>> now those running the elections for the democrats say they are so confident they can win seats, maybe all the seats in the oc, they have permanent staff there and by election day, they say, they will have at least a dozen full time staffers all focused on the oc. >> thanks very much. that's it for me. erin burnett "outfront" starts right now. "outfront" next, breaking news. president trump now refusing to commit to an interview with the special counsel. a stunning 180. why is he dodging bob mueller? plus, cork fest. the president's call to bring back earmarks igniting a fierce debate. what happened to draining the swamp? and trump's reality show. did he really refer to the white house as a studio? let's go "outfront." and good evening. tonight, the art of the dodge. dodging robert mueller. president trump refusing to

commit to a special interview with the special counsel. an interview his own lawyers had been preparing for. an interview you would think he has no reason to avoid if he did nothing wrong, but how trump did answer the question is worth hearing in detail. he denieded collusion with the russians eight times. >> would you be willing to meet with him without condition? >> again, john, there has been no collusion between the trump campaign and russians or trump and russians. no collusion. when i watch you interviewing all the people leaving their committees, the democrats are all running for office and they're trying to say this, but bottom line, they say there's no collusion. and there is no collusion. but again, i'll speak to attorneys. there was absolutely no collusion. it's a democrat hoax that was brought up as an excuse for losing an election that frankly the democrats should have won because they have such a

tremendous advantage in the electoral college. so it was brought up for that reason, but it has been determined there is no collusion and by virtually everybody, so we'll see what happens. >> would you be open -- >> we'll see what happens. certainly i'll see what happens, but pwhen they have no collusio and nobody's found any collusion at any level, it seems unlikely that you'd even have an interview. >> crossing his arms, too, feeling defensive. his reluctance to say whether he'll testify to mueller is an about face because he was emphatic and clear when asked last summer about speaking to mueller. >> would you willing to speak under oath to give your version? >> 100%. >> 100%. and by the way, that question was, was if you listen to the full, clearly referring to bob mueller. trump not om has flip flped on mueller. he took his obsession with the word collusion to twitter today. blaming republicans, his own party, for not ending the russia

investigation. the president saying quote, the single greatest witch hunt in american history continues. there was no collusion. everybody including the dems knows there was no collusion and yet on and on it goes. russia and the world is laughing at the stupidity they are witnessing. republicans should finally take control, exclamation point. take control? mr. president, the republicans of course are already in control of both houses of congress, which means they're in charge of every single committee running a russia investigation. the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein, who is overseeing the special counsel's investigation is a republican and bob mueller is a republican and whether it is eight times or 80, no matter how many times president trump says there was no collusion between his campaign and the russians, not a single committee or the special counsel has yet come to that conclusion. jeff is "outfront" tonight and yef all of this coming back to the president who had said he would testify to bob mueller. now completely dodging that

question. >> eastenot only dodging it, bu eight times in about a minute and a half or so. one of the reasons for the differences between last june and now, not only the change of a couple of seasons is this is no longer a hypothetical exercise. there are real conversations happening inside the west wing, inside the oval office and the residence between advisers and lawyers about whether and how the president may ultimately have to testify. about limiting the questions in scope, about setting up you know, some rules and guide rules if you will. last summer in the rose garden when he said 100% without missing a beat, it seemed so r far off. the president was assured the investigation would end at thanksgiving, at the end of last year. it is still going on and it clearly is going to stay going on. so the question here is that's why the president i'm told was reluctant to sort of commit today because it is more real, quite frankly. and many of his advisers believe look, he should just sit down with the special counsellor's

team and move on. but others believe that is a huge legal risk for him. if he would happen to slip on the truth. not remember what he said before. that could create a pandora's box here. so the reason for the change, it's no longer hypothetical. it's very real, erin. >> thank you very much. it's a crucial question. "outfront" now, john dean, president nixon's white house counsel during watergate, gloria borger and mark preston. john, the president hunlging on whether he will testify to bob mueller and last summer, emphatic and direct that he would do so. what's the cig tans to you? >> well, i don't think he really has much room the to play. it's probably a negotiating tactic. technique he's employing, but he has very little room because watergate did establish very clearly that the support level, that presidents have a duty to appear if they're subpoenaed by a grand jury. so that wouldn't be difficult for mueller to have happen.

