billy and my boy jack, just to name a few. i'm ana cabrera in new york. i'll be back tomorrow night at 5:00 eastern. still ahead tonight on cnn, van jones sits down with tracy alice ross, that's at 7:00. but first, "smerconish" starts right now. good night. i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. we welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. just as soon as america's mayor became the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani wasted no time trying to rewriete the stormy daniels and comey narratives. but by friday he was backtracking. will the latest edition to the president's legal team end up hurting or helping the president? after the leak of mueller's potential questions, the president has still not decided if he'll testify. as we near the midterms and a

possible blue wave, does this endless delay put time on the side of his opponents who wish for impeachment? plus, the president got some good news this week. the unemployment numbers are down to near historic lows. >> the unemployment rate just fell beneath 4% for the first time since the beginning of the century. >> and when a package was misdelivered to a harvard law school graduate in phoenix, he was afraid to let his sons redeliver it because they're a black family in a white neighborhood. a viral moment ensued. was he right to be worried? but first, rudy giuliani debuted as the new head of the president's legal team this week. his appearance wednesday with sean hannity on fox news, which sought to put out a legal and political fire, instead ignited one. when giuliani told a new narrative about how michael cohen had been repaid for the

stormy daniels hush money via a retainer and over several months, he caught many by surprise, including other members of the president's legal team, but where he had spoken to his client, the president, before going on air, this was a deliberate strategy. one that the president embraced the morning after in a series of tweets, seemingly the intent was to provide cohen with cover from potential charges that he'd violated fec requirements when making the $130,000 payment to a porn star without disclosure. among those caught by surprise, michael cohen himself, at least according to his confidant donny deutsch. >> i spoke with michael cohen yesterday and his quote about giuliani is he doesn't know what he's talking about. he also said that, look, there are two people that know exactly what happened, myself and the president, and you'll be hearing my side of the story. >> by friday, the president was executesi excusing away giuliani's behavior as rookie mistakes.

>> he's learning the subject matter and he's going to be issuing a statement, too. he started yet. he'll get his facts straight. >> giuliani did release a statement, which allowed no more improvising. quote, there is no campaign violation. the payment was made to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the president's family. it would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not. and my references to timing were not describing my understanding of the president's knowledge but my -- instead, my understanding of these matters. as i've said from the get-go, regarding the stormy daniels situation, the president has been trying to thread a needle. he's been trying to argue that he was out of the loop on the settlement, had nothing to do with the settlement but that the settlement with daniels is nevertheless binding. only time will tell whether rudy's strategy proves a legal asset or a liability, but in a big picture sense, the daniels case might be a case of us

witnessing the reprise of, say, whitewater, where an inquiry into a confusing land transaction ended up exposing an intern scandal. here, investigation into russian meddling in the u.s. election has now morphed into questions about the aftermath of a one nightstand more than a data ago. might it nevertheless imperil a presidency? or are the stakes of what the president calls a witch hunt overblown? that's today's poll question at smerconish.com. do the latest developments arising out of the stormy daniels case imperil the presidency? go cast a ballot. results later this hour. joining me now to discuss is jonathan turley, a professor of constitutional law at george washington university. he wrote this piece in "usa today," is rudy giuliani working for donald trump or against him? professor, welcome back. what's your answer to my big picture question, this whole stormy daniels business? might it imperil this

presidency? >> i think it just might. the problem with this is it didn't have to be an existential threat but it's becoming that. they've allowed this to metastasize, to get to a point where you could actually take a scandal and make it criminal. it takes a lot of work. you have to make a lot of missteps, but they're making a pretty good show of it. what giuliani did in that interview is really baffling, you know? you're not supposed to work out the facts on live television. when he says this is my understanding of the matter, not my client's knowledge, his client's knowledge is the matter. and so it's -- it was just an appalling thing to watch. >> here's what struck me in the hannity interview, it was the way he had sort of an epiphany as to, aha, it's the retainer that was the repayment method for the stormy daniels litigation. watch this clip. >> everybody was nervous about this from the very beginning.

