(toots) but you know it's you. so know this. the activated charcoal in charco caps adsorbs gas for fast gas relief without passing the gas. charco caps: put less boom in the room.

or a little internet machine? without passing the gas. it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.

of blockbuster stories reaching deep into the white house and touching directly on the russia story, including the blockbuster new book that cnn obtained an early copy of, there is more. an item breaking in the "new york times" tonight speaks not just to the president's ongoing rage about the probe, but especially to a key question for investigators. did president trump try to stifle the effort? did he try to the obstruct justice? did he obstruct justice? here's the lead of the time's report, president trump gave firm instructions in march to the white house's top lawyer, stop the attorney general, jeff sessions, from recusing himself in the justice department's investigation into whether mr. trump's associates helped the russian campaign to disrupt the 2016 election. joining us now is cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin, white house counsel john dean. jeff toobin, do you think this is another potentially significant piece of a possible obstruction case? >> i do. because you have to look at the full context of the president's efforts regarding the russia

investigation in the spring of last year. you know, obviously we know he fired james comey, who was leading that investigation. he told lester holt and the russian visitors that he did that not as he said publicly because of comey's investigation of hillary clinton. he did that because of comey's investigation of russia. here we have another example of the president trying to get -- hold control of the russia investigation by telling his white house counsel to tell jeff sessions not to recuse himself, to keep control. and have -- and, you know, one of the remarkable things about this "new york times" story is he's saying, you know, where is my roy cohen? roy cohen was one of the most corrupt and evil lawyers of the 20th century. he also represented donald trump at one time. to think that the attorney

general of the united states, who represents not the president, but who represents all americans and runs the department of justice, should behave like this crooked, evil lawyer, roy cohen is really an astonishing thing for any president to say. >> john dean, was it -- i mean, you were the white house counsel under nixon. was it appropriate for don mcgahn to go to jeff sessions? universally everybody has said jeff sessions did the right thing by recusing himself, it is something he had to do. was it -- if don mcgahn doesn't represent president trump, but represents the office of the president, was it appropriate for him to try to convince jeff sessions to do something he should have done? >> well, it depends upon what he did and how he did it. if, indeed, he leaned on the attorney general on behalf of the president to not recuse himself, that would raise suspicions. if he merely communicated the president's feelings about it so the attorney general could crank

that into his decision, that's probably a little bit less offensive. one of the things i think you should put in context and remember when we talk about obstruction of justice, it's an endeavor statute as well. >> what does that mean? >> you don't actually have to accomplish the obstruction. merely your efforts to do so can get you on the wrong side of the law with that statute. >> so even if the obstruction doesn't work, but you've made the effort, you can be charged with that? >> that is correct. >> carrie, the times is also reporting that four days before comey was fired an aide to jeff sessions was on capitol hill asking a congressional staffer for dirt on the fbi director comey. which, again, i mean, "a" that sounds highly unusual. what do you make of it? >> i do. i mean, as a former justice department lawyer, i've never actually heard -- 13 years in the department, never heard of a personal aide or an aide in the justice department to the attorney general going to capitol hill to try to dig up

dirt on anyone really. it's not their job, it's not their role. it's not in the traditions of the department. so i just find that reporting odd, if it's true, that somebody would go and try to -- at the attorney general's direction, try to find derogatory information on the fbi director. it does raise an interesting question about the role of the attorney general in sort of coming up with the reasons for the fbi director being fired. in other words, the attorney general and the deputy attorney general had a memo that sort of purported to lay out reasons why the fbi director should no longer continue in his position. and this report cuts against any support for the fact that there was any kind of substantive reason why the fbi director was fired. we know why the fbi director was fired. the president has said why the fbi director was fired. he was fired because the

president thought that would end or derail the russia investigation. >> michael zeldin, you know robert mueller, you worked with him in the past. do you think this reporting by the times, assuming he already knows it, would be of interest to mueller? >> it will be of interest to mueller, but i don't think it's going to be dispositive of anything in particular. in the most benign way, the attorney general is going to recuse himself because the code of federal regulations requires him to. the president asks his lawyer, mcgahn, the white house counsel, to see if there's any movement there that sessions will consider not recusing himself. i think that's all okay in the most benign sense. to jeffrey toobin's point, though, if it is part of a pattern of trying to obstruct mueller's investigation, thinking that if sessions stays on, sessions is not going to, you know, either appoint

