fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today. i'm michael smerkonish in philadelphia. we welcome viewers in the united states and around the world. robert mueller's investigation seems to be getting closer to the white house gates. former national security adviser michael flynn pleads guilty to lying to the fbi about his communications with the russian ambassador. and is cooperating with mueller. he seems to be implicating jared kushner and where is this headed? the gop tax cut ekes

through, but is it worth the $1 trillion-plus debt price tag? i will ask the father of the supply side economics. and the undocumented homeless immigrant who been deported five times, found not guilty in the death of healey steinle? and activists already waiting outside the supreme court of the united states for tuesday's historic argument about the case of the evangelical baker who said he is a first amendment right not to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. but first, with regard to michael flynn, i, too, intend to read the tea leaves, we want to know where this is headed. but first the facts. the former trump national security adviser pled guilty friday to lying to the fbi about conversations with russia's ambassador. and disclosed that he's cooperating with the special council's office. in a moment i'll welcome someone

who both prosecuted and defended individuals in similar circumstanc circumstances. but let's start with what we know. we know that michael flynn pled guilty we know he did so pursuant to a written agreement. we know that he will cooperate. and that he will get a sentencing break so long as he fulfills his end of the bargain. and we know he pled guilty to the felony of falsehood which will make his credibility problematic, in front of any jury that may evaluate his testimony. that's what we know. now in the realm of my own legal analysis, here's some observations, it occurs to me that if they had something else on flynn, they would probably have charged him with it. because this former three-star general is now an admitted liar. and from the standpoint of his use as a future witness, he would be better off having admitted to kidnapping than lying. a defense lawyer in the future will have a field day based on what flynn has admitted to.

so for if example the special counsel robert mueller had him on the logan act he would probably have charged him on that. if he proved that he had kpired with the trump campaign. bleeding guilty brokering a deal with russia is much better than admitting that he lied with the government when it comes to his future use as a witness. joining me is john brownly, a former u.s. attorney, served at a justice department for a decade. he now runs the white collar criminal defense and he was bob mcdonald's lead trial counsel in the most important prosecution of a public servant recently. one that caused the supreme court to rewrite the law. counselor, if they had him on more, would they have brought it? >> not necessarily. think in trying to evaluate plea negotiations for criminal

defendants like general flynn, a lot of what you see with regard to what he pleads guilty to is balanced against the type of information that he can provide. and so none of us know what he is saying, none of us know what he's going to tell the special counsel. but i don't believe that the nature of his offense, which i agree, is fairly, the type of sentence that he's going to get which is almost zero here, is a great deal for him. but i'm not so sure can you interpret that as saying that he didn't commit other crimes or that necessarily that his cooperation is going to be not all that helpful. >> so put your holland and knight hat on and not your hat as a former u.s. attorney, you'd have a field day with someone who admitted to the felony of lying. >> i think that's right. i think that if you look at general flynn, this is someone who both president obama and attorney general yates had warned folks not to trust this is an individual who was terminated from his job as

national security adviser because he was untruthful to the vice president and now this is someone who has pled guilty to a felony, providing false information to an fbi agent. so his credibility as a witness, his ability to be believed on other significant matters, has been significantly damaged by his own conduct. so the special counsel, if he intends to use him to provide information as to others is going to have to corroborate that. is going to have to find independent evidence that supports whatever he says about anyone else. so his value as a witness quite frankly is not all that great. despite the fact that the significance of the plea itself. >> okay. to your response of a moment ago, is it implied that he does have information on someone else? >> i believe so. i think that if you look at the plea agreement in and of itself, it is, it has a cooperation piece of it, paragraph seven and eight of the plea agreement speak to the cooperation.

