when and how. already we have found cataclysmic storm as a cause on some of those cases, but of course we want to get to the bottom of those who do not say that and see if the conditions they were living under led to the deaths, anderson. >> yeah. we'll obviously go through that. we'll bring that updated information to you when we get it. time to hand it over to chris cuomo. >> i am chris cuomo. the president is talking about the deal even though no deal was made in singapore. but the president does have a plan b. take a listen. >> i may stand before you in six months saying, hey, i was wrong. i don't know if i'll ever admit that but i'll find some sort of excuse. >> meant as a joke? maybe. too often the truth? definitely. so because president trump saying something is a huge win

doesn't always make it so, tonight we test the case of what was gained for each side in singapore. we have one of the architects of the summit strategy to do just that in a second. but also tonight, president trump isn't tweeting about it, but this should be on your radar. first the attorney general aimed to get rid of preexisting condition protection. now a move that could be really bad for women seeking asylum in the u.s. we'll take you through it. and more redoes. bill clinton just dug himself an even deeper hole. we de that, next. so what do you say? let's get after it. all right, little white board action for you here, okay? what are the points the administration is looking at in terms of why it was a win in singapore? we are now talking nicely. the brinkmanship seemed to have ended. tough talk worked.

that's what brought kim jong-un to the table. the administration said he was afraid.great deal, the presiden was made. is that what he can point to? have you red the declaration which is really just a letter of intent and the four points that are in it? denuke. denuclearion is on the table. is that news? and the big point the united war games and nbd.ng. however, what did north korea go back t in its region. that's the win. however, not so fast. here are the points on the other side. the fire and fury. do you remember the president talking that way? what took it to the brink. of course north korea is the provocateur here, of se they'rehe aggressor, recklessly using munitions, trying to get nuclear capabilities with design on

destruction. but the talk is what took us to such an ugly place, at least in part. much respect was given to kim jong-un. distinguish whether prior presidents could have had a meeting like this versus thought they should have a meeting like this. they didn't want to have a despite like kim, flags on either side. trump took a risk here. don't call it unorthodox, but it was a gamble. what did he come away with? at this point a deal to make a deal. read that declaration. don't let somebody sell it to you as a deal. it isn't. at is agreed to in there, the main point, the third point, the promise ofdenuclrization, that pledge is an echo of what was done with leader moon in south korea, what was agreed to in seoul. the north korea did not agree pledge or any commitment, you need to know that. and then what did we really get? at this point the inside of a

donut, all right? that means nothing in queen where i grew up. so this is the not so fast. the other side is the win. now we're going to test it. and we have someone really good to do that tonight. our next guest was in the room with president trump as he made some of his biggest foreign policy decisions. he just left the white house, so he is the perfect person to test what this meeting was about and what came outf it. let's get after it. mr. anton, thank you very much for joining us. >> glad to be here. thanks for having me. >> give me a quick take. what did you think was accomplished in singapore? >> first just getting the relationship off to some kind of start was accomplished. just talking was an accomplishment with a regime like this that the united states has had very little contact with over t l many decades, doesn't have diplomatic relations with. in the past when the united states has talked, things haven't turned out so well. it all remains to be seen how it will turn out now. getting that relationship going again, especially after a year

of extraordinary tension, missile tests, nuclear tests, lot of fear in the region that the regio might be headed for some kind of conflict, skwjust talking reduces tension. you see how happy south korea is about this, how happy other leaders are in the country. they like to see tensions go down. that in itself is an accomplishment. >> polish is different than policy. do you have a fear that this is not in the.s. favor yet? >> no, i don't. that has been true in the past, but what we gave in this instance, the president said he was not going to proceed with a military exercise. unpack that a little bit. the most recent military exercise already happened a couple months ago in the north koreans did not object. the next scheduled one is many, many months away. we'll see what happens between now and then, but simply saying he's not going to go ahead with something that wasn't going to happen for several months, anyway, isn't much of a concession. what will be -- whe need to

