i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. we welcome our viewers. so are headed for a face-to-face showdown between the president and the special counsel or despite the president's words

might he never of it? i'll ask lawyers from both defense and prosecution in the investigation of bill clinton what lessons they learned about putting a president under oath. plus the justice department wants census takers to ask people if they are citizens. what impact might that one question have on the balance of state legislative and congressional power? and the nation was transfixed by the trial of the doctor who abused young female athletes. but did his sentencing judge overstep her legal role with words like this -- >> i would allow some or many people do to him what he did to others. >> and everybody loves the driving apps that show them how to escape traffic jams. except the towns that get used as short cuts. we have the mayor who shut down his roads to out of towners. is that legal?

but first, what a week with regard to the mueller probe. the president surprised everybody including his own lawye lawyers by saying he was looking forward to testifying under oath. >> there has been no collusion what sorry. there is no obstruction whatsoever. and i'm looking forward to it. >> now, almost immediately he qualified that by saying that he'd have to check with his lawyer and his attorney ty cobb then down played the offer, later another trump attorney john dowd told cnn he is the one who will decide if the president will sit for an interview with mueller's team and that no decision has been made. and then canome news that president trump ordered mueller's firing back in june citing three reasons that seemed awfully thin. they included the fact that mueller once resigned from a trump golf course over a fee dispud and that mueller most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented jared kushner. the first hardly seems grounds

to charge bias against a former head of the fbi and the second, if it suggests any bias, it would seem to be in favor of the president. this reminded me of the circumstances surrounding the firing of james comey. now, recall that in that instance, the stated reason for the firing as evidenced in a memo written by rod rosenstein was comey's mishandled investigation of hillary's e-mails. quote, as you say have asked, i cannot defend the director's handling of the investigation of secretary clinton's e-mails and i do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. that was never credible as a reason why trump would fire comey. and it was belied by a subsequent interview that the president gave to lester hoflt. and here is the potential significance. intent is the key agreement in any potential charge for obstruction of justice. as in did the president have a

corrupt motive when seeking to thwart a criminal investigation? asserting false reasons for the firing of comey and then mueller suggests that he was hiding his real rationale. if the reason for comey's firing and the order that mueller being fired was that the president to use his words was just fighting back, fighting back against an unfounded probe that was looking for collusion where it never existed, ginned up by a fake dossier with the support of deflated democrats and an antagonistic press, then why not say so? why create pretext when truth is on your side? the president absolutely has a right to defend himself. it's not a crime for the subject of a criminal probe to assert their innocence or provide additional information to exxon rates themselves. but where a person takes steps with intent to corruptly imt speed or stop such an investigation, that can amount to obstruction of justice. and now things aare about to ge

really interesting. president said his meeting with mueller could take place in the next two as to-to-three weto th. that suggests that mueller is wrapping up his probe. although the president has plenty of private sector xerns with litigation, i think it is politically dangerous for president trump to be interviewed or more formally testify under oath. from a lawyer's standpoint, he's an unpredictable client and that encounter with the press just before he left for davos is just an inkling of what he is like when he thinks he is right. trump is laquacious and i believes that he can win over anybody if given a shot. and that is a hazardous combination when a special counsel is the one asking the questions. which is why we're entering a critical phase if -- if -- there is an upcoming encounter between trump and mueller, what will it looks like? where will it be? who will be there? will mueller himself conduct the questioning? and will the president be under oath?