and i think it is implicit in the agreement that the special counsel believes that he will provide what we call substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another. and certainly he anticipates providing that kind of substantial assistance to the special counsel in order to get the very low sentence that he's been promised. which is practically nothing in a very small fine. so both sides have incentives here. but general flynn has every incentive now to provide as much information as he possibly can. he may have already sat down for interviews. but, no, this plea agreement is built for the cooperator and he has every incentive now to cooperate with the special counsel. that doesn't mean what he has is of all that value. we just don't know at this point. because we have no idea what he is saying or the individuals that he's talking about. >> you're a former united states attorney. harry litman is also a former united states attorney in the

new york city he said that this all portends the likelihood of impeachable charges being brought against the president of the united states. do you agree with that? >> you know, i just think that professor litman has gotten a little bit ahead on this. i think that what happened yesterday is significant for kind of three reasons. i think one, this is the national security adviser for the president of the united states. it's one of the most significant jobs in government. and, and so, the president relies on his advice for the national security of our country. and the fact that he committed a felony while national security adviser is significant. i also think it's important as we talked about. because he's cooperating. and then i also think it's significant because of the message that it sends. if you look at his day yesterday, compared to that of paul manafort, mr. manafort didn't cooperate. he got multiple felonies. every crime they could think of they dropped on his head. decades of exposure. prison time. $11 million bond package just to get out from house arrest. compared to general flynn, he

walked in, walked out, he's on his own pr and is probably not going to spend a moment in prison so the message something important there are two important caveats. one, the general flynn's credibility as a witness has been damaged. is damaged. and most people would find him to be unbelievable. unless it's corroborated. and then secondly, that the, the case in and of itself is, is doesn't show any substantive charges. what you have is plea agreements for both papadopoulos and general flynn, process crimes. these are crimes of lying. but there's been no allegations to date and no evidence presented in any of the papers that have been filed in open court to support a substantive count of collusion, conspiracy or anything like that. now that, that may come. but today to date. there has simply been no evidence of that. >> and that goes for gates it goes for manafort.

for papadopoulos, as well as for flynn. thank you so much for being here, we appreciate your analysis. >> tell me your thoughts, tweet me @smerkonish. i will read some tweets during the course of this program. >> i believe he is building an air-tight case, it will be interesting to see if trump tries to pardon him sometime soon says angela. but an airtight case for what? to my guest's big-picture view at the end, so farthest are as he puts it, process crimes that don't get to the underlying question that we all have pertaining to conspiracy, said differently -- collusion. up ahead that tax cut that passed late last night, estimated to increase the debt by more than $1 trillion. is it worth the price? i'm about to talk to the originator of the laffer curve.

. it's eye therapy. dry eye symptoms are caused by a salt imbalance. theratears® unique electrolyte formula, quickly restores the natural balance. so your eyes will thank you. more than eye drops, dry eye therapy. theratears®. - [narrator] custom ink t-shirts have this incredible power to bring people together for families, school groups, reunions, and companies big and small. so for your next gathering or event, visit customink.com. our design lab has tons of fonts, colors, and amazing artwork to choose from. you can even upload your own logo, and we'll help make it perfect. check out our huge selection of custom t-shirts and more. you'll even get free shipping. get started today at customink.com. ytha...oh, burnt-on gravy?ie.. ...gotta rinse that. nope. no way. nada. really? dish issues? throw it all in.

cascade platinum powers through even burnt-on gravy. nice. cascade. helping small businesses.ut, jamie -- damage your vehicle? we got you covered. [ glass shatters ] property damage? that's what general liability's for. what?! -injured employee? -ow. workers' comp helps you pay for a replacement. what's happening? this is carla. how's it going? and if anything comes up, our experts are standing by. ♪ boo!

after a hall of fame career, it's no wonder why i use blue-emu arthritis cream. blue-emu's non-greasy, deep-penetrating formula gets down deep into those joints for big time pain relief. blue-emu, it works fast and you won't stink.

your privacy makes you myt number 1 place to go number 2. i love you, but sometimes you stink. febreze air effects doesn't just mask, it cleans away odors. because the things you love the most can stink. and try febreze small spaces to clean away odors for up to 30 days. breathe happy with febreze.

departing the white house this morning for new york, president trump made his first comments since the senate passed its version of the tax bill and on the plea of michael flynn. >> it was a fantastic evening last night. we passed the largest tax cuts in the history of our country and many other things along with it. tremendous tax reform. but it was the biggest package in terms of tax cuts ever passed in our country. now we go on to conference and something beautiful is going to come out of that. people are going to be very, very happy. they're going to get tremendous, tremendous tax cuts and tax relief. and that's what this country needs. one other thing, business tax, all the way down from 35 to 20,

it could be 22 when it comes out it could also be 20. we're going to see what ultimately comes out. but we now go into what i call the mixer. the mixer is conference and out of that, the house republicans and the senate republicans are going to pick something that will be truly spectacular. in addition, though, we have other things that we approved last night. which really make it some package. these are the biggest tax cuts in the history of our country. >> no, i'm not. what has been shown is no collusion. no collusion. there's been absolutely, there's been absolutely no collusion. so we're very happy and frankly, last night was one of the big nights. we'll see what happens. thank you all very much. thank you very much.

