you cannot charge a president of the united states with obstruction of justice. >> he is not above the law. >> trying to place this in clear violation of the court's instruction, i think he's dead in the water. >> what he's demonstrating here is sheer contempt for the judicial process. >> the rnc, throwing their support behind roy moore after president trump's endorsement. >> the president wants to make sure that his agenda is accomplished in washington. >> we'll have a tough enough time in the coming years.

being the party of roy moore won't help. >> when i saw roy moore's handwriting -- >> he denies it. it's up to the people of alabama now. good morning and welcome to your "new day." alisyn is off. i have the star, poppy harlow. >> right. >> beside me. >> good to be here. >> always a pleasure. it begins with a big legal question for the weeks to come. did donald trump obstruct justice when he fired fbi director jim comey? the president's personal lawyer uses a nixonian defense and argues this. mr. trump is above the law as the nation's chief enforcement officer. he cannot be charged with obstruction. meantime following the president's lead republican national committee overnight jumps back into the alabama senate race, throwing more

support and funding behind embattled senate nominee roy moore one week before the special election. now a woman who says she dated roy moore as a teenager when he was twice her age, is sharing physical evidence of their relationship. good morning, joe. >> good morning, poppy. what's happening here is an attempt to get the handle on the facts, the rules and law as a russian investigation appears to have moved a step or two closer to the oval office. the president's critics questioning whether the elements of obstruction of justice are starting to appear, the president's legal team pushing back and then appearing to backtrack. white house lawyer ty cobb downplaying the obstruction of justice defense put forward by president trump's personal lawyer, john dowd. while dowd's assertion that a president cannot obstruct justice because he's the nation's top law enforcement officer is an interesting legal

issue it is not mr. trump's official legal strategy. >> frankly the idea that our president is above the law not only above the law but free to interfere with any investigation and act in ways that are obstruction of justice is nixonian. and i think unacceptable. >> dowd, floating this controversial defense amid speculation whether this tweet from the president's account could lead to a potential obstruction of justice case. the tweet, which dowd said he drafted suggested the president knew his former national security adviser michael flynn lied to the vice president and the fbi before he allegedly encouraged former fbi director to drop the investigation on flynn. mcgann reportedly telling the president flynn should be fired after receiving a warning that flynn might be compromised from then acting attorney general

sally yates. >> we told him we fill the like the vice president and others were entitled to know that the information that they were conveying to the american people wasn't true. >> reporter: despite mcgann's recommendation, flynn was kept on the weeks with access to the most classified information. trump eventually caving to public pressure, firing flynn, but insisting he was a good man. the president now defending flynn after he pled guilty friday to lying to the fbi. >> i feel badly for general flynn. hillary clinton lied many times to the fbi. nothing happened to her. flynn lied and they destroyed his life. i think it's a shame. >> reporter: flynn's deputy, k.t. mcfarland, also under scrutiny over a pair of inconsistencies in her testimony about flynn. she told the senate foreign relations committee in july she was not aware of any communications between flynn and former russian ambassador sergey

kislyak but unsealed documents show that flynn spoke with a senior official before meeting with kislyak. even though mcfarland was not mentioned, it appears she was the referenced official. this is, of course, the issue of the president's controversial travel ban, a temporary green light for that policy to be implemented even as the challenges to it continue in the courts. chris and poppy, back to you. >> joe, appreciate it. >> let's bring in cnn national security expert asha rangappa and chris cillizza. we're talking about two entirely different systems of appraisal. obstruction of justice for politicians will mean the impeachment process. votes. it's not about evidence.

