a big night of breaking news. we begin keeping them honest on the memos and the question of the white house double standard. as you know democratic rebuttal to house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes' memo

alleging fbi and department of justice bias is on the president's desk. he's got until saturday whether or not to make it public. listen to what sarah sanders said about how this will happen. >> the president has seen the memo. he met with deputy attorney general rod rosenstein within the last hour to discuss some of the differences between the two mem memos. and we are undergoing the exact same process that we did with the previous memo in which it will go through a full and thorough legal and national security review. we're in the middle of that process. >> we're undergoing the exact same process with this memo as the last one, that's what she said. keeping them honest, it's hard to see exactly how. this memo claims to rebut the one that president trump said after reading it that it vindicates him entirely in the russia investigation. leaving aside the fact that it does not in fact do that, it's hard to know exactly what process there really was in the release of the nunes memo, perhaps only the appearance of one. it's not just us saying it.

the president himself said that he wanted the nunes memo out before he'd even seen it. he said it on camera. >> let's release the memo. >> don't worry, 100%. >> the president was boasting to friends in the days surrounding his getting the memo from congress that it would, according to two sources, expose bias within the fbi's top ranks and make it easier for him to argue the russia investigations are prejudiced against him. as "the washington post" reported when he first learned about the memo from conservative friends and on cable news, he was determined, sight unseen, it had to come out. i want to play part of that sarah sanders sound again. there's something else that jumps out. >> we are undergoing the exact same process that we did with the previous memo in which it will go through a full and thorough legal and national security review. we're in the middle of that process. >> a thorough national security review, she said.

suggesting that the white house would listen carefully and take the counsel of the relevant national security agencies. would make sense except it doesn't because this is what fbi director chris wray, the fbi director picked by this president, had to say about the republican memo. director wray cautioned against its release saying the bureau had "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy." despite that, the memo was released anyway. it's not clear how much ofncy s sanders is suggesting the last one did, it seems it would be a first. if the memo is not released, the question will be asked, was that too a foregone conclusion? with that in mind, pamela brown at white house, i understand chief of staff john kelley weighed in on the democratic rebuttal memo. >> reporter: as you'll recall last week the white house was saying it wanted to release the memo for transparency. general kelley, white house chief of staff, would not commit

today one way or the other on capitol hill, speaking to reporters, if the white house would indeed support releasing the democrats' memo. he also wouldn't say one way or the other whether there would be redactions. he was asked by a reporter on capitol hill whether he was leaning towards releasing it even just a little. here's what he said. >> are you leaning towards releasing it? at least a little? >> no, i would say -- i mean, this is a different memo that the first one, it's lengthier, so not leaning towards it. it will be done in a responsible way. but again, the first one was very clean, relative to sources and methods. my initial cut is this one is a lot less clean. but at the end of it all it will be guys like rod rosenstein, chris wray from fbi, certainly the national security attorneys at the white house giving the president a recommendation on it. >> reporter: for comparison, the nunes memo, the republicans'

memo, was 3 1/2 pages. the democrats' memo is 10 pages. and today rod rosenstein, the embattled deputy attorney general, was here at the white house meeting not only with chief kelley, with the chief of staff kelley, with white house counsel, also with the president. last friday, the president was asked whether he had confidence in rosenstein. he was mentioned in the nunes memo. the president said, you tell me. but today rosenstein was here and he will weigh in on what redactions if any should be made to this memo, what should happen to it, along with other national security officials. those recommendations are expected to be provided to the white house on thursday. from there we're told the president will be briefed and will make a final decision whether or not it supports the releasing of the democrats' memo. >> it is interesting to hear general kelley say it's up to wrist cray and advice from rosenstein and national security people. chris wray and rod rosenstein

asked kelley, him and the white house, not to release the nunes memo. >> that's right, and chris wray made a big statement to the public when he said that releasing the nunes memo presented "grave concerns." yet the white house went ahead anyway and released that memo. now in terms of redactions and them weighing in, the republicans on capitol hill said that chris wray did weigh in and there were changes made to the republicans' memo before it ever came to the white house. that is why the white house didn't make any redactions. so it will be interesting to see how this plays out and what recommendations, if any, the fbi and rod rosenstein make. >> pamela brown, thanks very much. democratic member of the house intelligence and armed services committees, congresswoman jackie speier of california. do you think the president is actually going too allow the democratic memo to be released? if he's listening to wrist wray and rod rosenstein, it seems that would be a first in this process. >> we've already sent our memo to chris wray and rod