mueller, or if he does appoint mueller, not going to give mueller the mandate that rosenstein did, then possibly, in a more corrupt way, that's obstruction of justice. but i think on its face it's not all that terrible. because attorney general sessions did not listen to mcgahn and he did what the law requires him to do, which is to recuse himself. >> jeff, go ahead. >> michael, you're looking at this phone call as if that's all we know about it. remember, i mean at least according to the "times" story, and, of course, that has to be confirmed. but if the "times" story is accurate, the reason he went to mueller -- he tried to get sessions not to recuse himself is because he didn't have someone like roy cohen there protecting him. he wanted the attorney general to protect him. that is a corrupt motive. that's not why the attorney

general -- you know, is not the job of the attorney general. and so it's -- i think, again, if the "times" story is accurate, it's a lot less benign than you're making it out to be. >> i'm saying it could be benign or it could be corrupt. i'm not disagreeing with you, jeffrey, completely. all i'm saying is that it really depends on your perspective. in the "new york times" article, trump also said he was looking for a bobby kennedy or an eric holder. it wasn't just a roy cohen, he was looking for an attorney general who would have his back. those are the names he mentioned, cohen, bobby kennedy and eric holder. so in that context it's not as corrupt necessarily. so, you know, to anderson's question to me, is this going to be of interest to mueller? absolutely. will it be dispositive of an obstruction of justice case? probably not, but it's just another interesting fact along the road that we're going down. >> john dean, as someone who was

the white house counsel under nixon, don mcgahn -- and carrie made this point in the last hour -- is at the center of an awful lot of conversations, knows an awful lot about the inner workings of the white house and particularly this administration and what was said and what wasn't said. does he -- if he works for the office of the white house, not for donald trump as an individual, does he have an obligation to report anything that he feels is improper? >> not a -- there's an ethical obligation that he has. he represents the office of the president and not the occupant of the office. if he sees wrongdoing going on in the office, he may have to go first and say to the office -- to whoever occupies the office, stop it, mr. trump. this is illegal and i represent this entity, this organization, and you're violating the law. now, if he can't stop it, he may have obligations to go higher and to report out.

it's a very -- it's a gray area in the district of columbia. it's not an automatic situation. i don't know all the bars he's admitted to. but it's somewhat governed by which bar he belongs to. >> and john dean, this notion of an aide to sessions going to a congressional staffer looking for dirt on comey, how unusual does that sound to you? >> that sounds very unusual. i worked at the department of justice, and that is just way out of bounds of the norms of the department of justice. even as political a one as nixon had with first mitchell and then kleindienst. >> i want to thank everybody. this is, obviously, a political as well as a legal story. let's bring in the political panel, diana grubez, van jones, jack kingston, veronica henderson, paul begala, and jason miller. and go. what do you make of the reporting tonight? >> well, i mean, this is disturbing.

first of all, just the idea that you have the president of the united states saying, i want someone to protect me. sir, you're supposed to be protecting us. you're the commander in chief. so just already we're way in some bizarre world. and then for him to mention president obama and john kennedy. president obama was never accused of cuddling up to an enemy of the country like osama bin laden. president obama had osama bin laden killed. john kennedy was never accused of cuddling up to castro. he confronted castro. the problem is you have a president that's not confronting our enemy in russia, but seems to be trying to cuddle up to them, through the campaign and after, which is why he's under investigation. so we have a situation now where the president of the united states wants protection, rather than trying to protect us, and is -- can't make a distinction in his mind between the situation he's in and any other president. we've never had a president accused of this kind of stuff, which is why it doesn't make a lot of sense for him to be hoping that the attorney general will save him from it.

>> congressman? >> let me say this. as a republican, i think eric holder was a great watchdog for president obama. >> what was obama accused of that -- >> let me just say, he was the only attorney general in history to get accused of contempt of congress. in fact, the only cabinet member. you know, he held the line on things like fast and furious. he never let -- >> let's not relitigate obama -- >> let me say this. let me say this. if the administration, if the president was looking for something on james comey, the easiest place to look would have been on harry reed's letter during august 2016 where he accused him of violating the hatch act. or he could look at what podesta and hillary clinton themselves said in terms of him influencing the election. >> you're going to say mean stuff about comey. >> -- and speaking in front of loretta lynn. >> so you're saying they shouldn't have sent a staffer? they should have just read those letters?

