intelligence briefings in the russian investigation. a white house official voicing regrets that the briefings were politicized. this is who unexpected reply showed up. here is what white house press secretary said when he was hired. 'em elt flood will join the white house staff to represent the president and administration against the russia witch-hunt. an attorney shows up to address two meetings of lawmakers and officials going over highly sensitive information having to do with the russia investigation. according to the white house, flood and kelly only made brief remarks before the meetings to relay the president's desigh for, quote, as much information as possible. it did not go over well with some of the people in the room. what are you hearing from lawmakers and others about what happened during the briefings? >> anderson, there's nothing yet we have learned from people who were at this meeting to substantiate the president's claim that it was a spy that was placed by the fbi in 2016 in the

2016 campaign, to look into his campaign, provide intelligence to his opponents, which the president has suggested could be the biggest political scandal in history. the people who were at that briefing, the republicans, have emphat emphatic atly not commented about what they saw. mitch mcconnell said there was nothing particularly surprising he heard in that interview. now, in -- in that briefing. the democrats on the other hand say there's absolutely no evidence to support the president's claims. that was the message from all of the democrats who put out a statement after one of two meetings today, saying there's nothing to suggest that the fbi did anything wrong, certainly nothing to suggest there was a spy in the campaign. the ultimate question now is where do the republicans go from here. do they demand more information? what does devin nunes do? what is his next step. he too not commenting about what

happened in the classified briefings today. >> have you heard anything about how the congress people and others in the room reacted to the president's attorney, emmet flood's surprise appearance? >> they were surprised by this. even republicans were not aware of this. it was an unannounced visit. yesterday w announced the decision emmet flood was not on the list. the only white house official on the list was white chief of staff john kelly. remember, on tuesday sarah sanders, white house press secretary, said there would be no white house official in the room, even when senate intelligence committee chairman richard bure walked into the meeting we asked him specifically about emmet flood's appearance and he had no idea that flood was going to be there. now, the white house is downplaying this, said that simply that flood was there along with kelly to talk about the need for transparency, how they want to protect human sources, and he did not stay for any duration of this meeting other than those opening remarks. but afterwards, democrats said there was absolutely no reason

for the president's attorney on the russia investigation to be there in a briefing with lawmakers on a sensitive issue regarding the trump campaign and investigation into the trump campaign. adam schiff said it was absolutely inappropriate, the democrat. he said he confronted emmet flood about this during the briefing. so republicans, though, anderson tonight silent about this, not expressing any concerns whatsoever, even as democrats express their outrage, anderson. >> appreciate it. democratic congressman joining us tonight. congressman, do you have an understanding as to why there were two separate briefings today, one for chairman nunes and gouty and anothwdy and one bipartisan gang of eight? >> it did not make sense at all. we didn't believe there should be a meeting at all. essentially by having the meeting you are allowing a subject of a criminal investigation to reach into the evidence locker at the fbi and to see some of the evidence that exists against him. that's just wrong.

now, the fact that they decided to go ahead with the meeting anyway, we wanted it to be bipartisan and for it to be just one. insaid, of cour instead, there was a partisan meeting mr. schiff was able to get into thankfully because he persisted and the bipartisan meeting where, unfortunately, speaker ryan chose not to be a part of and went to a fundraiser. i think it shows the corrupting influence of money trumping national security priorities, and it would have been an opportunity for speaker pelosi -- for leader pelosi and speaker ryan to talk about these issues and sort out, i think, a lot of the obstruction we're seeing from members of congress. >> obviously with the colonels you had, to then understand that not only john kelly showing up but emmet flood showing up, a lawyer hired specifically to represent the president and the administration in the russia probe, that they were there for at least the beginnings of these briefings today, how do you interpret that? >> i interpret it as they see themselves that the trump team

as being invisible, in that they see their friends in congress are just going to look the other way or, worse, help them. you know, speaker ryan could have spoken up. mitch mcconnell could have spoken up and started to draw, you know, firm lines and say we're not going to allow these to be crossed. they just get green lights every time they try to obstruct. i think, you know, how many times did the president have to deceive the american people, from the claims about trump tower being wire tapped, from the claims about the unmasking, to the claims about the memos that the republicans wrote from devin nunes, how many times does the president have to deceive the american people before speaker ryan says enough is enough, the rule of law is more important than one president? >> i understand why emmet flood appearing there may be viewed as kind of a -- not a great message to send, but is there anything sort of factually or anything specifically that you think his attendance -- why his attendance was inappropriate?

