it would go like this. incredibly, recently we served the 1 billionth meal. really more than ever we feel this work of oufrs has just begun. >> to see the children he has helped have gone on to achieve go to cnn heroes been good evening. tonight my conversation with the political operative and long time associate of the president, roger stone. just this week, the "wall street journal" reported that mr. stone is of interest to robert mueller, asking questions about a claim mr. stone made which he calls a joke about having quote, dined with julian assange, the wikileaks founder and publisher of so much material benefiting the trump campaign. robert mueller has been asking questions about stone.

tonight he joins us to answer them. first, our breaking news. cnn has learned president trump has begun taking some preliminary steps preparing for a possible interview with the special counsel. our senior white house correspondent pamela brown joins us with that. explain what you've learned. >> well, we have learned that the preparations between the president and his legal team have been short and informal and included going over potential topics with the president that robert mueller would likely raise in an interview, according to two people familiar with the situation that i have spoken with along with my colleague, gloria borger. while the president has not formally agreed to a sit-down interview with mueller, these preparations under way are a sign that the president's legal team is intensifying deliberations over whether to allow him to come under robert mueller's questioning, and it's the clearest sign yet that trump and his team remain open to the possibility of an interview with mueller despite concerns from those close to the president that such an interview could expose him to possible perjury charges. the sources we spoke with, though, caution that the more formal, lengthier proceedings to prepare for an interview have not begun yet. these are just initial steps

that are still in their infancy. both white house lawyer ty cobb and the president's attorney jay sekulow declined to comment for this story but it is significant in that all of this is entering this new phase with the initial steps of preparation. >> in the past, the president has seemed receptive to sitting for an interview. do we know if that's still the case? >> reporter: sources tell us that the president shows more enthusiasm outwardly than behind closed doors at this prospect of sitting down with mueller, saying publicly as you know he has said he would love to do the interview under oath. but privately, trump has been more equivocal about answering mueller's questions, depending on the day, and trump has wavered as friends and advisers have cautioned him of the risk of speaking to prosecutors who have already charged 19 individuals with criminal offenses, including lying. multiple aides to the president continue to describe him as obsessed with the russia probe, becoming increasingly agitated as details about the probe emerge, and trump feels this investigation undermines his presidency and he has grown

increasingly bitter that it hasn't concluded yet. his legal team, they continue to go back and forth with mueller's team about the possibility of an interview and the scope of what that might be. those negotiations continue. >> pamela brown, thanks for the reporting. joining us, cnn legal analyst carrie cordero and ann milgram. how important is this? >> it could be one of two things. the first is he is really starting to prepare and they are beginning soft questions, sort of getting him comfortable with it. the other option is they are testing him out to see how he would do. you would never let someone like the president of the united states walk into an interview without having been prepped for a good amount of time. it really could be either. but i suspect there may be the possibility they want to see, you know, does he lie, does he equivocate, how does he respond when he gets questions because there is, as you have stated and pamela stated, there is this question of how will he do in an interview and a lot of question of whether he should actually sit for the interview.

>> he has been deposed before. some supporters of the president said he's actually done a lot better than people may think. there were concerns, though, from people close to the president that an interview like this could obviously expose him to possible charges of perjury so legally speaking, even if he's not under oath for the interview, could he face perjury charges if he lied? >> he could be liable 4001 or making false statements to investigators in the course of an interview even if he's not under oath like he would be in a grand jury type proceeding. i think the big question for these interviews really is what is the scope of them substantively. are the interviews going to be limited only to matters pertaining to the russian influence investigation or is it also going to cover obstruction or will it start covering issues involving money during the campaign or his own personal and corporate finances. i think the level of risk for him in both preparing and being ready and being able to sit

through that interview in a way that he comes out in a way that is positive for him depends in large part on what the substance of the interviews will be. >> what happens if the president declines to sit for the interview? >> i think it's a real possibility. to me it's still an open question whether the special counsel would issue a subpoena. so to me, i think it's incredibly likely the special counsel will end the inquiry into trump with a report, without issuing criminal charges, because there's an existing doj policy right now that says you can't charge the sitting president. mueller is bound by all the existing doj policies. if that's the case, it seems to me that mueller needs to get donald trump's version of events. it's really not a complete story. it's not the full picture of what happened, it's not the truth of what happened without it. i think it is very possible that mueller would go the next step to issue a subpoena. it's hard to say given i think 100% mueller will want him to come in voluntarily and will do anything he can to get there, but i personally believe that faced with the prospect if we

