i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. so are we headed for a face-to-face showdown between the president and special counsel robert mueller or despite the president's words might he never testify? 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're citizens. what impact might that one question have on the ballots 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 -- allow so many people to 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've got 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. just before departing for davos, the president surprised everybody including his own lawyers saying he was looking forward to testifying under oath. >> there's been no collusion whatsoever. there's no obstruction whatsoever, and i'm looking forward to it. >> 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's the one who will decide if the president will sit with mueller's team. then came news that president

trump ordered the white house counsel to fire mueller back in june citing three reasons that to me seemed awfully thin. they included the fact that mueller once resigned from a trump golf course over a fee dispute. and that mueller most recently worked for the law firm that previously up represented jared kushner. the first hardly seems grounds to charge bias against the former head of the fbi and the second if it suggests any bias would 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 and i have discussed i cannot talk about the secretary clinton's e-mails

and i do not understand the universal judgment that he was mistaken. that was never credible as a reason why trump would fire coemy and it was belied by a subsequent interview that he gave to lester holt. intent is in the charge of obstruction of justice. asserting false reasons for the firing of comey and then mueller suggests he was riding his real rationale. if the reason for the firing and the order that mueller be 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 exonerate themselves. but where a person takes steps with intent to corruptly impede or stop an investigation, that can amount to obstruction of justice. and now things are about to get really interesting. the president said that his meeting with mueller could take place within the next two to three weeks. that suggests that mueller is wrapping up the probe. although he has plenty of private sector experience with litigation i think it's dangerous for trump for interviewed. 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's like when he thinks he's right. trump is loquacious. he believes that he can win over anybody if given a shot.

that's a hazardous combination when a special counsel is the one asking the questions which is why we're entering a critical phase -- if phase, there's an upcoming encounter, what will it look like? 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 the presidential inquiry that gripped the nation. sew lon mow wisenberg who questioned president clinton who talked about what the definition of is is, and then greg craig, who represented and quarterbacked president clinton's impeachment defense. greg craig, if you represented this president, how willing would you be to produce him to bob mueller? >> well, mike, i'd be very

reluctant. president trump like every other american citizen has a right to remain silent and to weigh that right and go in to either testimony under oath or for an interview puts not only his personal freedom and future in jeopardy but puts the office in play. i think the factors that went into 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 is going to be very, very concerned about exposing his client to examination of -- while he's 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's clearly going to be considering it. i don't know he'll invoke it,

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's going to invoke his constitutional rights. he may decide for political reasons that he won't. as did president clinton. and that he'll 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 go ahead and ask him questions about what 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. >> sol, on the same issue, where do you see it headed? will president trump invoke a fifth amendment right? >> well, he certainly should and

i agree completely with greg that it's a very perilous situation for him. and in fact, i think he's in much more danger than president clinton was because when president clinton sat down we had already let him know about the dress, so there was no point in him trying to deny the relationship. and mueller who's run a very tight ship has found a lot of information that president trump knows nothing about. if there's anyone who can pull off -- any politician who can pull off as a pr matter invoking the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination it's president trump. and he's kind of set the agenda for that by attacking mueller and saying this is a witch-hunt and it's 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're looking for a way to get me. and i'm going to invoke my precious fifth amendment right that protects us all. >> well, sol, you have given to me both a legal and practical answer. greg craig, on the practical answer all i can think of sol is offering that information is the way that trump hammered clinton and the fbi for not putting her under oath and it's difficult for him to invoke now the fifth amendment right. >> i think you can overestimate the issue of the oath or not the oath. if he appears and answers questions from the federal official, whether a prosecutor, he's in jeopardy of violating the law if they believe he didn't tell the truth. that's title 18, united states

code 1001. so the oath can be inflated in its performance. i agree with sol, if he testifies he's putting the future in jeopardy, as well as the office. as you know, mike, the first article of impeachment against president clinton was the allegation that he did not testify truthfully in the grand jury when sol was asking him questions. that's an impeachable offense. >> speaking of which, i want to roll the tape and ask a question about this famous moment. play it. >> whether or not mr. bennett knew of your relationship with ms. lewinsky. you stated there was no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form with president clinton. that was an utterly false statement. is that correct? >> it depends upon what the meaning of the word is is. >> were you ready for that answer? did that catch you by surprise