well, i have two perfectly credentialed guests joining me now, two veteran lawyers from opposite sides of another presidential inquiry that gripped the nation. deputy independent council in the clinton intern investigation who questioned president trucli clinton said it depends what the definition of is. and also former counsel to both clinton and barack obama who quarterbacked the impeachment defense. if you represented this president, how willing would you be to produce him to bob mueller? >> well, i'd be very reluctant. president trump like every other american citizen has the right to remain silent. and to weigh that right and go into either testimony under oath or for an interview puts not only his personal freedom and future in jeopardy, but also the office in play. i think the factors that went in

to the decision and the advice that president clinton made in august of 1998 to testify in front of the grand jury are the same factors that are being considered by mr. trump's lawyers today. and i think any lawyer will be very, very concerned about exposing his client to examination while he is the subject or the target of a grand jury investigation. >> so let me ask the direct question. do you anticipate that president trump at some point in the future will be invoking his fifth amendment rights? >> well, i think there is clearly going to be considering it. i don't know that he will invoke his constitutional rights, but they will clearly consider that and make a decision based on their own judgment. so i can't tell you that he will invoke his constitutional rights. he may decide for political reasons that he won't. as did president clinton. and that he will go in and answer questions. in that event, i think the lawyers will be trying to

control the topics and the time and the various ways in which the interrogation takes place. for example they might say look, we're happy to answer questions about the campaign. but we're not happy to answer questions about his finances. we're not happy to answer questions about his performance as president. but company aheask him questiont you're supposed to be investigating which is russian interference in the campaign. that may be one kind of way that the lawyers try to control the way in which the interview takes place. >> where do you see it headed, will president trump invoke a fifth amendment right, sal? >> he certainly should and i agree that takes very perilous situation for him. and in fact i think he is in much more danger than president clinton was because when president clinton sat down, we had already let him know about the dress. so on there was no point in him trying to deny a relationship.

whereas i can guarantee you mueller has found a lot of information that trump knows nothing about if there is any politician who can pull off as a pr matter invoking the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it is president trump. and he has kind of set the agenda for that by attacking mueller over the last few months and saying there is a witch lunt and it is a bogus investigation. and he can go in front of the american people and he can say look, the supreme court has said since the 1950s that the privilege against self-incrimination protects the innocent as well as the guilty. i think this is a gotcha investigation, they are looking for a way to get me and i'm going to invoke my precious fifth amendment right that protects us all. >> well, you have given broth a legal and practical answer.

greg, on the practical answer, all i can think of is the way in which president trump hammered hillary and more so the fbi for not putting her under oath which i think would make it very difficult for him now to be invoking a fifth amendment right. >> well, i think you can overestimate the issue of the oath or not the oath. if he appears and answers questions from a federal official whether a prosecutor or an fbi agent, he is in jeopardy of violating the law if they believe he didn't tell the truth. that is title xviii united states code 1001. so the oath can be inflated in its importance. i agree with saul if he of it, he is putting his own future in jeopardy as well as the office. as you know, the first article ev of impeachment against president clinton was the allegation that he did not testify truthfully in the grand jury when saul was asking him questions.

>> and speaking of which, i want to roll the tape and ask a question about this famous hospital. play it. >> whether or not mr. bennett knew of your relationship with miss miss lewinsky, a statement there was no section of any kind, shape or form with the president. was an utterly false statement, is that correct? >> it depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is. >> by the way, saul, were you ready for that answer? did that catch you by surprise as much as it did the rest of us when we finally got to see it and hear about it? >> it caught me by surprise because i think that the president had done generally speaking a masterful job in the questioning, in the grand jury questioning. and i thought this was his one mistake and his biggest mistake. it came off sounding very

poorly. >> so you asked that question, that line of questioning of president clinton. has bob hmueller been taken out of the prospect of questioning trum trump himself because of the revelation that trump did give an order to fire mueller? >> oh, not at all. i would expect that mueller will be there. unlike ken starr, mueller who really had very little involvement in the actual questioning, he asked some questions related to constitutional issues, but mob mueller has spent his whole life in law enforcement and prosecution and with the fbi. so he is certainly capable ofmo life in law enforcement and prosecution and with the fbi. so he is certainly capable of participating substantively 37 but i think the bulk of the questioning will be handled by his top lieutenants. but i don't think this would prohibit him at all from asking questions. >> greg, if you were representing this president in anticipation of some kind of an