ever get to the point of no interview or interview with a subpoena under oath and a grand jury or some modification of that process, i think mueller will want that interview. >> do you think the president is perhaps more receptive to the idea of an interview since according to "the washington post" earlier this week, mueller told president trump's lawyers the president is not a criminal target in the russia probe? >> well, if he is more receptive to an interview based on that fact in particular, then i would say that's probably a misplaced level of confidence. according to the reports this week, he is the subject of an investigation. if that is correct, then really, he still does have some exposure. again, depending on what -- which angles the interview takes. even if he's the subject of investigation, there is still significant risk for him. again, sometimes we talk about could he -- is he exposed to perjury. that's only if he doesn't tell the truth. investigators have other evidence that contradicts what his oral testimony or his interview results are.

>> thank you both. thanks very much. a figure who has also reportedly drawn the interest of robert mueller, roger stone, was an early campaign adviser to his old friend donald trump. then after parting of the ways he resurfaced in the summer of 2016 publicly heralding damaging revelations about hillary clinton and democrats that soon after arrived courtesy of wikileaks and a hacker known as gucifer 2.0, whom u.s. officials believe was a front for russian military intelligence which stone argues against. democrats have been saying stone's warnings might indicate some form of advance notice of coordination with wikileaks and russia. mr. stone consistently denied any wrongdoing. roger stone joins us now. thanks for being with us. appreciate it. >> thank you for your kind invitation, anderson. >> so this news first of all, before we get to the wikileaks stuff, i want to ask you about this news about the president that he's begun initial steps of prepping for a possible interview with mueller. in your opinion, should the president ever sit down with the

special counsel? >> i have written and said on infowars repeatedly i thought it was a perjury trap, that there's every possibility the special counsel is looking at some process related crime that doesn't relate to russia. i obviously believe the special counsel has a political bias, as demonstrated by the fbi text messages and e-mails that have surfaced and the political nature of this investigation so i think it is very dangerous for the president to do so. i think mr. dowd, who i read had advised against this, was correct. >> do you think there would be -- >> judge napolitano advised against it. >> would there be a political cost to the president if he was subpoenaed by robert mueller if he decided not to go voluntarily? >> i'm not an attorney and i don't really understand the lines of authority. it was interesting to listen to the previous segment. >> i'm just asking about if his supporters would care if the president was subpoenaed? would they think that --

>> i don't think it would hurt -- no. i think the president is very, very strong and has intense support in his base. there's been no erosion in his position and in fact, i think his approval rating is moving up as the economy moves up and the prospects of a denuclearized korea, i think all those things strengthen the president's hand. >> would you like to see the president fire the special counsel? obviously you believe he's politically biased. >> no, i actually think from a political point of view, while there may be grounds to do so, i think it would allow the president's detractors to argue well, he has sacked mr. mueller because mueller was on the verge of finding russian collusion or conspiracy or coordination, which i don't believe is the case. i have suggested the president should fire mr. rosenstein, who because of his role in approving the surveillance of the trump campaign on the basis of essentially falsified -- a

falsified dossier, and i think that the president should direct the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to look at both the fisa abuses and also at uranium one which may be the largest treasonous crime in american history. >> do you think the attorney general should be replaced? the president has been publicly, i don't know if humiliating is the right word but has certainly had tough words for him over a long period of time. >> i have been deeply disappointed in the attorney general and i have already said again, commentary for infowars and at the stone cold truth i think the president should dismiss his attorney general. >> have you had any contact with mueller's office at this point? >> i have not. >> would you agree to sit down for an interview? >> i would need to know a great deal more about what they wanted to talk about. right now, in the mainstream

media, we have an ongoing story which is not new pertaining to this e-mail and if i didn't know better, i would say that sam nunberg was trying to frame me. >> sam nunberg saying that mueller asked him questions about you, about this e-mail that you sent him about dining with julian assange. we have to take a quick break. more with you in just a moment. we will talk more about roger's relationship or lack thereof with julian assange. was it face-to-face at a crucial moment of the campaign for the candidates and the hostile foreign power trying to shape the outcome. just one place to start, we

we believe in a fit for all. maybelline's fit me foundation. fits skin tone and texture. blurs pores. controls shine. our most diverse shades ever. maybelline's fit me matte + poreless. only from maybelline new york. janice, mom told me you bought a house. okay. [ buttons clicking ] [ camera shutter clicks ] so, now that you have a house, you can use homequote explorer. quiet. i'm blasting my quads. janice, look.