so this is really him negotiating to try to get something less than appearance in front of a grand jury. >> mark. >> ais >> his answer today should have been said back this summer. as we see president trump is very cavalier with words and he'll say things and does he necessarily mean them? if he is going to be subpoenaed, if he has to appear before robert mueller, just think of this. it opens a bigger pandora's box where it could lead down other alleys that might be gently related to some of the questions and that's a big concern i think within the white house right now. >> so gloria, the president said there was not collusion between him and the russians about eight times in a minute and a half. eight times. let me play it a little bit of a different way than i just played it. >> there has been no collusion. no collusion. there's no collusion. and there is no collusion. there was absolutely no

collusion. there is no collusion. they have no collusion. nobody's found any collusion. >> ending with the arms folded in front of him. he sure is protesting. >> yeah. look, i think he is. and i think that what we're not hearing him talking about is other things. we're not hearing thhim say and there was no obstruction. and there was, and so we don't know, we don't know what mueller is saying. maybe mueller will say there's no collusion. we have no idea. what we don't know and i think this is really important and i think this is a discussion that his lawyers are having from our reporting is that what does mueller want to talk to him about? what is the threshold question here that mueller wants to talk to him about. is it collusion? if it's collusion, maybe he wouldn't need donald trump, right? if it's obstruction, obviously a question that might involve the president and that you would have to talk to him about

obstruction. so i think as this little dance goes on as the attorneys on donald trump's side try and figure out what they want and as they prepare to deal with mueller, they all have to kind of feel each other out here about what mueller wants and about what trump's team is willing to do on the first round. >> and john, let me just be get some clarity from you on this. because i think a lot of people watch you and say, okay, there's collusion, obstruction, possible financial crimes or whatever might be in there. if mueller says he wants to talk to the president right if he gets a grand jury to say so, does the president have tho to no matter what the premesis? does it matter what it's collusion or obstruction or financial crimes that may or may not be related ed to russia? >> it, the his counsel will try to get parameters. no question. he can always plead the fifth amendment. which is not r very good for a president to do. >> no. >> the political repercussions will be very serious for that. so i think what this is is

negotiations as to the parameters, the nature of the questions, the form that they testify in. bill clinton for example worked out a deal rather than go to the courthouse. he did his grand jury in front of the, without counsel. no, excuse me, he got counsel. but he did it on a closed circuit. nixon later appeared in front of a grand jury after he left office and that was done as a deposition. it was read to the grand jury. so there are all kinds of options and i think that's what he's playing for. something less than head on one-on-one. >> and you know, we don't know whether the mueller team is going to say look, you haven't reached a high threshold for a president to testify. you know, because for a president to testify, there's some precedent that says he has to be the only one who can answer certain questions. you know, there is a high bar for presidential testimony. and we don't know what mueller will say to that. >> certainly on other areas, obstruction and others, perhaps

it would hit that bar, but perhaps not on collusion. we don't know. i mean, mark, the tweet i read a moment ago where trump saiys there is no collusion, that the investigation is the biggest witch hunt in american history, he says republicans should finally take control and i didn't just lay out that that's kind of absurd on its face, but republicans are not happy about that. here's the senate judiciary chairman, chuck grassley, responding. >> i don't know what the president has in mind and don't think i better comment until i have a discussion with the president on that point. i don't intend to have a discussion with the president on that point and i hope he doesn't call me the same thing that you said he said. >> not happy, mark. >> wise man. >> there are some republicans that would agree with president trump. but i would say most republicans on capitol hill right now don't want any part of this. other than what they're doing right now with the investigation.

the reason being is they're being dragged into this. and their names are being attached to it and they're all running for re-election. certainly in the house of representatives they are and there's a fair amount on the senate side as well. so when chuck grassley is talking, congress is investigating to figure out what it should advise congress to do. mueller is investigating something that could lead to criminal charges. it's two different things. >> yeah. gloria. >> yeah, i know. i think it is two different things and as i was listening to grassley, i was sort of wondering was he interpreting what trump said as fire mueller? you know, i just, i just don't know. when donald trump says take control of the veinvestigation, don't know the answer to this, to be honest. what does that mean that take the investigation away from mueller? which clearly chuck grassley has no intention of doing and doesn't want to do. but it was kind of an odd way to put things. >> sure was. i don't know what the president has in mind, but i have no intention of finding out and i

don't want to know. don't want to hear about it again. pretty clear message although to your point. perhaps it was about mueller. thanks so much to all. and next, the president launchi launching an attack against a powerful member of congress over russia and the infamous dossier. plus, the white house leaving out keywords in an official transcript. it just happened to be the part where trump agrees with a top democrat on immigration. coincidence? and blurring the lines between the presidency and tv stardom. >> welcome back to the studio. nice to have you. millions of us suffer from the symptoms of dry eye. theratears® unique electrolyte formula, corrects the salt imbalance that causes dry eye. so your eyes will thank you. more than eye drops, dry eye therapy.