>> the gop tax bill that president trump was bragging about past last night despite the fact that the cbo says it adds $1.4 trillion in debt. now republicans have always believed tax cuts largely pay for themselves and have preached fiscal responsibility. that's why their new tax code ran into problem when is the nonpartisan committee on taxation calculated that the amount of growth it generate wod cover only a third of its cost. the gop believes in the so-called supply side theory of economics that was born 43 years ago this month literally on a dinner napkin when an economist named arthur laffer was having dinner with four administration officials, including dick cheney and donald rumsfeld. he drew a curve to illustrate his theory. government spending doesn't stimulate demand and heavy taxes can stifle the economy. on one end of what we call the laffer curve, the government taxes everyone at zero percent

so it gets no revenue. it if it taxes at 100%, the same thing would happen. no revenue because nobody has incentive to earn or spend. he concluded that lower taxes would spur the economy. his supply side economics became a cornerstone of president ronald reagan's economic policy. resulting in one of the biggest tax cuts in history and tax revenues soared thereafter. his napkin resides in the smithsonian. but critics still think the trickle-down theory of economics does not work. joining me economist and former economic adviser to president ronald reagan is dr. arthur laffer. you premise something, you get less of it tax something less, you get more of it when you tax less, you don't necessarily create enough revenue to make up for the loss of revenue, is that accurate? >> that's very accurate. sometimes when you raise tax rates you collect more revenues and sometimes when you raise tax rates you collect less revenues. it depends on where you are in

call the laffer curve. but it's good to see you, michael, again. >> the president just left the white house this morning en route to new york and he proclaimed this the largest tax cut in history. but what about the cost? what about the fact that both the cbo and the joint committee on taxation say that this is going to be a stunner with regard to the national debt? >> they're wrong, they're just plain wrong what they do look at is economic growth and that's true, that's a huge improkt of what the cbo used to do and what the joint committee on taxation used to do as well. what they miss, michael is they miss the behavioral responses. companies are going to shelter less income. that has nothing to do with growth. there's going to be less tax evasion because it's not as profitable. businesses are going to relocate their corporate headquarters in the u.s. and there are all sorts of secondary revenues of income taxes, payroll taxes, medicare, medicaid taxes, ex-ize taxes.

state and local taxes are going to rise enormously, even though there's no change in tax rates state and local levels, it's a huge, huge windfall for tax revenues over a ten-year period. >> the president was similarly touting that the corporate tax rate will tumble from 35%, maybe it goes to 20. he just said this morning that maybe it will end up at 22. corporations today are not suffering. the economy by many different measuring sticks is robust. maybe not with regard to waejs, but you take a look at what's going on on wall street right now. my question, dr. laffer is this why do those corporations at this moment in time need such a break? >> well let me just say that wall street is in response to what is going to happen. stock prices don't tell us what has happened. tell us what they think is going to happen. and there's a huge rise in stock

prices because people expect a boom in the economy and that will inur to everyone's benefit. when i look at these taxes i think it will spur economic growth. i think it will do a good job. it could be a lot better bill than it is. but you'll get higher wages for those people currently employed and the big one for me, michael is that people who don't have jobs now will be able to get jobs and have jobs. we under reagan, i think we created almost 20 million jobs under the regan bull market there because of the tax cuts primarily. >> i gave you credit during the read-in to this conversation, dr. laffer. >> thank you. >> let me finish this question, you might not be thanking me. >> i gave you credit for the fact that ronald reagan followed your advice and that revenues increased. but part two of that is ultimately, he then did have to increase taxes and you know that critics would say that bill clinton for whom i know you voted, i think twice.