do you think it sent a message in any way to anybody in law enforcement who was there or any of the other representatives, or do you think it was just kind of a perception issue? >> i think it is trying to throw their weight around. yes, i do think it is an effort to try to bully the department of justice. we've heard the president talk openly about bob mueller and rod rosenstein's jobs being on the line and that he has the power to get rid of them. anderson, i think the best way to stop this type of obstructive behavior would be to pass the bipartisan legislation that's come out of the senate judiciary committee which would prevent mueller from being fired unless there was cause. until you do that, you're going to see more obstructive behavior like this and a sense of feeling emboldened because no one from the republican leadership is saying no. >> the fact that devin nunes and trey gowdy did not get the documents they requested, where does it go now? is this going to be the last we hear of this or do you think they're going to let go of this? >> no, anderson. i'm afraid until republican leadership speak up and say that the rule of law and the

independence of the department of justice trumps any person's interest in a case, you're going to see more trick plays from the president. bob mueller, it looks like though from press reporting, continues to make progress and, hopefully, he will be able to bring this to a close soon. anderson, just one thing. as the president complains about how long this is taking, remember, when you lie to investigators, it takes longer. when you have a lot of russians to count because you drew your campaign so close to them, you can't complain that it is taking too long to add them up. finally, if he would just sit in the chair and answer the questions that he's already been given, this could be wrapped up a lot sooner rather than later. >> rudy guilliani made it clear to "cnn today" that knowing about this confidential source is a prerequisite for any interview the president may have with mueller. is that how these kind of things actually work? i'm not a lawyer or law enforcement official. i don't think i have heard of giving information to a possible witness or subject as an

incentive to talk. >> absolutely not, anderson. i have prosecuted cases and i have worked with defense counsel, and, you know, before somebody is indicted or charged what crime you would never give them evidence that exists in the case. the only legal obligation once they are charged is that you do have to provide what is called discovery, the evidence against your client. but you don't get to set the terms while the investigation is still ongoing. >> you mentioned all the times that the president has made claims that didn't hold up. do you think he's still got what he wanted out of this? i mean he and his surrogates were able to tweet and go on tv and say spy and spygate and spy ring over and over again. >> oh, certainly. for him this is just a public relations campaign to try to undermine the special counsel's work, but for the country, what we're seeing is that democracy is under assault from two fronts now. it has always been under assault from the russians since they attacked us, but now it is under assault by president trump and his fixers in congress, something we have never seen before. i think the public sentiment has

to stay loud on this. as long as people put pressure on their lawmakers, they have to speak up. if not, they will be held accountable. >> congressman swalwell, appreciate your time. >> my pleasure. with rudy guilliani laying down new conditions for the president to speak with robert mueller, we are learning about the interview that nearly took place in january. he joins us with the latest. >> with this interview end up not taking place? >> right, anderson. they got so close, close enough they actually had a date they were discussing, january 27th. it was a saturday. there was even a discussion that they would possibly have it at camp david, the presidential retreat just outside of washington. again, these are all discussions that were going on between the mueller team and the president's legal team. in the end, they decided that the idea of sitting down with robert mueller's team was too risky, was not appropriate at that time. a couple of days after the meeting was supposed to have taken place, john dowd, who was then the lead lawyer on the president's team, sent a 20-page

letter in which he explained the reasons why the president should not sit down, and that includes constitutional reasons. he also -- they also made the point that after turning over thousands of pages of documents that they believed the special counsel had enough information without talking to the president, anderson. >> and just publicly, the president was seeming he might be amenable to an interview around that time. i think it was a couple of days before that. >> right, exactly. if you think back to january, the president's team was pushing and pushing for this interview -- i'm sorry, for the investigation to be wrapped up. we kept hearing dates it could wrap up very quickly, and the president on the 24th of january actually told reporters -- reporters asked him about possibly meeting with robert mueller, and he said, i'm actually looking forward to it. so we go from there in january where, again, they come -- appears to be pretty close. the only time we have ever heard of an actual date being discussed for an interview -- to where we are now, which is you

hear rudy guilliani sort of making new hurdles and making it seem like they're not going to do an interview at all. >> there were additional meetings between the president's legal team and mueller that happened in march. do you know details on that? >> we do. we were told, gloria borger and i, were told there were additional meetings in march, and at one of them robert mueller told that the president's team essentially, look, the only way we're going to be able to know what the president's intent was for some of these actions that happened once he took office is to -- for him to sit down and talk to us. so that's where he laid it out, and essentially we will not be able to finish this without the president sitting down and telling us what was he thinking about. of course, that has to do with the obstruction inquiry. anderson, think about this. if they had sat down in january, perhaps this obstruction inquiry which is still ongoing perhaps would be behind us. >> appreciate the reporting. i'll get the panel's take next.