it's not about any legal terms they may use. it's votes. then you have what mueller is doing. rangappa, when we talk about whether a president could be charged versus should be charged, meaningful distinction. the trump lawyer is only raising the first one at this point. the real appraisal is the second one. what is your take? can a president be charged with obstruction of justice? >> doj policy that a sitting president can't be indicted while he's sitting. >> you have to impeach him first? >> impeachment and removal, two-stage process. then he could be charged. however, what dowd was saying is that the president cannot even be guilty of obstruction. and that is widely dismissed as

a not valid theory. he can be guilty but it's true that at that point, mueller can collect all the evidence and say i would bring a charge and then hand it over for the political process. >> you think this is a tactic being used by the white house attorney? >> it's a tactic. look, lawyers use tactics. he has to make the best defense he can for his client. if the facts are starting to stack up in a way that would be indefensible based on what the crime is, then he has to switch tracks and make it a legal argument. >> chris, to asha's point what does it tell us that the white house is choosing the strategy of using a nixonian -- purely objective statement because it is out of nixon's own lips, right, that the president can't be charged with doing something illegal -- defense instead of just arguing on the merit of facts here? >> i think he's making a legal argument for political purposes.

this will move, if it moves eventually, from mueller to congress. that's just the way that it's going to go, to asha's point. what you're seeing here is dowd offering a possible defense, a sort of trial balloon political defense. if he's president, how can he obstruct justice? he's president of the united states. i wrote about this yesterday. i just don't think that that politically speaking holds water, poppy. it's hard for me to believe -- though not in impossible but hard for me to believe you would have a sitting republican senator use the defense of trump as well, he's the president. he technically is the law. that's a tough argument to make politically. not impossible. i would not have thought that the republican party would come around to roy moore, but they are. so, i don't rule anything out at this point. i do think it is important and asha makes the point and i think jeff toobin, our colleague in "the new yorker" in a really good piece published earlier

this week, yesterday, i guess, makes the point that you have to separate out legal and political. chris cuomo makes this point. they're two separate tracks here. even if you buy dowd's argument legally, which i'm not sure you should, politically that argument goes nowhere. >> they're backing off a little bit. that's a signature of the trump motto. go as far as you can, back up as little as you must. >> ty cobb. >> right. ty cobb the top of the legal team backed off of this a little bit. but it does smack familiar of something we heard before. do we have the david frost sound? let's play it. >> what you're saying is that there are certain situations, the hughouston panel, that was of them, where the president can decide it's in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal? >> well, when the president does

it, that means that it is not illegal. >> okay. now first, before we get to the legal analysis and political analysis of what was going on there, if you can, please go back and watch the frost/nixon interviews. not the movie. it does a decent job but it's the best example of how an interviewer used facts and a flat tone to get an unwilling subject to say things they never wanted to say. it is a brilliant exercise. when the president does it, it is not illegal. does that standard ever apply to anything? >> the president is not above the law. that's been established over and over again. if we had -- that suggests that the president could commit murder and just stop the investigation or say i had to do it because i was negotiating with this dictator and we had to -- you know, you can take this to extremes that would be absurd and totally against the principles on which our country is founded. i also want to point out as we're talking about the legal

arguments, you notice what we're doing. we're not talking about the facts anymore. and so it obscures what was actually happening in this situation. >> what do you think is so damning about the potential knowledge that the president had of michael flynn lying to the fbi when he went to jim comey and said i hope you can see your way free to let this guy go. >> i think there are two things. lying to the fbi is a felo in. y. and that's bad enough. did he also know what flynn was lying about, that he was getting direction from senior members of the transition team and contacting the russians? if that's the case then there are many people who have been telling untruths, whether to the public, congress or even to the fbi. and the other piece is that you have this very significant event where acting attorney general sally yates came and basically warned don mcgann. now my belief that it was a

counterintelligence investigation at that point. she was getting this from very sensitive sources and methods. for her to get the clearance to take that top secret information, go to 1600 pennsylvania avenue, say you need to be careful, tells you that whatever they found was incredibly serious. >> let's listen to her. this was in her may 8th testimony under oath. let's listen. >> did you tell donald mcgasm nn that then national security adviser flynn told the truth to the fbi? >> no. he asked me how he had done in the interview. i specifically declined to answer that. i was intentionally not letting him know how the interview had gone. >> so, chris cillizza, to that, hearing from her directly, how does that complicate the white house narrative on this? >> i keep reminding people, these people are testifying under oath, just like jim comey