>> i did. >> that clinton and the tax increases on his watch actually belie the laffer curve theory. respond to both of those criticisms. >> bill clinton was the biggest tax cutter of all. very close to reagan and kennedy. he cut government spending as a share of gdp by almost 3.5 percentage points, more than the next four peace time presidents combined. bill clinton got rid of the retirement test on social security. he put in welfare reform. the biggest capital gains tax reduction in u.s. history. he exempted owner-occupied homes from capital gains taxation. clinton did raise the two highest marginal tax rates, that's true and that's what everyone else focuses on. that's minor compared to the really pro-growth tax cuts he put in. that's why i voted for him. i didn't vote for him because he's a democrat or a republican. i voted for him because he was a very good pro growth president. >> a third criticism that you're accustomed to responding to --

kansas. sam brownback did what the laffer curve recommends, it didn't play out so well in kansas. what went wrong? >> well first place, it was sam's tax cut. but i did go down there and i did think it was a good one. it was a $90 million tax cut on a budget of a little over $5 billion. it was a very small one. and then when they finally changed it around, the senate changed it around and took away all the offsets sam had, it became a $280 million tax cut and then they had all sorts of increases in spending and by the way kansas didn't do badly. with falling oil prices, falling agricultural prices. kansas is pretty, is pretty exposed to those types of events and if you want to know the real truth that's i think proof of what happened in kansas, is in response to sam brownback's taxes in kansas, missouri cut its taxes because it was losing all their businesses in kansas city, missouri, to kansas city, kansas. so flattery i guess is the best form of flattery is emulation, i

guess, isn't it in. >> here's my own version of it. let me say i hope you're right. because we've got a $20 trillion debt already and we can ill afford throwing another trillion on top of that. >> you're very right. >> dr. laffer good to see you. >> very good to see you, michael, thank you for having me on. >> what have you saying via twitter and facebook, katherine? what have you got? >> smerkonish laffer's curve would work except for one fundamental law -- human greed. greed artificially affects the curve, moving the bell further right. when put into practice it's why the kansas experiment, glad that i just asked that question, douglas, did not work out so well. something else i didn't have time to get into with dr. laffer that occurs to me, the corporate tax rate is going to come down. i don't know where the individual rates end up. what about the individual component? you know i thought that the whole theory of the laffer curve was to spur our own economic behavior. not just for corporations. still to come, a evangelical

baker decides not to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012 that case is finally going before the supreme court this week. how will the justices rule? we're about to find out. febreze car vent clip cleans away odors for up to 30 days. because the things you love can stink. you or joints. something for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. 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.

wifiso if you can't live without it...t it. why aren't you using this guy? it makes your wifi awesomely fast. no... still nope. now we're talking! it gets you wifi here, here, and here. it even lets you take a time out. no! no!

yes! yes, indeed. amazing speed, coverage and control. all with an xfi gateway. find your awesome, and change the way you wifi. the case about the colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is timely reaching the supreme court this week. and activists already began lining up outside the court last night. back in 2012, charlie craig and david mullens attempted to buy a wedding cake at masterpiece cake shop in lakewood, colorado. but the evangelical christian owner, jack phillips, refused. the colorado civil rights commission found phillips libel

for sexual rights discrimination and state courts have upheld the commission's decision. but the supreme court is looking at phillips' case because of free speech claims. he contends, the baker, he was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but the basis of a particular message, endorsement of same-sex marriage. joining me is a philosophy professor at wayne state university and co-author of a book debating religious liberty and religious discrimination. this is actually the story of two cakes, the tale of two cakes or two bakeries. you've got masterpiece in lakewood, colorado. where baker jack phillips refuses to sell a same-sex couple a wedding cake and the state civil rights commission said that's discrimination, but at the azakar bakery in denver, marjorie silver won't put a red x on a bible-shaped cake with

two grooms and the commission says that's okay. sth there an inconsistency there? and how do you resolve it? >> i don't think there's an inconsistency. this is actually many cakes, there's a number of cases across the country about this issue. i think the important difference between the two cases you mentioned, one is a design-based refusal and the other is a user-based refusal. the government gives businesses wide latitude to decide what they're going to sell. we don't say that vegan bakery has to sell a real buttercream case or a kosher bakery has to sell a cake topped with candy bacon or anything like that by contrast we don't allow businesses to decide to whom you sell. we say if you open a business to the public, it should be open to the entire public and specifically colorado prohibits discrimination on the base of race, religious, sex or sexual orriestation. the baker in this case would not