i'm in a meeting. -janice, look. -[ chuckles ] -look, look. -i'm looking. it's easy. you just answer some simple questions online, and you get coverage options to choose from. you're ruining my workout. cycling is my passion. just one place to start, we

just one place to start, we are exactly halfway through the >> reporter: the first mention of a leak of hillary clinton's e-mails came from wikileaks' julian assange himself, june 12, 2016, in the heat of the presidential campaign. on july 22nd, just as promised and on the very day hillary clinton was announcing her running mate, nearly 20,000 e-mails were released by wikileaks. the e-mails promised to be embarrassing. they included chatter about clinton's chief rival, bernie sanders, and perks provided to party donors. the following month, august 4th, 2016, trump loyalist roger stone sent this e-mail to former trump adviser sam nunberg. i dined with my new pal julian

assange last night. that same day, stone gave an interview to the conspiracy-driven site infowars as reported by cnn. >> let's remember that their defense, all of the clinton foundation scandals has been not we didn't do it, has been you have no proof. yes, but you have no proof. well, i think julian assange has that proof and i think he is going to furnish it to the american people. >> reporter: the next day, august 5th, 2016, stone tweeted hillary lies about russian involvement in dnc hack. julian assange is a hero. stone would later explain most recently on his website that he had also joked about visiting assange during an earlier phone call with nunberg. it had been nothing but a throwaway line, pure schtick, the way i talk, the humor i savor, he wrote. when i realized that nunberg actually believed that i had flown to london, i simply milked the joke a little more in a subsequent e-mail. end of story. was it all a joke? the conservative website the daily caller says stone showed them a boarding pass from jfk airport in new york to los angeles on august 1st, 2016. he also provided another boarding pass showing he flew on delta airlines from los angeles overnight to miami, florida on august 3rd.

he would have arrived just before dawn on august 4th, the day he sent the e-mail about dining with julian assange the night before. if he was on a cross country flight, the reported boarding passes show, dinner with assange would have been impossible. the daily caller also reports stone's credit card shows payments at a deli in santa monica on august 2nd plus hotel and baggage fees for august 3rd, putting him in los angeles, thousands of miles away from ecuador's embassy in london where assange has been since 2012 under asylum. meanwhile, stone publicly claimed he had a back channel to assange. someone he later named to be new york radio host randy kredigo even though he denied that in the daily beast and refused to talk about it last year.

>> i'm not at liberty, courtesy of my counsel, to talk about roger stone or to talk about wikileaks. or talk about julian assange. >> reporter: amid all these conflicting statements we know stone and wikileaks have communicated. in these private twitter messages now made public. october 13th, 2016, stone messages wikileaks that since he's been defending them and assange, they may want to reexamine the strategy of attacking him. we appreciate that. however, the false claims of our association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. don't go there. if you don't want us to correct you. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> back now with roger stone. so mr. stone, in your testimony on capitol hill, which you wanted to be public, they didn't allow that, you testified anyway, you denied any direct communication with julian assange. back on august 8th, 2016, you said in a public appearance that you actually have communicated with assange. there is obviously a difference

between direct communication and communication, but just for the record, what has been your communication direct or otherwise with assange? >> what i actually said in my testimony was that i had never communicated with assange, that is correct. i had never met with him, spoken to him on the phone, e-mailed with him, face-timed, skyped, so on. i am an admirer of him. i think he's a journalist. i think he does what journalists do, get information from whistle blowers and publish it just like you do here at cnn. my speech before the southwest broward republican club in which i speak of communication refers, as i said under oath to the house committee, to a confirming source, in this case i called him a back channel because it was a dramatized in a speech but back channel intermediary confirming source who told me yes, indeed, and this is someone who was close to people on the wikileaks legal team, that

indeed, what assange told cnn in june was accurate, that he had substantial and devastating information that would roil the campaign. he did and it did. >> you have used that term back channel a lot. back channel communication as recently as last night on fox, i think you referred to him, this radio guy, as a middleman, a back channel and intermediary, confirming source. back channel implies a flow of communication. intermediary usually passes information back and forth. was there an actual exchange of information between you and assange through this back channel? >> you can argue there is hyperbole, but no more hyperbole than cnn last night saying that my interview was recently unearthed or newly discovered when it's been on youtube and on their website for the last eight months. >> but there was -- i guess i'm just asking, was there any exchange of information between you and -- >> no. no. i'm sorry. yes, let me answer your question.