when he said that trump asked him to see this through. trump on twitter is calling him a liar. that's not apples to apples. you can tweet what you want. this is under oath. lying here has real problems, legal problems. so i think it sets up very clearly that it went yates, mcgann, trump. the key is what asha brought up. did donald trump know what specifically mike flynn lied to the fbi about, or was it simply, look, this guy is dicey. we've got reason to believe he's saying stuff that isn't true, not just to us, not just to pence, but to the fbi. that's a different thing. if it's specific. and then on the following day, donald trump says, hey, jim comey, is there a way you can

kind of, you know, get rid of this. that's very problematic. as my mother always reminds me i never went to law school. i'm not a lawyer. so i mean problematic in a political sense. the mueller investigation's ultimate end if there are recommendations will play out first in the political sphere not the legal sphere. >> you get to talk like a lawyer but didn't take that $100,000 hit. >> to rangappa's point, we don't want to ignore the facts. they start looking at what happened here, and what the president knew and when, they waited a long time to get rid of michael flynn. why did they wait? >> and the president still thinks he got a raw deal. >> by the way, poppy, that's important. even over the weekend, after mike flynn pled guilty and is cooperating with bob mueller's

investigation, which donald trump has repeatedly described as a witch hunt and hoax, donald trump is saying he's a good guy. he's got railroaded. he is not someone who is terribly charitable, usually, about people who bring bad press on to him. >> fair point. last point. >> just because it's legal doesn't make it right. the other thing we need to remember is that it doesn't have to meet the criminal standard when people are being warned that somebody is untrust worthy and they're in the most important places in the government and the administration is keeping them on it does make you wonder what they were thinking. >> rangappa, former fbi, yale professor. cil. izza not a lawyer. the point. what will end up in this final bill. what will it mean for you the american people? senator angus king joins us next.

theraflu's powerful new formula to defeat 7 cold and flu symptoms... fast. so you can play on. theraflu expressmax. new power.

your body was made for better things than rheumatiod arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines,

low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's.

entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. welcome back to "new day." president trump's lawyer claims he draft this had tweet, saying

that he had to fire michael flynn because he lied to the fbi. it's a claim that's brought renewed attention to this testimony before the senate intelligence committee by fired fbi director james comey, who discuss discussed it under oath. >> he wanted me to drop any investigation connected to flynn's account of conversations with the russians. >> the key question is, would that constitute obstruction of justice on the part of the president? joining me now, senator angus king, who sits on the very central right now senate committee. let's go to that central argument that senator dianne feinstein and senator blumenthal in the last 24 hours have said this looks a whole lot like obstruction of justice. do you think the president's words and actions constitute obstruction of justice? >> i'm not prepared to reach that conclusion but certainly

the tweet over the weekend where the tweet said he fired him because he had lied to the fbi and, remember, it was the day after he had fired him that he said to comey, go easy on this investigation. i think that's a serious question. all of this legal discussion, there's a subtly here that i think is important. john dowd and other lawyers for the president have asserted he can't -- nothing he does is legal. the nixon defense. >> exactly the nixonian defense. >> i think what they're missing, there's a two-step process. whenever i have a question about the constitution or what it means the first place i go is the federalist. in the 69th federalist, hamilton's writing about the powers of the presidency and says specifically the president can be -- if the president commits a high crime, misdemeanor, treason, bribe ry,

he can be impeached. i don't usually want to read on tv but it's important to get this right. the president can be impeached and removed from office and afterwards would be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of the law. i think that's a pretty clear statement that a sitting president can't be indicted. that's why nixon was an unindicted co-conspiratorer and also why gerald ford pardoned him. he would be subject to criminal prs accusation aft-- prosecutio after he left office. impeachment is the question that congress will have to decide. >> right. and republicans in congress have used obstruction of justice as the first article of impeachment when it came to nixon, president clinton. when it comes to bob mueller and this investigation. we'll get into the controversy around that, and the fbi agent who is a key part of the team

who had to depart because of his political leanings in a moment. if the president, senator, were to move -- to remove special counsel bob mueller from the investigation, would you view that as an impeachable offense? >> i would view that as a drastic attack on the rule of law and would hope that members of congress, both republicans, democrats and independents over the last six months have said we would move with great speed to re-create the office of special prosecutor to be insulated from that kind of question. but on the question of whether obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense, you need look no further than the words of none other than jeff sessions. >> right in 1999. >> in '99 who were adamant that obstruction of justice in the clinton matter was, in fact, an impeach ybl offense. i'm not going to draw conclusion on that. the facts have to be proved and,