rosenstein. their edits have already been made. the fact that the president -- >> did they have edits to the memo? >> i haven't received it back yet but i believe that whatever edits they were going to make, we were going to stand by them. if he's going to stand by the attorney general and the fbi director, then we should be good. but let me suggest what will happen is the president will probably release the memo. he will redact it heavily. because he does not want to have the book report that was basically the republican proposal of three pages, compared to what is the equivalent of a ten-page poed grad dissertation that is fully functional in terms of footnotes and that is very in-depth. so i would be surprised if we see our memo released in a

manner that's going to be helpful to the american public. >> do you think it would be changed to a degree that would make it less impactful from your perspective? >> without a doubt. that's what the intention will be. they certainly don't want to overshadow the memo that was put out by the republicans. our memo is very, very in-depth. very dense, actually. it took me a good 25 minutes to read it and fully comprehend it. >> do you believe that there are concerns about sources and methods in the democratic memo? >> if there are and the fbi and the department of justice redacts it, we'll stand strong and right by them in terms of not criticizing that. we never wanted the memo released in the first place. we never wanted sources and methods to be exposed. and i think that that's one of the great dangers of moving down

this path. it is not good for our country. we rely heavily on sources around the world in other countries and many of our allies. they're going to be loath to participate with us, offer us intelligence, if they think that they are going to be subject to this kind of outing. >> if this memo is released, the democratic memo, by the president, and there are redactions, will it be clear to the public, to you and others on the committee, about the source of those redactions? whether in fact they did come from the fbi or from rod rosenste rosenstein, or if in fact they were something from national security people within the white house? >> yes, there will be. because we have submitted ours to the doj and fbi. they have returned it to us with whatever redactions they want. so i think that any additional ones will clearly come from the white house. >> i just want to turn to a late-breaking story. president trump has told top military brass he wants a military parade in washington,

d.c. originally reported by "the washington post." the demand from the president was apparently inspired by the bastille day parade he attended in france. a military official told "the washington post," "the marching orders were i want a parade like the one in france." as a member of the house or armed services committee, what's your reaction to that idea? >> i was stunned by it, to be quite honest. we have a napoleon in the making here. and i believe that we have so many issues around the world in terms of preparing for wars that are ongoing and wars that may be in the offing because of what's happening in north korea that i would say that it's really a waste of money. and i think everyone should be offended by his need to always be showing. he's truly napoleon-like. >> you think that parade is more about him? because i think he would argue or other maybe republicans who support the idea, others who

support the idea, would say it's a way of honoring our troops, it's a way of showing off their capabilities, and also showing off the country's pride in them. >> you know, any of those kind of military parades that i've seen in the past, it is all about authoritarian regimes, frankly, with maybe the exception of france. but it's not our style. it's not the way we do business. and i really object to it. i think it's going to cost a lot of money. so what's really in it for the american people? >> congresswoman, appreciate your time. retired general mark hurtling, what went through your mind when you heard the president wants this military parade and plans are in the works? >> i had to smile. it's an interesting request from the president to his military. >> smile happy, smile mystified smile? >> bemused smile. it is something that, i'll be honest with you, state my bias

up front, i dislike parades personally very much. i don't know a whole lot of soldiers who like them. but from a factual basis, as congressman speier said, this is going to cost a lot of money. there are going to be a bunch of rehearsals. the kind of parade president trump envisions coming down pennsylvania avenue or constitution avenue, asphalt streets are different than the ones they hold in red square or tiananmen square or on the cobblestone of the champs-elysees. it is interesting that you put a 70-ton m-1 tank on those roads and it's going to chew it up. you have to have rehearsals for that. you have to ship the tanks and the equipment in. because there are 3 few military bases around washington, d.c. i was just thinking about what the chairman, how he might have responded. i think initially he probably rolled his eyes. i won't speak for general dunford but he probably rolled his eyes, we've got to delay that and not bring it up. when it kept brooeg being

brought up, the military will do whatever the commander in chief asks them to do, but it's not a good idea for our military, in my humble opinion. >> you say people in the military do not like praise, i'm wondering why that is. >> first of all, you have to rehearse a lot for them, walk a lot for them, shine your equipment and get your equipment prepared. i mean, you're not going to put a tank off the tank line and put on it a rail car, bring to it washington, and have it rolling down the street. you've got to fix it up. that's the essence of a parade is to look good. that's what they do in china, russia, france to a lesser degree. so there will be a lot of effort, a lot of resources placed on this during a time when the military is doing a whole lot of other things. i got to tell you, across the board, my take, and i think i speak for a great majority of military members, we don't like parades. >> i'm wondering, do you think the idea of this is -- says something about the president himself? do you think it's more about him than it is about the troops? >> i have my thoughts on that,

