everyone to stay in the country he as kids shoule culous scsi t allowed to stay here. >> i know there is this fear of the impact on consumers and will iphone prices go up if there is an escalated trade war. i know you said you were optimistic before. are you still optimistic? >> i am very optimistic, because no one will win from that. it will be a lose/lose. and i think that when the facts are so clear like that, i think that both partieee that and be able to work things out. >> do you think that if that were to occur, that iphone prices could go up? >> i don't think that iphone will get a tariff on it, is my belief. >> apple announced the ability to limit apps for social media tracking. how will that work? >> a bit of a swipe at facebook, they're making it harder for facebook to track users on ios

and mac. a pop up ta will ask for permission. it's interesting moment for tenology and humanity, something that tim cook has spoken quite a bit about. you see it here at the developers conference. you have 5,000 developers from all around the world, 70 different countries. so a lot of very serious questions but also a lot of interesting features we'll see roll occupy over the next couple of months. >> thank you, laurie. time to hand it over to chris cuomo for the premier of "cuomo prime time." thank you very much, anderson. welcome to "prime time." the white house got caught lying about the russia investigation. the man of the moment, rudy giuliani, is here to be tested. plus breaking in just the last half hour, former trump campaign chair paul manafort accused of witness tampering. that is a potential felony, by the way. i've got the filing right here.

30 pages of argument, twice as many pages and exhibits. this could be very bad for the former chair. top democrat adam schiff is here ahead. and the philadelphia eagles, disinvited the day before the white house visit. why aren't they getting patriot treatment? what do you say, friends, les get at it. all right. this is our first official night. so thank you for being here. and we do have a lot to test. why does president trump think he can pardon himself? and why would his attorney say the president could shoot james comey and still not be indicted? we talked to rudy giuliani about exactly that. joining us now, president trump's attorney, mr. mayor, rudy giuliani. good to see you, sir. >> how are you, chris? >> so you went to jerusalem. are you trying to invoke the power of the holy spirit in this interview?

>> i just came from the church of the holy sepulcher and from the wailing wall. i can't tell you what i prayed for or wished for. but maybe i'm trying to get a little help.we can use all the get. >> let's see if you it works for you right now. you're not here at home in the u.s., but you're big news, sir. >> i am? all right. >> do you regret saying that the president could shoot jim comey and not be prosecuted? >> i think i was asked the question, and i didn't say it, i didn't ect to say that. i said, very theoretically, the answer is the ident can't be prosecuted fing. there is a constitutional remedy for that and of course that right.e entirely ridiculous. buuld have made the point in any way. >> it was a hypothetical that you would entertain in law school. that's what i was trying to say. it's totally ridiculous, the president hasn't done anything wrong, there's no reason for any of this.

but to add to the simple answer, not only that, chris, almost every head of state has the same immunity. the head of state has to be out of office, then you can prosecute them. >> i get the process. >> totally irrelevant in his case. he didn't do anything wrong. >> my question is, you could have made the example with any hypothetical you wanted. you chose shooting jim comey. >> ihink i chose it. i think that was the one that was suggested. maybe i could have said let's use another one. >> maybe. i'm sure you'll get another chance. the last thing we need is more gasoline on the fire, right? more reason for people to have unduly hostile views of the people in our department of justice. and when you set something up like that, a lot of people start talking about the in terms that people don't need, you understand? >> probably not the right analogy. although technically i believe correct, although there is dispute about it. and i think that was selected by somebody else, not me.

it's been said a few times that way, to kind of give you the extreme view. but the reality is, when you say department of justice, i mean, the department of justice has not covered itself with glory in this situation. they conducted this spy investigation, it's over, they complain that they can't reveal the informant because the informant would be in jeopardy of losing his life. his name has been revealed. are they protecting him? i don't know, i can't seem to get an answer to that. maybe that was hypocritical. i don't know. >> just to go down that road, because it seems to be a little bit of a red herring in your "we won't do an interview until" argument. your guys gowdy and nunes looked at the information, came out, crickets. congressman schiff looked at it, he said there's no wrongdoing. what is there to look at? why forward this? >> well, here's what to look at. every single report.

what was the basis of this? why did they begin such an investigation? if they did -- and i think clapper used the word "spying." he didn't like the word but he said it. >> he used it because that was the word you were using. >> no. >> yeah. >> he said they put a spy in on the russians. >> he said "spying and i don't like that word." and trump then said "clapper said it like he owned the reality." that was disingenuous. >> chris, i don't think that's right. in any event, here is the real point. the investigation has been over with over a year. they concealed it completely, never revealed it to the president. there seems to be no reason not to reveal it to the president. that's why i want to read the documents. can show me a good reason, i'll back off. but i'm not going to let my client go into a setup situation where they conceal things for a year, when there's no reason to do it. i'm sorry. i'm suspicious that if they concealed it for a year, there's something wrong.

