♪ i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. we welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. the president was up early tweeting defenses. his mental health. calling himself, quote, like really smart and a very stable genius. part of the ongoing white house response to the book that he helped propel to number one by having its lawyers try to

prevent its publication. among the many fires and furies stoked by michael wolff are questions about the president's mental health. i'll talk to one psychiatrist who says sometimes leaders perform better with a touchch mental illness. speaking of which are the president's seemingly unhinged belligerent tweets against kim jong-un that are making so many anxious actually a strategy and one that's working? plus, after california legal ices pot, jeff sessions legal l bogarts it. i'll can former congressman rand paul. here's one of his recommendations. >> mr. president, why don't you fire this guy? why don't you fire jeff sessions? >> one thing president trump is getting credit for is the war on isis. are they still a threat in 2018? i'll talk to graham wood.

he's the author of that provocative essay which explained what isis really wants. and it's the first major awards ceremony of the me too era. besides the actresses all dressing in black. how else will tomorrow night's golden globes cope. i'll ask red carpets expert melissa rivers. first, one of the excerpts from president trump's book calling into mind president trump's fitness for office. and also mental fitness. the last one treads into territory that troubles me. let me explain in 1964, a magazine called "fact" polled health professionals on barry goldwater's fitness to serve as commander in chief. the magazine published a cover story claiming many found him unfit. after the election, goldwater

sued the editor for liable and won.engendered a debate in the mental health community. even if that person is a public figure. eventually this led to the american psychiatric association in 1973 adopting what's been known ever since as the goldwater rule which is says in part it's unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has been conducted an examination and has been granted access for such a statement. for the candidacy of donald trump his behavior left many express frustration for many what they feel as a gag rule. claiming they've seen enough from president trump from his u urterances to describe. and calling on concerns called

"dangerous case of donald trump." add this week came news that early in december the book's editor yale university psychiatry professor dr. randy lee met on capitol hill concerned about president trump's recent behavior. now several quotes and episodes in michael wolff's book have thrown fuel on the debate including steve bannon saying trump has, quote, lost it. on friday when asked about trump's fitness for office on the "today" show, woefrl salff this. >> let me put a marker in the sand here. 100% of the people around him, they all say he is like a child. and what they mean by that he has an a need for immediate gratification. it's all about him. >> and some have questioned the president's fitness is not new. one election day poll found 63%

of all voters felt he lacked temperament to search as president. and that includes 19% of those who voted for him and those numbers have not improved in the last year. but i don't think we should encourage this sort of speculation. first. it's inexact. and subjective. and second, it's unfair and unseemly. just as i said it was when some speculated about what aled hillary clinton when she took a stumble on september 11 of 2016. i don't distinguish between mental and physical, in respecting privacy. but more importantly, i'm uncomfortable with the idea of getting rid of the goldwater rule which was imposed for a purpose. it wasn't fair to senator goldwater that he was the subject of arm chair diagnoses. we've set a dangerous precedent in allowing our public servants to be diagnosed by lay people or professionals who have not met them professionally. we might discourage some from seeking public service.

and has this always been the thinking? we would have denied ourselves many fine public servants if we preclude those with mental illness, lincoln and churchill among them. why not speculate about policemen, about a cable anchor, or a school principal, or even a psychiatrist. not only is that unfair to the person being spoken about, but it's unfair to those dealing with mental health issues to have their very real diagnoses, become political fodder. you want to impose a standard that any person seeking the highest office first be rendered mentally and physically fit in a manner that applies to all, okay. but to arbitrarily scrutinize one particular candidate or officeholder at least in my opinion is wrong. now, what if a certain amount of instability is not a deficit in a leader, but an asset? that was the theme of a book that i read in 2015 which includes these statements. when our world is in tumult,

mentally, our leaders function best. and in a storm of crises, complete sanity can steer us astray, while some insanity brings us to port. the book is "a first rate madness." joining me now is its author. a professor of psychiatrist at tuft's university and harvard medical school. and a researcher. doctor, would you like to react to anything you just heard me say? >> hello, michael, first, thank you for having me. let me just say, my opinions are my own, and not those of any of my employers. i partially agree with what you said. i organized a meeting at the american psychiatrist association annual conference last year on the goldwater rule. in which i argued against it. and i think the problem with the rule is that it's too absolute. not that it's completely wrong.