>> i think it's absurd to say they sent a staffer. >> okay. >> it would not have happened. >> part of what our president has done that we should not turn away from, is that he's trying to bend the norms of democracy to his own autocratic will. the white house must never reach out to the attorney general like that to try to pressure him. the president, the other day, tweeted out that a terrific public servant, huma abedin, who served hillary clinton in the state department, she should be prosecuted. that's not what a democracy does. i worked in the white house -- >> i believe he said she should go to jail, not just prosecuted. >> exactly. when i worked in the white house, if i wanted janet reno, the attorney general, to come to a press conference that bill clinton was doing about community policing, i went through the white house counsel's office. i didn't call janet directly for something like, much less put my political enemies in jail. this is a guy who does not understand the norms of democracy and wants to be an autocrat. and this is what we're watching in real time. >> where i disagree, paul, every attorney general looks out for the president against political attacks. i challenge you to find anyone here on this panel to find someone in your life who defends you the way eric holder and loretta lynch defended president obama.

>> absolutely across the board. >> you guys are twisting -- >> criminal acts -- >> president trump didn't do anything wrong here. >> president obama was never accused of criminal activity the way that your president -- >> absolutely right, if this story is correct, and, again, because it's all chocked full of anonymous sources, we have to take it with a boulder of salt, and everything, is the message that was sent to attorney general sessions, by recusing himself, that wouldn't take any of the pressure off from the opponents, whether they be the media or political opponents across the board, and he's absolutely right about that. and so i think if that was a message that was sent, i think he's spot on. but as far as -- >> come on. you guys -- >> one at a time. >> if president obama were in the same situation and this was being said about president obama, you would be saying no big deal, no problem? you have -- it's complete -- i don't understand how you guys can have a completely different se set of standards for one president versus the other.

>> the way that loretta lynch and eric holder defended president obama -- >> but not in a criminal investigation. of course -- listen, if you are a part of an administration, you are going to stick up for the administration. that does not mean you're going to obstruct justice and -- >> what did president trump do that was -- >> president obama was never -- >> he hasn't done anything illegal. >> all right, let's -- we've had this conversation. let's take a quick break. later, what michael wolff's book claims to reveal about the president and russia, as well as questions being raised about the book itself. that and more when we continue. the headlights. n but it's a new year and i'm making a resolution. no more mayhem. this year i'm everything that helps keep you safe. like the fuzzy, yellow tennis ball dangling from a string. helping make sure you pull the car in far enough... but not too far. ♪

to find smarter solutions. to offer more precise and less invasive treatment options than before. like advanced genomic testing and immunotherapy. see how we're fighting to outsmart cancer at cancercenter.com/outsmart we're talking about a late

breaking report in the "new york times" on the president's efforts to keep attorney general sessions from recusing himself on russia. as we discussed, the story shows the president seeking the kind of personal loyalty from his attorney general that he seems to think president obama had and others on the panel say he had from eric holder and jfk had from his brother bobby. back now with the panel. >> what stood out to me was the lack of trust in the inner circle, including a mcgahn aide had to the president's ultimate motivation. in fact, the president, for months, had been trying to find a way to fire comey. and according to the reporting, this aide had found out that he could fire comey and yet he didn't let the president know, because he was too concerned about what his ultimate motivation was. that stood out to me. that's not something that's normal in a presidential administration. >> trump's conception of the presidency, right, people around him being essentially his body guards, his protectors, this idea that they aren't separate from him, and have a responsibility to the country, that mainly the responsibility is to him, for everything -- everything is sort of

personalized. so that is -- i mean, it's a recurring theme from this president to sort of -- his entire misunderstanding of the role of the presidency and the role of the cabinet members. and so that's one of the things i think that stood out to me. and i think we'll see more of. >> it weakened sessions again -- yet again. he's already a weak attorney general. if, in fact, it is true that an aide of his was looking for dirt on comey, once again puts him in a very difficult position. >> and you have some republicans saying he should resign. >> right. >> for a person who wanted loyalty, and wanted jeff sessions to be his bobby kennedy -- i mean, the amount of leaks and people who have just left and, you know, are being quoted and steve bannon and -- i mean, it's stunning. >> you know, to have all these hired guns around him -- >> also, loyalty is a two-way street. when you are crapping on all of your own people -- you know, john kennedy never hung bobby kennedy out to dry. look at the way that donald trump has treated the people

around him. >> even the night that comey was -- the day comey was fired, you know, all the folks in the white house came on television saying it's because of the way he treated -- and then the next day, or two days later he's telling -- no, it's russia. >> it's russia. >> loyalty is a two-way street. he wants one-way loyalty to protect him when actually the loyalty is supposed to go the other direction. it's to the american people. having been in that building -- for me, i think for a lot of people who work in that building, it's so painful to watch this. when i used to walk in that building -- i had a very low job compared to a lot of these people we talk about every day -- that pride, that sense that you're there on behalf of something. it's going to be in your obituary. this is the most important job you're ever going have. you hold yourself to a high standard. to watch these contradictions, it's painful and it's wrong. >> go ahead. >> i was going to say, i think it's also important we don't conflate a process story that talks about conversations that may or may not have happened with something illegal or untoward about that actual conduct or those conversations.