sell the same-sex couple the very same items he's willing to sell to different-sex couples, that's different from marjorie silva had says i'm not going to sell this design to anybody, a design-based objection. >> so jack would say wait, it's not about who they are, it's about what they wanted. i for example if i'm that baker, i don't open on sundays. i will not sell you professor, a halloween cake, that does not comport with my religious view of the world. does that wash? >> i don't think it washes, because a gay wedding cake isn't really a thing. gay people, we order our wetting cakes from the same catalogs that other people order their wetting cakes from. you pick your frosting, your pick your filling, your cake flavor, how many tier you want. jack phillips did not discuss any elements of the design with the couple. he said i will not sell you a wedding cake. masterpiece cake shop, his bakery at one point refused a cupcake order from lesbians when

they found it they were going to use it to celebrate their commitment ceremony. this is one where the use-based distinction and the user-based distinction collapse into each other. it's not a specific design that he's unwilling to sell. he's unwilling it to same-sex couples at all. >> what if they come in and they said, we want a wedding cake with two grooms on the top of it and he said i'll sell you the cake, but i'm not putting the two grooms on top. would that have been a stronger case? >> i think that would have been a much stronger case, but that's not the case that the supreme court has before it this coming week. he would not sell them any wedding cake at all, wouldn't even discuss designs with them. >> professor, are we about to establish policy that will apply not only to the baker, but also to the florist, to the caligrapher. maybe the wedding band. the band gets hired and they say we don't want to play a wedding dance for a same-sex couple. will the supreme court be able to articulate something that will apply to each of these circumstances?

>> i suspect the supreme court will try to rule on this case in a way that's very narrow, that does not have implications for all of those other cases. because in some of those cases we're talking about something a little bit different. photography has traditionally been recognized as an art form more than cake-baking has. the wedding band, when different artists perform on site at different events that's a little bit different from the bake another sells them something and they take it away and the baker, what they do after is none of the baker's business. i do think this case has important implications for whether religious freedom or the freedom of speech give people the license to discriminate. even though it's important, even though it's about cakes, anti-discrimination law is not about cakes and flowers and other frills. it's about employment, housing, basic goods and services and i think it really important for the court to say when you open a business to the public, you open it to the entire public, you don't discriminate on the basis of these characteristics. >> final question. once again, is it justice

kennedy? >> i think justice kennedy is important in this case. but i also think that we, you might look at some of the other justices. i think even justice roberts could rule with the state of colorado in this case against the baker. because if you look at the history of precedent on cases like this, freedom of speech, freedom of religion does not ever give businesses the right to discriminate on the basis of these protected characteristics. get out of the law free card when it comes to anti-discrimination law. i think it's important for the court to establish that. >> amazing that they're already lining up on this saturday, for this tuesday argument. about the cake. obviously because it's about much more than just the cake. thanks, professor, i appreciate you being here. >> thanks for having me on. >> how are we doing with twitter and facebook? >> nobody is going to want to bake a cake for anyone, any more, regardless of their beliefs, just for the reason of

being complicit by one group or noncomplicit by another. we're all considered enemies of each other in this new america. >> hey, shannon, here's my view -- you want to be a baker? bake the cake. you got a problem baking the cake? then maybe bakery isn't for you. i see this similar, in a similar fashion to the person who works at you know, cvs or rite aid and said i don't want to dispense contracepti contraception, then maybe pharmacy isn't the best profession for you. after a jury found an undocumented mexican immigrant innocent in the death of kate stenle, many express outrage. e s behind the heroes, who use their expertise to keep those businesses covered. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes behind the heroes, who brought us delicious gyros. actually, the gyro hero owns vero's gyros, so he should have been with those first heroes. ha ha! that's better.

so, to recap -- small business owners are heroes, and our heroes help heroes be heroes when they're not eating gyros delivered by -- ah, you know what i mean.