theratears®. you can do it. we can do this. at fidelity, our online planning tools are clear and straightforward so you can plan for retirement while saving for the things you want to do today. -whoo!

coming at you with my brand-new vlog. just making some ice in my freezer here. so check back for that follow-up vid. this is my cashew guy bruno. holler at 'em, brun. kicking it live and direct here at the fountain. should i go habanero or maui onion? should i buy a chinchilla? comment below. did i mention i save people $620 for switching? chinchilla update -- got that chinchilla after all. say what up, rocco. ♪

tonight, president trump on the attack, brasing democratic senator dianne feinstein for releasing the transcript of testimony from the cofounder of fusion gps. that is the firm behind the controversial dossier on trump's possible ties to russia. trump tweet iing quote, the fac that sneaky diane fine steen would release testimony in such an illegal way totally without aught thorization is a discuss. must have tough primary. now feinstein says that today, she said she -- yo owes chairma

grassley an apology for releasing the transcript without telling him, however she denies what she did is illegal and stands by the need for the transcript to be released and to be clear, cnn has confirmed multiple legal experts what she did was not illegal. "outfront" now, matt gates who sits on the house judiciary committee and has been very involved in all of this. so, congressman, i've got it here. the testimony of glenn simpson. it's 312 pages. he's the founder of fusion gps, the firm behind that dossier. you've u called the dossier and opposition research campaign document dressed up as intelligence document to use your words. in his testimony, congressman, simpson says the dossier alleged that members of the trump campaign were eager to get information from russia. that's something that's in the dossier and it turned out to be true. look no farther from the e-mail from donald trump jr., laettner the summer.

in reply that the russian government had dirt on hillary clinton to share. are you willing to admit that some of what is in the 35 page dossier is true? >> well, i have no idea. i know that james comey said that it was salacious and unverified. my suspicion is that when it's fully vetted, it will be a pile of garbage. it really sets a bad precedent when you've got one political party paying for opposition research and then that then becomes the basis for some counterintelligence investigation or a contributing factor. i found the most interesting part of glenn simpson's testimony to be that the fbi was willing to acknowledge dependsy of an investigation to him. i mean, heck, when we ask the fbi questions in the judiciary committee, they tell us they neither confirm nor deny here, that's depart ed from and i wan to know why. >> i want to get to the point about who paid for this in a moment, but first on the issue of truth. when you said pile of garbage. i want to ask you another couple

of points here. u.s. investigators have kroer rated other parts. the communications among foreign nationals did occur as reporteded. that's another thing that's true. >> the papadopoulos -- >> i'm saying in the dossier, there were conversations reported between foreign nationals. so not involving americans, specifically, we know some of the ones involving foreign nationals did occur as reported. simply making the point don't we deserve to know if anything else is true? inside that dossier? >> oh, unquestionably if there are investigations that could discover facts, we're all for the disclosure of facts. my concern is that this dossier was created at the behest of the democratic party. that's not in question. that is been established. if somehow the democratic party is able to have a politicize d fbi that is willing to take their opposition research then

use it for intelligence gathering purposes, that would be trouble iing. the fbi could clear all this up. they could say the dossier was not the basis of warrants to go and spy on american citizens associated with the trump transition team, but the fbi won't tell us. it begs more questions and doesn't give us the answers we need. >> talk about the fbi and who paid for it because when you say the dossier is political by democrats, that it's proof of collusion by democrats and russians, as the president has said, i just want to lay out the facts here in terms of how this dossier happened. the firm behind it was first hired in september 2015. that date according to the "new york times." they were hired to do opposition research on trump. during the republican primaries by the washington free beacon, which is a conservative website. a website funded by a major donor to marco rubio, who was a major trump rival at the time. it was not until april of the following year, so from september of 2015 to april of