exchange with mueller or mueller's staff, what is on your agenda, what are you looking for, what do you want this process to look like? >> well, as i mentioned earlier, i would like to know with as even precision and detail as possible as to what the topics are. so that i can prepare the president. the president is going to be concerned about making statements in response to these questions that are not inconsistent with previous statements that he's made, not inconsiste-kconsistent with the of other individuals. and as saul said, the president won't know for example what general flynn has said about x, y and z. prosecutors will know. so there is a challenge here for the president to be perhaps precise, perhaps abbreviated in his answers, and prepared for some specific areas just the way i agree with saul that president

clinton when he was testifying in front of the gland jury was o grand jury was one of the best prepared witnesses in the history of trial practice. he did a very good job. and thvideotape you showed told the american public how well he had done. >> all of the americans have had the opportunity to see your questioning of president clinton. will americans get to see or read whatever questions are put to president trump? >> i think so. i think if he ends up deciding to give testimony, that testimony it will probably be recorded. it will not be grand jury testimony. it will be an informal setting. i agreely agree that t lthat th significant as a legal matter. martha stewart wasn't under oath when she got indicted to making false statements. i would imagine that it is going

to be ultimately released. it is not as clear as it was -- in our case, it was part of a sealed impeachment report or impeachment filing that we made with congress and congress decided to disclose it. here it is not clear what if any mechanism there is for mueller to disclose confidential things about his investigation. the grand jury if it decides not to indict anyone can issue a report if the court allows to, that is very rare, but not unheard of in high profile cases. so we don't know for sure, but i would imagine that it will come out. >> saul, greg, cannot thank you enough. we really appreciate your being here on an important subject. >> you're welcome. >> our pleasure. i want to know what you're all thinking. >> go to my website smerconish.com and answer this poll question. wherein formally or under oath, will president trump ultimately be interviewed by mueller's

team, or invoke his fifth amendment right? we'll show you results at the end of this hour. also more social media reaction. katherine, what has come in during the course of the first segment of the program? his ego will make him testify. he can't help position. i thinks i can beat mueller. he'll go against his lawyers. that is exactly what i was getting to. i'm thinking i've represented many incorrigible clients. and i know the m.o. of those who say i got this, i can handle this. and by the way, let's give the president credit. it has served him well through this part of his life. whether it gets will imthrough the next chapter remains to be seen. up ahead, america was riveted when 156 witnesses testified in court against the why wdoctor a young female athletes. but did the judge go too far.

there's a vacation at the end of every week. whatever type of weekender you are, don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com ronoh really?g's going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction

with full service brokerage firms... again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management. touch is how we communicate with those we love, but when your psoriasis is bad, does it ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to help people with moderate to severe psoriasis achieve completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections

and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms, or if you've received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz today. and go to taltz.com to learn how to pay as little as $5 a month. let's team up to get the lady of the house back on her feet. and help her feel more strength and energy in just two weeks yaaay! the complete balanced nutrition of (great tasting) ensure with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. ensure. always be you.

the nation was riveted when 156 accusers tearfully and defiantly spoke at the send tefrnsi sentencing of the why wdoctor w

pled guilty. and the judge opened courtroom to anybody wishing to speak including other victims of dr. nassar not part of the official case. when sentencing him, the judge told him it was a death sentence and she didn't stop there. >> our constitution sddoes that allow for cruel or unusual punishment. i would allow someone or many people do to him what he did to others. >> and thsome said that was beyd on the pail. joining me now, she wrote the moment the judge in the larry nassar case crossed a line. rachel, i believe and agree with everything that the judge said. and as an attorney, i agree with everything that you have

written. i mean the point is, she should have left those kind of comments to somebody like me. >> absolutely. there is only one person in the courtroom who is not to be anned a vadvocate for either side. and that is the judge. and for the judge to make herself an advocate for the victims in the midst of a sentencing hearing is inappropriate. and calls into question our entire justice system. it poses a threat to the fairness of our institutions. >> do you take issue with the way in which she conducted this sentencing process in addition to the comments that we've just played and that you and others have noted? in other words, substantively here, was there anything either about this process that you called into question? >> yes, i mean i think throughout the sentencing hearing even prior to making those comments she clearly aligned herself with the victims. often speaking to them as though they were her con if i -- she