i wasn't. i knew how much money donald trump put into that campaign. i said $130,000? he can do a couple of checks for $130,000. when i heard cohen's retainer of $35,000 when he was doing no work for the president, i said that's how he's repaying it. >> in other words, professor, it's not that president trump told him, not that michael cohen said, hey, rudy, here's the way it happened, but, rather, it occurred to him. your reaction? >> well, first of all, it's not a defense, it actually is worse. you know, first of all, basically changing what was called a gift into a loan does not get you out of campaign finance problems. it trips additional wires. you then have reporting problems. tax problems. you also have questions about past statements. so it doesn't help. and what was really curious about this is his statement that, well, you know, we disguised effectively -- or he did, hush money in the form of legal fees. that triggers ethical problems

as well. lawyers don't do that. you're a lawyer. you know that as well as i do. >> so let's go deeper. who was the intended beneficiary of the giuliani strategy? because superficially, it would seem that they're providing cover for michael cohen, but is it that simple? >> i don't think it is that simple. what worries me is that this was primarily a play, again, to the public. you know, giuliani was there making all types of threats, calling the fbi agents storm troopers or, you know, saying that he's going to basically crush mueller. giuliani can't really imagine that that's going to intimidate mueller or the prosecutors. he was there. he was on the other side. so that only leaves the public. and the question is, why are you still making a pitch to the public? this is getting into a chronic stage. i mean, you are in serious difficulty with your client. trying to make this pitch to the public is a very dangerous thing. it's not going to help. >> if michael cohen made

$130,000 payment out of his own pocket even from a credit line to stormy daniels and it was deemed to have been a campaign contribution, an in kind contribution, he might have exposure for not having declared it vis-a-vis the fec, but would the president have any exposure in that regard? that's what mystifies me as to rudy's assertion and why he would have made it. >> the president would have exposure. i think we have to put this in perspective that campaign finance violations are normally not treated as criminal matters. the john edwards prosecution under a similar set of facts, money going to a mistress as opposed to a one night stand did lead to an indictment, his trial, but not his conviction. many of us question how strong that case really was. we have to keep that in perspective, but if the president, particularly through his lawyers engaged in a knowing

effort to conceal campaign finance contributions as retainer fees, yeah, he could be pulled into this. the other problem is that the team seems to be pivoting away from the president's former position. i think they've concluded, particularly with the documents that were secured in the raid against cohen, that they can no longer factually and legally maintain the position that he was in. but in tacking away from that position, they left cohen where he has. he is alone and not in a good place. that can be very dangerous because he can be very dangerous if he decides to cooperate with prosecutors. >> i have a defense for michael cohen, you want to hear it? >> i'm eager to hear it. >> all right. it's a defense that says, we paid $130,000 ten days out from the election. we were looking at the same polls as everybody else. nate silver at all gave us no shot to win. we didn't think we were going to

win. therefore, we didn't pay $130,000 with the election in mind, we paid $130,000 with the future of donald trump, his brand, his marriage, his family, it has nothing to do with the election. you buying it? >> i'm afraid not. first of all, trump had a reputation with regard to these types of liaisons that preexisted and also followed these disclosures. more importantly, giuliani himself undermined that argument. at first he said this was all about saving the marriage and then he immediately contradicted himself and said, well, it wasn't about the marriage, it was about his reputation. the next day he said, well, could you imagine if this had gotten out during the presidential debates. >> october 15. right. >> so he himself can't seem to maintain a coherent narrative. this isn't rocket science, you know, you sit down and you create your narrative for defense. the only thing you have to do is

preserve its clarity and coherence. giuliani -- >> i know, but you know what, i have to say this, professor, he's a smart guy. mayor giuliani is a smart guy. so i continue to give him the benefit of the doubt wondering, are the rest of us missing something that we haven't picked up in a grand scheme? anyway, thank you for being here. i always appreciate your analysis. >> thank you. that's jonathan turley. what are your thoughts. tweet me @smerconish or go to my facebook page. i will read some throughout the course of the program. like this, if a point of that statement is that he doesn't know all the facts and is not speaking on behalf of the president, why should we listen to or believe anything rudy says? jeffrey, that's the question people are asking i think about the white house now, that it's death by 1,000 cuts. like the doctor, the whole doctor ronny issue and the doctor from new york and the president having dictated that. in the scheme of things, is it a big deal? no. but when you add them all up, it's problematic. one more if we have time for it.