anderson, i won't say what they are. here's what i will tell you. it is not in the culture of the united states military. that is not who we are from our founding fathers. the military, we're civilians that came together and protected our democracy. it's not an overt effort to show how tough you are. we come together, we fight wars when we have to, and we do the kind of thing wts i need to do. there's not a whole lot of -- there shouldn't be a whole lot of chest-thumping and these overt means of showing how tough you are. as congresswoman spier said, that's for tin horn democracies. having said that, if the president wants a parade, i'm sure the military is trying their best to put one together. i'm not glad i'm not wearing the uniform, even though i love the military. >> general mark hurtling, thanks. the verbal hand grenade chief of staff kelley lobbed into the immigration debate, suggesting hundreds of thousands of dreamers are too lazy to apply for legal protection, "some would say they would too

lazy to get off their asses." cnn exclusive interview with former vice president biden and his thoughts of president trump on the russia probe, he says don't talk to special counsel mueller, we'll explain why ahead. e of weekender you are, don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com yes! ours is still buffering. what's happening? you're experiencing a network delay. you both need to be watching that on the iphone with verizon. the best streaming network. how long have you been here? i've been here a couple days. (avo) get the best unlimited on the most awarded network. and now, when you buy iphone 8, you'll get one on us.

td ameritrade select securitiestrade 24 hours a day,

5 days a week. so i can trade all night long? ♪ all night long... let's reopen the market. ♪ trade 24/5, only with td ameritrade. on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort your sleep number setting. and snoring? does your bed do that? right now during the ultimate sleep number event, our queen c2 mattress with adjustable comfort on both sides is only $699, save $200. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

aah! ...i would have said you were crazy. but so began the year of me. i discovered the true meaning of paperless discounts... and the indescribable rush of saving drivers an average of $620. why does fear feel so good? i fell in love three times -- once with a woman, once with a country, and finally... with myself. -so, do you have anything to declare or not? -isn't that what i'm doing? the president tonight appears to be heading toward a showdown with congress and perhaps a government shutdown over immigration policy. he says without a deal he's okay shutting the government down. his chief of staff john kelley added fuel to what is already

combustible with remarks on dreamers. >> there are 690,000 official daca registrants. and the president sent over what amongst the 2.5 times that number to 1.8 million. the difference between 690 and 1.8 were the people that some would say were too afraid to sign up, others would say were too lazy to get off their asses. >> that touch observed a storm. jim acosta joins us. you pressed on sarah sanders on kelley's comments, what was her response? >> yes, anderson. mainly because this appears to be one of a long line of offensive comments coming out of the white house aimed at immigrants in the context of this immigration debate. keep in mind the president has said in the past, we love the dreamers. well, if you listen to his chief of staff, it doesn't sound like at least the chief of staff loves the dreamers. he was essentially describing them as slackers earlier today.

here's how it played out in the briefing room when i pressed the white house press secretary on general kelley's comments. >> just on the face of it, isn't that just a wildly offensive comment about these undocumented immigrants who are waiting for some kind of solution to come out of this city? >> the only person that's actually offered a solution is this administration. the president's been a champion of giving 1.8 million daca recipients and daca-eligible people a pathway to citizenship. and he's laid out a plan and a solution that actually addresses both republicans and democrats' concerns. i think it's hard to argue with that. >> on the surface of that, isn't it just an offensive comment just on its surface? >> i think that's something you would have to decide for yourself. >> so anderson, as you can see, she didn't answer the question. but we should point out, dreamers who are brought to this country through no fault of their own have spent most of their life not being lazy and sitting on their asses, they've been working their butts off,

working their asses off, to be blunt, keeping their noses clean, keeping their records clean, working hard in school. some of them are in the military. they've been the opposite of lazy. a lot of immigration advocates would argue that. >> i understand general kelley was pressed late tonight on his comment, what did he say? is he backtracking? >> we should point out, there's new reporting from our capitol hill colleagues that the house minority whip steny hoyer confronted general kelley in a closed-door meeting about these comments he made about these dreamers being too lazy to get off their asses to sign up for daca, this exchange went back and forth, general kelley did not back down. apparently he doubled down in talking to reporters after that meeting. he put it this way. i've got to say that some of them, talking about the dreamers, "should have probably gotten off the couch and signed up for daca protection from deportation." so while he toned down the language a little bit are the thrust of his comments remains. he is not backing off of this