as much as it did the rest of us when we got to see it and hear about it? >> it caught me by surprise because i think 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. i think it came off sounding very, very poorly. >> so you asked that question, that line of question of president clinton. has bob mueller been taken out of the prospect of questioning president trump himself because of the revelation by "the times and "the post" that he gave an order to fire mueller, sol?" >> oh, not at all. i expect mueller to be there. unlike ken starr mueller has -- who really had very little involvement in the actual questioning he had some questions related to the constitutional issues, bob mueller spent his whole life in

law enforcement and prosecution and with the fbi so he's certainly capable of participating substantively. 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 craig, if you were representing this president, in anticipation of some kind of an exchange with mueller or mueller's staff, what's on your agenda right now? what are you looking for? what do you want this process to look like? >> well, as i mentioned earlier, mike, i would like to know with as much 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 inconsistent with the testimony of other individuals and as sol said, the president is not going to know for example what general flynn has said

about x, y and z. the prosecutors will know what general flynn had said about x, y and z so there's 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 sol that president clinton when he was testifying in front of the grand jury was one of the best prepared witnesses in the history of trial practice. he did a very good job. and that videotape that you just saw was one of the most important things to show the public how well clinton had done in his testimony. >> sol, all 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? >> oh, i think so. i think if he ends up deciding to give testimony that it will

be -- it will probably be recorded. it will not be grand jury testimony. it will be in an informal setting. i completely agree with greg that the oath is not significant as a legal matter. martha stewart wasn't under oath when she got indicted for making false statements. i would imagine that it's going to be ultimately released. it's 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's 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 it to. that's 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. >> sol, greg, cannot thank you enough. we really appreciate you 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. whether informally or under oath, will president trump ultimately be interviewed by mueller's team or invoke his fifth amendment right? we'll show the results at the end of this hour. also, more social media reaction courtesy of my twitter feed and facebook. katherine, what has come in? his ego will make him testify he can't help himself. he'll go against his lawyers. that's exactly what i was getting to. i have represented many incorrigible clients as an attorney and i know the m.o. of those who say i got this, i can handle this. by the way, let's give the president credit. it has served him well through this part of his life whether it gets him through the next

chapter remains to be seen. up ahead, america was riveted when 156 witnesses spoke out against their accuser but when the judge spoke out did she go too far? if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed

and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home, with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection, which could lead to hospitalizations. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%,

a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day, so you can stay home. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro.

the thanks was riveted this week by an amazing courtroom drama when 156 accusers including some former olympians tearfully and defiantly spoke at the sentencing of the dock tock who pled guilty to molesting the young athletes. though he pled guilty to molesting only seven, the judge opened the courtroom to anybody

who wanted to speak. when sentencing him to 40 to 175 years in jail the judge told him it was a death sentence and she didn't stop there. >> our constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. i will allow someone or many people to do to him what he did to others. >> and that said some people including my next guest was beyond the pale. joining me is rachel marshall, deputy public defender at the alameda county office in oakland. she wrote this piece for vox under the headline 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 in my capacity as a television or radio commentator. right? >> absolutely.

there's only one person in the courtroom who is not to be an advocate for either side. one person who is cloaked in neutrality 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 have just played and that you and others have noted? in other words, substantively here was there anything else about this process that you call 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 -- she was the confidant and telling them that they were superheroes and expressing compassion which of course all of us feel. the victims in this case went through extreme trauma and are

courageous for coming forward and speaking. but it's not appropriate for the judge in the midst of a sentencing hearing where she's 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's inappropriate. >> as a result, do you believe now there are grounds for appeal on the part of dr. nassar because of the conduct of this judge? >> it's hard to say. certainly i would argue that as -- 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's not free to use bias or any sort of personal feelings in making that discretionary sentence. >> so yesterday, i read aloud from the piece you published at vox. and i said that i agreed with your sentiments and i got phone calls from some who said you've

gone soft, you're a liberal, all you're doing is supporting a pedophile. i tried to explain the point you were making and my point is i can only imagine if that's the result i got on radio what you got when you published your opinion. >> right. 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? i 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 liar standard than any other judges. i have great esteem for judges and that's why i expect them to behave appropriately under the constitution and under the law. >> right, if i had had written