is a retainer fee or a retain-her fee? this legal stuff is so confusing. david, it's the only time -- i tweeted this earlier in the week. i said it's the only case i've ever heard of where a billionaire has to use a retainer in $35,000 monthly installments to pay a $130,000 debt. it strains creditity. go to smerconish.com, answer the latest poll question of the day. do the latest developments awrying out of the stormy daniels case now imperil the presidency. by dragging it out this long -- is he risking giving the democrats more power, those who want to impeach? and during the campaign, the president famously said, what have you got to lose to unemployed african-american voters. well, the unemployment number has dipped below 4% for the first time since the year 2000. and black unemployment is also at historic lows.

so was he right? >> i'd say, what do you have to lose? and they voted for me. and we won. but now the numbers are much higher than they ever were with african-american -- we're happy. (baby crying) ♪ ♪ don't juggle your home life and work life without it. ♪ ♪ and don't forget who you're really working for without it. ♪ ♪ funding to help grow your business... ♪ ♪ another way we have your back. ♪ ♪ the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. the kayak explore tool shows you the places you can fly on your budget. so you can be confident you're getting the most bang for your buck. alo-ha. kayak. search one and done.

peopbut they're different.nd. it's nice to remove artificial ingredients. kind never had to. we choose real ingredients like almonds, peanuts and a drizzle of dark chocolate. find your favorite and give kind® a try. like you do sometimes, grandpa? and puffed... well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

the new unemployment numbers are historic, falling below 4% for the first time since the year 2000, leading the president to tweet on friday, just out, 3.9% unemployment. 4% is broken. in the meantime, witch hunt. you've got to admit, he's got a point, right? there is very little bandwidth being spent on this achievement and black unemployment is down to 6.6%, an all-time low. so does he deserve credit? joining me now, christopher lou, former deputy secretary of labor for president obama. and senior economics analyst -- christopher, if these numbers came in on obama's watch, you'd be psyched, no? >> the numbers did come in under our watch. if we're looking simply at african-american unemployment, that dropped 9 percentage points during -- since the peak of the recession. it's dropped another percentage

point during the trump administration. so if we're going to give credit, let's give 90% of that credit to president obama and 10% to president trump. >> stephen, i imagine your ratio is slightly different. go ahead. >> so, you know, during the campaign, one of the things we always talked to donald trump about was this idea of a rising tide lifts all boats. if you can get the economy growing faster at a robust kind of business expansion that will benefit everyone. you know, we're starting to see the fruits of that, michael. i don't think there is any doubt about it. it's not just the low unemployment rate for everyone. as you mentioned, we have the lowest black unemployment rate since the beatles were still playing together. the hispanic unemployment rate is the lowest its been in recorded history. i watch cnn, by the way, i want to congratulate you, michael, for covering this story because it's a story, frankly, that others on cnn really don't cover because it's the russia probe 24/7.