comment that he believes some of the dreamers, some of the 7 700,000 dreamers, were too lazy to sign up for protection from deportation. if you talk to many of them, they would say just the opposite. >> jim acosta, appreciate that. two views from dee cortez, former trump campaign adviser, and democratic strategist cordova. walking it back, too busy sitting on the couch, is that an improvement? >> no absolutely not. it underscores the offensive manner in which general kelley sees immigrants. it was naked bigotry at its best. what is so disgusting about this is that general kelley, the leader in the military, immigrants -- and i bet you dreamers -- served under him. and for now for him to come out and say, call them lazy, and that for him that is a reason that almost half of them did not come out to sign up for daca,

perhaps it's because they foresaw a xenophobic administration could follow the obama administration and they were afraid to turn in their information because of what exactly is happening now. and if he knew any of them, which i'm sure he doesn't, if he respected them enough to understand where they were coming from, which clearly he doesn't, he would understand the real reasons why those numbers are what they are. it underscores not just how he feels about it, but how his boss feels about immigrants, how his whole administration feels about immigrants. and they see us all as lazy leeches, as criminals, as rapists, as something that this society should be afraid of. it's disgusting. >> maria, i'm glad you mentioned his military command. i had the chance to spend an hour with the general yesterday in the white house. he had me in along with other hispanic leaders to talk to us about immigration and getting a deal done. he talked at length about how the marine corps is the service of choice for hispanics, how

proud he was about that service, how ably and heroically they serve our country. you're dead wrong that he doesn't respect hispanics, it's quite the opposite. >> do you think what he said was appropriate? >> i wish he'd chosen his words better, i do. having said that what's more important than phrasing something poorly is the policy prescription that he is putting forth. >> wait a minute, you don't think it's important if the person who's executing the policy thinks that more than 700,000 people are lazy? i mean, isn't it sort of the typical stereotype of a slur that someone would use? >> no, not at all. >> steve, of course it is, come on. >> this administration is not -- >> you have to stop being an apologist for the bigotry this administration shows. >> let him answer. >> maria, the way you and people on the left throw around bigotry, it's almost lost any meaning anymore. the president is not a bigot. general kelley i assure you is not a bigot. in fact, the opposite -- >> why are they acting like one? >> the opposite of bigotry, they're acting with compassion and heart, trying to find a solution for these daca young

people. by the way, the president took what was 700,000 daca recipients and said, we're going to more than double that to 1.8 million. >> steve, isn't it just kind of been ignorant to kind of label 700,000 people either frightened or lazy? >> well, no, the 700,000 are the ones who did sign up. why did the rest not sign up? to be honest, i don't know, there could be many reasons why. >> my question is, isn't it ignorant to label 1.1 million people lazy or -- >> anderson, i wish he would have phrased it better, i do. having said that -- >> because why? why do you wish he would have phrased it better? >> what is way more important isn't necessarily that you used a line, a throw-away line about them, but what you're doing -- >> throw-away line? wow. >> you are allowing them protected status and eventually citizenship -- >> but it's not throw-away if you repeat it by saying they're sitting on the couch. someone sitting on the couch is lazy. >> we can't major in the minors

here. what's important here, what's important is let's get these daca recipients bloked. let's do it the right way via law, not executive fiat, at president obama did. he created this mess. president trump had to walk into it. >> oh, give me a break, steve, please. he's not the one to rescind the protections that they had. he's not the one to put in a poison pill for a real deal that is on the table that includes citizenship plus border security. he is not the one that put these dreamers in harm's way. that was all president trump's doing. >> okay, couple of things -- >> now he is making it worse by him and his chief of staff calling them lazy and then intimating that they are all ms-13 criminal gang members, which we saw over half an hour briefing that was out of the white house today. it's ridiculous. they say one thing and we know he feels the other. >> nobody's saying they're criminals, criminals are not eligible for daca. i reject calling them dreamers. americans have dreams too. that's an important point. >> you know what i agree with you, they're not dreamers.

you know what they are, they are doers. they have done nothing but give to this society their best years, their best work, their best minds, their best commitment to the american dream. >> you're so unhinged about president trump you can't see that this president is the one who wants to protect them. >> give me a break. >> he wants to make permanent -- >> there are people across the country laughing at you right now, steve. >> the president says he loves dreamers, do you think general kelley loves dreamers? again, it doesn't sound like it by saying that they're lazy and then following that up with their sitting on the couch. >> given the conversations and meetings i had with him yesterday, yes, i think he absolutely does. i think too we can show both heart and toughness here. that's what this administration is doing. show heart to the daca recipients who didn't choose to break our immigration laws, but show toughness by getting dangerous illegal immigrants out of this country, securing our border, ending visa lottery, restricting chain migration. don't take my word for it. 72% of the american people per