later, what president trump said about the summit with kim jong-un and later breaking reaction from north korea. for all the eyes that get itchy and watery near pollen. there's flonase sensimist. it relieves all your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest

price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

presidential attorney rudy guilliani says he assumes his colleague emmet flood went to a pair of congressional briefings today on the orders of president trump. he assumes it. we do not know whether he, in fact, knows or even what he knows. he says a lot these days. the white house only says that flood spoke at the top of each meeting about the president's

desire for transparency, which is raising some hieyebrows. want to get the panel's break. scott jennings and robbie mook. from a legal standpoint, does it make sense would be of the president's attorneys would go to this meeting to address it, to send a message of transparency? >> no, it doesn't. i mean i think the message that it sends is to sort of put the film on the scale and send a message of, you know, even just saying the president cares about transparency is sort of sending a message that the president is watching this and is concerned about it. in this particular meeting, first of all i don't think they should have had the meeting in the first place, but given they're going to do a meeting about a highly-sensitive question of confidential source, the last thing you want in the room are people who are political. it really, i think, cuts against the president's -- you know, the sort of argument that this is something other than political, right? it sort of made this into a much more political event than i think it should have been. so it is really hard for me to understand from the legal vantage point why he would walk into that room even for a

minute. >> rich, do you see it as a problem? >> no, not if the -- if it is true that he was just there at the beginning and didn't actually participate in the briefing and just emphasized that the president does have an interest in transparency. i don't see what the problem is with the president having an interest in transparency. i mean there are a lot of questions about this investigation and how it began, that congress has a right to look into. i think it is ridiculous as we heard from the congressman a little earlier the make every single thing the white house does with regard to this investigation another obstructive act that perhaps might be another subject for the -- this investigation, which is turning into -- >> you don't think there's any sub text to his appearance there? >> i think the subtext was probably the text, which is the president is interested in the most possible transparency about what occurred here, consistent with protecting sources and methods. >> so do you think when bill clinton met with loretta lynch during the campaign, that that was okay? >> well, given that -- >> how is that different than this? >> given that potentially she

would have been offered a job with a clinton administration, a second clinton administration, that represented a conflict. don't take my word for it. >> you don't think in -- >> take james comey's word for it who painted what they were doing and spoke -- >> so nobody in that room is appointed at the will of the president today, justice department, fbi. their jobs are at stake, we heard that in the news. this is what i don't get. i mean you guys, if this ever happened on the democratic side, ever happened -- >> yep. >> i know exactly what you would say, because you said it. you've always said it. but all of a sudden today this is no big deal, that the president is so blatantly intervening -- >> so someone -- a representative of the president cannot say, the president who heads the executive branch, which includes the department of justice, wants as much transparency on this matter as possible. you think that is a scandal? there's something wrong with

that. >> why doesn't the president testify -- >> there's something wrong with congressional oversight too? >> why won't the president -- >> have you been against congressional oversight of agency? >> this administration has no right to speak about congressional oversight. this congress exercised no oversight whatsoever. it will be interest -- >> are you for or against congressional oversight. >> you are reinforcing my point. you are not answering my question. >> i answered your question and you are not answering mine. >> we have seen example also of this kind of thing happen in the past, and conservatives across the board have -- have cried every sort of conspiracy about what happened. >> when the president has had someone in the room saying the president is interested in transparency on a matter, the conservatives on principle are against that? since when? >> scott -- >> what are you talking about? >> do you believe that it was necessary to have the lawyer go in to say the president is concerned about -- you know, is interested in transparency? >> it may not have been necessary, but, robbie, i don't