i had no advance notice of the content, source or exact timing of the wikileaks disclosures including the allegedly hacked e-mails. i never received anything whatsoever from wikileaks, julian assange, anyone associated with them, or anyone else including allegedly hacked e-mails and passed them on to donald trump. >> did you ever give anything to julian assange? >> no. i did not. >> okay. the e-mail that you sent sam nunberg where you said that you had dinner with assange, you also said it on the phone to him as we said in randi's piece, as a way to end a boring, lengthy conversation. you said it was a joke. i'm wondering of all the things to joke about, why that? how does that get you off the phone faster, if anything i would think if somebody said to me i'm having dinner with julian assange i would stay on the phone with him longer. >> look, assange and what wikileaks did and did not have was being played out in the political media around the edges of the campaign. it was a hot topic. you have to understand, sam is neurotic.

he would sometimes call you 30, 40 times a day often with nothing to say other than what's going on. when you let his phone calls roll over to voice message he would become very agitated with you. it was a throwaway line. my passport, customs records, airline records, security cameras at the ecuadorian embassy would demonstrate no such trip was made. i did produce airline tickets and so on. here's one thing i got right. when i was in west hollywood i stayed at the london hotel. >> have you been in any communication with others who have been in touch with assange? it's known nigel farrage visited the embassy. pamela anderson. have you been in contact with any of them? >> i have not. i would like to be in touch with pamela anderson but i am not. >> i knew you were going to say that as i was writing the question. i knew that would be the answer. you have revealed public tweets and private direct messages communicating with gucifer 2.0, an entity the u.s. government says was controlled or operated by russian military intelligence.

i know you say you don't really believe that. the tweets and dms that have been publicly reported, are they the sum total of all your communications with gucifer 2.0? >> yes, absolutely. as you know, this entire communication which i released although it is interesting the media organizations knew it was there, hard to know since it's supposed to be proprietary unless of course you had been hacked. remember the "new york times" reported on january 20th of 2017 that i was the subject of a fisa warrant along with paul manafort and carter page. that was never retracted. i know the government is denying that in the back and forth between manafort and the government. >> you believe they have been monitoring you? >> what i'm saying is i don't know to what extent all of my e-mails and communications may have been monitored. >> there is reporting that u.s. investigators traced the

gucifer's computer directly to the gru headquarters in moscow. isn't it a problem to be in contact with russian agents while they were trying to influence the election? >> well, the problem is that my communication is completely ex post facto. it happens weeks after wikileaks has already published the allegedly hacked e-mails. consequently, it makes collusion chronologically impossible. based on the content, the context and the timing of this communication. by the way, i was covering this for infowars. he spoke to hundreds of journalists. it demonstrates there is no collaboration or collusion. >> a month ago "the washington post" reported you had a phone conversation the spring of 2016 in which you said you had learned from assange that wikileaks had gotten e-mails that would torment senior democrats like john podesta. if true, that was significant because it was months before wikileaks announced as we played there that assange went on british television and announced he had information on hillary clinton, that it was going to

release. did that conversation occur? >> no. it did not. in fact, the "times" piece is flawed. the reporter who called me said they had an e-mail that said this. but by the time their story posted, the e-mail was gone but the alleged contents of the e-mail remain in the lead of the story. this is hearsay, uncorroborated hearsay. two sources say stone said. i had no advance knowledge of the content or the source of the wikileaks disclosures. the idea that i knew about podesta's, john podesta's e-mail being hacked in advance is disproved by the wording of my tweet. it says the podestas. refers to john and tony. >> i want to ask you about that. it's often misquoted. if the conversation, if that conversation didn't occur, i want to ask for the record, did you at that time have knowledge that assange had gotten e-mails on senior democrats? >> no, i did not. >> so democrats -- >> so the story says two things. one, he iterates the canard that i dined with assange and that i

had advance knowledge. this is an uncorroborated source. the e-mail that is alleged disappears from the story. >> got it. democrats have repeatedly said you predicted the wikileaks dump of john podesta's e-mail and the tweet they keep pointing at which is often misquoted by them, is one that reads quote, it will soon be the podestas' plural time in the barrel. what did you mean by that? >> well, the panama papers published in april of 2016 expose the podesta brothers' extensive business dealings -- >> actually, it talks about -- the panama papers focus on tony podesta, not john, who hadn't worked for the podesta group as i understand it for decades, like the early '90s. >> my reference is to both brothers. i wrote an extensive piece about john podesta's banking deal in russia and how lucrative that was. i had received an opposition research memo from dr. jerry coursy all from public sources.