was their confidant and telling them that they were super heros and expressing compassion which of course all of us feel. the victims went through extreme trauma and are courageous for coming forward and speaking. but it is not appropriate for the judge in the mid ths of a sentencing hearing where she is supposed to still be open to hearing the entire evidence presented for her to already so clearly being on one side and to show such allegiance to that side. that is inappropriate. >> and as a result, do you believe now there are grounds for appeal on the part of dr. nassar because of the conduct of the judge? >> it's hard to say. certainly i would argue that if i were his lawyer. but i don't know michigan law specifically. obviously this was a guilty plea. but a judge still has to consider the appropriate factors in sentencing. she is not free to use by as owing or any sort muof personal feelings. >> so yesterday i readas owing or any sort of personal feelings. >> so yesterday i read from the

piece you published. and voters i got phone calls from some who said you've gone soft and you're a liberal and all you are doing is supporting now a pedophile. i tried to explain the point that you are making. i guess my point to you is, i can only imagine if that is the result i got on radio, what you've heard since publishing your opinion. tell me. >> absolutely. and let me be very clear, i am in no way defending nassar 's conduct nor am i talking the victims. but i think the difference is the roles that we have to respect in our system. if we can't trust judges to be fair, how can we have a fair system? and i also want to note that i did receive a number of comments suggesting that my critique of the judge had something to do with her being a woman. which couldn't be farther from the truth. if anything, i think it would be sexist to hold a woman judge to a lower standard than any other judges. and i have greatest ste esteem

judges thand is wand that is wh them to behave appropriately. >> if i as a guy had written what you published, i can only imagine what the hue and cry would have been that here i was? some how standing up for the pedophile when that too would have misyou said sto upundersto. >> of course. and again it is important to remember that this is about a judge being a neutral person in the courtroom. and we cannot make excuses and decide that there are some cases where it is okay for a judge to abandon that role. we need judges to be fair in all cases. that is how we protect all of our rights in the future. >> rachel, thank you so much for writing what you wrote and for being here as well. >> thank you. let's see what is coming in. the judge's editorial was a disgra disgrace. instead of the substance difference reasons behind the man's sentence, it was completely unprofessional and could be grounds for an appeal.

the real gold standard. can i say i also wonder, am i the only one thinking of judge ito when i was watching that? how much of an influence -- i'm all for cameras and access ability in the courtroom, but every once in a while they turn somebody into a hollywood star. one more if i have time. men just don't get it, i can't read other tweets, but there is a female judge litigator thinking this judge was wrong to speak? i don't see the problem. let me repeat this. first of all i love your handle. i'll be into that later tonight. the guy is a dirt bag. i agree with everything the judge said. everything. and listen to me here, that is what you'll get for me. the issue rachel raised is whether she appropriately the judge was the one who should have been saying those things. that is the role for the

prosecutor. can't happen. still to come, when the census takers count heads in 2020, they may be asking a new question about whether you are a citizen. and i'll explain how this could change legislative boundaries. and how one small town is fighting traffic jams by closing more than 60 roads to out of towners. is that legal? and how far can a town go? my a, then i learn type 2 diabetes 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. she 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. 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®.

i know when i hand them the it's gonna be scary.car but i also know that we're gonna have usaa insurance for both my boys. it's something that they're not even gonna have to think of. it's just gonna be in the family. we're the tenneys and we're usaa members for life.

if the justice department gets its way, the census takers who go door to door in 2020 will be asking a new question, what about citizenship. the change which has to be decided by the end of march has far reaching implications, whether that question is asked could actually tip the balance of power toward rural areas.