in fact, in an impeach. as you know the house impeaches and the senate acts literally as a jury. i'm not going to express a final opinion as to what it all means because it may come before me in that context. >> you've been highly critical of the republican bills that have made it through. on the fbi, as you know, one of the top agents that was leading the hillary clinton e-mail investigation and was a key part of mueller's team on the russian investigation has been dismissed because of his clear political leaning against president trump and toward hillary clinton as displayed in text messages. we now know that he is the one in comey's statement about hillary clinton's e-mail statement he changed the words from grossly negligent to

reckle recogni extremely careless. does it concern you and would you go as far as "the wall street journal" editorial board this morning says because of this mueller is too conflicted leading this investigation. >> two questions. one, does it concern me? the answer is yes. but i reach the opposite conclusion with regard to mr. mueller because he immediately fired him and removed him off the investigation as soon as he got wind of this inappropriate tweet, which by the way i still don't know what it is or text message, whatever it was, last summer. i think director mueller acted exactly as we hoped he would. he found improper activity on the part of one of his investigators and he got rid of him. >> mueller wasn't fullsome in his reason for why.

you haven't seen the text message. didn't display to the public exactly what was going on. does that concern you? >> but he got rid of him. i would like to see the tweet, text message, whatever it was, to see what it portrayed, what it side. but the opponent is an employer saw inappropriate conduct on the part of an employee and got rid of him. that's what you want to have happen in this case. to stretch and somehow somehow it corrupts the whole process is, as i said, a stretch. >> you've been very clear about how you feel about republican tax reform bills that have made it through the house and senate? you went so far to say this may be the most consequential vote you and other senators may cast in your career. you read all 177 pages. you admit you didn't understand it all but you read it all.

is this being rushed through to the detriment of the american people? >> yes. absolutely. the answer to that is yes. i come up with something new modestly call king's rule. the faster it goes tli through the congress the worse it is. this is nt the reauthorization of the faa or something about what ever issue, pell grants or something. this will affect every american, every american business, the economy for 20, 30 years and went through literally in the middle of the night. we got the 479-page bill at 6:00 at night, voted on it that night. there are all kinds of provisions and i couldn't answer all the questions. that's sort of the point. what's in that bill that we don't know? i think we'll find out. you started your question saying the republican bill.

that's really the problem. it didn't have to be the republican bill. it could have easily been a bipartisan bill. 15 or 20 members were ready to deal with all of the issues and there was a ridiculously rushed process and i think it was a terrible mistake. it didn't have to be that way. if you have a bill that's really important, the process by which you get there should be very thorough. and instead we had the most important bill and the worst process. that's just not any way to run a railroad or the united states congress. >> senator angus king of maine, thank you for being here. chris? >> i thought king rule was that you always have to have

lobsteres lobster lobsters on your tie, which the senator from maine is famous for and sent me one. >> can the president obstruct justice? this is important question. alan dershowitz says no. the president wants you to hear his case. let's hear it. let's test it next. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

we're on a mission to show drip coffee drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew.

that's it. so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me? full-bodied. ♪ ♪ give a little bit ♪ ♪ give a little bit... -hello. ♪ give a little bit... ♪ ... of your love to me oh, haha. ♪ there's so much that we need to share ♪ ♪ so send a smile and show that you care ♪ ♪ i'll give a little bit of my love to you ♪ the market.redict but through good times and bad... ...at t. rowe price... ...we've helped our investors stay confident for over 75 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence.