but it goes too far. and the problem with goldwater, you well described, and i think currently with president trump, it's easy to use the ep ithet o an order with one who disagrees with him politically. and i think that's a problem that needs to be controlled. on the other hand, i think censorship doesn't make sense either. and there are public behaviors and signs, as well as documentary evidence like medical records that should allow for a legitimate psychiatrist diagnosis to be made in public figures in some situations. >> i thought your book was provocative. i'm going to read the thesis as you summarized it very early on. "best credit cease leadises lea mentally ill, the worst crises leaders are mentally healthy.

explain. >> well, the ideas of "a first rate madness" come out of my experience with those treated bipolar and there are symptoms with conditions. for instance, people who have some depression are more realistic and more empathic towards others than people who have no depression and mentally healthy. and people who have mild manic situations, meaning that you're sped up in your thinking in movement and feeling. people with mild manic are more creative and more able to stress than normally people. these traits of creativity, empathy and realism which occur in manic depression and bipolar illness are seen in some of our best crisis leaders. "in a first rate manemadness" w

who have those traits in the psychological makeup show those traits in leadership in times of crisis, i should say, not always, but in sometimes of crisis when you need them the most. >> let's run through an example or two. winston churchill. i can myself a churchill buff. he dealt with his black dog, his depression. >> churchill was a great case. he had very severe episodes throughout his life. sometimes, he had trouble getting out of bed, going to parliament. he had suicidal thoughts. he would not stand close to balconies or railway platform with thoughts that he might jump in. and we have other evidence of real diseases, genetics, churchill's daughter committed

suicide. he had many family members hospitalized. if you think about depression related to realism, the research involves a study like for instance a light coming on if you push a button, the researchers will control when the light comes on. and people with a little depression have more awareness of the control of the light. and there are more complicated studies as well. people with depression are more realistic than other people. churchill when he was very depressed was quite realistic about the nazi threat than other leaders of his conservative party and his other party, and most the population of britain. that's an example of where his depression enhanced his realistic leadership. i should mention -- >> i want to put on the screen, doctor, a quote from your book. i'll read it aloud. why not just exclude the mentally ill from positions of power as we've seen such a stance would have deprived

humanity of lincoln, churchill, roosevelt and kennedy. but there's an even more fundamental reason not to restrict leadership roles to the mentally healthy. they make bad leaders in times of crisis jut when he need good leaders the most. >> the flip side there are limitations to mental health. if people mentally healthy and normal are not extremely empathic people. they have realism. and an exaggerated sense of one's self worth, a somewhat elevated self-esteem. this is actually a good thing in normal life. you don't want do go about life feeling bad about yourself but when you're in power, the bubble of power, this mild positive illusion can grow into what a british neurologist has called a huber syndrome. and then the leader can get very realistic in a way that can be

dangerous. the examples, chamberlain during world war ii, general george mccolin during the civil war. and where this kind of hubris may have occurred in power. lincoln once said, if you want to test a man's character, giver him power. and i think this is the kind of idea that he was referring to. >> are we ready for this, as a society in 2018? are we ready for the findings of your book which argue that in times of crises, someone a afflicted with a bit of mental illness might be bet suited to ride out the storm? >> because i worry about the stigma that unfortunately still applies to this subject matter? >> i totally agree and that's part of the reasons i wrote the books. one of the problems with the goldwater rule prohibition is that it actually enhances the stigma. the fact that it's so terrible we can't even talk about it is

part of stigma against mental illness in our society. we should be willing to make psychiatrist diagnoses in our leaders and thereby not disqualifying them, but qualifying them. but keep in mind, when things are fine and there's peace and prosperi prosperity, mental illness is fine. you just need to make the trains run on time. one of the my thinking with the current politics, we're not in a time of crisis. if you do have a major leader who has manic symptoms, for instance, that could lead to impulsive behavior that could create crises that need not occur. >> dr. ghaemi, the book is entitled "a first rate madness." you wrote it in paper back a few