look out for is if the north koreans try to play the same playbook they've played in the pas past. what they've done with the united states is they talk about doing things. they insist they'll take the first step, second step and third step, and tyon't take rsteps. or they take certain steps and they do other things in secret behind walls that we don't know about that they reveal later. that's the trap they try to set. i think now they played it on successf then so many times that the u.s. government and this administration, they understand it, they know it, they're completely aware of it and they're looking for it. so i would expect us not to fall for that again. >> look, optimism is certainly your mandate i this regard, but let's look at it a little closely. the only thingnteresting at this point about the promise not to have war games, also known as drills, was the president's rationale that he thinks they're too expensive, anyway, that you shouldn't pay to practice, which doesn't make sense to any

military strategist. let's not talk about that. we'll save that for another day. on this point, you could argue that the united states has already given north korea m an it e has before. this is in a meeting that other presidents couldot have had, michael. it's a meeting the chose not to have because they didn't want t with the united states. >> you have a lot baked in there. we've given them a lot in the past. the agreed framework in the early '90s gave them many thousands of tons of fuel oil. we relaxed sanctions that allowed them access to the world financial system, that allowed them to build up their hard currency reserves. >> but nobody ever gave them diplomacy. >> let'sack that, too,little bi. a lot of critics were saying the president shouldn't be meeting with kim jong-un because he's a bad guy. the same people who months ago said the president was ratcheting up tension to high levels. the tension is down. >> you happen to be right.

people who are saying he was lking too hot now have to think about it when they say, well, he's being too nice. fair. but that happen on your side of the ball. just one president ago, you crushed obama for suggesting he would talk to kim without preconditions. anything with cuba because he said, we will noonrtand quiet in the face of oppression. and then he did exactly that with kim. >> president obama said he would talk to any dictator without preconditions, not just kim jong-un. we got pre-conditions from kim jong-un on this. >> what is th? >> he withdrew his ballistics missile exercise. one thing we do know, he's going to have to destroy a lot more sites for this to work. but we came to the table essentially having came to the

table having spent more than a year putting more pressure on the north korean regime than has ever been put on them before. i think that's one of the big reasons why kim is at the table. i don't think that country has ever felt this level of a bite from sanctions that's depriving its access to the world of economy and making it feel real economic pain. >> but you have to lk at the stick and the car rrot, right, becaus never been given a stage, right? >> his father got one once in pyongyang, and i think there was a real desire from the administration to see if they move the ball further forward. they sort of ran out of time. that was at the tail end of the administration. the father, the previous leader of north korea or dictator of north korea, backed off. you're right, it never happened. >> so that's a big give for the united states. it's a lot of respect to show a despite, a yalkedwith a declara. let's be honest, this is a letter of intent. >> it's the beginning of a process.

>> that's all it is at itsbest, and that's not a bad thing, necessarily, but when it' exaggerated as something more than that, that this is an agreement or this is adeal, it's exaggerated. i didn't hear the president exaggerate about it. >> the president said, this is a great deal, we made more progress than expected. >> he said he made progress in the talks. didn't say they made a denucleari denuclearization deal. >> i'm saying he called it a deal, and the only thing north korea agrees to in terms of remains of u.s. troops within the conflict is just an echo effect of what it already agreed to with south korea. there is nothing new in this letter about what they will do. >> we know what the north koreans want, all right? they want to get out of the sanction regime that the united states and their partners put on it. they want to get out of certain u.n. council resolutions that are painful. the president made clear they're not going to get those things before w see real steps toward

denuclearization that will be verified by outside spirits that the nor north korea will have to let people in and look at their sites. this is ain't completisn't a co by any means, but it opens the door if north korea makes the calculation that they're better off denuclearizing rather than staying in this space that destroys their regime. >> they don't really care about starving their people, do they? i know the president said his people love him. i don't know where he's getting that because fear is not love. and the idea of not discussing this man's murderous tendencies and the human rights that would have to be necessary -- the reporting said they didn't discuss it. what do you know? >> he said he did discuss it.