think this five-minute handshake and hello is anything like a 90-minute meeting on a tarmac with the former president of the united states. i don't think there's anyway -- >> a handshake and hello? >> that's exactly what was said. >> i thought it was a speech about transparency. >> they showed up, made greetings and said the president wants transparency and they left. here is what you guys are good at. you are good at making people believe things that don't happen. >> what! >> it is made to seem like emmet flood showed up today and did something untoward. >> okay. >> that he was in the briefing. he was not in the actual briefing. >> donald trump never makes -- >> he showed up and said hello. he said hello. >> just so you're clear, you're saying democrats, not donald trump, made people believe that things happened that didn't happen? >> i watched eric swalwell intimate that flood was there to bully the department of justice. >> he was there to say hello. >> he said emmet flood was there doing something inappropriate.

i don't understand. ann, you're the lawyer. tell us, was there anything illegal or unethical about showing up today? >> i think -- i don't think there's anything illegal about him showing up today. i think the one point we are not talking about is what rich said is true, this is a job of congressional oversight. it is hard to understand why a separate branch of government is sitting in that room. >> right. >> the executive branch is separate from the congressional branch. to me as a lawyer on the outside, it felt to me like it was an unforced error. it was just a foolish thing for them to do. >> yeah, i just want -- what you said originally is the meeting shouldn't have happened in first place. here is the thing. we're not talking about a normal president here. we are talking about donald trump who believe "politically speaking" he is above the law, who baends the department of justice to his will and he does it through conspiracy theories and lies, this is one lie on top of another lie. he is muddying the waters because he don't want the investigation. >> the person undertaking the investigation that he hates and has not been obstructive and it

is still ongoing. >> the meeting should never have happened in the first place. >> what's wrong with -- >> spygate is a lie. >> congress has a responsibility to do oversight. >> just like obama -- >> should there have been two meetings or should there just have been the gang of eight in there? >> i think there probably should have been just one. but there's an aspect of this that has been ongoing of republican-on-republican violence because it is the house intelligence republicans who are more suspicious and have the lowest regard -- low regard for the department -- or the department of justice than any democrat does. that's sort of how that came about. but i think mcconnell and others were right and schumer as well for that matter to push to have democrats included. >> the fact that nunes and trey gowdy did not get the documents that they wanted, do you see them -- i mean is this done or is this going to continue? >> no, i don't think it is done because i think there are legitimate questions about what the fbi did in the presidential campaign, and not just to the trump campaign.

i still think there are legitimate questions about what they did to your campaign. i think they messed up on both campaigns. i think when it is all said and done -- >> how did they mess up on the donald trump campaign? >> there are a lot of questions. >> isn't that what the inspector general is looking at? >> i hope so, and i'm glad he is looking at it because he nailed mccabe. this is the guy who got mccabe and did a good job on that. so i hope gets to the bottom of it. >> this is depressing to me. where was the outrage before election day? it didn't exist because you were all out there chanting lock her up. >> i have never chanted. that's false. >> what is true -- >> a low tone of voice. >> what is true is all of a sudden today you care about what happened to hillary clinton, you care about how the justice department was treating her. >> that's not true. >> you did not care before election day. >> my partner, andy mccarthy, former prosecutor who has written about the matter during the campaign, he said comey should not have gone outside of

the guidelines and talked publicly to talk about the investigation. >> did you say that? >> i came to that point of view. he was in a difficult position because he thought the investigation was tainted. it would have been better if he played by the book, hadn't talked about it privately and recommended her indictment. >> let's take a break. the president calls off the much-anticipated summit with north korea. now a response from north korea that it is still willing to meet. the latest from the white house next. ♪ at t-mobile, we don't just see uniforms.

we see the people behind them. so we're committed to helping veterans through job training when their service ends... and to hiring 10,000 veterans and military spouses to be part of our workforce in the next 5 years. because no matter where you serve... or when you serve... t-mobile stands ready to serve you. so we provide half-off on all family lines for military. feeclaritin and relief fromwsy symptoms caused by over 200 allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. it's these new fresh-fx car air fresheners from armor all. each scent can create a different mood in my car. like tranquil skies. armor all, it's easy to smell good. ♪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™ whatever your home may hand you, behr through it, in one coat. behr marquee, #1 rated interior paint. right now, get incredible savings on behr. exclusively at the home depot.

if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming! definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far.