it's a reference to the subsequent mainstream media focus on the podesta brothers' various businesses. >> you are saying -- >> nowhere did i predict the hacking of john podesta's e-mail. >> you are saying the evidence of that is because you said podestas, plural? >> well, people do call -- did call him the donald but no one has ever called john podesta the podesta. >> you said most recently this afternoon that you quote, never had any advance knowledge of the content, source or exact timing of the wikileaks disclosures. you said it earlier tonight even. "the washington post" recently pointed out that you seem to be very careful in the words you use. you always say the content, the source, the exact timing. can you just say categorically that you had no advance knowledge of the hacked e-mails? >> yes. i absolutely can. categorically. the reason i say it that way is because i actually believe that assange would make public disclosures in october 1st which

he did not, but on the 1st he did announce a subsequent schedule for data dumps which began on october 6th. that's why i said i was not sure about the date. i was trying to be precise. >> you have also said quote, let's be clear, i had no advance notice of wikileaks' hacking of podesta's e-mails. again, "the washington post" pointing out you are always very specific with your denial. can you say you simply had no advance knowledge the hacked e-mails existed? >> i categorically can. >> so special counsel robert mueller -- >> i think we addressed john podesta question. >> robert mueller's prosecutors are asking witnesses about you at the grand jury. i know you haven't been contacted. does it concern you haven't been called in for an interview yet? >> first, let's remember the source of that is sam nunberg to "the washington post," to "wall street journal," to cnn.

how reliable a source is he? i have done nothing wrong. i have very substantial bank of e-mails. i'm involved in politics. my e-mails include all kinds of things, smoke and mirrors, failed initiatives, strategic triumphs, tested ideas, but there's no evidence of treason or collusion with the russian state or any other violation of the law. donald trump did not need help from russia to beat hillary clinton. he ran a historic and improbable and amazing campaign and she ran one of the worst campaigns i have ever seen and i have been in this business almost 40 years. >> i got to say, i spent a couple hours reading basically every interview you have done in the last two, two and a half years, and you have been remarkably consistent in what you have said in your defense all along. one thing that stood out to me, i know it's kind of a weird thing but i have to ask you about it, in an interview with "time" magazine in february 2017, you said that you may have been poisoned with polonium. you said you didn't know who did it but intimated it might have been someone who wanted to make

it look like russia did it saying quote, the deep state moves in strange ways. do you have any proof that you would actually release that you were poisoned and possibly with polonium? >> i was extraordinarily ill. you can see in the file footage that you used at the beginning of the segment that i still have lesions on my face from that illness. my doctor believed i was poisoned. they believed initially there was some radioactive element to that. i have never been this sick in my life. >> do you have any files that you can release on that, or the medical report? you said the sample was sent to the cdc. >> i don't think my health is of great interest to the american people other than half of them that just wish i would drop dead. i'm the conservative every liberal loves to hate. >> but polonium poisoning, that's a huge thing in the united states if somebody was poisoned with polonium. >> well, you can go to my info wars reports on it.

i believe i was. i was also t-boned in a hit and run the police have never solved in a period shortly after that. it's not inconceivable some people may not want my testimony in this matter. >> i wasn't going to ask about that but since you mention it, you did leave the scene of that and so there's no record that you were in the car. i know you did look like you had injuries. if you were hit in a hit and run, why leave the scene before the police showed up? i know they were delayed in showing up. >> because no one was injured. frankly, i waited one hour and it was a work day. >> all right. if you could stick around. we will take a quick break. i want to get your take on the white house today, how the inner workings of the white house, how you will see it. that would be great. otezla is not an injection or a cream.

with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. 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.

when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com.

and got them back on track. internet providers promise business owners a lot. let's see who delivers more. comcast business offers fast gig-speeds across our network. at&t doesn't. we offer more complete reliability with up to 8 hours of 4g wireless network backup. at&t, no way. we offer 35 voice features and solutions that grow with your business. at&t, not so much. we give you 75 mbps for $59.95. that's more speed than at&t's comparable bundle, for less. call today.