2016, when trump won that crucial primary against ted cruz and it became clear he could be the republican nominee. that's when a a law firm picked up the tab and started paying fusion. so republicans became democrats. why you only accuse democrat sns why do you say this is a democratic thing? sf >> they're the ones who paid for it. >> so did republicans. >> so let's accept that as fact. what opposition research do, they're mercenaries. they get paid to go and cureuate information then provide it to someone who can use it in a political embarrassing way against a rival. the fusion gps people still needed to get paid and so they went t to the democrats and said will you pay us for this information that we purport to be accurate about donald trump then the democrats were the willing participants to pay fusion gps to collude with russians to tell lies about the president of the united states. >> this brings me back to my

point. we've just established there are things in here which are true, so you're saying they're paying them for lies. >> i'm quoting james comey. >> some things are unverify ied certainly by cnn, but others are not. in fact, noft, congressman, let me just make this point. on page 279 of the testimony, glenn simpson's lawyer says, i quote, somebody's already been killed. nine russians, high profile russians died nine months after the u.s. presidential election. if people may have died because of this, is that enough for you to say i want to know if everything in it is true instead of a democrat's paying people to lie as you just said? >> erin, these are people who cure raited lies about trump an are now trying to cover their tracks so they make yet another salacious and unverified claims. that's not evidence the things they said are true. that's evidence that these people are willing to say anything in order to distract

the american public. >> there are things in here which are true. so this point about lies doesn't add up. however, i want to ask you this. according to glenn simp ton's testimony, crist fear steel, the former british intelligence officer, he was quote very concerned about whether this represented a national security threat. he said hed to tell someone in r government about this. he thought there was an issue. a security issue about whether a presidential candidate was being blackmailed. then they asked mr. simpson if anyone gave steel approval to go to the fbi. simpson said no. he went to the fbi, steel did, out of obligation. are you simply shooting the messenger because you don't like the smes. >> absolutely not true, erin. these are people who by virtue of your last question, are willing to work with and for anyone who will pay them. if conservatives will pay them, they'll work for them. if the fbi paid them, they'll work for them.

>> that's opposition research is research where you find something true and used unravel something. i just pointed out there are multiple things in the dossier. >> no, you pointed out the fact that you believe cnn has been able to ver if fi this information. that doesn't mean it's true. there's no independent verification of these documents. if there was, james comey would have said so. he was it was unverified. >> first of all, yes. conversations between foreign nationals did happen. however, let me just tell you this. >> what foreign nationals, erin? >> the dossier alleged members of the trump campaign were eager to get information from russia. that is true. it is true not because of just anybody's reporting on the dossier, it is true because of the e-mail we have from donald trump jr. which said if it's what you say, i love it. referring to dirt on hillary clinton. that was an e-mail from somebody who said they had dirt from the russian government about hillary clinton. >> are you really maintaining that is evidence of collusion?

>> it supports the dossier's allegation that members of the trump campaign were eager to get information from russia. >> but no evidence of collusion. again -- >> i didn't bring that word up. talking about whether some things in the dossier are true because if some are, all deserve to be looked into and verified. zpl that's an absurd claim. like saying if somebody got the names right in the dossier or locations or times that somehow, the verification of a single fact in the dossier informs on the rest of it. >> you think we should dismiss everything else as lies. >> we need to know the truth and determine where the facts -- >> we should know what's true within it. >> but this hasn't helped news that regard. we are one year after the publication of the fusion gps dossier today and all we know is that it was paid for by democrats and that the fbi in some form of fashion, relied upon it and to me, that's deeply troubling. that you have the fbi

functionally working with the democratic party through the fusion gps company to understood mine our democracy and the president of the united states. that's why the oversight work of the judiciary committee is so important and why we'll continue to point out the anti trump bias that has infected this investigation. >> i want to be b clear at a point of fact. according to simpson's testimony. that the dossier was important. the fbi investigation, it was part of it. however, we understand that the fbi believed chris' information, chris steel. this is a quote from the testimony. might be credible because they had other intelligence. when he called that other intelligence that indicated that and to your point about the dossier being the basis for the investigation, it's important to point out this. "the new york times" reports the russia investigation began because the australian government contacted the fbi because a trump foreign policy adviser said that moscow had thousands of e-mails about hillary clinton.