what people care most about, you know, certainly during the campaign was getting the economy moving again and i think a lot of positive results so far. by the way, one statistic, michael, that we're still concerned about if we really want to see this economy explode. we want to see an increase in the labor pours participation rate. so that's the -- that's the one that still hasn't moved as much as we'd like. getting millions of the people on the sidelines back into the workforce. >> well, and i guess i'll put it to christopher now. i was going to raise this with you, but in the sake of fairness in terms of time, that was candidate trump's position, right? i mean, i often heard, christopher, from candidate trump that you can't believe the obama-era unemployment numbers because they don't reflect all the people who have given up. now i see that he's the president and wants some credit, deservedly so, for 3.9%. he seems to have forgotten the argument that was just made. christopher, your reaction? >> well, that's exactly right. it's ironic that a president who criticized the government unemployment numbers as phony

and hoax is now taking credit for them. we also know that -- the three of us here, the presidents often get too much credit and too much blame for the economy and unemployment numbers. but when i look more broadly at this issue of what do african-americans have to lose? i'm not just looking at jobs, i'm looking at the president's rhetoric, i'm looking at the atmosphere he's created. his attack on black nfl players. his embrace of people like roy moore. charlottesville. his policies on the affordable care act. it's not just about jobs, it's not just about wages, it's about the tone that the president has set in this country and the sense that african-americans feel like he is embracing policies that help people for everyone except for them. >> except that, you know, i would make the case -- go ahead. >> stephen, let me ask you this, because christopher brings this all up in a bigger political context and i'm curious to ask you both something. front page in "the new york times" today has side-by-side stories above the fold. one about stormy daniels and one about the jobless rate.

and i'm sitting here wondering in 2020, stephen -- >> exactly. >> which of these matters more to american voters? >> i couldn't have put it better. in fact, this is the case i've been making, you know, quite often, that if you look at the polls, you know, going up through the couple of years before the 2016 election, it is very clear what americaned cas most about undeniably, jobs and the economy. that was first and foremost on the americans' minds. obama did the best he could but we had the weakened recovery from a recession since the great depression. i'm going to agree with a democratic president, it was bill clinton who said it was the economy, stupid. if we get an economy this strong 2 1/2 years from now, i think despite all of donald trump's other issues he'll win 40 states because people feel better about their financial situations in their lives. >> christopher, the wages are stagnant. i guess that's the downside of the economic picture we face

right now. by the way, why is that the case? take it out of a partisan context. explain it to me as a guy who would like to know, why are wages not popping? >> at 3.9%, you would expect wages to be higher than the 2.6% increase we've had. in part, there is much more slack in the labor market than we've had in the past. frankly, i think we're starting to see the economy maybe not being what we always thought it was. whether it's globalization or automation, the economy is just different at this point. but i will say more broadly to your point, the fact that the president's approval ratings are still mired in the lower 40% shows that the economy does matter but people want a president whose values reflect theirs. so the economy, i think, will provide ultimately less of a boost to him than perhaps it has to other presidents in the past. >> michael, one quick point. on the wage issue, you're right. the whole point of this tax cut that we did with the president was to try to get a tighter labor market so that wages would

rise. i'm going to make a prediction on your show. i believe you're going to start to see wages rise at a faster pace because there is -- there are 6 million more jobs today, michael, than there are people to fill them. there was an article in "the washington post" yesterday that said, in some areas of the country businesses are paying $25,000 bonuses to blue collar workers to get them to sign up. that's an indication that this tight labor market is going to translate, hopefully into higher wages in the months to come. >> christopher, you get a ten-second rebuttal, then we're done. >> wages will increase because the labor market is tight not because of tax cuts that went to the wealthy and corporations. >> that's what's created the tight labor market. >> yes, thank you. appreciate you both having been here. let's see what you're saying via twitter and my facebook pages. cnn, job numbers and the economy will not help this administration. the midterms in 2020 will focus on social issues only.