years ago, but i think it's terrific. thank you. >> thank you. >> what are your thoughts, tweet meal @smerconish on my facebook page. i will read some throughout the course of the program. two from facebook, maybe a mentally ill leader creates the crisis in the first place. stuart, that's not a subject dealt with by the doctor in his book. but i get where you're going with that. next facebook comment -- personality types are not mental illness. helena, nobody here is trying to break it all down and say that's what we're dealing with it's in current situation. look, i thought immediately, as this debate was ensuing in the past coming of days of this book that i read a couple years ago. and i think the doctor explained it quite well. i'm personally unsettled with the conversation that's been taking place publicly in the last coming of days. i'm having it in the historical context about some of those who have served us like lincoln, roosevelt and churchill and kennedy. one more, i think it's a twitter comment.

i prefer my leaders to be relatively free of mental illness. jetpackevin, it might depend on whether it's a time of crisis or stability. because that's the thesis of the book. up ahead, soon california legalized pot longtime opponent of the drug attorney general jeff sessions empowered u.s. attorneys to start enforcing federal restrictions. how's this going to end? well, rand paul is here and he thinks he has a solution. >> mr. president, why don't you fire this guy? why don't you fire jeff sessions? there are two types of people in the world. those who fear the future... and those who embrace it. the future is for the unafraid. ♪ all because of you

♪ ♪

oh, it's actually... sfx: (short balloon squeal) it's ver... sfx: (balloon squeals) ok can we... sfx: (balloon squeals) goodbye! oof, that milk in your coffee was messing with you, wasn't it? try lactaid, it's real milk, without that annoying lactose. good right? yeah. lactaid. the milk that doesn't mess with you. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish.

in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. attorney general jeff sessions pushing back on states legalizing marijuana. recreational pot now legal in eight states and the district of columbia. another 22 states allow only medical marijuana. and 15 allow a lesser medical

marijuana extract. but this week, sessions sent a memo to u.s. attorneys. he reminded that federal law prohibits the possession and sale of marijuana. this effectively repealing the 2013 obama administration pose that refrained from prosecuting individuals if they're complying with their state's marijuana laws. so what does this mean for the future of legalization? well, my next guest has a strong opinion, he said fire jeff sessions. you know rapind paul, the great senator from the state of texas. and it's great to have you back, congressman. thanks for being here. why must sessions go? >> well, because he represents something that is so un-american, as far as i'm concerned. the war on drugs, to me, is a war on liberty. i think that we overly concentrate on the issue of the drug itself. and i concentrate on the issue of freedom of choice, on doing things that are of high risk.

and we permit high risk all the time. i mean, if you look at the study of philosophy and religion, that's very risky stuff. there's bad ideas out there. generally, we allow people to eat what they want, and that is very risky, but we do overly concentrate on what people put into their body. to me, it's an issue of liberty. and jeff sessions is not a libertarian at all. and the war on drugs is a totally illegal system. and if you look at history, our government recognized that we don't have the right to regulate the sale of drugs. in 1914 when it passed the harrison act, it was done over taxes. tax them, that's how we'll get them to stop using it. 1938, the same thing with marijuana. the same thing when they wanted to manipulate obamacare. they put taxes on it, they don't endorse the concept they have a right to do all of these things. so, i think it's very

questionable constitutionally, they shouldn't be doing it but it's so terrible. it is an excuse to violate civil liberties wholesale. and jeff sessions has been one of the worst. usually, i don't usually ever get involved in these personality squabbles but this is one major setback, obama did something decent there. he backed off. i thought that was a good move. and sessions wants to reverse that. >> what i wanted to say, congressman, in the context of the pot case, i agree with you, and i think it tramples on state's rights. but in "the wall street journal" today there's an editorial that i think raises a valid point. let me read a photograph from the journal. it says social mores are changing and add a majority of americans support legalizing pot, but instead of taking the cop-out of blaming mr. sessions, legalizers in congress ought to

have the courage of their convictions and try to decriminalize pot nationwide. don't they have a point? >> well, if it's unconstitutional, they shouldn't be doing it. that's all you need is somebody dedicated to the constitution. but if you look at the warbacher law passed a couple years ago, it really opens the door for obama to do what he did. the fact that they should do it, it's unconstitutional, and people should have the right or responsibility of dealing with what is dangerous. once you get into this thing that government is going to protect us against ourselves, there's no protection of liberty. people are frightened about liberty, they always want it to be taken care of. just because you legalize something doesn't mean everyone's going to do it. if you look at the consequences, why don't the people just look and read and study prohibition. you know, they changed the constitution because they knew this was not the right thing for