talking with roger stone, long-time associate of the president. former campaign adviser and observer of and participant in american hardball politics. thanks for being with us, sticking around. cnn is reporting the president increasingly believes he's his own best adviser, is relying less and less on the advice of those in the white house. would you encourage him in that? do you think that's a wise move for him? >> yes. i say let trump be trump. look, he has run the most improbable and brilliant political campaign in american history based on all of the measurements of the things that we think are necessary. he came, you know, he staged an extraordinary come from behind victory. i do think he understands leadership.

i do think he understands the need to get the economy growing. you've got 100% increase in gdp. we are getting 3% economic growth. the appointment of larry kudlow i think will ultimately help the president make this economy cook. i think that increasingly he's found his sea legs and is doing what presidents do. if there's a convoy of illegals heading for our border, he's prepared to use american troops to repel them. that's leadership. >> it does seem like often he gets kind of ahead of where the policy actually is. he will say something and it seems like a lot of people in his administration have to scramble to suddenly catch up. is that the right way to lead when you are president of the united states? i get when you are running a corporation or a campaign. >> i think he knows his own mind. look, my only criticism has been that to some extent he's surrounded himself with people who don't share his world view, don't share his agenda, whose political loyalty is not to him. >> do you think he still has

those people around him? >> some, yes. although i think the appointment of john bolton is a very positive thing. i think the appointment of mike pompeo, who is skeptical about the iran nuclear deal, is a positive development. i think the president is surrounding himself with men and women that he trusts and who share more of his anti-interventionist world view. >> but mike pompeo, though, has a very different opinion than you do about wikileaks. mike pompeo sees them -- >> indeed. >> yeah. >> in fact, i have been very critical of mike pompeo about that, because it's adverse with what he said about wikileaks and assange during the campaign. but that aside, i do think he shares more of the president's foreign policy views on north korea, on the iran nuclear deal, than his predecessor. >> what about general john kelly? do you think he still has a place in the white house?

>> look, donald trump cannot be managed, will not be managed. he is his own manager. he is his own wordsmith. he is his own strategist and he's damn good at it. therefore, there's got to be a high burnout rate of anyone who tries to get in the way of this man. he's like theodore roosevelt in that sense. he's bombastic and he loves america. he has a vision of what he wants to do. for example, his saying that it's time to get out of syria. he's right. his advisers are wrong. >> just yesterday, he spoke about the payment that was made to stormy daniels by michael cohen saying he had no knowledge of it. was that wise for him to go on the record with that? >> i have not had a chance to read exactly what he said, nor in all honesty am i keeping up with the controversy having to deal with the incoming, as i am from "the washington post" and "wall street journal" and others in the fake news business. >> so you have no opinion on

whether the whole stormy daniels issue, the payment of $130,000, had anything to do with the campaign even though it was made 11 days before the election? >> i will believe the president's version of it when he says he knows nothing about it, but beyond that, what amazes me about this whole controversy is that the american people don't seem to care. the president's approval is going up. i think many see this as an extraneous issue. she also seems to have the little commentary i did see which may have been cnn, some discrepancies in her claims. i just don't think the american people care about this. >> roger stone, good to talk to you. thank you. >> thank you. lots to talk about. we'll be right back with the panel including one of the directors of the documentary, get me roger stone. console, playing a little hide-n-seek. cold... warmer... warmer...

ah boiling. jackpot. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, you could be picking up these charges yourself. so get allstate, where agents help keep you protected from mayhem... ...like me. mayhem is everywhere. are you in good hands? my digestive system used to make me feel sluggish. but those days are over. now, i take metamucil every day. it naturally traps and removes the waste that weighs me down. so i feel...lighter. try metamucil and begin to feel what lighter feels like. take the 2-week challenge and see the difference metamucil can make. begin to feel what lighter feels like. available at walmart and walmart.com

our conversation with roger stone left us with plenty to talk about our panel who join us in a moment. first let's listen to something mr. stone said just a moment ago, perhaps the most definitive statement he's made about his connection or lack of one to wikileaks. was there any exchange of information between you and -- >> no, no. i'm sorry. yes, let me answer your question. i had no advance notice of the content, source or exact timing of the wikileaks disclosures including the allegedly hacked e-mails. i never received anything whatsoever from wikileaks, julian assange, anyone associated with them, or anyone

else, including allegedly hacked e-mails and passed them on to donald trump. >> did you ever give anything to julian assange? >> no, i did not. >> joining me is one of the directors of the documentary get me roger stone. also cnn chief national security correspondent jim sciutto and cnn legal analyst carrie cordero. when you read all the things roger stone has said over the last two plus years, as i have done all day long, he has been remarkably consistent. >> that's absolutely true. he's been saying the same thing all along and as you pointed out, it's very possible that he got the information for those tweets from the public record and there is also, it's also true that his tweets were erroneous to a degree. our camera crew was with him on the day of his tweet where he said wednesday, hillary will be done. nothing came to pass that day. we were waiting for something dramatic to happen. nothing happened. he has been remarkably consistent and he's also been wrong at times.