that happened in may. that happened in may, so there are a lot of things that game kayembe into this russia investigation. it would be unfair to say it was because of the dossier. >> there are only two fact patterns to believe. either that an entire investigation was started because george papadopoulos was running his mouth in a london pub about the fact that putin hated hillary clinton, or the more likely scenario, that the fbi had become so politicized that when democrats paid for opposition research, when the company had employed nelly ore, the wife of bruce ore, a senior official at the department of justice, that that became the document for warrants to spy on americans and if i'm wrong, if this whole thing got started because of drunk george papadopoulos, why didn't the fbi come clean? why don't they just tell thaus the dossier was not used as an intelligence document and that would clear everything up. >> they are investigating, but here's another point. if they're so political, why 11

days before the election would the fbi director announce he's looking back into the hillary clinton e-mails? >> there was going to be more proof. i just want to play for you what the president, the vice president and fox news anchor had to say about what jim comey did 11 days before the election. same jim comey you're trying to say the politicizing the democrats. >> it took guts for director comey to make the move that he made. >> i know i speak on behalf of my running mate when i say we commend the fbi for having the courage to reopen this case. >> this news has turned the entire political universe on its head. it has given donald trump new life for his campaign and given hillary clinton and her campaign new reason to worry. >> guts, courage, giving donald trump new life. >> he had to do it. >> that you say was biased. >> yeah. absolutely. and you know what? assume that james comey hadn't given that revelation days before the election and there had been evidence of criminal

wrong doing from hillary clinton on huma aberdeen's hardware that was involved in the anthony weiner investigation. this isn't a consequence of the activities of republicans. it was terrible, terrible carelessness. criminal negligence in my opinion on the part of democrats to mishandle this classified information and james comey was covering his tracks because that could have been a circumstance where we have massive criminal conduct right before the election that the american people would not have known about so that was hardly evidence. but if he was an a political actor, we should all believe the fact that the fusion gps dossier is salacious and unverified. the very words of james comey. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next, pork. a dirty word to a lot of politicses, but apparently not to the president. >> maybe you should start bringing back a concept of earma earmark that's going to bring you together. >> and the curious words left out of an official whout

transcrip white house transcript. get ready for centrum micro-workouts. the bottle curl. the twist n' turn. the stretch n' grab. the gummy squish. centrum micronutrients fuel your body from the inside out. grab a centrum and join in. repeat daily. don't wait until february. walk into a jackson hewitt and you could get up to $3200. so why wait for your refund? you could get up to $3200 with a no-fee refund advance. go to jackson hewitt today.

with a no-fee refund advance. 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.

new tonight. pork, it's what's for dinner in washington. the rules committee planning to hold a meeting on this after president trump earning for the days when lawmakers would funnel billions back to mare home state states for frankly almost always ridiculous wasteful personal pet projects. >> maybe you should start bringing back a concept of earmark that's going to bring wrou together. do it honestly. get rid of the problems that the other system had and it did have some problems. one thing it did was it brought everyone together. >> it did? nothing like a handout. let's be clear here on what they are. remember some examples. the bridge the nowhere. the 500,000 teapot museum for senator burr in north carolina or the $1.8 million spent to

study pig odor and manure. these helped create washington's image as the swamp which is the same thing the president has promised to drain. >> we need to drain the swamp. drain the swamp. drain the swamp. we're going to drain the swamp, folks. >> "outfront" now, robert reich, former labor secretary in the clinton administration. his new movie is on netflix and steven moore, form rer senior economic adviser for the trump campaign. steven, bring back pork earmarks? >> you going to try to get me to defend that because i'm not going to. i was part of republican movement not ten years ago to get rid of and eliminate an outlaw earmarks and that i think worked to help get rid of some of the absurd projects like the bridge to nowhere and the turtle tunnels and all of this.