he said he brought up and has brought up in the past the japanese abductees. >> i'm not talking about the japanese abductees alone. i'm talking about hundreds and thousands of people that are detained. i'm talking about a man who murders members of his own family willy-nilly and murders his people. >> he brought up otto warmbier who we know was tragically injured. >> i heard him ask but i didn't. >> he said something to the effect that he thinks it was a tragedy what happened to otto but his death might not have been in vain, that that tragedy might have opened the door to this engagement. otto warmbier was tragically injured in their custody and he died mere days after being released. bring that up in public during the summit is not something that's likely to fall on -- that the north koreans want to hear. they don't want to hear the president of the united states talk about a victim they sted held who died. bad for their reputation.

anr way he highlighted the human rights. >> that's d this moment, right? even kim said there's been a lot of objeacles to get to this point. i'm just saying it was expected, especially with a party that's been so consistently against meeting withen like this because of what they represent in terms of lack of freedoms, that that wouldn't be brought up at the actual summit. you weren't a little surprised by that >> listen, i'm taking the president at his word. he was the one there one on one with his translators. this is the first time the two leaders have met and they haven't been talking about it in public. this is the beginning of a process. the core purpose of the meeting today was not to solve every problem with regard to north korea which are multiple millions, it's to make progress on the denuclearization issue which is the most important threat facing the united states

from that country, facing south region. >> fair point. it's really interesting, coming off the g-7, the president made a point up there to have very tough words for the allies. he theoes and meets with somebody who is the opposite of an ally, really, any way you want tonalyze it, and has unusually and really the softest words have ever heard shared about kim jong-un except by himself. what was the tactic employed there? >> let's look at the track record. first of all, as we mentioned earlier in our conversation, the president has also had some very harsh words for kim jong-un over the previous year and a half or so. >> but that's what you say about him. what you say to him and different than what you say about him. >> having a good meeting with a handshake i n't think is surprising. >> what you say about someone is different than what you say to his face. to his face he said, you're talented. you're honorable. i trust you.

your people love you. i've never heard any other leader of democracy speak about kim jong-un that way. >> how else would you have a president in a meeting which he has never met before in which he's trying to achieve something unprecedented? i don't think startingut with etoric tt the president has used in the past is appropriate at precise moment. >> let me ask you something was written in "the atlantic" about what the trump foreign doctrine is. it comes down to three principles, according to the writer. the first one is no friends, no enemies. everybody is equal to the present in the moment. if you're giving him what he wants, he likes you. if not, he doesn't like you. now, this is a very capricious way to do foreign policy with established alliances, but do you believe that's accurate? is he a no friends, no enemies guy, we don't belong in one group? i think that was pit the elder summarizing england's foreign policy in the 1750 no permanent friends, no permanent

enemies. in other words, you have to take the issue as it comes. a decade later he could be your best friend in a different emergency, and this president was determined to see things in the circumstances in the light of 2017 and 2018 and not just say if you are our staunch ally in 19-whatever, but you're treating us very fairly now, we'll look back and treat you the same way as then. >> i'm just saying this is what they said. the second one that was offered was permanent destabilization creates american advantage. this does seem to be an echo of what we see with the president's mouth on a regular basis. does he believe that, that if i keep you on your es, if i keep you guessing whether it's going to be good or bad for you, eventually it will work out in my favor as if it was a condo development deal. >> there's a difference between keeping people guessing and keeping people on their toes, which i think the president does do. there is a difference between that and permanent destabilization, whatever that means, but it sound like something a magnitude greater

than anything the administration has pursued so far, so that quote seems a little overheated, but that's just my assessment. >> right, but if you look at the facts on the ground, though, what situation has the president followed through on and brought to a common resolve on the internatio >> well, he's trying to follow through and bring to a common resolve this situation -- >> this was jt the first step. he was calling him little rocket man and using, like, gangsta speak, saying you best better not be messing with us. >> let's look back at what was going on in 2017. after a long period where the north koreans did not test any missiles, and did not test any nuclear devices, they started firing them off serially throughout that year, firing them over japan, making threats against u.s. territory in guam. threatening american allies in the region. testing devices they said were thermonuclear bombs, a hydrogen bomb, things they hadn't done in a long time. >> dangerous. >> and being rhetorically honest

about that, i think, is part of what brought us to this point. it wasn't the old-fashioned american response of sort of being quiet, pretending it didn't happen, saying we condemn in strongest possible terms. thsident made it very clear that that behavior was unacceptable. and by the way, that behavior was not just unacceptable to him or to to us or to the united states, it was unacceptable to all the countries that kim jong-un threatened. >> the president didn't like being overly provocative, either, because it would have pushed him to act on those words. ostensib nowhere further right now because this is just a piece of paper. there is no promise of a better time to come. the last one, which is an indelicate term, the trump doctrine is, we're america, b-blank, female dog.