the federal government to do. so, they write an amend to the constitution. total failure. and the war on drugs is every bit as bad. but we have made progress. i brag about the fact that the libertarian message about allowing people to make choices have been a good move. and now, we've even introduced the notion of null ificationnule states are nullifying the intrusiveness of the federal government. i think there are great things happening. and i predict that sessions is not going to be victorious on this. and unfortunately, it's for reasons that i don't get excited about. it's because the states want to collect all of these taxes. so it becomes this tax issue. i want to legalize freedom. i just don't want to do it because the states get more revenues but it's going to help us cancel out this bad move by sessions. >> i want to hit you with a totally unrelated reaction to a

quick reaction. i know your view on that issue, bitcoin is all of the craze, i'm going to be talking about it later in the program. give he rand paul's cliff notes version on bitcoin? >> first thing is when in congress, i introduced legislation to allow competing currencies because i abhor the system that we have. the official counterfeiters at the federal reserve. so people should have the right to choose. they did originally when money started. then they picked gold and silver. and the government has taken over and abused that standard and monopolized it. and destroyed in this country. first, i want to legalize all of those options and what people want to use as money. but no fraud. you can't commit fraud. that's the problem with the government, so there's a regulation on there. i think the jury's out on how far they're going to go with cryptocurrencies acting as money. right now, i don't see it because, in my studies of monetary history, it's always

been something tangible. people want something tangible. when it's related to it, it works but since 1971, it's not been tangible at all. it's been totally pheaa. of and that's why everything is a big bubble. as a matter of fact, the big bubble comes from quantitative easing. and all of that money out there is also participating in blowing out the price of these cryptocurrency. they're up to $275 million. and nobody has anything they can touch. the principle is right. somebody has to sort it out if it ever becomes money. but i have questions because historically, money should be something that's tangible, but it should be legal, as long as there's no fraud. >> now, i know why i've missed you. come back. and thank you. >> thank you, michael. >> congressman ron paul. let's see what you're saying. smerconish, i'm smoking my first

bowl of today watching you and i've got a message for jeff sessions. i'm getting high today, tomorrow and every day until i die. my body, my choice. hey, 4:20time, i'm for you. i did want to raise that journal point, however, which i think the burden really is on congress to get off of the federal books. that which he now is empowering u.s. attorneys to empower. to use, to enforce. that's the word. lots to come. did the president's name calling, nasty tweets against kim jong-un actually work? i'm about to weigh in on that. and trump getting credit for winning the war against isis, but is the group defeated? next time, i want you on my bowling team.

[ laughs ] rodney. bowling. classic. can i help you? it's me. jamie. i'm not good with names. celeste! i trained you. we share a locker. -moose man! -yo. he gets two name your price tools. he gets two? i literally coined the phrase, "we give you coverage options based on your budget." -that's me. -jamie! -yeah. -you're back from italy. [ both smooch ] ciao bella. (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.

for fast gas relief without passing the gas. 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. ♪

twitter just issued a statement explaining why it won't ban world leaders or remove their controversial tweets. the site says it would, quote, hide important information people should be able to see and debate, end quote, hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions. twitter didn't name any particular leaders but it was clearly in response to president trump's public handling of the nuclear threat of north korea which has been hostile. and at times downright infantile. but recently, i began to wonder might his strategiley also be effective? >> he's treated an adversary with nukes as if the two were teenagers on a playground or opponent with high school insults. that might have worked with candidate trump but once you're the leader of the free world and the opponent that you're calling rocket man or little rocket man really has rockets. this week, the president tweeted

this, north korean leader kim jong-un just stated that the nuclear button is on his desk at all times. will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please new mexico him that i too have a nuclear button but it's a much bigger and much more powerful button than his. senator edward markey, for example, tweeted this bordered on presidential malpractice. and he tweeted we cannot let this war of words result in an actual war. however, in the last week, north and south korea have been in communication both about the olympics and borders. the u.s. and south korea agreed they would refrain from military drills during the olympics. and these substantive successes, compared to the escalating tensions during the obama and bush years, beg a question, is