i'm suspiciousbout their claim of mortal jeopardy for the informant whose name they leaked. >> these are arguments -- >> why aren't they investigating who leaked it? >> these are arguments you've used before. people protect ci's all the time. >> i didn't leak it. >> i'm not saying you leaked it. >> i don't even know who the guy is. the only people who could have leaked it are the fbi, the department of justice. not mueller. i don't know if he knows -- >> again, who leaked the information is one thing. lucky for you, the media is providing that protection. many of us know the identity. we're not putting it out there in deference to the person's protection. but that's not the issue. >> no, no. no, it is the issue. it's an issue as to what's going on in the top levels of the justice department. >> but you had gowdy and nunes look at the stuff. and they said -- >> gowdy and nunes is not somebody's lawyer. i don't know the last time they practiced law. i like both of them.

they don't have the respty of representing somebody who is being treated in a way you wouldn't treat a common criminal. don't tell me gowdy and nunes. i've got more experience than the two of them by ten. >> you are the president's lawyer, fair point, let me direct the question to you as such. why do you believe t white house team slash trump legal team, before rudy giuliani, why did they choose to lie about his role in drafting this statement about trump junior's meeting with the russians? >> you think maybe somebody could have made a mistake? >> it's a lot of mistakes. a lot of mistakes. >> why is it always that somebody -- you think jay sekulow lied? i got a few things wrong at the beginning of the investigation, meaning my knowledge. this is a complex investigation. first week or so, i got a few things wrong.

and then it was clarified in a letter. and that's the final position. that's the danger of going under oath, that you can make a pleaf >> please go ahead >> you can make a mistake, you can make a mistake, and then if you don't want to, you could say but it was a mistake i swear to god, it was a mistake. the guy made a mistake. he corrected it. >> i hear you. >> actually, had he testified under oath, before they concluded a grand jury investigation, he would have a right to recant it. >> sure. >> you have a right to correct your testimony. >> absolutely, he would. and be careful about swearing to god when you're in jerusalem, it may carry more weight right now with these. >> i think i heard something up there. >> a little thunder cloud, be careful. let's say a sound of the evolution of the recollection. this isn't sound of you, don't get upset. this is sekulow and sarah sanders. >> that was written by donald trump jr. i'm sure in consultation with his lawyer. that wasn't written by the president.

the president didn't sign off on anything. the president wasn't signing off on the drafting of the statement. it came from donald trump jr. >> he certainly didn't dictate. like i said, he weighed in, offered a suggestion like any father wouo. >> in the letter, sekulow says he did dictate it. somebody is lying. it's not the kind of information that you would get wrong, that you wouldn't bivy to, that would change. assuming the president told them the truth about what happened. somebody is lying about this, rudy. and i don't understand why. >> i don't think anybody's lying. i think a mistake was made at the very early stages of an investigation. i don't mean an investigation. very early stages of a representationa lawyer, which happens all the time. so i don't think it's a significant fact. the most important thing is, there was no testimony under oath to that effect. and then when a written statement was put in, it was completely accurate. >> you're only worried about the exposure to a crime.

i'm not saying -- criminal liability is not the only bar here for a president of the united states and his team. sarah sanders is up there and says he had nothing to do with thing of that. how did she get that wrong? selow was wrong, she was wrong. how did these people not know? >> i have no idea how they got it wrong. but they got it wrong. i don't theither one of them is ever going to deliberately lie. i know the president isn't. he didn't do anything wrong. so why -- a lot of this discussion, unfortunately, is like law school debating. the main fact is, this began as an investigation of colluding with the russians. he didn't collude with the russians. nobody has found any evidence that he did. >> the second part is true. >> all this other stuff about obstruction, dah dah dah, you can't obstruct on a crime that was never committed. >> that's a very favorable hypothetical to you.

the investigation is ongoing. we don't have what they have. you know that there is absolutely no dispositive proof that a president can't obstruct justice. in fact to the extent that we have had opinions, we have had supreme court findings, the opposite is the truth, that is common sense, not just law. no man is above law, including the president. >> chris, i didn't write the letter. i agree with about 70 to 80% of it. i disagree with two major parts of it. i don't think you get to the issue, the constitutional issue of whether you can subpoena a president, because there is an olc ruling that binds mueller. because mueller doesn't exist other than as a creature of the. he has no power, like he might have indicted manafort incorrectly, we'll have to find out. did he have proper authority? if he issued a subpoena, it would be immediately dismissed

because the olc says you can't subpoena a sitting president. that's been the rule in the justice department. >> but i thought that ruling was qualified, that in order for there to be a subpoena, it refers back to that case, the espy case, from when there was bill clinton, and that you need to have a special need. that's maybe why mueller reportedly told you guys in march, i have a special need to interview the president because of all these changing recollections, different stories, and lies on material matters and the need to develop intent, which i can't get through documents. >> i'm not sure the espy case applies. >> me either. >> if it did, this would be a very bad case for special need, because he's got 1.4 million documents. he's interviewed 28 witnesses, none of which we raised executive privilege. we could have raised executive privilege all over the place as prior presidents had, and probably won on some if not all.