i mean, we heard from the legal experts this last go round, most of whom said there wasn't anything actually illegal that happened there. there were conversations that may or may not have happened. >> i heard that different. i think we still have jeffrey toobin. jeff toobin, you believe this, as part of a piece, is more significant? >> yeah, i mean, i think it's quite the opposite of what jason is saying. there is a criminal investigation under way now to determine whether these activities were illegal. i mean, the firing of comey and all the related activities. i'm not here to say it is criminal. but the idea that it's somehow a settled question that it's not criminal, i mean, that's just not -- >> hold on, jeffrey. so you're saying this story, that there's activity in this story that is criminal behavior? >> i'm saying it is possibly evidence of criminal behavior, absolutely. >> oh, man. >> the idea -- no, i mean, i'm sorry to disappoint you.

but i mean, the idea that the president is trying to cling to the attorney general because he will protect him from a criminal investigation of the president himself, that doesn't strike you as possibly related to the issue of obstruction of justice? it sure strikes me that way. >> that's not what it says in the story. if the president didn't do anything wrong, why are you saying there's a criminal -- he's trying to -- >> that's not -- that's not the standard. that's not the standard. >> jeff, explain why that's not the standard. >> right. obstruction of justice can take place even if there is not an underlying crime. i mean, the courts have held this for decades. that if you corruptly stop an investigation, if you lie, if you cheat to stop the fbi from investigating you for "x," it doesn't matter if you are guilty of "x." obstruction of justice can take place without an underlying crime. >> john dean also went further and said, even if the

obstruction wasn't successful, just the fact that you attempted it is criminal. >> watergate being the classic example of that. i think we can all agree the watergate cover-up failed, since it led to the resignation of the president and a whole bunch of people going to prison. it was a failed cover-up, but it was still illegal and a cover-up. >> jeffrey, remember we also knew a crime had been committed within, what, 24 hours of the break-in in the watergate apartment hotel. we don't know of any crime in this case. and, you know, in terms of the -- the hearsay, i just think it's always wishful thinking that the shoe is about to fall in terms of what the democrats are saying. i've heard alan dershowitz say, and i believe it was on this show, anderson, obstruction really is tampering with the evidence or intimidating a witness, intimidating a juror, or perhaps outright lying to them to change the outcomes.

and in this case all we have is perhaps there was somebody lying. that's "the new york times." that's not a court record. >> here's where i think the american people are trying to get our heads wrapped around this. you can do a bunch of stuff as president. you have a lot of authority. but you can't do it with a corrupt motive. the problem is, it's becoming hard to figure out what is the innocent motive for all this stuff. that's the problem. >> firing comey, the case was made by the democrats. everybody in washington d.c. was anti-comey until president trump fired him. it was started by harry reed and then john podesta and then hillary clinton. >> so you like comey less than you used to and i like comey more than i used to. >> i bet you like bannon more than you used to too. >> paul? >> can i just put one thing on the record, jack, you might have missed it. it was a crime of the century during that election, a hostile foreign power hacked the united states and tried to swing the election to donald trump, who then won. there is increasing evidence

that mr. trump's relatives, campaign chairman perhaps and others cooperated in that, in a conspiracy to do that. we don't know that yet. we know the crime was committed. the question is, was it also committed by mr. trump? this is an enormous crime. >> you said -- >> you sound like a kid writing out his christmas list to santa. >> -- breaking into the computer system. >> you sound like a kid writing out his christmas list to santa like you're hoping that there's some collusion. there hasn't been one shred of evidence saying there was collusion between the campaign and some foreign entity in the campaign last year. >> simply not true. >> donald trump jr., jared kushner, paul manafort all met with russians with the stated intent of gaining from the russian government, as they were told in e-mails, dirt on hillary clinton. >> they took a 20-minute meeting that went nowhere -- >> george papadopoulos months before. >> wait a minute. jack, you don't actually believe they were meeting for an adoption program? you don't really believe that? >> i will agree with you.

let me say this, people in campaigns constantly are hearing from other folks, we got something on your opponent. and you take those -- >> from foreign governments? right. >> not from some like pop star in russia saying this is from the russian government. >> when the information's not acted on, and it's just kind of blown off. it doesn't matter. >> we've got to -- magically it doesn't matter. there's that rule in the law. i don't know if you knew that. it just doesn't matter. cnn has obtained a copy of the bombshell book on the trump white house. the author michael wolff detailing a crucial moment on air force one that could, if true, play a key part in the russia investigation. details when we continue. fl[ gasps, laughs ]c, progressive gives you options based on your budget. you ever feel like... cliché foil characters scheming against a top insurer for no reason? nah. so, why don't we like flo? she has the name your price tool, and we want it. but why? why don't we actually do any work? why do you only own one suit? it's just the way it is, underdeveloped office character. you're right. thanks, bill.