that at vox, i can't imagine the hue and cry that i was standing up for the pedophile when that would have misunderstood the point. you get the final word. >> of course. again it's important to remember this is about a judge being -- should be a neutral person in the courtroom. and we cannot make excuses and decide that there are some cases where it's okay for a judge to abandon that role. we need judges to be fair in all cases. that's 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's coming on my twitter feed and facebook page. what do we have? a couple of tweets. the judge's editorial was an absolute disgrace, it was fraught with gratuitous -- for the cameras. the real gold standard. can i say i also wonder -- am i the only one who was thinking of judge ito when i was watching that? how much of an influence did

that camera -- i'm all for cameras and accessibility in the courtroom but they turn somebody into the hollywood star or would-be and i think the cameras play a role in that regard. one more if i have time for it. what does it say? smerconish, men don't get it. there's a female judge litigator thinking this judge was wrong -- he was convicted i don't see the problem. first of all, i love your handle. i'll be into gin later on tonight. the guy is a dirt bag. i agree with everything judge aqua lena said. and listen to me here on cnn that's what you'll get from me. the issue that rachel raised is whether she appropriately -- the judge was the one who should have been saying those things. that's the role for the prosecutor in a scenario like this. can't have it. still to come, when the census takers count heads in to 20 they may be asking a new question about whether you're a

citizen. i'll explain how that this change legislative boundaries. and fighting traffic jams to close roads. how far can the town go? germane group. i wore lederhosen. when i first got on ancestry i was really surprised that i wasn't finding all of these germans in my tree. i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. the big surprise was we're not german at all. 52% of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com. tens of millions of people have switched to unlimited on america's most awarded network. verizon? whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. vince, not yet. it's the network rated number one in the nation by rootmetrics eight times running. it's totally verizon. vince! n-n-no, j-j-j... we can see the sign. it's see-through. i think they can definitely read it. still could be anything. vince, pull the thing up.

w-wait, hold it! heh heh. look at that. (vo) unlimited is only as good as the network it's on. so switch to the best unlimited on the most awarded network. now buy select smartphones like the google pixel 2 and get one free.

even when nothing else is. keep her receipts tidy, brand vo: snap and sort your expenses with quickbooks and find, on average, $4,340 in tax savings. quickbooks. backing you.

♪ if the justice department gets its way the census takers in 2020 will be asking a new question what about citizenship? the change which has to be decided with the end of march has far reaching implications. whether that question is asked could tip the balance of power toward rural areas. should noncitizens decline to participate out of fear of not giving away their status? the justice department says it

needs that and the intent is to produce an undercount of those with large undocumented populations. the lawyers are evaluating the legal basis for the question. joining me now andrew bev ridge from social explorer and justin levitt, associate dean for research at loyola law school. justin, the primarily responsibility although the census does a lot of things is to get a body count. how might that be impacted by the one question? >> yeah, that's exactly right. the fifth sentence of the constitution says it we have a congress and we have the 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 that ul of the other things -- all of the other things that the census doesn't get in the way of job one, the body count as you put it.

the fear and the concern is that particularly in this climate asking additional questions about citizenship could cause people not to respond to this census. that would produce a -- it would make the census less accurate. defaulting on the constitutional duty but also impacting politics around the country in pretty unpredictable ways. >> andrew, everybody has to be counted for the purpose of congressional boundary lines. i don't want people's eyes at home to glaze over, but children an those who are not citizens need not be counted for state legislative districts. but of course it's 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. i think what will happen is that evan will be revisited from one state or another. most likely texas. which seems to be the source of

much of the sort of litigation. and quite honestly this has been going on since the 2010 census because vitter and company tried to force citizenship on the 2010 census. there they misperceived what would happen with apportionment. ever since the 14th amendment, all people in the united states have to be counted. women, children, blacks, noncitizens, et cetera. but i think the sort of the holy grail of this from a point of view from the republican redirectors is to get the people out, because it would change a loss -- lots of districts across the country. and it would help the rural areas but i think it would also help the outer ring suburbs that are largely white, largely non -- largely citizen and largely very affluent. also retirement areas would have a much better count. >> and yet, justin, perhaps a