and finally, they have his explanations. >> it's different than having him in a room, because they change so much. they change. >> no, no, no. it isn't different, unless as judge ellis pointed out, maybe they're trying to trap him in perjury. >> maybe he keeps changing his story, changing his story about what happened to flynn, about his response. >> maybe somebody made a mistake. but if you come in -- >> your theory is everybody made a mistake. sekulow made a mistake, his lawyer. sarah sanders made a mistake. maybe the president made a mistake. didn't he tell them what his role was in drafting the lr, maybe in front of them? >> it was corrected before any conclusions were drawn based on it. >> i don't understand it that way.

they gave a false story and wound up changing it over time. that's not t same thing as correcting a mistake, necessarily. >> no, no. all you know or i know is, if you're willing to give anybody the benefit of the doubt, which you're supposed to do under the law, right, the worst criminals get the benefit of the doubt, they gave a mistaken story which was then corrected for the record. it's like i look at a transcript of a deposition, i get a chance to change it. even the law is more tolerantha. >> well, but again, it goes to one of the risks that seem to be pretty evident in this situation, about the ability of the president to tell the truth. >> you know, chris, you can't find a criminal lawyer that you can put on the screen, democrat, republican, pro-trump, anti-trump, that would ever let their client testify in a situation like this. the only reason we're having this debate at all, because he wants to. and you know that's true. a lok, "you're just saying that." president trump wants to be interviewed because he believes he's innocent.

he says to me, i didn't do anything wrong. but the world isn't that simple. the criminal justice system isn't as fair as you think. >> i hope that's true. >> and these guys aren't so darn far. >> i don't know about that. i think that this has been outwardly a very fair process to this point. >> i'm not talking about mueller. i'm talking about the spygate investigation. >> you had your guys go in there and they said there's nothing going on with spygate as you call it. >> they're not my guys. >> they're from the parties. one of them has been very helpful to the president. the other one is from your party. >> they're not my guys. if they let them see it, why didn't they let me see it? why didn't they let the president see it? ation.ause he's under why would rudy giuliani back in the day ever go to the people he's looking at and tell them i'm looking at you couple you never did that. >> because the investigation is closed. it is now over with, over a year.

they should have told him as president of the united states. >> he could find out with a phone call. if he picked up the phone, they would tell him whatever he wants. he's not doing it, rudy, and you know why. >> chris. chris. he's not a target of the investigation. he wasn't the target -- >> i understand that. but i'm sa, if he wa to know what was happening, he could just pick up the phone. they're not saying they won't. he could pick up the phone and get the answers. >> i tell you what. i tell you what. we will make a gentleman's agreement that one of us will buy the other dinner if i'm wrong and they're not concealing this because they did some seriously damaging things to themselves. >> done. >> including -- not necessarily clapper. brennan. i don't think brennan could do something right if he tried. >> you've donegood of making this debate on television on why the president's exposure should be limited. isn't the opposite argument equally if not more compelling, that under the law, and as a matter of political policy, the president should be more

transparent. we shouldn't have to subpoena him. he shouldn't have to plead the fifth. he is the highest elected official in the land. he should sit down and do the interview. >> we haven't reached the question of pleading the fifth, that's a whole other issue. yes, if we lived in an ideal world, you're absolutely right. but we've got 13 angry democrats investigating a president who happens to be a republican. one of them donated $35,000 to hillary clinton. most prosecutors don't donate $35,000. and then you're not -- most people are impartial enough in a role like that not to hire that person to investigate donald trump. excuse me if i'm a little nervous. i come from new york like you do. >> the idea of painting the fbi as a democrat institution really flies in the face of everything i've known for 20 years in this business, all right? and remember, jim comey didn't talk about trump and talked about hillary clinton right at the end of the race.