no, you're bill. i'm tom. you know what? no one cares.

breaking news tonight, cnn obtained a new tell-all book on the trump white house, michael wolff's page turner "fire and fury." before talking about it, it's important to know that some of his reporting has been corroborated, some errors have already been identified. we also want to make it clear that wolff paints many scenes without directly quoting anyone, and at other times his sourcing is vague. he explains his methods in the books preface saying, quote, it is worth noting some of the journalistic conundrums that i faced when dealing with the trump administration, many of them the results of the white house's absence of official procedures and the lack of experience of its principals.

wolff continues saying, quote, these challenges have included dealing with off-the-record or deep background material that was later casually put on the record. sources, who provided accounts in confidence and subsequently shared them widely, as though liberated by their first utterances. a frequent inattention to setting any parameters on the use of a conversation, a source's views being so well-known and widely shared that it would be advisable not to credit them and the almost samizdat sharing. gob-smacked retelling of otherwise private and deep background conversations. wolff also notes, and everywhere in this story is the president's own constant tireless and uncontrolled voice, public and private, shared by others on a daily basis, sometimes virtually as he utters it. now, with all that in mind, let's get to a key passage in the book. this is aboard air force one, according to wolff, president trump returning from an overseas trip, this is after the news of the trump tower meeting. this is key because this moment could form the basis for

cover-up allegations, if it, in fact, happened. wolff writes, quote, the president insisted that the meeting at trump tower was purely and simply about russian adoption policy. that's what was discussed period, period. even though it was likely if not certain that the times had the incriminating e-mail chain. in fact, it was quite possible that jared and ivanka and the lawyers knew the "times" had this e-mail chain. the president ordered that no one should let on to the more problematic discussion about hillary clinton. quote, it was a real-time example, he writes, of denial and cover-up. that, of course, is wolff's own take. our panel is back to give their take. paul, you're shaking your head. >> it goes back to van's point about loyalty. this is a man who threw his own son under the bus. under air force one in this case. he knew, or should have known, that the truth was going to come out. donald junior probably knew. he knew there was e-mails about it. so, you know, staff guys like me, we're all expendable, i understand that, but this is his son. his namesake son. and trump went out and destroyed

his son's credibility for one news cycle, not even. he didn't even get a good news cycle out of it. >> why would he insist that this was about adoption? knowing full well -- i mean, everyone else seems to know it wasn't about adoption. >> not just insist, but put that in the voice of his son. >> that's assuming that wolff was telling the truth. >> the statement that went out was saying it was about adoption. >> it was from air force one. it was by the president. this was not the first reporter to tell us that. >> but i think that really was his understanding of the meeting at the time, and i don't think he's necessarily throwing his son under the bus for doing that. >> wait. so the president of the united states actually believed the meeting was about adoption, even though anybody who knows anything about russia knows that adoption is a code word about sanctions. even saying it was about adoption, even if you think it's about adoption, you know it's not about adoption, you know it's about sanctions. so why say it's about adoption? >> but it -- i don't think adoption is used synonymously with sanctions. >> yeah, it is. >> it is.

it's code for magnitsky, and everyone knows that. >> as somebody who did vote on sanctions -- >> and professionals -- >> you would think political professionals -- >> i have to tell you, as somebody who voted for sanctions, i've never heard that as used synonymously. >> you've never heard of the magnitsky act? >> i've heard of the act. but not with this is -- >> i have some real problems with this book. as you might remember, when the shattered book came out about hillary clinton, i bashed that book pretty strongly, and i think there's a real loyalty factor that if you work for someone, whether it's someone who ran for president, like secretary clinton, or who is elected like president trump -- if you work for them and you work that hard and you're still wanting to be a part of their team, you do not go and bash your principal to a member of the press or an author like this. someone like paul, who i very much respect and i think has done a fantastic job advocating for his previous boss, president

clinton, over the years, i went and looked online, i couldn't find, over the previous 20 years, a single time paul went and bashed president clinton up and down. so to see people on the record bashing president trump like this -- now, there are a couple cases where we've seen both the first lady and we've seen the former deputy chief of staff say scenes attributed to them in this book are completely false and completely nonsense. >> but it goes back to -- >> but the fact that you have people who are saying this, i think, really disturbing and really troubling. it's also troubles with some of the sourcing and the way this was all put together. and, look, today what we should be talking about is the fact that the stock market went over 25,000. this is all great news. the fact we're getting pulled into kardashians on the potomac -- >> it's not quite that when you have steve bannon, who is as close to the president as anyone in the campaign -- >> i was disappointed that steve didn't come out and say it was yes, he did say it or he didn't apology. >> the direct quotes are the book are bannon books.