>> turtle tunnels. >> i don't know if you know about that one. we built tunnels so turtles could get across the highway. but look, this is a big, serious issue because i'm here to tell you, i think if republicans reinvent the idea of earmarks because look, they run the house and senate, they run congress. they're going to lose congress. that will infuriate voters. especially if they're loading up on these projects that bring money back to their district. from our republican friends, do not go there. i think what donald trump meant by the way, sometimes, you have to interpret what he means. it would be a good thing if republicans and democrats rolled up their sleeves and got together and came to some consensus on the budget and solving the immigration problem. >> if you can throw everybody a turtle tunnel, turtle tunnel or a te pot museum. lots of alliteration there. i guess you get everybody on board. the white house though did come out today and defend the president's suggestion.

i want to play for your sarah sande sanders' defense. >> during the meeting, the president talked about earmarks, that it could lower hostility here in d.c. and lead to both side coming together, but is he not concerned it could lead to run away spend something. >> the president said you could have controls on earmarks and he wants to find different ways to bring more and more cat democrats and republicans to work together on legislation to move our country forward and he threw that out as one suggestion on how we might be able to do that. >> robert? is that the only way to do it? give them a turtle tunnel? >> i'll tell you, if that's the only way to bring democrats and republicans together, we are in more trouble than anybody assumed we were. it would be very nice. maybe the president could say to the republicans, why don't you try to get some democratic votes on your next tax bill? or try to work together on something that is really important to average working people. you know, the republicans used to be or at least they used to

pretend they were the party of fiscal responsibility. but you got this tax bill, which is anything but fiscally responsible and now, you've got his suggestion and they're taking it seriously, the republicans, that they bring back earmarks after years. now i was there, steve was there, years of reformers and i'd tlik think this is one of the few areas that reformers on the left and right actually got together on. >> nancy pelosi and john boehner did both agree on this. >> and we agreed on getting tot and getting rid of earmarks. this is the swamp water. you talk about draining the swamp. the swamp water is actually earmarks and it is insane to hold hearings on earmarks. steve, you and i agree on almost nothing. we agree on this. i wish you were advising. why don't you advise him this is so stupid u? this is would turn back the clock, waste money. and actually not bring anybody together. >> by the way, you know, one of the reasons historically that

members of congress have put earmarks in the bill is to get re-elected. in this case, robert is right. so if any friends in the white house are lestistening, don't g there. you going to so disgust voters that you're going to lead them to vote out the guys. one other quick thing -- >> one of the biggest problems here, really, is that political power trumps, not to use an overused expression, the merits of any project. it's all once you admit earmarks, it's all about who has the power to get a particular pile of swamp grass to their own -- >> you both agree on this. i agree. i have something you will not fully agree on. robert, you wrote this, it is titled trump may be dumb, but he has plenty of emotional intelligence. you write, he knows how to manipulate people. he is an uncanny able thety to

discover their fear, anxieties, prejudices and darkest desires and use them for his own purposes. and you go on to call him a political con man. make the case. >> well, i don't know that i have to make too much of a case, erin. we've all been witnessing for the last year this man who, i mean, he's conning 37% of americans. and he tells them lies. he tells them that he is going to have a big tax bill that's going to help the working class when in fact, it helps his friends who are the oligarchs. he cons them constantly and i think we ought to give him some credit as being a very, very effective, intelligent con man. all this business about him being dumb and stupid, i don't think takes fact that he is a brilliant con man. my concern is that when you put together somebody who really can't read and can't analyze and can't really hold a logical piece of information in his head, with a brilliant con man,

that is a very dangerous combination for not only the united states, but the world. i'm sure my good friend steve would agree with me. >> well, not at all. i think donald trump is a very good sales man. a good marketer. he did something no one thought was possible. in terms of being a con man, robert reich doesn't like the tax bill, but we've seen as many as a million working class people who are benefitting from the pay raises and the bonuses that they're getting. but look. you could make the same case about barack obama. this is a guy who potold the american people he could stop the rise of the oceans for goodness sakes and could spend $800 billion on a stimulus plan and it would create all these jobs. so i think it's an -- >> charge. steve, wait a minute. but surely, surely steve moore, you would agree ta there are a lot of let's call them, i would call them lies. you might call them misstatements of fact, but the trump administration. >> i call them exaggerations.

>> exaggerates. i see. exaggerates like any con man would exaggerate. >> okay. thank you both. i appreciate it. up next, trump clears up confusion over the wall. >> would you be willing to sign an immigration deal that does not include funding for the border wall or would that be a red line for you? >> no. >> and trump's playbook on the coal industry. is he taking orders from a millionaire coal ceo? so he took aleve this morning. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. tylenol can't do that. aleve. all day strong. all day long. check this sunday's paper for extra savings on products from aleve.