so i don't know how strong -- we'll wait for the inspector general report to come out and we'll look at it. but -- >> about comey? >> and everything else that the ig is looking at. >> i doubt it's going to support -- i think comey's credibility is shot. >> we'll see. >> the last nail in the coffin is gbe that report. >> see. >> all i have to know about my former u.s. assistant attorney is he disgraced himself when he leaked that memo illegally. one of his agents would be prosn jaight now. >> you're entitled to your opinion. let's see what the ig report shows. let me ask you something else. the president says i absolutely can pardon myself. you know that if we were looking at it in an absolute sense, he absolutely could not. a man cannot be his own judge. there is no supreme court precedent, no advisory opinion from any agency that goes near it. why would you let your client offer up that kind of suggestion? senator grassley says, boy, oh, boy, is that crazy, and if he

were my lawyer -- listen to what he says. >> if i were president of the united states and i had a lawyer that told me i could pardon myself, i think i would hire a new lawyer. >> you don't think the president can pardon himself. you don't think it's right and you don't think it's right under the law. be honest. pardon power is complete andr, there is no limitation on it. would somebody impose a practical limitation on it? absolutely. >> section 2 puts a limitation on it. >> it would be suicide. >> that's a political limitation. >> it would never reach it. that's a tactical -- it's not going to happen. it's not going to happen. >> good. >> and pardon doesn't get you off impeachment. so you can't pardon yourself from an impeachment. pardoning is not -- he's not going to pardon himself. if you want to have a nice issue, you know, about this

very, very hypothetical point, is that power so broad, there's nothing that says yes, and there's nothing that says no. nobody ever thought of it. maybe that's a good argument that you can't do it. maybe it's a good argument that he can. >> if it were a law school examine, you would come down on the idea that no, he can't. if he's not going to do it -- >> chris, chris. if it was a law school exam i would say this. the pardon power is complete. nothing in the constitution says that he can't pardon himself. >> true. >> nothing in the constitution says he can pardon himself. >> right. >> in a law school exam i would give you an "a" if you had it was an open question. >> the president came down on one side of it, so he gets an "f." >> he's not a lawyer. >> come on. he's president of the united states. he says "experts tell me i have absolute authority to pardon myself." another bad recollection?

>> no. there are lawyers who believe that. there are lawyers who believe -- >> an absolutely ability to do it? and why is he bringing it up if he'll never do it? >> i think -- i think to probably illustrate and create the discussion about how complete the pardon power is. he hasn't done a marc rich. you want to talk about pardons that stink up the whole system of justice, it's bill clinton's pardon of marc rich. >> good segue. >> id to be in charge of the pardon attorney's office. >> i know you did. >> and the reality is the pardons he's given so far are highly justifiable. >> rudy giuliani with a pardon -- let's talk about justifiable. we know he can do it, he can pardon a ham sandwich if he wants to. joe arpaio. scter libby. dinesh d'souza. maybe even martha stewart. rudy giuliani pardons these people? >> i recommended pardons in probably worse cases to ronald reagan.

>> you would pardon these people? >> probably each one of them, yes. martha stewart's conviction was a damn game to get yourself in the newspapers, which may have been the beginning of the jim comey who eventually illegally leaked a memo. arpaio, i don't know the case that well except it seemed to me it was highly political, as was d'souza. scooter libby had already been commuted. the investigation existed for the purpose of creating perjury on somebody. maybe that's what mueller is doing. >> arpaio openly flouted the law on purpose even when he was told not to. dinesh d'souza signed a plea ement admitting he lied and broke the law.

martha stewart, i covered every day of that trial. she was a convicted liar. it seems like you want to send the message, lying is okay. >> lying is not okay. paons are perfectly appropriate. it sure beats the terrorist that clinton pardoned. >> that's our new standard, anybody is better than a terrorist? >> no. these are political cases. there are law review articles being written about how highly politicized the criminal justice system has become. >> dinesh d'souza signed an admission of guilt, rudy. >> the only reason he was prosecuted for a situation, campaign finance, that usually results in a fine to somebody that isn't a conservative activist. >> they tried to put on evidence that this was selective prosecution. it didn't fly. it didn't fly then. why should it fly now? >> selective progression. because pardon is different than

the ability to get evidence in. selective prosecution is an extraordinarily difficult thing to really use as a defense. it almost never works. even though it might be justifiable. and the pardon power allows the president, if people did something that's marginal, and i would say each one of these crimes is marginal, martha stewart couldn't be prosecuted for insider trading so they prosecuted her for perjury. you do that with frank costelloe mafia. i'm getting older. but she's not the head of the mafia. e lack of proportion should have been a warning. >> they offered her a deal. she didn't take it. >> that's the same guy who leaked illegally. >> she kicked them out of her office. she lied. they went to trial. she lost. dinesh d'souza admitted he lied and broke the law. scooter libby lied. joe arpaio flouted the justice system. i can't believe rudy giuliani would pardon these people.