and bannon was the guy bringing wolff into the white house. >> that's troubling that he didn't come out and apologize or say he didn't say those things. because, again, if you're a strong supporter of president trump -- >> i hear you on loyalty. >> this book is an attack not just on president trump, but on the presidency. >> it shouldn't be that big of a surprise. maybe the direct quote and sourcing of some of these people and what they had been saying. but you go back to the reporting over the past year and a half, and we were all stunned, 20 sources, 30 sources, 17 sources. so the fact that a lot of these people went on the record may be of a surprise. but some of the details and quote/unquote disloyalty isn't that big of a surprise. >> it seems like -- obviously, he was talking to bannon at points, but trump seemed to be okay with inviting michael wolff into the white house at times. they have said he got into the white house fewer than 20 times. he apparently was also holed up at a hotel across the street from the white house, and people would go over there. he had 200 interviews. i think it speaks to the chaos and sort of the vacuum and the

vanity of the white house inviting a reporter in there in this way. and a reporter they didn't vet. they can trash this reporter now, but it seems to me that a quick google search would have said michael wolff might be problematic. >> let's take a quick break. more from the book, michael wolff quoting steve bannon talking about ivanka trump and jared kushner and the russia invegs gags, what he's claiming they're worried about when we continue. puts me at greater risk for heart attack or stroke. can one medicine help treat both blood sugar and cardiovascular risk? i asked my doctor. he told me about non-insulin victoza®. victoza® is not only proven to lower a1c and blood sugar, but for people with type 2 diabetes treating their cardiovascular disease, victoza® is also approved to lower the risk of major cv events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while not for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (announcer) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis.

do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing, or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. change the course of your treatment. ask your doctor about victoza®.

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. wolff's book "fire and fury." the new book on the trump white house. cnn has obtained a copy of the book. jason miller is mentioned in the book, and i want to get a

reaction from jason on what it says. you're mentioned twice. part of what wolff says a private army of leakers and defenders. i want to give you a chance to -- >> well, i'm clearly on board president trump's team. and i'm a strong supporter of the president. steve was someone who i worked closely with on the campaign trail, as was a bunch of other folks who are currently in the white house, as far as this outside team, look, i'm a strong supporter of the president, i'm proud to say that every day of the week. >> i'm going to read another passage. part of which is the characterization, and his sourcing is unclear, he faced a number of journalistic conundrums because of the white house's lack of experience and procedures for setting parameters. here's what he wrote and what he says steve bannon told him. the koour position was not helped by the fact that the president had been gleefully telling people jared could solve the middle east problem because jared knew all the crooks in jerusalem. jared kushner and ivanka was

terrified, said a satisfied bannon. three key words there, ivanka is terrified. back with the panel now. >> it had been reported that jared was also pushing the president to fire comey, and bannon too charlie rose in october said that was the worst political decision ever made, at least in recent political history. so you do get a sense of why they were angry or worried too about what comey could be looking for and finding. >> trump himself, in talking about what a red line might be in terms of talking about mueller has talked about finances as well. he said that on the record. in some ways, we talk about the ways in which a lot of this book, we'll figure out if it's corroborated, who his sources were. all of this reporting has been out there. i think this line about ivanka being terrified about someone going near the family finances or digging too deeply into that, trump has essentially said the same thing. >> i really think this book is

partisan. this is an answer to primary colors or blood sport or clinton cash. i work with john boehner. wolff says that he did not know who john boehner was. john boehner has played golf with donald trump for years. they text each other. he absolutely knows john boehner, i talked to sean spicer earlier. >> the alternative explanation is that he forgot or it didn't happen. >> they were in communication. i know that as soon as he was elected, john was one of the first people to get directly to him and congratulate him. i talked to sean spicer earlier tonight about the access that wolff had, and he said, if you just read that first statement about him kind of attributing quotes and back filling and so forth, that's what he was doing, he did have access to bannon, bannon should be denying some of this stuff. it would be helpful if he would. he's moved over in a different position right now, but sean was very skeptical that this guy had the access that he claimed to