now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. north korea says it is still willing to meet with the united states in a statement to state-run media north korean official said that president trump's letter cancelling the upcoming summit with kim jong-un was not in line with those who hope for peace on the world and on the korean peninsula. pam brown joins us with the latest from the white house. can you walk us through why and now the summit fell apart? >> well, white house officials are pinning it on the north korean broken promise also as well as odd judgment calls, and it started about a week ago and culminated with the statement from north korea last night, anderson, where a north korean official called mike pence a political dummy and threatened nuclear war. that was the final star

according to u.s. officials, but it art started befoll started b. the north koreans never sent the advance team to meet with them as they were supposed to as planned. officials say there were a number of inquiries that were left unanswered by the north koreans, so all of that was a red flag. then you a change of tone from the north koreans last week, threatening to pull out of the summit. there was still a pretty big distance between the u.s. and the north koreans on some key issues, and the summit was right around the corner. so there was a growing scepticism already, anderson, that the summit wasn't going to happen as planned. we heard it in the -- from what the president said earlier this week. and then the decision was made following the north korean statement last night to call off the summit, at least for now, though the president is still certainly keeping that door open. >> and while the president did threaten north korea with the u.s., quote, greatly enhanced military this morning, he also indicated there is still a

possibility the summit will happen and it could happen on the original date of june 12th, which seems certainly ambitious if that is the case. >> it certainly does seem ambitious and unlikely. a senior white house official was asked that today, could it still happen on june 12th? the official was like, that's like tomorrow. it is very unlikely it would happen then, but certainly the white house is keeping the hope alive that the summit could happen down the road. now, in order for that to happen, the senior white house official said that north korea would have to do the opposite of what it has done this past week in the view of the u.s. with these broken promises and these odd judgment calls. but the president wants this summit to happen eventually. there is no doubt about that. he views this as an opportunity to have a big foreign policy achievement. of course, there were chants, anderson, he could win the nobel peace prize for this. this is something that the president wants to happen, even if it doesn't happen on june 12th. >> pamela brown, thanks very much. cnn's paula hancocks is in

seoul, south korea joining us with reaction from there. north korea issued its response to the president's letter tonight. explain some of what it said. >> anderson, it was a cool headed and measured response from what we had today from the vice ministry, a high-up member of the regime saying we reiterate to the united states that we are willing to sit down with them at any time. also pointing out that president trump's statement is not in line with what those who want peace and stability on the korean peninsula want and also not in line with the world's wishes, saying that chairman kim jong-un has made every effort to prepare for this summit. so a fairly conciliatory tone from the north koreans, showing they clearly want this summit to happen. anderson, i want to show you some exclusive images as well from the max military drill also that have been happening over the weeks. this is the u.s. and south

korean air force. remember, ten days ago this is the military drill the north koreans used as an excuse to cancel high-level talks went north and south korean. this was the turning point in the relationship, when things turned sour because north korea said they saw it as an intentional military provocation by the u.s. and the south koreans. it wasn't in keeping with the panmunjom declaration between north and south korea. they cited these drills, which we went to just ten days ago, as a reason why potentially this summit should not happen. anderson. >> you're in south korea. i wonder what reaction has been from south korea about this. did they know in advance that the president was going to cancel this? >> reporter: no, they found out about this when everybody else found out about this. the u.s. saying that they gave japan and south korea a heads-up after that letter was publicized. so south korean officials are reeling. i mean we had a national security council meeting at midnight local time with the president, with all of the ministers that were concerned

with this issue. they gave us a photo, and you can see that the stoney faces of the president and everybody there, they did not see this coming. president moon has just got back from a meeting in washington, d.c. he was meeting with the u.s. president. they went with the message that absolutely the north koreans wanted this meeting to happen. in fact, the national security advisor on the way over there said he was 99.9% certain this summit would go ahead. so the south koreans have been completely blindsided by this, anderson. >> do south korean officials believe the summit may happen at some point as the president seems to have left the door open today? >> reporter: they're not publicly talking about this. i think to be honest at the moment they're trying to figure out exactly what is going on. they want this to go ahead. president moon has staked his credibility on this whole diplomatic process. he has really been the driving force with this. u.s. president donald trump didn't want this at the beginning. last year he even called mr. moon an appeaser for wanting to

engage with north korea, but mr. moon's really brought mr. trump along with him in this renew edd ed engagement with north korea. from the south korean side they have set it is regretful but they will do to make sure it happens in the future. >> much more ahead. we will talk about what kim jong-un's next move could be and not to mention the president's with the panel ahead. ♪ ♪ (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. looking for a hotel that fits... of amerwhoooo.press. ...your budget?

tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor. i was wondering if an electric toothbrush really cleans better than a manual. and my hygienist says it does but they're not all the same. who knew? i had no idea. so she said, look for one that's shaped like a dental tool with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's rounded brush head surrounds each tooth to gently remove more plaque, and oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the american dental association for its effectiveness and safety. my mouth feels so clean. i'll only use an oral-b. oral-b. brush like a pro. our because of smoking.ital. but we still had to have a cigarette.

had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. they work togetherf doing important stuff. the hitch? like you, your cells get hungry. feed them... with centrum micronutrients. restoring your awesome, daily. centrum. feed your cells. let's do an ad of a man eating free waffles at comfort inn. they taste like victory because he always gets the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed, when he books direct at choicehotels.com. or just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com

hours after president trump called off the summit with north korea's dictator, a response tonight. north korean official says they're willing to sit face-to-face in any time, in any way. earlier today the president say this. >> i believe that this is a tremendous setback for north korea and, indeed, a setback for the world. i've spoken to general mattis and the joint chiefs of staff and our military, which is by far the most powerful anywhere in the world and has been greatly enhanced recently, as you all know, is ready if necessary. >> joining me is kimberly dozier, jim metzel, molly ball and rich lowery. does it surprise you that the summit has been called off, given that it was called on with very little preparation? >> not really, especially because we didn't see much

preparation going ahead of this summit. look, summits start with leap also of faith, but usually there have been behind-the-scenes negotiation and a senior administration official told us they hoped to have some of the negotiations in the run-up to the summit but they got stood up. you also had a situation where the national security team was saying different things to different audiences, but the north koreans were listening. the adversary gets a vote. when they're hearing mike pence talk about the libyan option for them, they had to respond. >> jamie, do you think there's a chance the north koreans didn't want the summit to take place? i mean for them -- for kim jong-un, isn't it a win? >> this is such a massive win for kim jong-un. this whole summit idea was really a sham from the starter. another way of saying it, the north koreans won from the beginning. once the president of the united states agreed to meet with the leader of north korea, which is something that any past president could have done in an

instant because the north koreans were begging for that kind of legitimacy. so we gave them a lot of what they want in the beginning, and now the situation is that we are walking away from the deal. the reason that we're walking away is that we aren't signing on to the gradual process that north korea, south korea and china all support. so now north korea is much stronger because they have legitimacy that they have wanted. they put a wedge between the united states and south korea, and there's going to be no way for sanctions to snap back with china and south korea not on board. so they are -- north korea is stronger and, unfortunately, the united states is weaker. >> rich, do you agree north korea won by the president agreeing to do this, which is something obviously past regimes in north korea -- >> i think he never should have agreed to the meeting in the first place, but i don't think it is the worst case. the worst case would have been the summit going forward, which i think was likely to serve north korea's interest rather than ours. my fear is we have not heard the end of this summit. there are obviously a couple of

escape hatches in the president's letter. he underlined them in public remarks, saying it still might happen. what we've heard from the north koreans so far is quite conciliatory. it may be we are still involved in a negotiation over the negotiation over a summit that will still eventually happen. >> yeah, i mean one of the criticisms of trump from the beginning of the process was he was too eager, he wanted this too much. he got so much positive reaction to this domestically, the american realpeople really like. experts were praising him for doing this bold, unexpected mood. there was the sense he wanted it so much he would giveaway the store. i think he deserves credit for the moment being willing to walk away, and i think the north koreans thought they could ask for more and more from an american president who seemed so politically invested in the process. they may have been surprised he was willing to walk away. >> robbie, do you see it as kind of just a sign that the president liking a big event, he likes the praise, he likes the headline, but, you know, as

kimberly was saying most sum minutes are gun from tdone fromm up with weeks and months if not years of boring meetings laying the ground work between functionaries. >> i think this proves the president's style, which we all know. he's winging it. there is no plan. he is taking it day by day. in fairness, sort of lie molke was saying, democratic and republican administrations have not been able to solve this problem. that usually means it is very hard, and donald trump took a gamble here, right, and i think he is still living in this gamble. and it looked like at one point it might pay off. now who knows? but i think probably what is going to happen is the odds are not good of the gamble paying off. if it does, big reward, right? i actually think in terms of a reelection, in terms of his political standing, this would be a big trophy for him. you know, some say, look, i solved -- or i took a step forward on major foreign policy problem, but i think the likely outcome is it won't work because it has never worked before.