tanya, i don't know the answer to that question. that's what remains to be -- it's like a tale of two cities. some fixated on only one aspect and others on the other. we'll carve those words from what year was it, '92, be true in 2020. will he or won't he? the president's back and forth about testifying about robert mueller's russia probe is taking so long it's about to smack into those midterms, which could give the dems the power to make his impeachment more likely. and this facebook post by a black harvard law graduate about a misdelivered package went viral because he says he was too afraid to allow his sons to bring it to his neighbor's house. it got a ton of response. as a control enthusiast,

i'm all-business when i travel... even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro. ♪ (electronic dance music)♪ ♪ ♪

i have no idea how we're going to get through this. follow me. unitedhealthcare has the people and tools to help guide you through the confusion. well that wasn't so bad at all. that's how we like it. unitedhealthcare. of coursbut if you hadowerful. any lingering doubts about the acceleration... horsepower... and all-around performance... of a lexus hybrid, this should clear the air. lexus hybrids. crafted to be fast as h. now comparably priced to the rest of the lineup. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. whatever it takes, wherever i have to go...i'm beating this. breast cancer treatment is continuing to evolve. ctca is definitely on the cusp of those changes. we really focus on taking the time with each individual patient so they can

choose the treatment appropriate for them. i empower women with choices. it's not just picking a surgeon. it's picking the care team, and feeling secure where you are. visit cancercenter.com/breast appointments available now.

does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today. ♪ the president has repeatedly accused robert mueller's russia probe of being a witch hunt, and friday a district judge and one of paul manafort's court cases

seemed to agree. district judge t.s. ellis told the prosecution, quote, you don't really care about mr. manafort's bank fraud. mueller's interest in manafort is to try to get to trump and that crimes committed before the trump campaign do not relate to the issue of coordination with the russian government. also on friday, the president repeated his claim he wants to talk with special counsel robert mueller but with caveats. >> i would love to speak. because we've done nothing wrong. i would love to go. i would love to speak, but i have to find that we're going to be treated fairly. wait, wait. i have to find that we're going to be treated fairly. >> this is just the latest chapter in the seemingly endless will he or won't he gamesmanship about a pop mueller/trump showdown about whether the president will possibly grant an interview or have to be subpoenaed in the russia probe. the latest is that a source is telling cnn's jim acosta that the president's lawyers and mueller are making a final push toward a final decision and that

it's a 50/50 chance of an interview happening. should the president be subpoenaed to testify? this source said that the likelihood is that the trump legal team would fight that all the way to the supreme court. that could take another nine to 15 months. here is what strikes me, the ongoing delays might not be to the president's advantage. mueller can't cleanly wrap up his probe without the president's perspective, at least with regard to the obstruction inquiry. my gut, after looking at that list of leaked possible questions, just an outline, really, is that they could easily take two to three days of testimony with our -- limit the president's interview to two or three hours. the longer this posturing goes on, the more likely it pushes the conclusion beyond the midterm election, which would have once seemed unfathomable, but now there is no end in sight. so if, in fact, it does linger, it raises the prospect when it's

resolved, democrats could control the house, maybe even the senate, and that becomes important because mueller is, in all probability, preparing a report to give to rod rosenstein that will then go to the congress congress. in some people's minds will be grounds for impeachment. it's to the president's advantage that the mueller probe be wrapped up asap. while republicans are in control of the house and senate. otherwise it inevitability keeps the prospect of impeachment in the national discussion, not necessarily because of the facts but because of who controls the congress. joining me now to discuss and jans davis alin. let's game this out. mueller wraps up his work and then what happens? presumably he takes it to rosenstein. does rosenstein give it to congress? does it become public? what do we know? >> rosenstein is not required to release the report to the public

but he's certainly allowed to. there are some constraints on this, of course. any confidential information in the report, any classified information would have to be redacted. also, grand jury testimony is usually confidential so that would have to be pulled out of the report. i would expect mueller maybe even sending a full classified version to rosenstein and then an unclassified executive summary that could be released to the public. even though rosenstein doesn't have to, you know, release that to the public, my bet is he really would because rosenstein's legacy is on the line here. he's really under a lot of political attacks. so my best guess is that rosenstein would probably give the report to key members of congress but then also release a portion of it to the wider public so that there can be a political dialogue about what happens next. >> there are a lot of comparisons between mueller and ken starr, but if you get into the weeds, you find that they really don't have the same charge, because of a change in the law. here's my question, do you