is that an echo of what america makes right? all, it's nothing i've heard in the trump administration. of course we are, we're america, whether you add the expletive after that or not. to me the best way to sum up the trump doctrine is the two words he uses most orften, or did fora while, america first. it's a reaffirmation of american interests. that to me is what the trump doctrine is or was, going back to the opening days of his campaign. >> michael anton, i appreciate you taking us through this. it was a mighty historical photo op, but we'll have to see what comes from it. i appreciate you bei tested on this. >> thank you. >> we've got a long way to go, hopefully, right? that means things could progress in a way that is positive, we just don't know what will come next. president trump can say he trusts kim, but is there a

legitimate basis for that? here's what we do know. the president just did something and republicans are applauding something that they condemned just one president ago. let's see who speaks truth o this in our great debate, next. those are great debaters. and claritin clear. with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were very saggy. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with new sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. introducing more sizes for better comfort. new depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. benjamin franklin capturedkey lightening in a bottle. over 260 years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity, and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun and wind, we're storing it.

as the nation's leader in energy storage, we're ensuring americans have the energy theed, this is our era.ed it. this is america's energy era. nextera energy. hey, i'm curious about your social security alerts. oh! we'll alert you if we find your social security num on any one of thousands of risky sites, so you'll be in the know. ewww! being in the know is very good. don't shake! ahhh! sign up online for free. discover social security alerts. ♪ ♪ ♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ ♪ bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ proven to protect street skaters and freestylers. stops up to 97% uv. lasts through heat. through sweat. coppertone. proven to protect. you might be missing something.y healthy. your eyes. that's why there's ocuvite. ocuvite helps replenish nutrients your eyes can lose as you age. it has lutein, zeaxanthin and omega-3. ocuvite. be good to your eyes. >> just because someone opened up about their illness in the past doesn't mean they're going to be as open about the present. >> this has to be a moment where >> this has to be a moment where we take this epidemic and this

>> this has to be a moment where we take this epidemic and this i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts 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.

look, you haven't been able to miss the coverage in singapore. if you've been anywhere near a digital device, north korea i e iis is elated about kim jong-un meeting with the president. the previous dictators were vilified for their agreements. then he meets with kim jong-un, and there is nothing in that letter about human rights sli s violations. double standard? listen to this.

this is from now this news. >> would you as a president meet with leaders of north korea? obama initially said, i would meet with him. >> i will meet not just with our friends b with our enemies. >> it turns out obama likes talking with dictators.>> he wo these mad men without pre-conditions. >> i'm going to meet with some of these crazy people and try to get things done. >> obama is bowing to these dictators. >> dan jones and david irvin are here. dave, the whiff of pardon poo-poo is in the air, my brother. what happened to all that crushing criticism about meeting with dictators and no pre-conditions, no way. and then this and everybody is happy. >> well, chris, there is a lot packed in that segment right there, right, what you're talking about. you're conflating lots and lots of issues, so let's take a step

back. cuba doesn't have nuclear weapons aimed at the united states, capable of reaching the united states. so let's just step back and take a look at how we got here a why we got here, right? this president did not have the luxury that other presidents had in simply kicking the can down the road, whether it was president bush, president clinton, bush 43, president obama, all those gentlemen had the luxury of a lot of time to sit back and ponder what might work and what might not work. this president wasaced with a direct and immediate threat to our country and lots of other of our friends as this rogue regime developed nuclear weapons capable of reaching their countries and possibly our coast. so president trump was in a completely different situation than any other president in history dealing with this issue. >> dan, do you see van, do you