>> the only reason you get pardoned is you committed a crime. pardon doesn't exist -- >> oh, no, you could pardon even before he or she is adjudicated. he's choosing to do this now. it seems like the president wants to send a message, i'm doing this early on in the investigation where maybe lying will become a commodity. >> chris, every single one of these cases at the time was highly controversial. i can give you a "wall street journal" editorial about each one of them including the one withartha stewart in particular which they saw as a real perverstice, because she was trapped into perjury. scooter libby, the investigation never should have taken place. they should have moved to have that case dismissed on the grounds that if there was perjury, it was immaterial. >> rudy. >> it would be like conducting a murder investigation after you caught the murderer, knew who he was, but didn't tell anybody,

h soun little bit like spygate, but, you know, i won't -- that will take us the rest of the night. >> rudy, let me ask you something else while i have you, because you are putting yolf out there on this case. you don't need to do this. you're plenty busy, as anybody who knows you understands. you're doing this. you're at yankee stadium the other night. you get booed at yankee stadium, i've never heard that happen before. it certainly wouldn't have happened before you got tangled up in this. >> you see my ring? >> i'm a yankee fan. that's only happening because of this. are you worried about your legacy, the mayor of america, is now tangled up in saying it's okay to pardon people like dinesh d'souza? >> every night i stay up all night worried about that. no, i have a clear conscience. i'm doing my job as a lawyer. >> you're more than just a

lawyer, rudy giuliani. you're more than just a lawyer. >> but i am a lawyer. it's my job to defend my client. i am proud of what i'm doing. i'm proud of my client. he has done nothing wrong. and this is a horrible -- not only a horrible perversion of justice. this has got to come to an end, this pursuit of presidents. i thought the impeachment of president clinton was terribly wrong even though my party did it. i thought it was entirely political. we have to stop this. we do a lot of fighting politically. i know the power of the criminal justice system. it shobe used in these political situations. >> that's fine. then tell your client to stop saying all the clintons need to be investigated by a special counsel. if you want something to stop, you have to be the change you want to see. we don't get a lot of that from this white house. >> i think if you destroy -- let's not go over the clinton case again. >> no, let's not. i don't want to keep you from

the holy land that long. for you to come to us from jerusalem, i appreciate it. say a prayer for all of us while you're over there. >> after this i have to go to early mass. >> you better. take care. >> i'll see you in new york next weekend. good luck with the new show, chs. >> thank you. >> you know i enjoy this. >> i do too. i think it's important for people. >> i think everybody on the air should know that we're frien >> look, it's -- >> this is what happens at an italian thanksgiving dinner. >> it never comes from a bad place. i'm testing power. the next dinner is on you, that's my guess. be well, rudy giuliani, thank you. >> i think it's on you. okay, take care. >> now you know why i wear black, it's tough out there. there will be a lot to talk ing into dig int erview. the implications were of everything that rudy just argued, along with breaking news. paul manafort may be tampering with witnesses. we have the filing and it's 90 pages thick. another big story this morning,

bill clinton suggesting he's the victim in the monica lewinsky scandal. really? next. discover card. hey, i'm curious about your social security alerts. oh! just sign up online and we'll alert you if we find yocurity number on any one of thousands of risky sites. that sounds super helpful. how much is it? well, if you have a discover card, it's free. no way! yes way! we just think it's important for you to be in the know. all right! hey... ewww! everything ok? being in the know is very good. yeah, it is. ooo don't shake! don't shake! ahhh! know if your social security number is found on risky sites. free from discover.

a hilton getaway means you get more because... you get another day in paradise. get a sunset on a sunday. get more stories to share. from your summer getaway with exclusive hilton offers. book yours, only at hilton.com if you have a garden, you know... weeds are low-down little scoundrels. draw the line with roundup. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield and target weeds more precisely, right down to the root. roundup. trusted for over 40 years.

m a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig.

comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! welcome back. we've got a lot to unpack from our interview a few moments ago with rudy giuliani. let's have the great debate with jenner granholm and rick nt good to have you both here on the first show. thank you very much for doing it. >> oh, of course. >> i think i can speak on behalf of jennifer to say we are both very pleased and honored to be on, and congratulations on the show. >> for sure. that's the only time rick will be able to speak for me. >> let's get after this, then.

you heard the rudy interview. i think one of the big things, rick, he swears to god, in the holy land, that what is going on with the eon of trump and his role in that response t others there in trump tower with the russian, is a mistake. how is this a mistake? would you swear to god about this being a mistake, rick? >> well, look. i mean, it was obviously a mistake. the question is whether it was a deliberate mistake or planned mistake or was it just a simple mistake. i can understand, if that's what jay sekulow told him, that he had it wrong, that the information was passed along to him, or maybe he made assumptions that he didn't know, i don't know. rudy didn't give any details out, no one is giving details out as to what the facts are behind it. but i mean, rudy has certainly come to the conclusion that it was a mistake, and i'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