expect that robert mueller will reach legal conclusions? >> well, it depends what you mean by legal conclusions. if you mean, will the report -- >> obstruction. >> will his reports say -- what? >> obstruction -- >> will the reports say -- yeah, will he say obstruction? i think he will say i've gathered substantial information and substantial evidence which leads me to suspect that the president may have engaged in an obstruction of justice. he won't say the president committed obstruction of justice. because that's really for the fact-finder to decide. and i also think he might feel constrained by current justice department policy, which says that a sitting president can't be indicted. so i would expect that the sentence would read something like this. i have probable cause to believe that the president engaged in obstruction of justice and otherwise i would indict but can't indict because he's currently the occupant in the oval office. that's the type of legal conclusion that he would reach.

>> okay. you heard my introduction relative to the whole timing of this vis-a-vis the midterm elections. here is a scenario. let's imagine that mueller comes in with a report relative to obstruction before the midterm elections, while republicans still control the house and the senate. and the gop takes no action but there is a majority democrat control of the house come next year. could the "d"s still pick that report up? is there any time limitation? could they act on it if the "r"s did not? >> there is absolutely no procedural barrier to the democrats reengaging with the report and saying the republicans really didn't deal with it appropriately and we now want to, you know, file articles of impeachment. now that the democrats have control over the house judiciary committee. then there would be, you know, a trial in the senate. i would take it even one step further, your hypothetical, even if there was an impeachment in

the house and then the case went to the senate and there was a trial and the president wasn't removed, none of that prevents the house from filing new articles of impeachment and impeaching the president a second time and forcing a second trial in the senate. you can do that as many times as you wanted. the constraint here is, though, political. i think there would be a lot of pressure on the democrats. the republicans would be accusing them of trying to have a second bite at the apple and the democrats might feel like, you know, maybe we should let this go. i also think that -- >> okay. one more scenario. one more scenario. this is almost like good bar room chat for geeks. let's imagine that mueller comes in with a report relative to obstruction, because i understand mueller may release his findings in stages. it comes in on the watch of the "r"s, the "r"s run it up the flagpole for a vote while they control the house, knowing they can vote it down. now democrats take control of the house. can they resurrect it? i think you'll told me yes.

>> yeah, they can totally resurrect it and they can have a second bite at the apple and, you know, a new house with democrats in control. i think that they could -- i think they could definitely impeach and send it to the senate for a trial. i think, you know, what you really have to think about is what happens in the midterm elections, and i think you're asking all of the right questions. i really see three different scenarios here. one, republicans retain control of the house. two, democrats manage to harness a lot of this, you know, sort of dissatisfaction with trump and they take control of the house and therefore impeachment is more likely, but ironically, consider the possibility that there is the possibility of a massive new wave and the democrats almost sweep the house. at that point i wonder if it's possible that democrats will decide that they don't want to pursue impeachment, even though they have the legal power to do so, because they decide they would rather go into the next presidential election with a

weakened trump rather than try to remove him and have a president pence go into the next election. >> jens, thank you so much. interesting analysis. i think we're ahead of the curve on this. >> excellent. thank you very much for having me. let's check in on your tweets and facebook comments. what do we have? i think from facebook, you can't wrap it up when you know you're guilty. so it must be drawn out as long as possible. i don't think it's to his advantage, kellandwallet klein. that this be drawn out. he wants the results to come in while the republicans control the house and the senate. by the way, this whole subject bums me out because it's not evidentiary thinking. it's not fact-based, it's an acknowledgement by me that ultimately where this goes is predicated on partisanship and not on fact. one more, if i have time for it. all trump needs to do is answer mueller's questions with this response, i don't recall.