cbs news poll who saw the president's proposals on immigration in the state of the union agree with him. you can't get 72% of people in these divided times to agree on much of anything. >> 90% of americans agree that dreamers should be protected. so let's work on a solution that will actually get dreamers protected without putting in poison pills that the president knows will make this go nowhere. >> let's end it there. coming up, president trump dodged into the debate over immigration and a possible government shutdown. did what he say threaten to undermine any compromise? i'm an outdoorsman. so i've asked chase sapphire reserve cardmembers to find my next vacation. chile, what's going on? i'm at the el tatio geysers. geezer. geyser. geezer. geyser. enough. geezer. whoaa, wooooo. dude, be careful. i think you should come camping. why would i camp in the atacama desert? oh...

3x points on travel and restaurants on every continent. sapphire reserve, from chase. make more of what's yours. 3 toddlers won't stop him.. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain, from being on his feet. dr. scholl's. born to move. you're more than just a bathroom disease.. you're a life of unpredictable symptoms. crohn's, you've tried to own us. but now it's our turn to take control with stelara® stelara® works differently for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine.

alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion, and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. we're fed up with your unpredictability. remission can start with stelara®. talk to your doctor today. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for stelara®. when you have a cold, stuff happens. [ dog groans ] [ coughs and sneezes ] nothing relieves more symptoms than alka seltzer plus maximum strength liquid gels.

we've been talking about dreamers but president trump also took a headlong plunge into the immigration debate saying he would back a government shutdown if democrats don't agree to tighten immigration laws. >> if we don't get rid of these loopholes where killers are allowed to come into our country and continue to kill, gang members, we're just talking about ms-13, there are many gang members that we don't even mention. if we don't change it, let's have a shutdown. we'll do a shutdown. and it's worth it for our country. i'd love to see a shutdown. if we don't get this stuff taken care of. >> back in early january the president called a possible immigration compromise a "bill of love." tonight how much of a monkey

wrench could this latest remark be? joining us, dana bash, storm adviser to several presidents david gergen, former republican congressman jack kingston. david? >> unfortunate strategy, it's bad fare the country. presidents normally at this time, when you're on the brink of possibly shutting down the government, they get into the process and they're constructive. they work behind the scenes or in front of the process. but they are very constructive. this makes it harder to get there. he's threatening them. in effect, he's throwing down a dictate. give me the immigration bill that i want, no changes, or we're going to shut down the government. that's what he's saying. >> is this, jack, do you see this as an opening salvo in a deal? >> i really do. part of what donald trump is about is shaking up the town and going about things in an unconventional way. and i think david's right, i think most presidents traditi traditionally have said, i'm going to be the mature adult. but instead he's playing a different card. he's saying, look, you guys

don't get it done, i'm not afraid of a shutdown. and i think that puts more pressure on a bipartisan basis of the house and the senate to say, you know what, he really means it, let's get this thing done. because the legislative branch is the lead on this thing. >> except that what the president said today doesn't reflect the reality of what happened on capitol hill today and will probably happen again tomorrow, which is, the whole notion of immigration, of the dreamers, that whole debate has been separated from the idea of a government shutting down. the house of representatives passed a bill that will keep the government open through march 23rd. the senate tomorrow is likely to do a different version. but is it possible that something happens and that whole thing falls apart and the government does shut down on thursday? sure. i'm not going to say anything isn't possible in this day and age. but it seep seems as though th separate and what the president

was doing was -- you would call it shaking the trees, others would call it taking what is happening actually in good faith as we speak to capitol hill, and turning it on its head. >> there was a senior gop source close to the budget talks, basically brushed off what the president said, saying it's trump being trump, i doubt we see a shutdown. do people on capitol hill ignore this stuff thinking, that's just the things the president says? >> if you go with what dana has been reporting on, it looks like there may be two different bills. one bill on spending, the senate's finding a solution, bring the domestic side up, match the military, shove it on the house to pass. but you've got a bipartisan bill that way. the other track is, and that will prevent a shutdown. on that basis, the democrats lose, everybody loses a lot of leverage. it may well be that the dreamers bill, the separate bill, will then guy because of inability to find a solution that pleases the president. the president keeps saying, i insist, you work out a