of the season' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, 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. [ 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. [ both smooch ] but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

new tonight, the wall or no deal. president trump making clear today any immigration bill he signs must include the border wall. >> would you be willing to sign an immigration deal that ultimately does not include funding for the board e wall or would that be a red line for you? >> no. we need the wall for security. we need the wall for safety. we need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in. the security is number one. and so the answer is half to have the wall. >> loud and clear. so will this be a deal breaker for democrats? congressman, will you do a deal with the president on immigration on dreamers if it means what he says it means? it's a red line. got to put a a wall in there. >> i have no idea how you deal with this man. remember, it was monday, just a couple of days ago, that he r ordered 200,000 people from el

salvador to leave the country. refugee who is came there because their life was at risk on on tuesday, says he would sign a daca bill without a wall, right on public television and now today is back the other direction. you tell me where this man is on any given day. we put a bill with two him on a day in which he's going to sign with or without a border wall, something will happen. this is the problem with this president. you don't know what he's going to do tomorrow. he is all over the wall. >> so -- >> wall yes, wall no. who knows where he's going to go. >> he was very clear today and in a sense, seemed like a clean up for the event you referred to yesterday when he clearly seemed to consider senator feinstein's idea. let me play that exchange. >> sure. >> what about a clean daca bill now and with a commitment that we go in to a comprehensive immigration reform procedure

like back when kennedy was here. it was really a major, major effort and it was a great disappointment that it was nowhere. >> i think that's basically what dick is saying. we're going to do daca then start on the phase two, which would be comprehensive. >> would you be agreeable to that? >> yeah, i would like -- i think a lot of people would like to see that. but i think we have to do daca first. >> you need to be clear though. i think what senator feinstein is asking here, when we talk about just daca, we don't want to be back here two years later. you have to have security as the secretary would tell you! so you hear there, trump seemed to agree with feinstein. just do it separately until congressman mccarthy jumped in to remind him of his own party's stance. what's your take on this? does the president not understand how this works in

congress or is is he just trying make a deal and he doesn't care about the wall. he wants a deal and a win. >> i don't think we have any idea how this man's mind works. we've gone back through this daca business two or three times. there was an agreement on daca several months ago. it fell apart because the president didn't mean what he told pelosi and schumer that he would do a daca bill and he backtracks on it. this is a problem for sure. for 800,000 young men and women that are in the united states and the dreamers. it's a serious problem for them. but you take this thing in the context of international affairs. where is the president? where is this administration? on north korea? and one day, it's i got a bigger button than you have. the next day, well, we ought to negotiate. you go back and forth. the uncertainty that this man's lack of clarity, lack of consistency creates is an enormous danger to this world. >> you refer to his mind, and i know that has been top of your mind, and at this moment, dr.

vandy lee, the yale psychiatrist who has expressed serious concerns about the president's mental health is briefing democratic members of congress. you're heading there after this. and you had a private briefing with her today. what did you learn? >> well, her book, which is not just hers, but 26 other mental health experts from around the country, made it very, very clear that the mind of the president is a clear and present danger to this world. he controls the world's most powerful military. the most powerful nuclear arms anywhere. and he is not stable. he calls himself a stable genius u. anybody that would call themselves a stable genius has a significant problem. >> did she say that? did you get a chance to talk about that with her? >> yes, we did and we talked about the way in which he has displayed. begin with his primary campaign, all of the bullying that went on

against the other candidates, which continues to this day, which continued this morning to bullying senator feinstein, probably about what she did to embarrass him at that meeting you just played. it is, that's one piece of it. the continued attacks on people. is in her mind and in the mind of many of these mental health experts, a sign of mental instability. and it's a problem when you have a president who we cannot have confidence that he is capable of understanding the issues and being able to rationally work through a set of problems, but rather reacts emotionally and in many case, irrational ly to the last thing that was said to him. >> thank you. appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you. >> and also this evening, the trump administration appearing to be taking its coal policy from a coal ceo. a newly released memo written by robert murray details the types

of changes to environmental and coal policies that he would like to see. of his 16 suggestions, at least ten have already been fulfilled or are underway by the trump administration and trump wants to take credit for these changes. telling "the new york times" you know west virginia is doing fantastically now. so how do west virginiaens field? martin savidge went to find out. >> reporter: lately they're see more. coal production is up 31%, according to the state chamber of commerce, a welcome change after 2016 saw the state's lowest coal production in decades. >> i left as soon as i graduated. >> a year ago adam rourke had been laid off four times? 12 months. >> now it's just booming. >> reporter: >> reporter: working full time? >> six, seven days a week now.