should noncitizens decline to participate out of fear of acknowledging their status? the justice department says it needs the information to insist with enforcement of the voting rights act. skeptics worry the intent is to produce an undercount of communities with large undocumented populations. lawyers at the commerce department are evaluating the legal basis for the question. joining me now, andrew benverag and also justin leavitt. although the census does a lot of things, the primary responsibility is to get a body count. how might that be impacted by the this one question? >> yeah that is right. the fifth sentence of the constitution right after it says we have a congress, right after it says we have a house of representatives, says the census is supposed to take a count of every person in the country. that is job one.

and there is relentless focus on making sure all the other things doesn't get in the way of job one, a body count as you put it. the fear, the concern, is that particularly in this climate asking additional questions about citizenship could cause people not to respond to the census and that would produce a serious undercut, it would make the census less accurate. defaulting on the constitutional duty, but also impacting politics around the country and in pretty unpredictable ways. >> andrew, everybody has to be counted for the purpose of congressional woun dboundary li. but children and those who might not be citizens need not be counted for state legislative districts. of course it is the state legislatures that control the drawing of the maps every ten years. is that not the domino effect then that could kick in if the citizenship question is asked? >> yes, i think that's right.

and i think what will happen is that the case will still be revise itted in o visited. most likely texas. and in has been going on since the 2010 census because vitter and company tried to force citizenship on the 2010 census and i think they misperceived what would happen. but you're right, ever inside is the 14th amendment, all people in the united states have to be counted. women, children, blacks, noncitizens, et cetera. but i think that the holy grail is to try to get these people out because it would radically change lot of districts across the country. and it would help the rural areas, but i think it would also help the outer suburbs that are largely white, largely affluent

and also retirement areas would have a much better count. >> and yet perhaps a long term analysis says that it could dully hudull actually hurt the gop insofar as some of the fastest growing states are red states. explain what that might mean. >> that's right. andrew is right potentially about the apportionment within states. but going back to the congressional command, the more people a state has and more people the census counts, the more congressional seats the state has. the south is glowirowing much fr than the north. the upper midwest is losing population, south is gaining population largely from latinos, citizens and noncitizens alike. and if the census does not accurately count those individuals, texas isn't going to get as many seats as it otherwise would. florida won't. georgia, alabama, north carolina. those are all states that are either seeking to gain seats that look to gain seats or where

they are running to stay in place if the census count is accurate. you put this question on the census, and you get a lot of people refusing to respond, that means that the population count is going to be off. it will be wrong. and that is also going to mean that these states texas, north carolina, georgia, alabama, will lose seats rather than gain seats. if you are a republican in congress, looking to hold the republican majority, you are hoping, you're counting on those seats from texas and north carolina and the fast growing southern states. if the census count is wrong, those are seats that the republicans simply will lose. >> so who gets to decide, how does it get sorted out? >> i think part of it will be decided by the supreme court, part of it will be decided by the not yet appointed director of the census bureau. and part of it ultimately is decided by congress. because congress eventually and i think it is in april decides exactly what questions go on the census. and justin is right, it would cut the count in the states of fast growing immigration, which

are in fact the southern tier, southwest and to some extent some of the coastal cities. so it is a very dynamic situation. and if you think about who might wind up on the supreme court if trump sticks it out, this could have a radical effect according to michael stricters feel they have gone as far as they can go and this is like the next step, what can we do now. we've gone about as far as we can go and there is a big backlash now about the gerrymandering after the 10 201 census. so it is important if it doesn't go through that there will be a swing back and we'll have fair he redistricting going forward. >> i think this is an important and complicated issue. the decision is about to be

made. andrew, justin, thank you. appreciate your being here. reminder, go to smerconish.com, answer this survey question. more than 2,000 have already done so this hour. wherein formally or under oath will president trump ultimately be interviewed by mueller's team or invoke his fifth amendment right? we'll show you results at the end of this hour. speaking of which, let's check in on more social media. betwe from twitter. there is no seasonable reason to know citizenship unless you plan to round up noncitizens for some nefarious activities. nancy, the justice department would say that for enforcement of the voting rights act, that is important information for them to have at their disposal. you be the judge. still to come, when does a small town want to be erased from the map? when it is the popular secret short cut recommended by apps

for drivers who are stuck in traffic jams. finkd o find out how officials are combatting the congestion. friends, colleagues, gathered here are the world's finest insurance experts. rodney -- mastermind of discounts like safe driver, paperless. the list goes on. how about a discount for long lists? gold. mara, you save our customers hundreds for switching almost effortlessly. it's a gift. and jamie. -present. -together we are unstoppable. so, what are we gonna do? ♪ insurance. that's kind of what we do here.