all right. a big turn, reckoning what's going on with the russian investigation, vis-a-vis the president. his own personal attorney john dowd argues he cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice. he says what's on your screen. the president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under article ii of the constitution and has every right to express his view of any case. is it as simple as that? joining us now, big brains, jeffrey toobin, cnn chief legal analyst. i must direct you to his piece in "vanity fair" out earlier

this week. jeffrey, okay with the shameless plug? >> "the new yorker." >> you will not find it in "vanity fair." >> i'm a great fan of "vanity fair." >> it's only in "the new yorker" out earlier this week and alan dershowitz, professor of law, professor emeritus. is dowd correct? >> no. he can be charged with obstruction of justice if he engages and acts beyond what article ii of the constitution allows him to do. president nixon and clinton were both impeach for the record obstructing swr ining justice b witnesses to lie, nixon for paying hush money and destroying evidence. my point is that the president cannot be charged for simply exercising his authority under the constitution, by pardoning people, by firing people. he's allowed to pardon, fire

without regard to what his subjective intent may be. it's much like article i, which says that senators and congressmen have limited immunity from arrest for performing their duties under article i of the constitution. that's my point. it should not be confused with a different point that says the president is above the law or the president can never be charged with obstruction of justice. keep my point clear. that's what i've said. >> let me know if i keep it clear, professor. jeffrey toobin, the words subjective intent stand out to me in what the professor just said. his position seems to be you can't look at why the president did it unless it fits into certain extra legal categories. how do you see it? >> i disagree with my mentor, alan, on that one. i think just to cess specify the core of our disagreement, alan thinks, and he will correct me if i'm wrong, that there's no way that firing james comey can

be obstruction of justice because he has the legal right as president to fire james comey. >> that's right. >> i think that is completely wrong because i think the subjective content can be considered by congress an impeachment. if he did it for corrupt motives, to protect his own liability -- if he did it to protect his own financial interests, if he did it for corrupt motives, that is obstruction of justice and that is an impeachable offense. >> he pardoned casper wineberger for a specific purpose to bringing an end to the iran-contra investigation and that's what lawrence said yet nobody suggested that he had committed any kind of criminal

offense for doing sog. by the way, i'm goingette getting now attacked, repeatedly attacked by people on the right for saying hillary clinton can't be process cued because of her subjective intent. we're seeing the shoe on the other foot now all over the place. people are now screaming for hillary clinton. i'm defending both of them. i don't want to see laws like espionage, obstruction of justice used against political rivals on either side. >> i know that people on twitter are being unpleasant. that's what twitter is. the fact is that we cannot give immunity to top officials like the president because the constitution gives them certain responsibilities. let me give you an example s. >> how about the senate? >> let's talk about the president. >> we have to talk about the

senate, too. >> let me give you an example. suppose a member of al qaeda walks into the president's office and says here is a suitcase full of cash. pardon someone who went -- >> that's such a simple, obvious case. he's guilty of bribery. >> so? >> you can convict of president of bribery. you can convict the president of telling witnesses to lie. what you cannot convict the president of is simply and merely exercises his article ii authority by pardoning somebody or by firing somebody. that's my point. you cannot do that. you may be able to i preach him for misuse of his power but you cannot prosecute him any more than can you prosecute a senator for exercising his constitutional authority. if a senator take ace bribe you can go after him for that. you cannot go after the president for merely exercising

his constitutional authority. that's why nixon and clinton were impeached, going beyond their mere authority of article ii in the constitution. >> i think you're drawing a distinction where one doesn't exist. let me just say that the constitutional question of whether a president can be impeached for anything. that's never been resolved. i don't know what the answer is. there's a school of thought saying a sitting president can't be indicted. >> it's obstructive in this way. we're not going to answer it. i haven't been saying anything because i'm fascinated by this. i love that you guys are talking about this. mueller isn't going to indict the president. >> no. >> he will wind out putting out information. it will wind up being resolved

politically not legally. let me get a quick, final point from each of you. professor? >> let's remember what happened to nixon. he was named as an unindicted co-conspiratorer. mu. ller could do that. i'm a it would be wrong if all he did was exercise his presidential authority to pardon, community or fire. >> and my point intent matters. if it's done for a corrupt purpose you don't get immunity. >> you don't want to psycho analyze a president and try to seek his subjective motives if he's exercising his constitutional authority. >> courts look at it every day. >> not with the president. >> the professor always gets last word. >> he deserves it. >> it doesn't matter. he does deserve it.

thanks to both of you. appreciate it. poppy? >> all right. hiding in plain sight why conservatives in silicon valley fear talking approximate -- about politics. we know life can be hectic.