>> fair disclosure here, i asked jay sekulow several times to comem leaving him messages, i'e-mails. i would rather spe to him than about him. but he said multiple times that trump had nothing to do with it. sarah sanders echoed that. it's easy for her to knock things aside and say i have to refer you to this person or that person or i don't know, i'll get back to you. she didn't on this. she he dictate it but maybe he had some other involvement. then the letter in january comes out, jay sekulow says he dictated it. does that sound like a series of mistakes, or lies? >> what is the key issue in this investigation? it is collusion. what is the biggest piece of evidence in the investigation that there was collusion, if not having russians visit the trump tower to talk about so-called adoptions, which means sanctions? i mean, i don't know, i didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

it was, i am sure, at the time an effort to try to remove the president from this meeting. in fact he ends up dictating it, and who knows whether that's to try to save his son, perhaps, because initially it was supposed to have been his son's statemt. to say it's a mistake, swear to god it's a mistake, rudy wasn't there, this sounds to me like an after-the-fact correction. and let me just say, i mean, we know this president is an inveterate liar. as of this week the fact checker has 3,251 lies so far. but this isn't really about just lying, because he's lying 6.5 times a day. it is about what that lie was intended to do. and it's further evidence of trying to zhush over, to cover %-p

we've heard about the trump junior meeting, rick, with everybody else who was there, amounts to anything conspiratorial. i don't know if they have proof that he conspired to commit a crime. i don't know that it gets that car. but it certainly creates a case for special need, that's a defined term under the law that they defined in the espy case, for the special counsel to need to interview the president, because of too many competing stories. i can't get to his intent with all these different threads, i need to hear him, look at him, process him. what do you say to that? >> well, what's material about whether the president dictated a statement or he didn't to whether there was collusion between the trump campaign and the russians? >> because it's a lie. >> okay. >> why would you lie? >> it may have been a lie, it may have been a mistake, we don't know. the point is, there's no material evidence that's being

presented that that statement had anything to do with collusion with the russians. this is well after the fact. this is about shaping the media's response to it. and as you heard rudy say, you know, once it sounds like people got their act together and actually sat down and said what really did happen, they found out that, hey, the president actually -- >> they never said it to us. they put it in a letter. in the law they have an suppression, rick, if you're lying about one thing, you can be assumed to be lying about a lot of things and it makes investigators curious. but let's switch topics. the philadelphia eagles, full disclosure, santorum is from pennsylvania, not philly. >> a steelers fan. >> good to have it on the record. the eagles are the world champs. they're supposed to go to the white house.e day before, trumps them. the white house says the eagles disagree with their president, odd language, because he insists they proudly stand for the national anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and

women of our military and the people of our country. the pennsylvania mayor answers this way. disinviting them from the white house only proves that our president is not a true patriot but a fragile egomaniac afraid of the embarrassmentf throwing a party which no one wants to attend. is it right for the president to disinvite the eagles and blow a day for their fans this way, santorum? >> in my opinion there's blame des. the eagles didn't handle this well. they had to have a meeting to decide whether there were interested in coming. there were reports as to people not coming and coming. it looked like they said they were going to send a small delegation or a sm delegation. you know, the bottom line is, if there was going to be a celebration of a championship, and it's being used by some to wage a political protest against this president, the president doesn't have to be complicit with it. at the same time, on the other

side, i think the president could have risen above that and made the best out of a bad situation by inviting and receiving those -- >> he could have done what he did with the patriots. why did the patriots get better treatment? a lot of them didn't show up either, including tom brady. he said he had family issues. but he let them come in. granholm, what's your take? >> i do think that the mayor is right. he is an egomaniac. but i don't know if it w about them not showing up in great numbers. he created this problem. he loves it when there is division out there in the country, which he sows on a regular basis. this is one other attempt on his part to wave the flag, to or whatever, and frankly distract, again, from the mueller investigation. anything he can do to divide the country is something that he does. >> let's see how it plays. he'll be on twitter, we'll look at it in the break. let's switch topics, quickly.