i don't -- you know, he was probably trying to look strong by pulling back first, but i think the reality was it was headed in a bad direction. that's why he did it. >> it is surprised me that the south koreans were not informed about this, you know, even a couple of minutes in advance of this. i mean apparently the statement was released and then, you know, paula hancocks was saying the south koreans were given a heads up. a heads up is when you are given a heads up before something happens. >> no, no, this whole thing is preposterous. that is why we, the united states, have put so much on the line for nothing with no strategy. now the u.s./south korea alliance is really in danger because president moon put his credibility on the line. he came to the united states to speak with president trump, to assure him that there could be a process, and the process was this gradual negotiations with north korea. for the united states, if we pushed for north korea to give up its nuclear weapons up front, north korea was never going to sign on. but if we agreed to a gradual

process, that's the same deal that past presidents have agreed to, which trump is so critical of. >> and critical of for good reason. it failed and it materially advanced north korea's interests. so that's why the administration was right to be so insistent that it has to be rapid, immediate, signs of seriousness right from the beginning. it was bad for trump to wobble on that a little earlier this week, but one of the reasons maybe if the north koreans don't want this meeting is they realized there's no way they can actually meet that goal because they're not serious about denuclearization. they probably never will be. >> that's where i wonder for them how much are they psychoanalyzing trump and trying to figure out do we actually have an opportunity to leave him at the altar in a really dramatic way? do we have an opportunity to maybe set the americans back so that they're going to -- you know, if there's a future administration, they will be more tenuous about doing anything? i'm not a north korea expert, but i -- at this poichbltnt i w be thinking how i can play this

guy because he seems to react. >> a little bit of history. the trump administration is not the first one to make a mistake in parts of different parts of the security apparatus making a misstep and throwing it all out the window. remember, in the bush administration in 2005 the north koreans agreed to denuclearize as part of the six-party parts, but the next day the treasury department slammed sanctions on banco delta asia in macao and it was too effective. they walked away from the six-party talks until the sanctions were released. >> interesting. thanks, everybody. appreciate it. one quick piece of unrelated breaking news. cnn just learned that disgraced movie mogul harvey weinstein will turn himself into authorities here in new york city tomorrow. according to a source familiar with the investigation he will be charged with raping one woman and forcing another to perform oral sex on him. we are getting details on this. also, reaction on the new nfl

policy on the national anthem. president trump saying maybe if they don't stand for the national anthem they shouldn't be in the country. i will talk with doug baldwin who is taking issue with the president's remarks. for all the noses that stuff up around pets. there's flonase sensimist. it relieves all your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.

if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming! definitely dreaming.

then again, dreaming is how i got this far. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. in a taped appearance on fox news today, president trump turned to professional football. he was asked his reaction to the new national football league policy that players must stand for the national anthem if they're on the field, otherwise the nfl says the team will be fined. >> well, i think that's good. i don't think people should be staying in locker rooms. still i think it's good. you have stand proudly for the national an them. or you shouldn't be there or be in the country. you have to stand proudly for the national anthem. the nfl owners did the right thing. >> nfl star receiver baldwin was

blunt today when asked his reaction to the president's remarks. >> he's an idiot, plain and simple. for him to say that anybody who doesn't follow his viewpoints or his viewpoints should be kicked out of the country is just not very emp nathetiempathetic, not american like to me, not very patriotic. not what this country was founded upon. kind ironic to me the president of the united states is contradicting what our country is really built on. >> doug baldwin joins me tonight from seattle. doug, mast year response to the comments from the president if the players don't stand for the national anthem maybe they should, quote, shouldn't be in the country. >> i mean, what more can you say? i mean, anybody who knows the history of our country, knows what our country is founded upon, will find these comments were unpatriotic. very questionable. especially coming from the president of the united states. so it's very disheartening. very disappointed.