probably, you know, look, he is -- the president -- i say this as a trial lawyer who has defended hundreds if not a few thousand depositions, he is one tough client because it's hard to get him to stop speaking. it will be hard for him to follow anybody's direction, even that of rudy giuliani. so i don't know that he'll be so inclined as to invoke the old "i don't recall." i want to remind you to answer the survey question at smerconish.com. can't wait to see the outcome out of this. do the latest developments out of the stormy daniels case imperil the presidency? results at the end of this hour. still to come, when this man, a harvard law school graduate got a package meant for a neighbor, he was too scared to redeliver it or allow his sons to do so because he lives in a predominantly white neighborhood. his facebook post about this went absolutely viral. he's here to discuss. hey allergy muddlers. are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec®.

it's starts working hard at hour one. and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma♪ ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™

at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too

if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com.

so a package is misdelivered to your home. meant for somebody who lives nearby. what do you do? you just walk it over to them, right? well, when that happened recently to an attorney in arizona named sean carter, he instead called to have it picked up and redelivered.

why? as he explained in a viral facebook post, because he is black. in carter's post, which so far has more than 210,000 likes and 120,000 shares, he explained neither he or his teenage sons could walk it over because there was a, quote, realistic threat that the neighbor would see them as a threat and call the police or even pull a gun. carter cited the recent story of a michigan 14-year-old named brennan walk who are was lost and knocked on the door to ask for direction. the homeowner afraid walker was a burglar summoned her husband who opened fire on the teen. carter wrote, quote, i can't trust that my white neighbors won't see me, a harvard educated lawyer, or my 14-year-old honors student son as a roaming homicidal maniac. this is what it's like to be black in post-racial america. in response, his post was flooded with 79,000-plus comments both from sympathizers

and those calling him a racist, a-hole, a pussy and many other things. carter asked in a subsequent post, why all the vitreal? because i'm afraid for my children. even if my fear was completely irrational, is that a reason for anger and hatred. sean carter joins me now. tell me the conversation around your kitchen table. how does your wife and how do your sons feel about this whole controversy? >> as far as my wife, that's how i found out about it. the pack is on the front porch. i asked her. she said it's for a neighbor. she already looked at the address. it's not on our street where our neighbors know us, but it would be a couple of blocks over. it was unspoken we would not be delivering that package. now let's understand, i live in a gated community here in arizona. we have gates for a couple of reasons. one, we want to keep the old people from running off, and that's a problem, but also, there is a reason that you have gates and it's not to keep the

rich people out, it's to keep out the undesirable element. whatever that might be. right now i have a suit on. i don't look like the undesirable element, but in a hoodie and weekend attire, i would look like the person you'd call, all right, to worry about your neighborhood. i wasn't going to subject myself or my 14-year-old sons to that. the conversations i had with my sons are interesting because, you know, they weren't raised like i was. i'm straight out of compton. i don't just mean i have the t-shirt and i saw the movie, i have it on my birth certificate. i was always -- right? i was raised knowing i was black. i have to tell you that my sons have had to be taught. i had a conversation with my youngest son once and explained to him he was black. he's like, no, no, i'm light brown. let me explain to you what this means. we're having these conversations quite often. it's funny, their reactions are a lot like some of the critics on facebook.

i took the kids to see "hidden figures" last year. almost had to pull a gun on a couple of them to go see this. dad, you want me to see this movie because you want me to hate white people. i explained, son that's only 90%. the other percent is i want him to understand where his history comes from and understand that things are different for us. >> i take from this -- by the way, i appreciate the levity. because send your males e-mails sean carter when you add up that 90% reference he made. it sounds like the 14-year-old saying, dad, let me take the package. >> look, that would be like the 23-year-old. you know, the 14-year-old is just starting to get some of these things. let me give you a great example. this is what's amazing to me. the post i had, this is a twinge of blackness. you know? if you can compare being black to a chronic illness like, you