or do you see a president using gangsta speak and trash talk telling north korea they're about to get both barrels? >> i definitely see it differently. let's take a step back if you want to take a step back. >> let's take a lot of steps back. let's go all wait bathe way bac. >> you don't have to go all the way back, you can go just a week. canada is our enemy. canada is terrible and north korea has wonderful leadership. we're in this whole completely topsy-turvy world where we look at enemies as our friends and friends as our enemies, and you can't rely on the hypocrisy of commentators. they literally are fng all over themselves for a deal that's not even a deal. it's a deal thinking about getting a deal that might have something in it t we don't know what it is. yet it ran deal, which is a real deal that the entire world got together on, is considered

trash. >> so listen, the iran deal was terrible -- this isn't just republicans saying this, t senate minority leader chuck schumer. if i would the list in front of me, i would read the long list of establishment democrats, progressive democrats, lots of democrats who thought it was a terrible deal. wait, wait, hold on. it did nothing to address their missile program, and more importantly, it did nothing to address their -- the irgc's spreading terrorism around the world. >> look, you didn't even write it. >> that's why it a terrible deal. >> dave, trump didn't make human rights violations a big part of what they discussed in singapore, right? you don't try to accomplish everything at once. that's your own argument. >> it just -- buddy, it just started. it just started. >> i totally get it. but if president obama had gone

there, and i'm not a big false equivalency guy, but sometimes there's no other way to advance the hypocrisy. i mentioned otto warmbier, i said i didn't die in vain, we talked about some things. and there was nothing on the piece of paper they signed that called out this guy potentially to the closest thing to a true genocide force. what would you say? >> to what point? >> there's only one i'm ma. if obama had done that, and on that piece of paper there was nothing saying this guy has to stop doing what he's doing, what have said? >> i would have said it's a start. you can't expect it at the beginning. i criticized the iran deal after the deal was inked, not after the process. the president is not going to walk away from warmbier's parents. he's not going to walk away from people whose relatives have died in concentration camps. >> he already has.

>> no, he hasn't. he just began. >> can you imagine what would happen if president obama had gone to a dictator like this, a brutal, brutal genocidal thug like this and said, i'm honored to meet you? he did a head nod to an arabian -- >> i wish president o did because we wouldn't be dealing with it w. >> he shook raul castro's hand, dave, and you made it sound like he took him to the prom. >> i did this? >> you own the whole group when you're on this show, guys. you have to take the whole right and van has to take the whole left. he'll have his time, don't worry. >> i'm on cnn, not fox. >> and we're happy to have you here. re's what we're pointin o to you. van, finish your point, please. >> listen, language matters. positioning matters. i remember when bill clinton had to go and get somebody from north korea, or maybe it was al gore had to get somebody, i

can't remember who it was -- >> bill clinton went to deal with the two journalists. >> right, bill clinton went over there, and he made sure he had the most dour countenance the entire time. he didn't even want a photograph of him smiling next to the president. he was sending clear signals. this is a horrible person, i am doing it for political expedience. he didn't say you're honorable, you're great, everybody loves you. if president obama had used that language, it would have been bedlam across the entire spectrum because youon't them. you don't have to set the tone and tenor that all you have to do in this world is gate couple chemical weapons and you can do whatever you want to your people and the president of the united states will flatter you in a way he's never flattered half the entire population. >> let's see what this president gets versus what president obama did with the iran deal with

hezbollah. the irgc is directly responsible for the deaths and the marines in the lebanon bombing and we did nothing about it. >> and you can't have an agreement with north korea without having an anti-trust violation? >> it's going to happen. a few thousand prisoners in their labor camps right now that we know of. and they're being tortured and it's horrific and it's been happening. since when? since the '50s. the united states has turne blind eye, shame on us, and the rest of the world has tned a blind eye to this since the '50s. we've done nothing. why on earth is it president trump's problem today? where has it been last year and yeert befo the year before? >> until this president and this administration, you don't have it to say we didn't start the fire, it's always been burning

since the world was turning. you never would have had a democrat hold yourself to a er standard just like theher si. we have a new hotbed to this dispute, van jones. first we saw the attorney general take a move on preexisting conditions on health here. now it's about women specifically and how they want to tailor what the categories of asylum are. domestic abuse doesn't count anymore. what could that mean for women who are trying to flee persecution and come to this countr >> hold on a second, dave, why are you shaking your head? >> luckily -- listen, i think -- >> bring dave back, because i thought we were going to get, it was a conspiracy theory, but let's bring dave back. dave, what were you shaking your head at? >> you make it sound like the attorney general is saying