have. and then, finally, the statement and jason knows, he was in the tower every day, i was there not every day, but i was in contact with them. they always thought they would win. that's what was amazing to me, as somebody who supported cruz, when mr. trump got the nomination, i was surprised. they all were -- >> wasn't kellyanne conway the night of the election, didn't she start giving interviews, saying that the rnc didn't give them the kind of support that they needed? >> i can tell you, kellyanne is someone i worked with closely on the campaign trail. she is someone who in private small meetings or even one on one always express ed confidence we were going to win. even to the president himself. i remember down the home stretch, we're trying to make decisions about what state we were going to go to. the president kept saying, we got to go back to pennsylvania. got to go back to pennsylvania. you guys are a bunch of idiots, we're going to win this state. the reasons republicans don't win pennsylvania, we don't go there enough. i know what i'm doing, we're

going to pennsylvania, we're going to win this thing. i spent hundreds of hours with the president on the campaign trail in 2016, never once did he ever say something to the nakt he thought we were going to lose, he wasn't dedicated. >> that went for everyone -- >> you guys spent a lot of time picking through the book and trying to point out things this isn't right, that isn't right. and listen, i am not comfortable myself with some of the sourcing of this book. this book is bizarre. but how do you cover a train wreck in a zoo next to a circus? and that's the problem, trying to figure out how to cover this white house even for those of us here has been difficult. you have to eat the whole hamburger here, yes, in fact there's stuff in there i'm not comfortable with. there's stuff in there that fits a pattern and fits with a lot of stuff out there already. and none of it is flattering. none of it is good. >> he's selling books. he's given wishful affirmations -- >> i will tell you this. >> let me say this -- >> i want to know who his book agent is. >> every republican convention i

went to for 10 years, always had primary colors are now clinton cash out there. >> then why did trump let him in? why did trump let him in? why did bannon let him in? >> i don't think he was let in, that's what sean told me. >> the problem of the book, for the reporting we have, is this, and i wrote this down for the coverage. this is wolf's words. my indelible impression of talking to senior trump advisers and observing them through the first year of his presidency, they all 100% came to believe he was incapable of functioning in his job. this is the crisis we face, it's evident to an outsider and apparently it's obvious to an insider. >> let me say this, as someone who was involved in the campaign, and not to the extent of jason, that is not true. people did not universally think that trump wasn't -- >> he's talking about now. >> well, we stay -- >> don't talk like that in the white house. >> i talk to the white house every few days, and they don't feel that way. >> rex tillerson has denied -- >> jason. >> people in the white house absolutely do not talk like this.

whoever is saying this is -- i'll tell you where a lot of this probably comes from, it probably comes from people who spend no time around the president. probably people on capitol hill or people out in the bureaucracy >> you are a loyalist -- >> okay, wait. we have -- >> i don't hear it. people who work in the white house -- >> we did talk to janice minh in the last hour, who was at the dinner with roger ailes and steve bannon corroborated everything that was said. if not word for word. much more to talk about with the panel. including another passage in the book, michael wolff quoting a key member of the white house. a stunning reaction when learning james comey had been fired. your sleep number setting. does your bed do that? right now our queen c4 mattress is only $1199, save $400. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

in the last segment we talked about the president's competency, which is a tough place to be but it where's some think we are. back with the panel. jason, your point is people in the white house currently do not talk like that. >> correct, and the people who worked for the president going back to the transition team and on the campaign trail wouldn't talk like that about the president. so that's where i think a lot of this starts getting suspect and a lot of it might be hearsay because it doesn't add up. i talk to folks in the white

house almost everyday and they never talk like this. they just don't. they love the president, they think he's doing a great job. >> but with every tweet that comes out there's nobody who says "oy, geez, is that a good idea?" the book talks about people rolling their eyes. >> earlier when i was praising paul, i'm sure paul disagreed with president clinton a couple times when he worked for him over the different years but it was never -- never became a personal thing, you didn't go bash him publicly. but this goes well beyond just maybe -- >> but it seems like the methods, if somebody said to him, oh, this person did this, then he would sort of include that. now, whether that's -- >> he'll have to defend his reporting but this does jibe with everyone else's reporting. the secretary of state called the president a blanking moron. was asked if that were true and he refused to deny it. that's as solid a confirmation as you can get.