that's why at xfinity we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now with instant text and email updates you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for.

because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today. when the topic of harassment in the workplace comes up, you would not expect young, wealthy conservative men to say they are victims. but in silicon valley conservatives there, some of them, are claiming they're targets of a culture war that has implications for every american. it is a fascinating dynamic playing out. i remember when you were going out on this assignment and how fascinated i was to hear what they told you. >> i tried to get so many people who are conservatives to try to talk to me on the error.

i protected identities of sources before. i've done a lot on the hacker community. people have pant wanted to hide and not reel waf it is. i've never been asked to hide the identity of someone because they're conservative. conservatives in silicon valley, poppy, say the stakes are too high to reveal themselves. take a look. >> there's a real fear. >> not hiding his identity because he's committed a crime or because he's worried about hissi hissist. >> i consider myself a blend of conservative and libertarian. >> conservative in silicon valley, enough to make him want to go incognito. >> saying i want more border security, are people going to complain to hr? will i get fired for saying that? >> several others who said the stakes were simply too high to share their identity.

here is another conservative from silicon valley. >> i walked into work with a make america great again, people would take it as a personal front and i would expect to be out of the company within weeks if not a month. >> undercover conservatives of silicon valley. perfect equation for a culture war playing out in what happens long beeny a mecca. >> it's a big deal as these tech company companies more and more control over things we easy content distribution coupled with fewer gatekeepers means people in these companies are going to have more power.

>> people who say they've been discriminated against but are too afraid to speak publicly. >> if you're a young man in your 20s, you're making a quarter million dollar, whatever, with your salary, bonus and your stock, do you want to be the martyr of conservative rights? >> the multimillionaire tech entrepreneur. unlikely poster boy for discrimination. >> what it looks like it being disciplined for innocent remarks. it's no being not considered for job opportunities and internal promotions. >> it's so ironic. i feel like you could literally take that exact thing you just said and apply that to some of the women's cases at these tech companies. >> i've suffered sexual harassment as a woman as well. the fact that that exists does not take away from the fact that political and viewpoint discrimination exist in silicon valley. both can exist. >> it's interesting to look at why this matters. if you look at it, woe are

increasingly polarized. people building technology and those decisions made behind closed doors are impacting all of us. >> you point to discrimination. something i've not heard a lot about, thought a lot about it. thank you. laurie segall. divided we code. 2:30 eastern time right here. big news in the sports world. lavar ball pulling his son, lials al ichi liangelo out of ucla. more on the bleacher report. what's the play? >> after the shoplifting incident in china, ucla said the three players would have to earn their way back on to the team. lavar apparently was tired of waiting for that to happen. he told espn we get back over here and the consequences were even stiff eer than china.

so basically they're in jail here. the goal is to get him ready for the nba. right now liangelo not considered an nba prospect really at all. president trump has been involved in this story, helping liangelo getting released in china and then calling lavar, quote, an ungrateful fool. i know you'll be talking with him later on this morning. >> that is the word on the street, andy scholes, that the big baller will show up on "new day" this morning. it's early out there in the west coast. how much does he want it? >> i brought popcorn. >> did you? >> last time it was must see tv. >> he certainly a showman. he has that quality in common with our president. it was such an epic potential matchup. there was a lot to ask him about and we will. president trump and the republican national committee throwing support behind accused child molester roy moore.

a debate on party over morality next. [ keyboard clacking ] [ click ] [ keyboard clacking ] [ clacking continues ] good questions lead to good answers. our advisors can help you find both. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. yours.

talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

yea, s#stuffynoset this cold #nosleep i got it... #mouthbreather yep, we've got a mouth breather. well just put on a breathe right strip and... pow! it instantly opens your nose up to 38% more than cold medicine alone so you can breathe... ...and sleep. go to breatheright.com today to request a free sample.