♪ yes or no?gin. do you want the same tools 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.

don't wait until february. walk into a jackson hewitt, day or night, and you could get up to $3200.

so why wait? you could get up to $3200 with a no-fee refund advance. go to jackson hewitt today. traffic jam avoidance apps have become indispensable to today's drivers, diverting them into less clogged routes. but what happens when all those cars are diverted? it creates traffic in neighborhoods thought built fno. and in one small new jersey town, they are trying to fight back. it is a famoused high traffic zone. you'll remember the chris christie bridge scandal that

tied up traffic for a while. and this week leonia moved to rezone recent deny shsoezone re. mayor, whose roads are they? >> well, good morning. thanks for the opportunity to be with you. the answer is they are roads under the jurisdiction of the borough and therefore we have the right to legislate in the interest of public safety on behalf of our citizens and that's what we've done. >> i would think somewhere along the way more tax dollars from people who don't necessarily live right in leonia or do business there have ended up on those roads which is why i ask the question. >> not for the roads to which we've legislated. the roads which are all but three roads, three of the main thoroughfares and only on during peak drive periods, are when we

repair roads, they are largely paid for with local bond ordinances. local taxation. property taxation. we don't get state grants for these roads. so, no, the answer is people outside of leonia have not in large measure paid any sum of money for the maintenance or replacement of these roads. >> on line i go online i note is if you move into a community that is adjacent to the world's busiest bridge, then you will get traffic and you should expect that. >> and i completely agree. we are not looking to reduce the amount of traffic that enters leoni achl leonia. it is at the confluence of three major interstates so we will get a lot of traffic. but we're trying to make sure that it stays on the main thoroughfares rather than going into our narrow side streets where it poses a public safety hazard. >> in the introduction to this

conversation, i showed what you now gets a waze and google maps. this is what you were after, right? it is not so much that you want your local police to have to stand out there. you want what i'm now showing on the screen to pop up when people are looking at an alternative when they get off or are going on the gw bridge. so that tells me it is being successful. >> that is 100% correct. we're not looking to ruin a bunch of people's days by issuing tickets. in fact although we began enforcement on monday, we have yet to issue a ticket. at this point all we're doing is issuing verbal warning. i have an 18 officer police department whose primary responsibility is public safety, not pulling people over and giving them a $200 ticket. this was to address the tech and get the tech to not recommend our narrow side streets as alternatives when there is a backup at the bridge. on tuesday morning, there was 0000 a 90 minute backup at the george

washington bridge. our side streets are clear. so it is absolutely working. >> right, but if the neighboring communities to leonia now take a page out of your book, folks will have no where to go. >> but again, we're not closing leonia. if people who are commuting to new york city decide they don't want to stay on the highways on which they are traveling to get to new york city, they can still come through leonia and take a shorter route to the bridge. however, they just have to stay on the main thoroughfares to get there. that is all we're saying. >> and mayor, final question. are you confident that it is legal? i don't think it's been sufficiently litigated. i look at that supreme court case that talks about parking. it seems to me some court will have to weigh in on this. >> well, listen, i'm hoping that we don't have to litigate it. obviously i'd rather not expend tax dollars on things like that. but certainly i will protect the public safety of my citizens. the supreme court case is fairly