general mcmaster, the national security adviser, has been reported having called the president an idiot. he's in the book calling him a dope. the secretary of the treasury in the book calls him an idiot. reince priebus, the chief of staff calls, the president an idiot. >> i think rupert murdoch as well. >> rupert murdoch. but what's interesting is you have these wars for a president's soul. had them in the reagan white house, had them in the clinton white house, had them in the obama white house. what's different here is this isn't about policies. nobody is saying the president should move left or right or sign this trade deal or veto that bill. they're saying he's unfit to serve. we've never seen this before where the people closest to the president are screaming he's unfit to serve. >> domestically you could argue that short term this is actually potentially beneficial for the president, amongst gop establishment, right? that if it's a decision between whether they're going to be with bannon or team trump, that maybe this pushes them closer to team trump. but to paul's point, larger picture globally, it's not just the u.s. that's reading this book and talking about it. i mean, it's salacious.

but also what are the consequences long term for us as a global power? you've got countries that are still trying to figure out what this president is all about, what these tweets mean, you've got north korea and south korea really circumventing the u.s. and i think long term our place as a geopolitical leader really is in balance right now when they're hearing that the people that they're supposed to be talking to in the white house think the president of the united states is quote/unquote a moron, an idiot, whatever word you want to throw in. >> bianna, i would push back and say policies do matter and the policies this president is putting into place are having a real impact. the fact we have china -- >> what policies? >> with our tax cuts. the biggest tax cut of an entire generation that we just passed. china is going to u.s. companies right now and offering them incentives to stay and not bring everything back to the u.s. our economic policies are having a real difference -- >> trade deals also have implications. >> folks in ireland are freaked out that u.s. companies are going to take their money out of the banks in ireland and

bring them back to the u.s. and repatriate those dollars. our policies are having a real deal. look at the countries where we've im3r0proved relations now that trump is in there. look at india, saudi arabia, israel, there are countries all around where trump has us moving in the right direction so i have to disagree with your assessment. >> coming up, a different kind of bomb. the so-called bomb cyclone, i don't know where people come up with these terms. everybody seems to be using this term, i never heard of it before. but bad weather slammed the northeast bringing snow, hurricane force wind gusts wicked bad flooding in boston and beyond. it is k winter. this does happen. the latest on it next. hey! you know, progressive is america's number-one motorcycle insurer. yeah, she does purr! best bike i ever owned! no, you're never alone, because our claims reps are available 24/7. we even cover accessories and custom parts. we diget an early start! took the kids to soccer practice. you want me to jump that cactus? all right.

aah! that lady's awesome. i don't see a possum!

up until this week you may never have heard of the term bomb cyclone, i haven't, but if you live in the northeast, especially near the coast, you are familiar with it now. it happens when a low pressure system has a big drop in atmospheric pressure and fast. what that trands lats slates to blinding snow, massive wind gusts. 13 million people under storm warning from maine to virginia. let's go to the cnn weather center for the latest. where is the storm and how long will it stick around? >> it's dwindling is the good news. here are some of the numbers. massachusetts, new jersey, rhode island, new york, connecticut, eight states reported a foot of snow or more. the storm system that dropped in pressure rapidly is very rare, of course, since the beginning of the satellite era we've only had a couple, the center of the storm pressure dropping equivalent to a category three hurricane but the great news is it stayed offshore, about 250, 270 miles, keeping the hurricane-force winds off the

coastline. only three areas reported hurricane wind gusts and that's in eastern massachusetts. notice the flow in the great lakes? that's the cold air moving in toward the northeast green bay minus 15, pittsburgh minus 12. by the time the cold air moves into new york i don't think we'll have windchills above zero tomorrow. on saturday minus 15 degrees. boston a wind chill of minus 26. some interior areas of new england minus 30, minus 35. only an inch of snow in washington, d.c., wasn't expected to be much, philadelphia picked up four, jersey coast over 13 inches, atlantic city we got a good almost ten inches in central park but it was in boston that a record high tide occurred. it was a record of 15.1 from the blizzard of '78, they surpassed that today. waves of water and sea into the streets of boston, now undergoing a flash freeze which means the scores of automobiles will be locked in ice most likely for days. all of the warnings are slowly getting erased, which is good news.

the storm makes landfall in new brunswick later on tonight into nova scotia but then the cold air moves in and it will be bitter. high temperatures in the single digits in boston. >> tom sater, appreciate that. thanks very much for watching "360." time to hand things over to jake tapper. "the lead" starts right now. this is cnn breaking news. good evening and welcome to a special primetime edition of "the lead," i'm jake tapper. amidst the stormy and capricious seas that president trump is battling caused by the shocking allegations and vicious quotes in the new book "fire and fury, inside the trump white house" a book that is raising serious questions about the president's capacity to lead. a new squall of a different sort has emerged this evening, breaking news in the russia investigation. coming out a short time ago in the "new york times," part of the investigation by special counsel robert mueller