>> jim sciutto, the democrats often point to his saying he predicted john podesta's e-mails were going to get hacked. when as we talked about, when you actually read the e-mail, that's not what it says at all. it's the podestas' time in the barrel, around the same time manafort was kicked out of the campaign, so it doesn't come out of left field that he would have been talking about the podestas, one of whom was managing hillary clinton's campaign. >> no. you're right. listen, he was very categorical there because one of the other criticisms of roger stone was that he's given mealy-mouthed answered or answers that could be misconstrued but he was categorical. he said i kept a list, the things he was categorical about. he said never communicated, met with or spoke on the phone in any way with julian assange, no advance notice of disclosures, as you just played that clip there. and he also categorically denied any trip to meet with julian

assange at the ecuadorian embassy in london. a lot of things that have been floated out there and by some accepted as fact because of roger stone's involvement, because he has often not been the most credible commentator on this. to you, he was categorical in his denials. now, you also saw in the interview some of the kind of classic roger stone, claiming he was poisoned, for instance, by polonium. listen, i covered the poisoning with polonium of litvinenko in london by russia in 2006. if you are poisoned with polonium, you die. this is -- a tiny speck of that stuff will kill you. this is also the man who wrote a book claiming lbj killed john f. kennedy. there are credibility issues going back but on the questions you asked, he was categorical and has been consistent in those categorical denials for some time. >> there would be medical records that if somebody really wanted to, they could obviously release. have you talked to him about this poisoning? >> personally i think it's ludicrous. whenever we talk about roger, he got a news cycle out of that and

in terms of assange, he had spoken to us in july and august, 2018, about his desire to meet with julian assange and for us to film it. one of the striking things about this is why he wouldn't have wanted us to be there if he did meet with assange. it would have puffed up his role in the campaign and was consistent with our discussions with him. >> carrie, just in terms of if robert mueller has been asking questions about him to sam nunberg, to others, is it, should it be a concern to roger stone that he hasn't been asked to come in and talk to mueller? >> well, i continue to be amazed at the number of individuals affiliated with the trump campaign in some way who, even if they haven't been subpoenaed or asked to be interviewed yet, know that they are in some way being implicated in the investigation, being looked at in the investigation. they have some indication that perhaps some of their records

have been wrapped into the investigation, yet they continue to give lengthy public interviews. at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter from the investigators' standpoint what roger stone or sam nunberg or others say on tv. what matters is the documentary evidence and the testimony that's given under oath by the witnesses who are either interviewed or called in to testify. >> got to take a quick break. not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool. coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells. with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some rare side effects include: temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you. and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment.

capdynamic lightingrs elevated comfort powerfully efficient and one more thing the world comes with it ♪you can go your own way... the 2019 jeep cherokee unexpected situation? aha.

(gasps) l'oréal's magic root cover up. 3 seconds to flawless roots. 3, 2, 1. roots gone! magic root cover up by l'oréal paris. look for the turquoise one. well, lik-oh!st of you, i j-very nice.a house. now i'm turning into my dad. i text in full sentences. i refer to every child as chief. this hat was free. what am i supposed to do, not wear it? next thing you know, i'm telling strangers defense wins championships. -well, it does. -right? why is the door open? are we trying to air condition the whole neighborhood? at least i bundled home and auto on an internet website, progressive.com. progressive can't save you from becoming your parents, but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto. i mean, why would i replace this? it's not broken.