trump's approach actually working? perhaps the trump motivation stems from thinking that years of sanctions and the international equivalent of double secret probation have been unsuccessful. the president's inconsistency and willingness to talk about war even recklessly might have kim looking for answers out of fear. now, of course, several other explanations for the recent progress have little to do with president trump. the first and most obvious is that kim may be successfully built a nuclear arsenal. and whether trump wants to admit it or not, north korea can wage nuclear war. with that ability comes a large industry of security. especially in a relationship with a nonnuclear capable neighbor. it's also possible that china or russia has gotten kim's attention and positivelily influenced his behavior. even if president trump has contributed to kim returning to the cable, the emasculation approach is a risky proposition.

some of this strategy can be planned by the impressive generals that surround trump. but often it seems to me it's spit-balling by the president himself as he does in other realms. i worry that time will eventually run out if the president talks tough and doesn't deliver like president obama did with his red line in syria. that's it's impossible to fell when he's bluffing. look, whatever the reason for kim's recent willingness to engage with south korea, here's hoping it bears fruit and fast. now, a look at that other threat isis. the most insightful yot i read about isis is graham wood's what isis really wants. that is represents a perversion of the islamic fate.

and he also worried about discounts the strong islamic roots. and explained if isis ever lost his grip on territory in iraq it would no longer be considered a caliphate. last month, they have retain full control of the iraqi/syrian border. with the president saying we've turned a corner, i thought it appropriate to ask graham, is isis really gone? graham wood joins me now, he's also author of the book "the way of the strangers encounters with the islamic state." graham, you previously disabused me of the idea that they're some ragtag band of miscreants, instead, you said they're ign e ignited their interpretations is that fair? >> they're a ragtagcreants in a.

being a ragtag group of hairy creeps in the desert does not keep them from actually creating a state which is what they did. it's very important that we deprived them of that. it's actually a very good thing that we no longer have major cities in iraq and syria. >> and i have learned as well from you, they want to get it on? they want to get confrontation from the west? >> yeah, they got it. and it didn't work out the way they thought it would. they thought that united states would show up, turkey would show up and what they would get is an armageddon war, a big religious war that would usher in the end of the times. so a lot of them are disappointed by that. i think we should remember, there are a lot of them, there are 40,000 people who travelled to fright for them. of those, there might be a third or maybe half dead. but that still leaves 20,000 people who in the very recent

past believed this was the way to be a muslim, was to fight. and many of those are not just returning home sheepishly, they've got idea of how to carry on. >> with the white house having taken credit for turned the corner on isis, do they deserve that credit? >> well, they were really continuing the obama policy. it doesn't take a genius, or stainless genius, i guess to know that the u.s. was going to destroy isis on the battlefield. that was the easy part. the obama administration knew that and the trump administration. what i think the trump administration hasn't really made much progress in, though, is handling the fighters from the isis project after the territory was lost. they also haven't made any progress in making sure the territory once retain by isis

becomes stable and a breeding ground for isis 3.0. that still could be it's in offing. >> i also remember for the piece you wrote for the atlantic that is built into the isis argument is this notion that they're going to take their lumps, right? in other words, they've drilled them to accept setbacks because this is the way this ends oddly enough with jesus coming to the rescue? >> yes. the ones that are looking at the isis propaganda. the isis supporters reading chapter and versus, they were saying that isis is going to be successful at first. then it was going to lose territory and be down to the last 5,000 fighters and then jesus would come to their aid. so when isis talks about what's happening now, they will often say, yeah, we predicted from the beginning that there would be good times and bad times. and the bad times would be pretty bad. that's what we're seeing now, the time when true believers are

tested. i wouldn't hold out too much optimism for them but that's how they're selling it for their true believers. >> final thought, it seems that graham wood most worries where they're headed next? >> yeah, i said 40,000 people traveled. al qaeda, in september 11th, 2001 had somewhere between 200 and 1,000 fighters. isis had 40,000. most of those people, we don't know where they are. they might be dead in the desert and that would be great. but it doesn't take long to grab headlines. so i'm worried about what happens next, both in syria with the keeping of that territory and making it a safe and durable piece. and also what happens in the west. if any of those foreign fighters who are over there make it back, they're battle hardened. they're committed to fighting and they're committed to drawing blood.