bipartisan agreement on my bill, my bill. either i get my bill, my way or the highway. that's in effect what he's telling them. >> but that also is what president obama said to us in 2013. i am not going to let you defund obamacare, i'm not going to let you modify it. as you know, we had about a two-week shutdown and we as republicans were the ones to say, you're right because as the president you have the bully pulpit. but as an appropriator, you have three options. one, regular appropriation bill passed under the regular order. the other is a supplemental bill that adds to current spending. the third is a continuing resolution. if you don't do one of those three, you shut down the government. where dana made the point, it's i think most members right now saying, we're going to do a continuing resolution because we want to keep talking and get to that march 22nd deadline and hopefully by then we'll have something done. actually, i think it will happen by friday, that maybe they'll have a top line, they'll come to agreement on the debt ceiling,

come to agreement on some health care issues, come to agreement on the disaster bill. there's a tax section, tax extenders maybe in that bill as well. >> the good news is if this happens, again, if -- then this whole kind of guardrail to guardrail, two-week extension to two-week extension, the threat of government shutdown, should be stopped for a couple of years fit happens. that's completely separate from the question of the dreamers. >> the dreamers could get stuck, they could be stranded. >> they could. the thing is, in the senate, in order to reopen the government, you remember a couple of weeks ago the republican majority leader made a promise that it would start -- >> publicly. >> a very public promise he would start debate on february 8th, which is thursday. my understanding in talking to sources tonight is that is still the plan. an open senate debate. it probably won't start until next week. they'll open it and then there will be pressure on republicans and democrats and the president

as they debate to actually do something old fashioned, which is come up with a deal. >> but the president may veto the bill. that's what -- he's being so hardline. >> i think if an immigration bill, freestanding, gets -- or if it's even tied into appropriations, if it gets through the house, he'll sign it. i think most house members won't vote for it unless they know he'll sign it. he'll give them cover. >> he said in that meeting, look, i'll go with whatever you all decide and i'll take the heat. whether or not that's actually true we'll see. thanks for the conversation. the white house says the president was joking when he said democrats who weren't enthusiastic enough about his state of the union speech are unamerican, possibly treasonous. a his own party does not find it funny, he's firing back. we'll also hear from congressman ted lieu next. former vice president joe biden speaking out about lessons from his father, how beau encompassed those lessons,

whether he plans to run for president. a wide-ranging interview with chris cuomo coming up ahead. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be.

♪ otezla. show more of you. i tabut with my back paines, i couldn't sleep and get up in time. then i found aleve pm. aleve pm is the only one to combine a safe sleep aid plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.

as you know the president says democrats who didn't cheer him enough to his liking at his institute of the union don't want the country to do well, they're unamerican, and he guesses treasonous. sarah sanders says he was clearly joking. even if it was intended to be a laugh riot, the joke is not landing well with some democrats and at least one republican. here's what gop senator jeff flake said on the senate floor today. >> mr. president, words matter. have we arrived at such a place of numb acceptance that we have nothing to say when a president of the united states casually suggests that those who choose

not to stand or applaud his speech are guilty of treason? i certainly hope not. one who levels such a charge knows neither the meaning of treason nor the power that the words of a president carry. i have seen the president's most ardent defenders use the now-weary argument that the president's comments were meant as a joke. just sarcasm. only tongue in cheek. but treason is not a punch line, mr. president. >> democratic congressman ted lieu tweeted, i served on active duty in the u.s. military to give people the right to clap when the president speaks or not to clap, to stand, or to sit, to attend your speeches, or boycott them. we are not and never will be an authoritarian regime. congressman lou joins me now. you didn't mince words in your response. why did you feel the need to react so strongly? the white house is saying the treasonous line was in jest. >> first of all, anderson, i don't believe the white house, the same white house today that

said donald trump doesn't want a government shutdown, when he specifically said he wants a government shutdown. so i don't believe he said that in jest. and i served on active duty in the military because i love our country. and one of the reasons i love america is we don't force people to cheer for their president. we let people disagree with their president without fear of retribution. that's what makes america great. >> you know, democrat and fellow veteran tammy duckworth also strongly criticized the president over the remarks, saying we don't live in a dictatorship or money nauseary, i swore an oath to preserve, protect the constitution of the united states, not to mindless ly bow to cadet bone spurs. >> i believe senator duckworth had it right. she served in combat. and i think it's really disappointing for donald trump, who has never been in the military, to lecture military

veterans of congress about what is treason or what is not treason. and keep in mind, a lot of things a president does seems to be based on his own ego. he wants people to stroke his ego, to clap for him. he wants his big military parade, which is a huge waste of money for one man's ego. that is inappropriate. it continues to show donald trump is not fit for office. >> that's what you think that parade, the idea of a military parade -- the president's supporters might say, this is a way to honor veterans and a way for veterans to have a day that's focused on them and to show off their might and show off their marching abilities and have pride in the service members. >> well, we already do have veterans day. we also have memorial day. we have a lot of amazing air shows all over the united states. to have this big military parade in washington, d.c., first of all, it makes me think, why would donald trump want yet another event where he has to make up crowd size? but more importantly, this reminds people of other