welcome back to "new day." president trump officially endorsed roy moore, and now overnight the rnc is back following suit. former republican presidential nominee, mitt romney, writes this, roy moore in the u.s. senate would be a stain in the u.s. senate. no vote or majority is worth losing our honor and integrity. anna and jason with us now. anna, you say we have seen this movie before, in recent memory right before the 2016 election? >> we saw the same thing happen, with donald trump, there were over 12 women that accused him

of sexual assault and harassment on the second, and many republicans distance themselves, and reince priebus, who was then %-pn cancels events, and all of a sudden the election started getting hotter we saw them come back onboard. it's so disappointing as a republican woman and american, i am incredibly disappointing, and they are compromising convictions for one vote. and mitt romney is right, this should not be about base versus establishment, rural versus urban or left verses right, this is about right and wrong. it's about decency and morality. there's a coach in florida who was arrested this week for an

inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old. roy moore was having inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old and 15-year-old and 16-year-old and a few 17-year-olds and he's running for the u.s. senate. >> he's neck and neck in the polls. his spokeswoman will join us and we will ask her about that and the new accusations. jason, to you, chris cillizza's new letter that comes out every night, "the point," had a great point last night and his point is that the president is all about what does it mean for me? your argument is endorsing roy moore like this, and saying because of our agenda and because of the policies and the republican votes we need in the senate, this is the man that needs to be in the senate regardless of being an accused

child molester, you say that why >> i think we need to take it up with senate republican leadership. i have made it clear that i am no fan of roy moore and i don't think he has any business of being in the senate, but folks are wondering why he's going to win and head to washington, al franken and bob menendez, and democrats have been unable to get their house in order, and the president and other republicans have taken a look and said why should we disarm and get rid of a crucial vote when we have a slim majority -- >> you think had franken been out and the menendez trial would have gone the other way, it would be different? >> i think the conversation would be different. with regard to the president -- i have not spoken directly with him on this, but my hunch, he wanted to see if roy moore could

stand up and defend himself, and the moore campaign has since gotten their sound footing and he will probably win coming next week. >> anna, you say the republican party cannot do this but they are doing this, and mcconnell is walking it back, saying it's up to the people of alabama, and warren hatch is walking back, and mitt romney with the exception of jeff flake looks increaselying to be on an island. if in a week, roy moore wins, then what? >> i hope mitt romney hopes for senate in utah, and i hope he gets elected. >> the president doesn't hope that. that was pretty clear yesterday. >> because he's probably going to confront him, and he thinks the senate will be more friendlier without people like jeff flake and bob corker. but we need moral clarity and somebody that leads us out of this where politics or agenda matter more than basic decency.

i actually agree with jason on one point. look, i think democrats lost a lot of ground when nancy pelosi came out and called conyers an icon. i hope this morning john conyers does the right thing and retires, because there's no place for him whether you are a democrat or republican in congress. the issue about franken and menendez. menendez, there are no credible accusations against menendez, and this argument because there's one bad guy in the senate let's send another bad guy in the senate, that what aboutism in our political rhetoric today is so hurtful and cheapening the entire place. >> you don't see it that way, jason? >> this is not a what aboutism, this is about should the republicans have the majority that they rightfully gone and earned, and should we get tax

cuts and move on to infrastructure and all the great things the president wants to do. i want to take a step back and talk about mitt romney here. it was not that long ago that mitt romney wanted to be secretary of state, and he's hanging out with trump and saying nice things, and he doesn't get picked and now it's bitter. >> you think that's what this is about, not that you have credible allegations that roy moore was a child molester, and you have four women accusing him of sexual assault or abuse, and you think it's about romney being bitter? >> i think mitt romney is personally bitter about president donald trump. he's fine to go and criticize roy moore, and i have criticized him as a lot of people have, but every since mitt romney has gotten passed over, he attacked the president, and i hope orrin rafp -- i never thought i would

say this i hope orrin hatch is elected to another term in the senate, and i think mitt romney just needs to hangout in san diego -- >> anybody that knows mitt nominee knows there's no bone in the man. the man wants this world to be better for his 150 grandchildren. >> we are up against the top of the hour, so thank you guys. we'll following a lot of news and let's get right to it. the suggestion that he can't be charged with obstruction of justice is a laughable proposition. >> the president's decision to fire the head of the fbi cannot be considered objection of justice. >> i feel badly for flynn. flynn lied and they destroyed his life. >> the rnc is actually going back to financially supporting roy moore. this is outrageous. >>