it could be very bad if even a few of them make it back. >> so appreciative of your sober analysis. thank you, graham. >> thanks. still to come, the mood at tomorrow night's golden globes promising to be trickier than usual. as it's the first major awards ceremony in the shadow of the #metoo movement, with actresses planning to wear all black. i'll ask veteran red carpet expert melissa rivers what we can expect. home. she thinks she's the boss. she only had me by one grade. we bought our first home together in 2010. his family had used another insurance product but i was like well i've had usaa for a while, why don't we call and check the rates? it was an instant savings and i should've changed a long time ago. there's no point in looking elsewhere really. we're the tenneys and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today. wiback like it could used to? neutrogena hydro boost water gel.

with hyaluronic acid it plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in. for supple, hydrated skin. hydro boost. from neutrogena

tomorrow night golden globe awards usually kick off hollywood's annual season of self-congratulation, but this year, the women will be wearing all black. just one signifier of the new reality ushered in by this past year's #me, too revelations of abuse and harassment in the industry. on monday, female directors, writers, producers, entertainment executives, they all launched times up, a plan

far reaching plan to address sexual harassments not only in hollywood, but restaurants and hotels. they have a defense team that has raised $15 million. so will this cast a long shadow over the red carpet. i spoke recently with who grew up on the red carpet and covered many red carpet scenes melissa jones. author of the book "joan rivers confidential. get "here comes the award seasons we start tomorrow night. seth myer did the monologue, what do you anticipate? >> first of all, i think it's going to be challenging. and quite a -- not tough, but definitely, a challenge, i think, is really the only right

word for seth. who is so smart and so funny. to figure out how to read the room. and read it quickly. you know, this is -- we're living in a time where if you say anything, you're condemned. if you don't say anything, you're condemned. we can't seem to have a civil conversation about any of this. >> right. >> and i think it's going to make everything from the red carpets to the show, to the post shows to the wrap-up shows complicated. >> i mean, he has to thread that needle, as you're saying but he can't not go there, in the evening monolong, wouldn't you agree? >> i agree, you have to go there, you have to go there, you have to address the elephant in the room. but what is half the audience going to laugh at? and what is half the audience going to find offensive? you've got to think back right after the whole weinstein broke,

a couple of people made jokes at private events, james cordon was one of them, and there was this outrage. >> right. i've got to believe -- >> you're going to have to read the room and read it fast. >> i've got to believe that the acceptance speeches will also touch on that theme. you referenced the red carpet. when i think of the red carpet, i think of melissa rivers. i think of joan rivers. how might fashion be impacted by all of this? >> i think, you know, first ever all, a lot of women are going to be wearing black. this is, again, where we're not able to have a civil conversation. everybody is allowed to express their support for this movement which is really what it is. in their own way. so, there's a group that's going to condemn people for wearing black. there's going to be a group that's going to condemn people for not wearing black. and anyone who wants to even talk about fashion, and is labeled not serious, it's going to have a problem. i've spent a lot of time

thinking how would i personally handle it. i think you have to address that this has been a year full of change and women are speaking with this collective voice. which is amazing to the point that the collective voice of women became "time's" person of the year. yet, it's also a night of celebrating people whose work is being honored. and the viewers want to see the clothes. and they want to see the excitement. and in this time of such unhappiness and darkness, everyone needs to just enjoy and be light for at least the red carpet. >> right. it's an entertainment show, when all is said and done. how do you think joan rivers would have reacted to the #metoo era? >> i think she would have written hash tag, i'm supportive, but i'm kind of in a way that's never happened to me, too, because my career would be a lot further. it would be the world's longest

hash tag. >> i can laugh at that. >> yes. absolutely. my mom never thought of herself as being a feminist, but when you look at the book, you realize that she was. she never had that self-awareness that she was a social commentator. but yet for her, this would have been christmas every day with material. >> there's a great, i don't know if they can see it if i hold it up but there is a great spread within the book of the "national enquirer" some of the references with joan rivers. she was rumored to be involved from everybody from brian wilson of the beach boys to one donald trump. what was her relationship with the donald, and how would she see him as president? >> relationship was friendly. they knew each other socially, obviously, my mom won "the