countries, when you think of military parades, you think of north korea, of russia. that's not the image we want the rest of the world to have of united states. >> so when the white house says that it's tongue in cheek, that the president was clearly joking, you don't buy that? >> absolutely not. i will believe when it the president says he was joking or if he tweets and recalls what he said. but for now i take him at his word. and i don't think the white house should be around trying to spin what the president has been saying. if you look at the white house, they have to keep backtracking on what the president actually says. maybe we should just believe what the president actually says. >> president trump touted his state of the union address as one of unity. just one week later, here we are with another potential shutdown looming, the president saying he wants the shutdown. does language like that make it more difficult to work with the white house? >> absolutely. and keep in mind that no president should ever be urging a shutdown, should never want to say he wants a shutdown. the president is the leader of

the federal government. if there's a shutdown, it means he has failed. donald trump campaigned as being a dealmaker. i don't know why he's saying he wants a shutdown. nobody else in congress wants a shutdown. by the way the house republican leadership rejected him and passed a bill that has nothing to do with what he wanted. >> congressman ted lieu, appreciate your time, thank you. the president's legal team reportedly saying he should not answer questions from robert mueller. today former vice president joe biden weighed in on that issue and a lot more. we'll hear from he had to say next. iencing a network delay. you both need to be watching that on the iphone with verizon. the best streaming network. how long have you been here? i've been here a couple days. (avo) get the best unlimited on the most awarded network. and now, when you buy iphone 8, you'll get one on us. there'swhatever type ofhe end of eweekender you are,ton. don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com

your new brother-in-law. you like him. he's one of those guys who always smells good. his 5 o'clock shadow is always at 5 o'clock. you like him. your mom says he's done really well for himself.

he has stocks and bonds your dad wants to go fishing with him. your dad doesn't even like fishing. you like your brother-in-law. but you'd like him better if you made more money than he does. don't get mad at your brother-in-law. get e*trade 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. ♪

say what up, rocco. we can now repair complex at saortic aneurysmsare, without invasive surgery. if we can do that, imagine what we can do for varicose veins. and if we can precisely treat eye cancer with minimal damage to the rest of the eye, imagine what we can do for glaucoma, even cataracts. if we can use dna to diagnose the rarest of diseases, imagine what we can do for the conditions that affect us all. imagine what we can do for you.

the president's lawyers are advising him not to answer questions from special counsel robert mueller according to reporting in the "new york times." there's someone who agrees with that advice, someone who it might come as a surprise to you, former vice president joe biden. biden sat down for an extended interview with chris cuomo today. we're going to play most of it in the next hour.

we're going to bring you in fact the whole interview in the next hour. but first just watch this exchange. >> you think he should sit down with the special counsel? >> if i were the president's lawyer, i would probably tell him not to sit down with the special counsel. >> why? >> because -- >> then they subpoena you and you wind up in front of a grand jury without a lawyer. >> yeah, and if you -- you're in a situation where the president has some difficulty with precision. >> that's one of the most subtle things i've ever heard you say, joe biden. >> and one of the things that i would worry about if i were his lawyer is him saying something that was simply not true without him even planning to be -- to be disingenuous. >> you think he has that little control over whether he tells the truth or not? >> i just marvel at some of the things he says and does. >> joining me now is paul begala, carrie cordero, and david axelrod. paul, i mean, it's interesting

to hear the vice president, former vice president say this. do you think it's possibly just a negotiating tactic on the part of robert mueller's attorneys and the president that -- excuse me, the president's attorneys and the president that they're sort of releasing this information of, oh, we're telling him not to, that it's just kind of a negotiation -- >> i think it's a trial balloon on the part of the trump team to see, well, what if we just stiff mr. mueller and his investigators and don't cooperate at all? will people freak out? ultimately, i think he's going to wind up taking the fifth because the facts are not his friend. he can't. i disagree slightly with vice president biden at my peril. it's not just that the president says outrageous things or his fidelity to the facts are kind of slippery, it's the facts are not his friend. he's not going to testify because he can't, he can't without incriminating himself. so he won't. >> i don't think his lawyers are going to want it to get to where the president of the united states is taking the fifth

amendment, right against self-incrimination, in front of a grand jury in the district of columbia. i do think they will try to keep that from happening. on the other hand, lately they've been trying to negotiate an interview between the special counsel's office and the president, and i do think some of their public releases reporting that they have spoken to reporters about regarding executive privilege, maybe trying to say that they're not going to submit him to an interview, i think they're trying to delay his interview with the special counsel's office. so to the extent that they know that it's not in his interest to speak soon, they know that the way that he is, it might be difficult for him to sit through an interview. and so i think part of what they're doing is trying to delay that interview by publicly floating ideas about executive privilege, by maybe suggesting to the special counsel's office that he's not going to sit for an interview, and that buys them more time. >> david, it's interesting to hear former vice president biden -- you know, can republicans now say, look, even a staunch democrat like joe biden would advise president trump not to testify?