which egg has better taste only eggland's best. and is the only egg i'll serve my family? eggland's best. better taste, better nutrition, better eggs. on the surface it sounds

absolutely outrageous. guy who was deported five times shoots a gun, is responsible for the death of an innocent woman, kate steinle. who had just been walking along a pier with her father, in whose arms she then dies, this week a jury exonerated him, the president tweeted a disgraceful verdict no wonder the people off your country are so angry with illegal immigration and many conservatives chimed in. sarah palin, the illegal alien who shot her was just given more rights, grace and favor. than the devastated steinly family. ann coulter said she would still be alive if we had a wall. ted cruz, i'm disappointed and angry at the not guilty verdict. even the attorney general weighed in saying san francisco's decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventible and heartbreaking death of kate steinle. is the criticism of the verdict and the jury warranted in this

case? joining me now is criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor mark o'mara, who famously defended george zimmerman in the trayvon martin case. can you defend this outcome? >> without question. you know my concern and my frustration is with sort of the demagogues who take this and use it as political fodder. the system worked. and the system worked for this reason. 12 people looked at the case, the state attorney's office put on their best case to try and convince them of it. i would tell you i think the prosecution overplayed their hand when they charged him with first-degree murder. that was a horrible overcharge. but the reality is the system works and it should not be deny graded by people using it for political back and forth because my concern is that now more than even decades ago. i think that the criminal justice system is under an assault that we need to be more careful about. the system worked very well. the jury listened to the case, they did what they were supposed to do and we cannot forget we do

not give illegal aliens and i agree, that he should not have been in this country. had he not been in this country, katherine would be alive today. but the reality is that we do not treat people differently once they walk inside a courtroom. it says in the front of every courtroom, equal justice under the law. that's what happened here and we need to accept that the system worked. >> might it be better if you said it this way -- that the jury fulfilled its responsibility? in other words, they dealt with the case as it was presented to them. and the prosecution had overcharged because there was, there was an intent requirement with first-degree murder. rather than saying the system worked. because i'm unsettled with this. i know you, you have to be unsettled with this as well. i think what you mean to say is you can't fault the jurors for the outcome. am i wrong? >> no. and you're right, michael, you cannot because this burden

always stays on the prosecution, it's their responsibility to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that they should get their conviction and rather than faulting 12 people who tried their hard toebt do exactly what they were asked to do, decide the case based upon the law and the facts, i think we should look at the prosecution and say, mr. prosecutor -- where did you fail? because look, i'm very frustrated that this person gets to walk free and we have somebody who is now deceased because of his actions. will he be held civilly responsible? he has no money. but the reality is, what happened in that criminal courtroom, those 12 jurors, i think and i've looked into it, did their jobth and we cannot fault them. >> i'm sure with the zimmerman case on your mind don't like when the politicians articulate their viewpoints. president obamaway weighed in on the zimmerman case weigh in the same way that the president trump was just critical in the

tinily case. what's the message you want them to know? >> when president obama chimed in twice while the zimmerman case was still pending. i was very frustrated. i said to you, presidents don't get to say they like mcdonald's over burger king. whatever it might be. i think it is horribly improper and degrades the process for any politician, be it potus, the attorney general or anybody else, to come in and attack the system when it works. let me tell you something. this was not a disgraceful verdict. so the president is wrong. this verdict as best we know, was appropriate, and i'm very concerned that we attack and denigrate the criminal justice system, which is the best in the world. and does work very well. and seemingly worked in this case, when we denigrate it because we're worried that we want to get some type of yardage on an immigration policy. they are not could be conflated. leave our criminal justice

system alone. >> mark o'mara, thank you so much for being here, as always. >> thank you, michael. more social media. tweets and facebook. one tweet, let's see what it is. this verdict represents exactly what san francisco residents believe. illegal aliens first and americans last. pete, i get your criticism. i'm not happy with this, either. i mean i don't want, i don't want anybody to watch this segment and think that i'm satisfied with the outcome in the steinle case, i'm not,i'm angry as everybody else. but i think mark o'mara makes a point when he says that the criticism shouldn't be vented as those jurors. i have great respect for those who honor their jury service. they were dealt a bad hand, the way in which this prosecution teed this up. that's his observation. up next, james carville famously said the most important issue politically is quote, the economy, stupid. is that still the case this week? i called him up and i asked him.