know, back problems or knee problems, this is just a twinge, something that you go, oh, i'm black and move on. this doesn't ruin your whole day. he's starting to understand that there are things he can and cannot do. let me give you a more serious one. one day, he's out playing with the kids and they have these air soft guns and i had to explain to him that's not something he can do outside of our home anymore because you cannot be a young black boy holding anything that looks like a weapon. and at first he didn't really understand until i showed him the tamir rice video. i tried to explain to him that this is just, you know, one of the limitations that you'll have in life. now, don't get me wrong, i'm not saying he's going to be totally limited, life is going to be horrible. i've actually had a decent life, okay? it's worked for me. you can work this out. there are just limitations that come, you know, with being a black man in america. >> hey, sean, the radio discussion that i had based on your facebook post, maybe

unsurprisingly broke largely along racial lines. where many people in the facebook posts reveal their race, you know, i was sad to see the same kind of a thing going on in the facebook war. i wish i had more time. let me just say, it's a great conversation. i'm glad that you were here. >> thank you so much for having me, michael. >> still to come, your best and worst tweets and facebook comments and we'll give you the final results of today's survey question at smerconish.com. quickly vote. do the latest developments arising out of the stormy daniels case now imperil the presidency? ers (barry murrey) when you have a really traumatic injury, we have a short amount of time to get our patient to the hospital with good results. we call that the golden hour. evaluating patients remotely is where i think we have a potential to make a difference. (barry murrey) we would save a lot of lives if we could bring the doctor to the patient.

verizon is racing to build the first and most powerful 5g network that will enable things like precision robotic surgery from thousands of miles away as we get faster wireless connections, it'll be possible to be able to operate on a patient in a way that was just not possible before. when i move my hand, the robot on the other side will mimic the movement, with almost no delay. who knew a scalpel could work thousands of miles away? ♪

like you do sometimes, grandpa? and puffed... well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more. if you can't afford your medication,

astrazeneca may be able to help. led california's fight ofor clean, renewable energy.or he cleaned up pollution at the port of l.a. and created more good-paying jobs.

antonio villaraigosa for governor. because antonio villaraigosa millions got it done.healthcare he defended women's healthcare, banned military-style assault weapons, banned workplace discrimination, and more. antonio for governor.

time to see you how responded. do the latest developments arising out of the daniels case imperial the presidency? oh, look at this. 10785 votes cast. guess my part. i wish they could hear the control room to acknowledge i don't get fed the answers. the issues that led torrstories liberal media. wrap it up and let potus do his job. i'm stormy now. michael avenatti is a very

skilled and effective trial lawyer, but i've had my fill of he and his client. resigning in 2020. a roast though. you want to bet against anything i tell you. because niever thought he had a shot to begin with. something he has never let me forget. i think our goal is still right. one more if i have time for it. smerconish, ballroom chat for geeks. i see a new show. hey, that's a program that i could host. i'll see you next week. as a control enthusiast, i'm all-business when i travel...

even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro. whoamike and jen doyle?than i thought. yeah. time for medicare, huh. i have no idea how we're going to get through this. follow me. choosing a plan can be super-complicated. but it doesn't have to be. unitedhealthcare can guide you through the confusion, with helpful people, tools and plans. including the only plans with the aarp name. well that wasn't so bad at all. that's how we like it. aarp medicare plans, from unitedhealthcare. ♪

with expedia you could book a flight, hotel, car and activity all in one place. ♪ my dai need my blood sugar i'to stay in control.en. so i asked about tresiba®. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® is a once-daily, long-acting insulin that lasts even longer than 24 hours. i need to shave my a1c. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® works like my body's insulin. releases slow and steady. providing powerful a1c reduction. my week? hectic. my weekends? my time. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ i can take tresiba® any time of day. so if i sleep in, and delay my dose, i take it as soon as i can, as long as there's at least eight hours between doses. (renee) once in use, it lasts eight weeks with or without refrigeration, twice as long as the lantus® pen. (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis,

during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins, like tresiba®, may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

good evening, this is the van jones. we have another amaze iing showr you tonight. a couple of highlights. we have the star of the hit tv show blabbish. she's a fierce advocate for women. she's the daughter of the iconic diana ross. tracy alice ross is with us tonight. that's going to be amazing to hear from her. plus, we have two real life