long term analysis says it can actually hurt the gop in so far as the fastest growing states are red states. explain what that might mean. >> that's right. so andrew's right potentially about the apportionment within the states but going back to the congressional demand the more people the state has and the more the census counts the more congressional seats there are. the upper mid best is losing population, the 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 isn't going to get as many seats as it otherwise would. georgia, alabama, north carolina. those are all states that are either seeking to gain seats, or where they're 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's going to be wrong. and that's also going to mean that these states, texas, north carolina, georgia, alabama will lose seats rather than gain seats. if you're 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 will lose. >> though -- >> andy, who gets to decide, how does this get sorted out? >> i think part of it will be decided by the supreme court and part decided by the not yet appointed director of the census bureau. and by congress. i think it's in april decides what questions go on the census and justin is absolutely right. it would cut the count in the states of fast growing immigration. which are in fact the southern tier. the southwest. and to some extent some of the coastal cities. so it's 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 -- who i talked to the republican redistricters feels they have gone as far as they can go in terms of gerrymandering so this is the next step. what can we have done now? we have gone as far as we can go and there's a big backlash now about the massive partisan gerrymandering that happened after the 2010 census. so it's very possible if this does -- if this doesn't go through that there will be a swing back and we'll have fairer redistricting going forward. >> i think it's really important issue. complicated. i wanted to make sure it's on everybody's radar screen as the decision is about to be made over at commerce. andrew beveridge, justin levitt. thank you. >> thank you. reminder, go to smerconish.com and answer this

survey question. more than 2,000 have already done so this hour, whether informally or under oath will president trump be interviewed by mueller's team or invoke his fifth amendment right? we'll show the results at the end of this hour. speaking of which, let's check in on some more social media. from twitter, smerconish, thank you for clarifying census laws however, no sensible reason to no citizenship unless you plan to round up noncitizens for menaries you activities. the justice department would say for enforcement of the voting rights act that's important information to have at their disposal. you be the judge. still to come when does a small town want to be erased from the map? well, when it's the popular secret short cut that's recommended by apps for drivers who are stuck in nearby traffic jams. find out how officials are combatting the congestion caused by waze and google maps.

the closer you get to home, the more you know the commute is worth it.

for all the work you pour into this place, you sure get a lot more out of it. you and that john deere tractor... so versatile, you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive. but just like a john deere, it's worth it. nothing runs like a deere. now you can own a 1e sub-compact tractor for just 99 dollars a month. learn more at your john deere dealer.

directv has been rated number one in customer satisfaction over cable for 17 years running. but some people still like cable. just like some people like pre-shaken sodas. having their seat kicked on an airplane. being rammed by a shopping cart. sitting in gum. and walking into a glass door. but for everyone else, there's directv. for #1 rated customer satisfaction over cable, switch to directv and get a $200 reward card. call 1.800.directv

i use herpecin l.re, it penetrates deep to treat. it soothes, moisturizes, and creates an spf 30 barrier, to protect against flare-ups caused by the sun. herpecin l. traffic jam avoidance apps like waze and google maps have become indispensable to today's drivers divert into loss clogged back road routes. but do you know what happens when they're all diverted it causes traffic in towns not built for it. and right off the gw bridge, one town is trying to fight back. a high-traffic zone you'll remember the infamous chris christie bridge scandal that tied up traffic for a while. well, this week, leonia, new jersey, moved to erase itself from the soft wear and rezone 60

residential streets off limits those who use them as short cuts and threatening to fine those $200 to the out of towners. joining me is judah zeigler. >> thank you, michael. >> who roads are they? >> they're under the jurisdiction of the borough of leonia and we have the right to legislate in the interest of public safety on behalf of off citizens and that's what we have done. >> i would think somewhere along the way more tax dollars from people who don't necessarily live right in leonia or do business in leonia have ended up on the roads which is why i asked the question. >> not for the roads for which we have legislated actually. the roads that we have legislated which are all but three of the main thoroughfares and only during peak drive periods and they're largely paid for with local bond ordinances, property taxation. we don't get state grants for

the roads so no, the answer is people outside of leonia have not paid any sum of money for the maintenance or replacement of these roads. >> online i note that one of the criticisms goes something like this. if you move into a community that's adjacent to the literally the world's busiest bridge, then you're going to get traffic. you should expect that. >> and i completely agree. we are not looking to reduce the amount of traffic that enters leonia, as a municipality at the confluence of three major interstates and a quarter mile from the world's busiest bridge we are going to get a lot of traffic. what we're trying to do is redirect it and make sure it stays on our main thoroughfares. rather than going into our narrow side streets where it poses a public safety hazard. >> in the introduction to this conversation, mayor, i showed what you now get at waze and google maps. in fact, if we can put that back up on the screen. it's not so much you want your