? it's open enrollment. time to open the laptop... ...and compare medicare health plans. why? because plans change, so can your health needs. so, be open-minded. look at everything-like prescription drug plans... and medicare advantage plans from private insurers. use the tools at medicare.gov. or call 1-800-medicare. open to something better? start today. ♪ on a hotel just go to priceline. they add thousands of new deals every day at up to 60% off. that's how kaley and i got to share this trip together at this amazing hotel. yeah ash and i share everything - dresses, makeup, water bottles... we do? mmhmm. we share secrets, shoes, toothbrushes... what? yeah i forgot mine so i've been using yours. seriously? what's the big deal? i mean, we even dated the same guy. who?! uh, go to priceline and get the hotel deals you won't find anywhere else. 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.

morning on the beach until... it... wasn't. don't let type 2 diabetes get between you and your heart. because your risk of heart attack or stroke is up to four times greater. but there are steps you can take to lower your cardiovascular risk. 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.

why did you take credit card debt on? second kid. private school. medical bills. moving costs. solid ground. a personal loan from sofi is a smart way to consolidate credit card debt. certain borrowers cut their credit card interest rates 42% and increased credit scores 17 points on average. borrow up to $100,000 with low rates and no hidden fees. find your rate in just two minutes, and take on your debt at sofi.com.

so that's the political advice that james carville rode to vickry. he wrote the economy, stupid, on the white board of the campaign's war room, but where today we have such a disconnect between president trump's disapproval ratings and the robust stock market and low unemployment rate, i have wondered here whether the words sill apply. so this week for my sirius xm program and philadelphia inquire column, i called the ragin'

cajun and asked where his words still apply. the short answer is not as much. james carville told me the biggest change in american politics since '92 is polarization. >> the biggest change in american politics i think is negative partisanship. i think the economy, public opinion in the united states. my guess is it's a rit l less. because everybody, each party hates the other party so much. >> i asked where mettics and presidential approval numbers ever align again? >> he seems to be totally content with having, 37, 38 and a vast majority of republicans

and doesn't even seem to go through the motions to try to bring other people into his orbit. >> in other words, it's the polarization, stupid. still to come, your best and worst tweets and facebook comments like this one. but who is polarized? the average joe on the street, political elites, or both? jay, i wish i had more time to respond to this because i love the questions. i don't believe we are the polarized ones. 45% of americans told gallup recently they want to be regarded as independents, not republicans or democrats. you know who's polarized? the media. and too many elect td officials are taking instruction from too many members of the polarized media. that's the problem. back in a sec.

hey if you're in the d.c. area on monday night rkt ticket rs still available for my appearance at the historic synagogue where i'll deliver my divided we stand speech. remember to follow me on twitter and facebook and here is some of what came in during this program. come on, mike, the lying charngs are just the corn meal on the big fish about to be fried. tim's wife, my point was this. if you had a choice of thing that is you could have gotten, if you're mueller and you had a chis of things that you could have gotten flynn to plead guilty to, lying would be at the bottom of your list. because you're harming his credibility in front of a jury as you go forward. so imagine a defense lawyer cross examining him and they say mr. flynn, isn't it true, you

lie d? and you're now a felon as a result. et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. you wouldn't devastate him for that purpose if you had alternatives. that's what i was trying to say. another one. what do we got? smerconish, yes, flynn's plea is a big deal, but are you wearing a spider-man tie? i don't know. i always liked spider-man. i'm wearing paul stewart tie. thank you very much. next. what do we got? >> by the time you learn to pronounce papadopoulos, hey, wrong wrong wright, i did it again. catherine, did i say papadopoulos -- just never put that in the prompter. i can't handle the word and i admit it. papadopoul papadopoulos. i did it again. imagine being in a wedding and

eating a cake that someone was forced to bake. ricky, are you implying that's like the chef who makes the soup that you best avoid? one more if i've got time for it. the anger of the people -- the law worked as it should have. hey, brian mcdonald, my suspicious is that my friend, mark o'meara, will catch a lot of heat particularly at another network because he said in the stein li case, the system worked. that's what i said i think what you wish to say is that the jury performed its role because i think what concerned him and i buy into this, is the people were critical of those jurors. what o'meara's point was that the jurors were dealing with the hand they were dealt. if you miss any of this program, you can catch us on cnn go or on behand. see you next week.

tonight, one-on-one with actor and american icon, tom hanks on president trump and his attacks on the media. >> you are entitle d the to you opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. they're throwing dirt and oil b into a bucket of water so it all becomes undrinkable. >> the sexual harassment scandals working hollywood. >> am i surprised at some of the personality, not hardly. >> and the most memorable roles of his legendary career. >> every poll i look at says tom hanks is the most trusted. the most beloved and popular actor. so -- >> right, guys, give me a big -- >> welcome to the axe files.