bill clinton makes news, and the wrong kind of news from the perspective of what's going on with "me too" and the movement that's supposed to advance our culture in this country right now, jennifer granholm, he sayst in handling the monica lewinsky situation and he wouldn't apologize to lewinsky. are you okay with that? >> no. he should have said, i apologized then, and i do to this day, i apologize, full stop. i don't know why he felt the need, although i know it's caused him enormous pain over e. he should have stopped. he should have apologized and stopped. >> let's leave it there. jennifer granholm, rick santorum, you get last word. thank you for joining me on the first night. appreciate it. big breaking news tonight, that's why we're moving it along. shocking new allegations. did paul manafort attempt to

tamper with witnesses in his tax fraud case? bob mueller's team is pointing the finger at the filing on my desk. it's 90 pages thick, 60 of it is filled with all these different messages he was sending people. he could lose his freedom. we'll put it to adam schiff, the democrat leading the charge in the house demanding answers from trump. he's deep in the mueller investigation. perfect guest, next. still nervous [aboa little. a house? thought i could de-stress with some zen gardening. at least we don't have to worry about homeowners just call geico. geico helps with homeowners insurance? good to know. been doing it for years. that's really good to know. i should clean this up. i'll get the dustpan. behind the golf clubs. get to know geico. and see how easy homeowners and renters insurance can be. man: one, two, here we go! ♪ i'm alive, i'm alive, i'm alive ♪

alive! gives you more vitamins and minerals than leading brands. because when you start with more, you own the morning. alive! new! garden goodness" multi-vitamin has a full serving of veggies and fruits. your plaques are always there at the worst times. constantly interrupting you with itching, burning and stingi. being this uncomfortable is unacceptable. i'm ready. tremfya® works differently for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks... stayed clearer through 48 weeks. at providing clearer skin and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections, and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya®,

tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®, because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for tremfya®. 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. ♪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 transitions™ light under control™ visit your local visionworks to ask about tra™ brand lenses

i support the affordable care act, and voted against all trump's attempts to repeal it. but we need to do more. i believe in universal health care. in a public health option to compete with private insurance companies. and expanding medicare to everyone over 55.

and i believe medicare must be empowered to negotiate the price of drugs. california values senator dianne feinstein breaking news tonight, a very serious new accusation against former trump campaign chair paul manafort. the special counsel, bob mueller, his office is accusing manafort of trying to tamper with potential witnesses while on pretrial release to influence their testimony. by doing so, mueller's team things manafort may have violated the conditions of his release. they're calling for a hearing to revise or revoke it. the special counsel wants to see him sent to jail. that brings in the lawmaker who has been following the russia probe every step of the way, democrat adam schiff. good to have you, sir. >> good to be with you.

>> first night of the show, special thanks for being here in the studio. how big a deal? >> a very big deal. it's unusual to seek these kind of remands into custody to begin with. you can imagine in case of this significance but watch this closely, the special counsel team is not going to do this unless they have pretty darn ironclad evidence that manafort is trying to essentially corrupt or co-opt these witnesses. so it's a big development. and i think a sign that manafort is willing to try anything, do anything, and he's facing some serious time. >> the quick read on it is that there were two people who were contacted by manafort that he repeatedly contacted with them, and he worked for them previously, and he was trying to shake testimony, that's what they say, secure materially false testimony concerning the activities of what they were doing. they have a lot of his communiques, i got through two-thirds of them, it's not good stuff for him.

but what does it mean to us in terms of the larger picture of the russia probe? this seems fairly limited to the lobbying and the tax fraud case, not about the bigger questions about russian interference and who on the trump team may have helped. >> it indicates that manafort thinks he will not get a pardon. when gates agreed to cooperate, manafort said, hey, don't worry, i would never do that, don't forget me when you're thinking about pardons. this kind of a desperate action to try to violate the terms of your release and interfere with other witnesses says to me that he is really concerned about his jeopardy, about going away for a long time, willing to risk witness tampering in a case where they're watching every move. so it tells me that he's not certain i'll get a pardon, and frankly i think a pardon in these circumstances would be another act of obstruction of justice by the president. but clearly manafort also has his own concerns about that.

>> let's pivot from this to what we heard from rudy giuliani. you say that a pardon could be obstruction of justice. i've been doing a lot of research on this. and there is an ability to review the motivations but they're very specific and tailored categories, where there's a bribe involved, something like that, a pardon can be reviewed. is that what you think is going on with these recent pardons by the president? do you think he's trying to send a message? >> oh, there's no doubt about it. with the pardon of joe arpaio, and the cas you were pointing out, it wasn't even finished, he hadn't even been sentenced yet. this was a fellow traveler in the whole birther business. he announces it at a political rally, basically saying you stick with me and i will stick with you, i won't let the criminal case come to an end before i pardon you. with the pardon of scooter libby, somebody he doesn't know, doesn't have any reason to reach out to. this is someone convicted of obstruction of justice and lying.