local police to have to stand out there, but you want what i'm 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's being successful. >> that is 100% correct, michael. we are not looking to ruin a bunch of people's days by issuing tickets. in fact, we -- although we began enforcement on monday we have yet to issue a ticket. at this point is we're issuing verbal warnings. i have an 18 office police department whose responsibility is public safety. they primary responsibility not pulling people over and giving people at the hundred dollar ticket. this was to address the tech and not get it to recommend the narrow side streets as alternatives when that's a backup at the bridge. on tuesday morning there was a 90 minute backup at the bridge and is our side streets were clear so it's working. >> right. but if the neighboring communities to leonia now take a

page out of your book, folks are going to have nowhere 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're 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 in leonia to get there. that's all we're saying. >> and mayor, final question. are you confident that it's legal? i don't think it's been sufficiently litigated. i looked at this supreme court case that talks about parking. it seems to me some court has to weigh in on this. >> well, listen, i'm hoping that we don't have to litigate it. obviously i'd rather not expand 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 and hahn versus others

that are more on point and point to the fact that municipal jurisdictions have broad authority to legislate streets under their jurisdiction if it's serving a public purpose. in this case, that's public safety. so i do believe we're on fairly firm legal ground and our legislation would withstand a court challenge. >> mayor judah zeigler, thank you for being here. >> thank you, i appreciate it. last chance to go vote. answer the survey question. wait until you hear the result. whether informally or under oath will president trump ultimately be interviewed by mueller's team or will he invoke his fifth amendment right? still to come your best and worst tweets and facebook comments. we have one? smerconish, call me paranoid but this closure of roads to out of towners is just the start of containment practices, surveillance with weapons to whip us into submission. yes, paul grace, i will call you paranoid, but thank you for your comment. back in a minute.

the latest samsung galaxy phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. yahoooo! ahoooo! plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included. spectacular! so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. whoa! join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free. all on america's best unlimited network. there's so much goodness it makes us feel alive. it illuminates our world and connects us to each other. with transitions® adaptive lenses® you'll live the good light. they block uv rays. plus they help protect from harmful blue light. both indoors... and out. enjoy life more comfortably. enjoy life more richly. live the good light. find an eyecare professional at transitions.com i cannot imagine

managing my diabetes without my dexcom. this is the dexcom g5 mobile continuous glucose monitoring system. a small, wearable sensor measures your glucose every 5 minutes and sends the data to a dexcom receiver. dexcom helps lower a1c and improves quality of life. if you're over 65 and you have diabetes, you should have a dexcom. if you get a dexcom, you're going to be very glad that you did. visit dexcomnow.com to learn more.

you're going to be very glad that you did. the energy conscious whopeople among usle? say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.

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 be interviewed. total votes, 3,903 during this hour. 55% saying he will 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 presented it as if it were a binary choice. he can certainly participate in an interview or give formal, sworn testimony and invoke his fifth amendment right, but i think you go what i was aiming for. what percentage of us think he will invoke a fifth amendment right? that answer is 55%. greg was here at the outside of the program with interesting thoughts on that and both of them skilled by virtue of the involvement in the clinton process. anyway, keep your votes coming. what other social media reaction to the program? hit me with it. >> remember the good old days when trump said nobody who is innocent would ever hide behind the 5th amendment? >> he did. there's that which is best for him legally and politically. legally, even if he's done nothing wrong, it may,

nevertheless serve the purposes to invoke the 5th amendment. especially after he hammered hillary for not being under the oath, which is a criticism of the fbi process. for him to invoke the 5th, politically speaking, he'd have a lot of explaining to do. i feel it was refreshing for the judge to get real. she was the sound track of the people that day. let me say, everything the judge in the nassar case said, i agree with. but, that's me, as a talk radio host and television presenter, not me the lawyer. me, the lawyer, recognizes somebody needed to say all that, but it shouldn't have been the judge. follow me on twitter and facebook at smerconish.com. we will see you next week.

verizon? whoa, whoa! w-wait. hold it! heh heh. look at that. (vo) switch to the best unlimited on the most awarded network. and now buy select smartphones and get one free.

[ applause ] >> i'm van jones. this is "the van jones show" season 1, episode 1. thank you for being here from the beginning, i appreciate you very much. appreciate you very much. also, here, we have a local rapper, you may have heard of, the legendary, shawn jay-z carter is in the building. my first guest. late