but at this stage, i can't say that i'm surprised. >> earlier i know today at a press conference, you called the president an idiot plain and simple. is that -- is that how you see him and do you think he just doesn't understand what these protests are about or do you think he just has another motive? >> honestly, i don't know what it is. i'd like to claim ignorance on his behalf, but i think, again, at this stage, it's just, it continues to perpetuate nitsits that shows a lack of empathy. when you continuously do that, have an opportunity to discuss these very important topics with people who care so desperately about these topics and about the things that are happening in our communities, you can't claim ignorance at that point, so, yeah, i do stand by my statement. >> you used the word, empathy. i know that's a word i've seen in print you use a lot. it's a word that's important to me as a reporter. i'm wondering what you -- why you believe empathy is so important especially this time

and why you believe that there's not enough of it right now. >> i mean, you see it play out in the media every day, you see it play out in social media. the conversations that i've had with friends that i grew up with back home, there's a lack of empathy. truly, what it comes down to is i'm an african-american man. anderson cooper, you have experiences that i haven't experienced as an african-american male. i have experienced you haven't experienced. for anybody to tell you i know what it's like to be in your shoes is false and incorrect and the truth of the matter is that, step back, some things i don't know, some things i could learn from you, that's being empathetic. i think in this entire conversation, that's what we've been lacking the most. learn from each other and see each other as human beings in this whole topic. >> i know you attended a lot of meetings with nfl owners, with roger goodell and others on a

number of issues and on social justice issues as well. on issues that you would like to see the league take a role in. do you see a real disconnect between, as you said, the majority african-american players and the team owners or the people who run the league? >> it would seem -- it would seem so. you know, obviously, the league wanted this vote to come out in a unanimous fashion. even though that was not the truth. so i do think there's a disconnect, however, i can't go off of what has been said in the media or what has been coming out from the nfl office because i wasn't in those meetings. obviously, i know there was a debate, there was a discussion, but, again, as a player, just very disappointed with the decision that did come out of the league office. >> what do you think players will do now, players who had been taking a knee or raising a fist during the anthem, will they stay in the locker room? will they find different ways to

protest on the field? what do you think? >> still get to be seen or be discussed, honestly. i think right now, all of us are kind of really figuring out how we're dealing with this news. to be honest with you, i won't -- i can't say that it was easy information to take in, so we're still dealing with that and still discussing how our feelings and emotions fit into the grand scheme of things. then from there we'll go out and make a decision on what's going to happen next. i do personally think that the conversation that was being had between the players' coalition which is separate from the demonstrati demonstration, some the demonstrations you saw on sundays in the nfl, i thought those conversations were positive and that we were going in the right direction and that we were reaching an amicable relationship in that the demonstration would subside and so this policy coming out really kind of inflames the gap that was already there that was

subsiding so i don't know what's going to happen. i would hope eventually we would reach some resolution in all of this but as it stands right now, this policy really inflamed the whole topic that there's a desire for all of us to live peacefully on this earth as such. as human beings. >> doug baldwin, i appreciate talking to you. thank you, doug. >> sir, thank you for having me. >> we'll be right back. feel the clarity of non-drowsy children's claritin allergy relief.

the #1 pediatrician recommended non-drowsy brand. because to a kid a grassy hill is irresistible. children's claritin. feel the clarity and live claritin clear. blue moon is brewed for a flavorful & refreshing taste, that makes any moment shine brighter. ♪ most people come to la with big dreams. ♪ we came with big appetites. with expedia, you can book a flight, hotel, car, and activity... ...all in one place. ♪ everything you need to go. expedia which is why i use armor tall ultra shine wash wipes.y.

they effectively remove dirt, dust and grime with no water. that car is in tip top shape! we are both in tip top shape! armor all, it's easy to look good. a lot of paints say they ordinarcan do the job,hiever. but just one can 'behr' through it all. behr premium plus, a top rated interior paint at a great price. family friendly, disaster proof. right now, get incredible savings on behr paints and stains. exclusively at the home depot. if you have moderate to severe or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable 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.

thanks for watching "360." time to hand it over to don lemon. "cnn tonight" starts right now. this is cnn breaking news. >> this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. breaking news. cnn learned robert mueller's team is examining the finances of roger stone, one of the president's longtime confidants and advisers. reportedly questioning stone's associates about his tax returns. we'll have more on that in just a moment. cnn also learning that president trump came close to sitting down for an interview with robert mueller that was was earlier this year on january 27th, potentially, at camp david. now just take a moment to wrap your head around that. if the interview had taken