we've been talking about the interview tonight with longtime trump ally and former campaign adviser roger stone. here's something he said about the president, his current advisers, and turnover in the administration. >> donald trump cannot be managed, will not be managed. he is his own manager. he is his own wordsmith. he is his own strategist, and he's damn good at it. and, therefore, there's got to be a high burnout rate of anyone who tries to get in the way of this man. he's like theodore roosevelt in that sense. he is impetuous. he is bombastic, and he loves america. and he has a vision of what he wants to do. >> back now with morgan pechme, one of the directors of the documentary "get me roger stone," which is fascinating. also cnn's jim sciutto and carrie cordero. jim, i'm reminded of every time we're talking about details that we or "the washington post," "the new york times," "the wall street journal" have learned about the mueller investigation, it is still just a small fraction, just the tip of the iceberg of what we actually

know. they know so much more than we do. >> no question. let's be frank. i know the mueller team has been accused of leaks. i've covered this for more than a year now. that is the tightest black box in washington. you get sort of secondary ripples of what he's looking into based on what lawyers for witnesses tell you, et cetera. and then you get, you know, sort of indications of lines of inquiry that he's going down. but what evidence he's found down these lines of inquiry, that is very much an open question. we know he's asking about trump's financial dealings. has he found financial crimes? we don't know. we know he's asking about -- still asking about the possibility of collusion, foreknowledge of the hacked e-mails, et cetera. has he found evidence of collusion? we don't know. that's the thing. when he releases that report, that's really when we're going to know the answer to those questions. >> you made this film, so you spent a lot of time with him. clearly it says some of the

things he has said in the past were to puff himself up, to make himself seem more important to others perhaps in the campaign or around him. it's very easy to look as some of the things he said as suspicion. you can also look at them as just kind of bragging and made up. >> right. well, as we show in our film, although roger has certainly had a pivotal role in historic events of extraordinary consequence, he's also lied about his role and historic events. that's part of his m.o. here. i thought it was really interesting when he said to you about his willingness to appear before the special counsel depends upon the scope of the interview. you know, roger, as we show in our movie, has been by trump's side for three decades and was once his washington lobbyist. i think that roger would be much more reticent to talk about his knowledge of trump's business dealings than he is about the russian collusion investigation. >> they go back that long that he would know a lot about trump's business dealings?

>> he's literally the first person to put the idea in trump's mind to run for the presidency way back in 1987, and he's been representing trump as his lobbyist, his political strategist, since the mid-'80s. >> carrie, the president's supporters say this investigation by mueller has just gone on too long, keep saying, look, we haven't seen anything come out of it. it's been going on for more than a year. it's an argument i don't quite understand because generally you wouldn't see anything come out of an investigation until the investigation reaches its conclusion, and obviously we have seen indictments on russians and obviously the actions against paul manafort and others. >> given the scope of this investigation, i think it's moving quickly. i mean they've already launched guilty pleas against several individuals affiliated with the campaign. they have a big pending indictment against the campaign chairman, paul manafort. they have a huge indictment against russian nationals and russian entities. i think actually given the scope of it, it's actually moving quite at a pace.

one other thing on just something that stone said, so he really doubled down in this interview on his support for julian assange and wikileaks, and it's just worth noting. you started to get at this a little bit, anderson, that the current cia director, mike pompeo, trump's cia director has come out and said that wikileaks is a non-state, hostile intelligence service that works with foreign intelligence agencies. and really that is something worth note, that if this is somebody who has been advising the president for decades and to the extent he may have continue to have his ear -- we don't know -- the fact that really doubled down on that support for wikileaks, even going so far as to compare it with the work that professional journalists do here at cnn is notable. >> i was just going to say, and it is the view of the u.s. intelligence committee that russia used wikileaks as a so-called cutout, a middle man to transfer the stolen, hacked

e-mails to the public view, that they were an active participant in the hacking, the interference in the u.s. election. >> thanks to all. up next, exclusive reporting in the russia investigation. sources telling cnn that president trump's legal team is preparing him for a possible interview by special counsel mueller. "it's like watching paint dry." that's how the world describes boredom. but some of you know paint can bring a wall to life. ( ♪ ) because you are particular. and that's good. particular helps you find the perfect color. it helps you see the difference between dune white, cloud white, and white rock. and you never miss a spot. look, particular people make the best art. math and science are particular, and we need those. every nice thing was made

by someone particular. so go on, do it right, nail the details and always aim for perfect. be proudly particular. at benjamin moore, that's how we make paint like no other. the standard for paint professionals. only at local paint and hardware stores. the standard for paint professionals. hais not always easy. severe plaque psoriasis it's a long-distance run and you have the determination to keep going.

humira has a proven track record of being prescribed for over ten years. it's the #1 prescribed biologic by dermatologists. more than 250,000 patients have chosen humira to fight their psoriasis. and they're not backing down. for most patients clearer skin is the proof. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems. serious allergic reactions and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. join over 250,000 people who have chosen humira. ask your dermatologist about humira & go.