apprentice." the thing with donald is everyone keeps discounting is he's smart. he's not a fool. he's maybe the world's greatest marketer to come around since p.t. barnum, and that's a compliment. and i think she would have believed in that. but she also believed that women could do anything and anything as well, if not better than men. and i think that's how she felt politically as well. >> can i just say that the book sort of transcends her? it's like a pop cultural tour of a certain era. and i think it's extremely well done. i really appreciate you being here. >> >> thank you so much, i'm thrilled to be here. joan rivers confidential, great, great book. still to come, your best and worst tweets and facebook comments. with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

i work ovi need when i my blood sugar to stay in control. so i asked about tresiba®. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® is a once-daily, long-acting insulin that lasts even longer than 24 hours. i need to cut my a1c. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® works like my body's insulin. releases slow and steady. providing powerful a1c reduction. my week? hectic. my weekends? my time. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ i can take tresiba® any time of day. so if i sleep in, and delay my dose, i take it as soon as i can, as long as there's at least 8 hours between doses. once in use, tresiba® lasts 8 weeks, with or without refrigeration, twice as long as the lantus® pen. (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion and headache.

check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪

hey, follow me on facebook and twitter. check out the all new smerconish.com. here's some of which is just coming in this hour. what do we got? "firing sessions will be the demise of the mueller investigation." really, caroledee, you think sessions is on his way out? sessions isn't the one with the power, he recused himself. therefore, they could fire mueller? i don't think it happens.

call me naive. i don't think congress, even the republican-controlled house and senate, would allow that to take place. i think the mueller probe has moved too far and people want it brought to some type of conclusion, not by the firing of mueller. there's been too many notches in his belt so far with either prosecutions that resulted in a plea or are currently pending. that's my thought. what's next? >> "after watching the first two segments, i think our country might benefit if trump used some cannabis. chill out before tweeting." i'll take this as a serious point. i don't like what jeff sessions did this week relative to all those states that have legalized, and, frankly, those on the cusp like new jersey of doing so. because among other things, it's disruptive to the banking industry, and it also precludes those states from bringing in from the cold, you know, bringing in from being part of

the underground economy those that they'd like to be participating in a legalized structure. but i have to say, jeff sessions is enforcing federal law, and, frankly, we ought to be taking it up with the congress. take that law or series of laws off the books that allow sessions to want to impose his thinking. another one, if we've got time, and we do. "smerconish, i've seen news they are still trying to claim marijuana is a gateway drug. if that's the case, isn't beer a gateway to hard alcohol and alcoholism?" sue, i don't have credentials to offer you anything more than a gut opinion on this. i don't see it as a gateway, and i have a hard time understanding how last night i could have had a manhattan, and i did, and somebody else can't have a joint. i mean, there's an inconsistency between the two that i've just never quite understood, so i'm

with ron paul on this. i wouldn't go as far as he goes on all of it, but i do in that respect. quickly, one more. i promise i'll make it real fast. "if a person is coughing, sneezing, has red eyes and shivering, i don't want to be a doctor to determine you're sick." i think it's different with mental health. stick around, listen to this now, there's another great hour coming up right here on cnn. and when you replace one meal... ...or snack a day with glucerna... ...made with carbsteady... ...to help minimize blood sugar spikes... ...you can really feel it. now with 30% less carbs and sugars. glucerna. wiback like it could used to? neutrogena hydro boost water gel. with hyaluronic acid it plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in. for supple, hydrated skin. hydro boost. from neutrogena

i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. we welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. president trump meeting at camp david today with senate gop leaders, staff, and several cabinet members, but not attorney general jeff sessions, he wasn't invited. this follows reports that the president asked several staffers to stop sessions from recusing himself from the russian probe, and a sessions' aide was assigned to find dirt on fbi director james comey. i'm going to break it all down with jeffrey rosen in a moment. and author of the dossier christopher steele charged with lying and they want the justice department to pursue a criminal prosecution. are any of