>> well, he was asked if he were the president's lawyers what would he say. and i think he answered the question like a lawyer, or as a lawyer. and if you're thinking of it from their standpoint, for all the reasons that have been stated, there's got to be a great deal of trepidation about the prospect of this president sitting down in front of those prosecutors. but you know, there's a different issue which is the political issue, and that is what is the cost to the president of not sitting down, of not answering these questions? >> do you think there is one? >> people expect that -- >> i think his base certainly would be supportive. >> yeah, they would, and i think part of what's been going on in the last few weeks has been to set the groundwork for that potentially because -- so that the case could be made that this wasn't a legitimate investigation, it was politically motivated, there's no reason the president should submit himself to that. and i think his supporters would

accept that. the rest of the country, i think, would be troubled by it, however. and, you know, there is a big body of -- you know, the president's been very clear, i want to sit down, i want to answer these questions. he's also in the past, by the way, said that taking the fifth is tantamount to a guilty plea. so that's embarrassing tape that's sitting out there. but as you know, he's not one who is bound by consistency. so -- >> or embarrassed by past statements. >> right. i don't think that's his big concern. he'll create a new reality for himself. but this -- i think biden's answer reflects what most lawyers would say. >> paul, i'm wondering what your lesson -- i mean you lived through this with president clinton. what is the lesson that the president's team should take away from president's clinton experience? >> i think it's an entirely different case. i never once advised bill clinton not to cooperate. >> but he fought this --

>> but not whether or not he testified. he certainly fought it. he defended himself i think -- >> didn't it go through the courts? >> that was the paula jones case. there was a civil lawsuit in which the supreme court ordered him 9-0 to defend the civil lawsuit, which included testifying in a deposition, not real full testimony in a court. in the starr case, i can't recall any of the president's lawyers and certainly not any of his other advisers telling him not to -- in fact, not only did bill clinton sit down with ken starr and answer questions about his personal life, he gave blood. he had to give blood to ken starr. this guy, trump, he can't answer a single question, and i think that's probably a better strategy for donald trump because he's guilty. that's the difference. bill clinton, people could argue, he certainly had an affair, but he won the case on perjury and obstruction of justice. and i don't think trump can win this case. >> carrie, how long can this play out? how long will mueller's team allow it to play out? >> well, it depends. they'll set some period of time. it sounds from the reporting it's already been a couple months they've been negotiating

the interview. so that could go on for maybe some period of a month or two. it really depends on which aspects of their investigation that they want to interview him on and whether they're ready at this point that they want to conduct the interview. once they are ready, they think their investigation has reached the point they think he's the last person to be interviewed, and they're going to do it, then they can decide if they have to issue a grand jury subpoena if he really isn't going to sit for an interview. and then the grand jury subpoena, if the white house fights over that, that could go on for many months. and there have been other presidents who have cooperated with investigators in other ways. president reagan turned over his excerpts from his diaries in the iran-contra issue. president clinton, as you mentioned, cooperated. president bush, george w. bush cooperated in the valerie plame case. he sat down with special prosecutor fitzgerald. >> they only gave him -- i think they gave him an hour. >> about an hour to be interviewed in person. >> carrie cordero, paul begala, david axelrod, thanks very much. much more of chris cuomo's interview with former vice president joe biden. that's still to come. in just a few minutes. they covered a lot of ground

including whether biden will run in 2020 of course and how biden's late son beau remains a guiding force in his life. as we said, that's coming up in the next hour. also the latest in the democratic version of the dueling memos. what chief of staff john kelly said tonight about when he expects a decision on whether the democratic memo will be released. 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. you're more than just a bathroom disease.. you're a life of unpredictable symptoms. crohn's, you've tried to own us. but now it's our turn to take control with stelara® stelara® works differently for adults

with moderately to severely active crohn's disease. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion, and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. we're fed up with your unpredictability. remission can start with stelara®. talk to your doctor today. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for stelara®. 3 toddlers won't stop him.. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain, from being on his feet.