similarly with martha stewart, somebody convicted of obstruction of justice and lying. >> if he does it. >> if he does it. he's saying obstruction, lying, i don't think it should be criminal or i'm willing, where itrotect m friends to a the pardon power. some people like giuliani claim that's nonsense. you don't interpret one section of the constitution nullifying the other part of the constitution. the president can instruct people to violate the law or instruct his ownustice department or fbi to violate the law and say, if you're apprehended in this, i will pardon you. that cannot be. that's not our system. and that would violate the part of the constitution of him executing the laws. >> but the meaningful pardon would be external or internal. you want to give pardon to

dinesh d'souza, okay. but paul manafort, that's too close to him. rudy giuliani said pleading the fifth is no big deal. maybe this will be more traditional than we think. >> the president says he's doing great. >> here's someone who is saying that the president of the united states is above the law. that is his justice department to do it as he will. and in the case of this false statement about the trump tower meeting, which is a clear part of the cover-up of that meeting. first they deny meeting with the russians and then think get caught and the president dictates a false statement about

that meeting, covering up what happened. rudy giuliani says that was a mistake. that's none sense. >> he swore to god in jerusalem. >> that's not the place to be making false statements in front of the almighty. it's nonsense to think that the president's own lawyer didn't know what the president's role was. now, sarah huckabee sanders, the modus operandi seems to be they mislead me i mislead you. that's their way of doing business. that's the most charitable expiration of her telling the country, he did not dictate this statement. >> i think you have to be more forgiving until the analysis, somebody well lied here. somebody lied in this situation. was it the president? was it sekulow? was it sanders? she probably least likely to have lied in the scenario, she's the mouthpiece putting up the communicating, she wasn't there, or part of the strategy. it seems really farfetched something as simple and obvious on what he did on that plane

with this group could be misunderstood. fair point? >> yes, it's a fair point. i don't think there's any misunderstanding here.n see fro text train that's already public, how much of the discussion of the trump legal team was involved in trying to prepare this false statement. whether sanders knew whether he dictated it or not, the statement she made it gives the appearance of trying to dump down the president's role. he did whatever a father would do for his son. i don't know how much sanders knew or didn't know, but what i have seen in the pattern, is you see fabrication after fabrication from this president. and you see sarah sanders and kellyanne conway, saying what

they say. >> that's why i'm sitting here. congressman thank you for making an appearance. don lemon standing by. he has a preview of cnn tonight. how are you doing? o tell you how proud i am of you and a great interview you did with is rudy giuliani, going to talk about thatsecond. we're going to talk about paul manafort. he ran the president's campaign. that shocking interview with bill clinton today, he said i got hot under collar that's his latest statement. but, boy oh boy was that tone deaf. you live here in new york, almost a her met while bill clinton has been celebrated for the last 20 years. the president, the latest strategy on the flag topic and the eagles issue. plus discuss your interview. >> big topics don lemon, it's great that i can stay up and watch you tonight. >> i'm glad i can watch you because i'm usually asleep. >> now we're in sync.

all these new arguments that trump was making, there's one number that you need to keep in mind that will make it all make sense. i'll give it to you when we come back. mom? dad? hi! i had a very minor fender bender tonight in an unreasonably narrow fast food drive thru lane. but what a powerful life lesson. and don't worry i have everything handled. i already spoke to our allstate agent, and i know that we have accident forgiveness. which is so smart on your guy's part. likethat they'll just... forgive you... four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up st because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it. hey, i'm curious about your social security alerts. oh! we'll alert you if we find your social security number on any one of thousands of risky sites, so you'll be in the know. ewww!

being in the know is very good. sign up online for free. don't shake! ahhh! discover social security alerts. if you have a garden, you know... weeds are low-down little scoundrels. draw the line with roundup. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield and target weeds more precisely, right down to the root. roundup. trusted for over 40 years. a hilton getaway means you get more because... you get another day in paradise. get a sunset on a sunday. get more stories to share. get more from your summer getaway with exclusive hilton offers. book yours, only at hilton.com

♪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 ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™

before the break i told you there's one number that you need to kw tonigh that number i zero. why? because, zero times has the supreme court ruled the president cannot obstruct justice. there's another zero. what is it? zero cases where a president has successfully challenged a subpoena in these circumstances. and really, other than nixon, zero times we have ever even seen a president talk about trying to do that. okay? there is also zero support in the law for president trump's notion that he can pardon himself absolutely. even rudy giuliani told you tonight, there's a zero percent chance that the president will

even try it. here's the biggest number for me tonight, it is one. i'll do it twice because it's so nice. this is our first official cuomo primetime, thank you for being apart of it. it means everything to me to get this opportunity. i hope tomorrow you come with me to get after it again. we have another big guest for you tomorrow night. we'll have former white house communication director, anthony scaramucci. that will be 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on cuomo primetime. you know what comes next. lois going to be here. we're very happy to be with him. i said to him earlier, usually i have to watch him in the morning, i was on noon day and i had to go to sleep at night. now i get to watch it live like the rest of you, he's got good news tonight. he's already smiling because we have big news with paul manafort and rudy giuliani to digest.