>> reporter: as much work as you can want or handle? >> yes. >> reporter: there are more mining-related jobs than qualified people to fulfill them. 32 james came to west virginia four months ago. >> west virginia, you hear, is hiring miners, or at least there's opportunity for you. >> yeah, yeah. there's a lot of things in the works to where -- >> reporter: james got a mining job in less than a week. in 2016 in the town of welsch, things were so bad even the walmart closed. today small businesses are opening. there's a new barbershop, talk of a restaurant without a drive-thru, and this one boarded up building has broadband a thriving car repair. at ava's house, the local bed and breakfast, they're seeing something unheard of -- tourists. >> i would say it's doing really

good. so many people didn't give us a chance to make it and we're making it. >> reporter: when i met the sheriff in 2016, he way laying off depenearly half his staff. >> we were able to recently hire one deputy back and hired a process server back, so we feel that, you know, we're optimistic. >> reporter: so for this turnaround, who did you give the credit to? >> donald trump. >> reporter: everyone we asked says that. >> i can't thank him personally enough. >> reporter: things may be better, but life here is not all good. >> this stuff just came in. >> reporter: linda mckinnie and her husband run the food bank. last year she helped 16,000 of the county's roughly 19,000 residents. that is not the worst of it. 47%? is that what it is? of children in this county? >> are considered homeless.

that means that 47% of the children are living without a biological parent in the home. >> reporter: in part baas macdowell county ranks last for almost everybody in virginia, it is second in the state for deaths due to drug overdoses, something that the sheriff, also a local past orr, personally knows painfully and personally. you know of these deaths. >> i've conducted many of the funerals. of overdose. whole families. i've seen sisters and two brothers, a nephew out of one family. >> reporter: there's no question when it comes to coal mining, things are getting better, but there are other aspects that haven't gotten better at all. there's one more grim indicator of how the industry is improving. it's the number of coal mining-related deaths. in 1016 in the state there were just three. in 2017, there were eight. it's a reminder that coal mining

has always been a dangerous job. erin? >> incredibly dangerous job. thank you very much, marty. next e. jeanne moos on the president's favorite tv program, the trump show. >> my perform i consider it work, but i've got great reviews. and seamless experience across web and tablet? do you want $4.95 commissions for stocks, $0.50 options contracts? $1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team of trading specialists? did you say yes? good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online.

and when youod sugar is a replace one meal... choices. ...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. so we know how to cover almost almoanything.hing even a swing set standoff. and we covered it, july first, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ when heartburn hits... fight back fast with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue... and neutralizes stomach acid at the source.

♪ tum tum tum tum... smoothies... only from tums

it's the real world white house edition. here's jeanne moos. >> reporter: sometimes it's hard to tell a cabinet meeting from "the apprentice" boardroom. >> a nice-looking group. well cull to new york. >> welcome back to the stewedy. nice to have you. >> reporter: the studio the president was referring to letting cameras state for almost an hour tuesday at that bipartisan meeting on immigration. >> you know, some of it called it a performance, i consider it work. >> reporter: rue views my

performance, studio, no wonder someone joked -- he installed these at the cabinet meeting "new york times" reporting that before he took office, mr. trump told top aides to think of each president atday as an episode in a show in which he vang wishes rivals. >> who will succeed? who will fail? >> reporter: in retrospect some of his boardroom's musings were downright prophetic. >> do you ever take your hat on the? >> not much. >> i should wear a hat. >> reporter: just as ratings were dear to his hard. ♪ money money money same goes for ratings of the white house meeting. >> fantastic, which i think the media will ultimately support trump in the end. >> reporter: did he say the end? one pessimistic critic? we all die in the season finale.

>> stay tuned for scenes from our next episode. >> reporter: jeanne moos, cnn, new york. one thing you can't question, he blossoms when the cameras are on. thank you so much for joining us. you can watch out-front anytime. anderson is next. good evening, today president trump refused to say whether he is willing to talk to special counsel robert mueller we begin with keeping them honest. it comes down to all the things that even after a your in office the president cannot let go of, namely his election. and his belief that any claims to the contrary or even the mere investigation of such claims are either a hoax, a sham, a democratic excuse for losing for him, or an attempt to undercut his victory. here is a what he told john roberts this afternoon whether he's open