may recall virginia governor bob mcdonald had been found guilty of accepting thousands of dollars in cash and gifts and was supposed to serve two years in prison. but the unanimous scotus decision in mcdonald versus the u.s. last year vacated the conviction and changed the standard for bribery. will this help menendez who was charged with taking money if an eye doctor in exchange for favors? joining me now one of the lawyer

who is successfully argued mcdonald's case before the supreme court. he is a former u.s. attorney for the western district of virginia. counselor, i want to show awe headline from the "atlantic" pertaining to this case and ask you to answer the question that they pose. has the supreme court legalized public skrupgcorruption? >> i don't think so at all. i think what really happened in mcdonald was that the supreme court rather than redrawing lines as some have contended, what they did was highlight the lines that had always been there. there was a case 19 the 9 called sun diamond, unanimous supreme court case, that stood for the principle that common political interaction between politicians, government officials and their donors was not criminal activity. you could set up a meeting or host an event or show support for their product or whatever. and not run afoul of the criminal bribery, federal

bribery statutes that were used against governor mcdonnell and are used against governor menendez. >> hasn't the court given license to take bribes, so long as it doesn't relate to a bill, an appointment or a contract? what would stop me from collecting $1,000 increments if i were an elected public official just for hosting individuals in my office? >> well i think what the court said, for this statute, for the federal brimry statute under title 18, 201, the government officials must attempt to do or promise to do what they call an official act. something the exercise of official governmental power and common interactions between politicians, government officials and donors simply don't rise to that level. i think the reverse of that is as the court has said, gets to be some sort of absurd result. if, if you let say you supported a particular congressman for your congress person and you gave that person $500.

as a campaign donation. and then later on, you wanted to go meet with that congressman or have that congressman set up a meeting for your let's say your son wanted to go to the naval academy. under their theory, that could be a crime. so the supreme court i think rightfully so, reminded everyone that this common interaction doesn't rise to the level of criminal activity. we're going to allow public officials to grant their constituents access to government and we're going to allow them to support certain things. all in a democracy that requires politicians to raise funds, sometimes enormous amount of funds to run. so i think this was the right call, a smart decision, it was unanimous from all sides of the supreme court came together and said we're not going to criminalize common routine politics in america. >> so how might the outcome, your successful outcome on behalf of the former virginia

governor, now play into the defense of bob menendez. sn. >> i want a caveat that i haven't been in the courtroom so i haven't had a chance to watch the testimony directly. but you know i think that it's a different case in some ways. in the sense that the governor, i mean the senator is really focused on the pro. why he did certain things for dr. melgren. and they contend and i think their lawyers have got some of the best lawyers in the country. i think what they are articulating or pushing is the notion that he did or may have done certain things. those things are not official acts. but the reason he did them is because they were truly friends, they have a 20-year friendship. and they are contending to the jury that it wasn't a corruption relationship. it wasn't this for that. that he was certainly helping his friend out and so that would make it not a corrupt relationship. i think that's their defense. i think from my opinion.

mr. lowell and his team have done a good job of trying to focus the jury on that issue. who knows what the jury will do. from my sense they've done a good job of that. >> so this, this is the great response that i'm hearing from the john brownlee who now is a knit and a distinguished criminal practice. i wonder if the john brownlee who had been the u.s. attorney and i were speaking to him would have been answered the my questions the same way. how do you think you would have responded years ago? >> i was at the justice department 11 years,dy a lot of public corruption cases as u.s. attorney. we made it a point to follow the law. i don't think i would have ever charged a public official for merely setting up a meeting 0or forwarding an email or saying kind things about a virginia company. that's what they did in mcdonnell. that has never been a criminal act. it has never been prosecuted before in such a way. i hope had i been u.s. attorney and this case came up that i wouldn't have allowed it to go

forward. i think when the supreme court speaks in the way in which it did unanimously, clearly, and now giving guidance to public officials is what they can and cannot do. i think it's important to note that they made clear in that opinion, that public officials can not exert pressure son subordinates to do things or do official acts. if there's a contract or something out there that's a true exercise of governmental power, governors or politicians can not exert pressure on subordinates or others to do these things. and that's real corruption. that's the problem. that's at the root. the traditional bribery of contracts and other types of things, that affect governmental power. i don't think anyone thinks it should be a crime if a constituent who may have been a donor, goes up to a governor and says -- you know can i meet with your health and human services secretary and tell them about my plan? i don't think anyone, setting up that meeting should be a federal

crime. >> it might not be a federal crime, but it to me at least it's unseemly. that i'm giving awe rolex or paying for your daughter's wedding or you're setting up a meeting with the secretary of health and human services or i'm if it's not illegal, it's something they should have better judgment than to engage in. any way, i appreciate your expertise. thank you for being here. still to come, your best and worst tweets and facebook comments. right after this. listen up, heart disease.

you too, unnecessary er visits. and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable. we're talking to you, cost inefficiencies, and data without insights. and fragmented care, stop getting in the way of patient recovery and pay attention. every single one of you is on our list. at optum, we're partnering across the health system to tackle its biggest challenges.

hey, if you ever miss any of the program, you can catch us on

cnn go, online, and through your connected devices and apps. here's what's coming. let's see it. yes, the president should make the phone call for each and every soldier. he is the one placing nehme harm's way. james michael varnes, there was the month i highlighted and i think there were some greater, where we lost 126 soldiers in iraq. the it's impractical to think that a president in a time of war can call them all. and the last thing i want to do is lead somebody off that list who doesn't get the call. so no, i think that as a matter of course, a president should not be expected to call gold star families, as controversial that might be. happy to see you posted the comment on facebook because i'm locked out of my facebook page. the russians manipulated facebook in the election and i'm the one suffering because facebook doesn't think i'm michael smerconish. hey, facebook, it's me. let me back in. i'll see you next week.

but some people still like cable. just like some people like banging their head on a low ceiling. drinking spoiled milk. camping in poison ivy. getting a papercut. and having their arm trapped in a vending machine. but for everyone else, there's directv. for #1 rated customer satisfaction over cable switch to directv. call 1-800-directv. when you get a made to measure suit online from indochino? you get a suit that has been tailored to every inch of your body. ♪ bass and percussion and you get to look like no other. get 50% off go to indochino.com or visit one of our showrooms today. there's nothing more important than your health.

so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you.

there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

and you are live in the cnn news room on this saturday. i'm pamela brown. great to have you along with us and just one hour from now, we will witness a rare joint appearance by five members of the most exclusive club in the world. all of the nation's living form er presidents, barack obama, george w. bush, bill clinton, george h.w. bush and jimmy carter. they will reunite at texas a&m university for a hurricane relief convert to benefit victims in texas, florida, and