determinant but not completely. there are various other state court cases like st. louis county versus hawn and others that are even more on point. and point to the fact that municipal jurisdictions have broad authority to legislate streets under their jurisdiction if it is serving a public purpose. and in this case that is public safety. so i do believe that we're on fa fairly firm legal ground to withstand a court challenge. >> mayor, thanks so much for being here. >> thank you. last chance to vote. answer the survey question, this voting is fascinating. here it is. wherein formally or under oat, will president trump ultimately be interviewed by mueller's team or will he invoke his 50s amendme fifth amendment right? still to come, your best and worst defeats. call me paranoid, but the closure of roads to oufts

towners is just the start of containment practices. surveillance with weapons to whip us into submission. yes, paul grace, i will calling you paranoid, but thank you for your comments. alright, i brought in high protein to help get us moving. ...and help you feel more strength and energy in just two weeks! i'll take that. -yeeeeeah! ensure high protein. with 16 grams of protein and 4 grams of sugar. ensure. always be you. they cahow many of 'em?e, sir! we don't know. dozens. all right! let's teach these freaks some manners!

good luck out there, captain! thanks! but i don't need luck, i have skills... i don't have my keys. (on intercom) all hands. we are looking for the captain's keys again. they are on a silver carabiner. oh, this is bad. as long as people misplace their keys, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. ♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. the pen where you don't have to see or handle a needle. and it works 24/7. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes

or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, if you have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you're allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or symptoms like itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor if once-weekly trulicity is right for you. ♪ ♪

we have one to two fires a day and when you respond together and you put your lives on the line, you do have to surround yourself with experts. and for us the expert in gas and electric is pg&e. we run about 2,500/2,800 fire calls a year and on almost every one of those calls pg&e is responding to that call as well. and so when we show up to a fire and pg&e shows up with us it makes a tremendous team during a moment of crisis. i rely on them, the firefighters in this department rely on them, and so we have to practice safety everyday. utilizing pg&e's talent and expertise in that area

trains our firefighters on the gas or electric aspect of a fire and when we have an emergency situation we are going to be much more skilled and prepared to mitigate that emergency for all concerned. the things we do every single day that puts ourselves in harm's way, and to have a partner that is so skilled at what they do is indispensable, and i couldn't ask for a better partner. hey, earlier in the program, i asked that you go to smerconish..com and cast a ballot on this poll question, whether informally or under oath, will president trump ultimately be interviewed by mueller's team or invoke his fifth amendment right. total votes, 3,903 during the course of this hour. i'm going to leave it as the poll question. you can still vote.

but 55% saying he'll invoke his fifth amendment right. 45% say he will be interviewed. can i be critical of my own poll question, and by the way, i wrote it. i think i presented it in writing as if it were a binary choice. i want to state the obvious which is to say he can participate in an interview or given sworn testimony and invoke his fifth amendment right, but i think you got what i was really aiming for, which is what percentage of us think at some point in this process he'll be invoking a fifth amendment right. that is 55%. greg was here at the outset of the program with some interesting thoughts on that. both of them skilled by the involvement they had in the whole clinton process. keep your votes coming. catherine, what other social media reaction to this program? hit me with it. smerconish, remember the good old days when trump said nobody who is innocent would ever hide

behind the fifth amendment? he did, gary. and i think there's a split now about that which is best for him politically and that which is best for him personally. even if he's done nothing wrong, it may suit his purposes to invoke the fifth amendment. especially after having criticized hillary for not being unoath, for him to invoke the fifth, i think politically speaking he would have a lot of explaining to do. hit me with another one. smerconish, in a day when political correctness abounds, i felt it was refreshing for the judge to get real. she was the soundtrack of the people that day. let me say again for the oom umpteenth time, everything the judge said, i agree with. but that's me the television and radio host.

somebody needed to say all that, but it shouldn't have been the judge. follow me on facebook. check out my website at smerconish with.com. we will see you next week. in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown .com. we will see you next week. .com. we will see you next week. .com. we will see you next week. .com. we will see you next week. .com. we will see you next week.

sglooe. we've been waiting here for you. i'm christi paul. >> and i'm martin savidge. thank you for being here. >> president trump is set to give his first state of the union address. that will be tuesday. but two major issues this morning are at risk of derailing his agenda. >> first, the rnc's