domestic abuse is something that's okay. it's not okay. >> but it's in a category of asylum for protecon. >> he's saying political asylum is just that. >> asylum, not just political asylum. abuse in this country. >> asylum in this country has been historically b actions taken by government, right? it's government-based actions against somebody because their race, their religion, you know, a large group of things, right? and domestic abuse, domestic violence has not been one of those traditionally. >> they had to rule it out as an entire category. what if you're dealing with the women in north africa and mutilation? what if you're talking about extreme sex and women want to run. do you prescribe a whole category? why don't you just not tailor it so narrowly so as to exclude this? >> chris, domestic violence is a horrific, horrific thing. in the united states we can't --

listen, we're not doing a good enough job in the united states in the violence against women's act. it has a tough time every time it gets brought up in the congress. >> deal with it here, don't deal with it there. van jones, make your point. i have to move to another topic. >> i want to say it is, in fact, a political issue. the fact that women are targeted for violence both by governments in their home, by some extreme religious groups is a political issue. and women fleeing for their lives because they do not want to be abused, sometimes with their children in tow, that's an asylum seeker. you're putting that in there, but there could be non-government actors that cause people to flee, and i think it's important that we point out, yes, in the old sexist paradigm, men made the laws but didn't think about women's experience, it would have been a stretch. but in this world today, it is in fact true, and i think understood by many peop women

being targeted as women for women -- what? >> don't toss me in there. i don't have sexist views. >> i'm saying in the old way. you said historically, and all i was saying is was yes, historically, you might have been on firmer ground. i think in today'sworld, people understand violence against women is political. >> you would think right now you would be expanding the mandate, not contracting it. it seems to be some kind of politics at play. that's what we're getting at here. >> you said historically. >> dave, you're welcome here always. i have one more topic. you would not believe the scope of the problem in this country, let alone others where w are not protected at all by the government. van jones, no more redos for brother clinton. he keeps digging himself into a deeper hole every time. the rules have changed for what you can do to someone against their will? no, they haven't. no, they haven't. why does he keep getting chances to do this, a does the left

need to move on for bill clinton and hillary clinton as being the top and the leaders of your cause. let's play his latest sound. >> i think the norms have really changed in terms of what you can do toody against their will, how much you can crowd their space, make them miserable at work. you don't have to physically assault somebody to make them, you know, uncomfortable at work or at home or in their -- just walking around. that, i think, is good. >> van? >> look, i think that he was trying -- i think the hard thing for bill clinton is that he has always been the gold standard in communication and being able to connect with people, to thread these needles, to bring people together. and there's something missing now in that ability of his. and so if you listen to the whole thing in context, you can tell his heart is in the right place. he's really trying to make the

case, but the word choice is just not proper. and so i hate to see the guy get beat up, but he could just be at that stage of his aging process precise as we need him to be, but i think hrt was in the right place on that one. the first two, i thought it was a swing in the wrong direction. now he's trying to swing in the right direction but he still can't land it. >> dave, the point is politically there is a propping up on the clintons on the left. they need it as far as leadership. but he's not getting it done this issue. it matters so much to both sides that it makes you question whether it's time to find new figures that encapsulate what you're about as party. what's your take? >> chris, there is a concept in the law, los locas liquitur. the viewers know what he was

trying to say, they know what he didn't say. look, i think the clintons, the obamas, the kennedys. we saw a kennedy get rolled out in response to the president's state of the union. >> i don't know that obama gets in that. he's still a young man and he doesn't need to be cast out in this. the other two can. >> my point is kind of dynastic figures and their candidates, they got a lot of fresh faces. there are a lot of people who get elected nationwide. look at the connor lamb in pennsylvania. new generation, there are a lot of young folks out there who are attractive and are on message and get it, and the government will be leaving them behind. we talent but i would take any obama back any day, just saying. >> dave threw me a quick one there. he threw in the kennedys and the clintons. that was a good one. >> van, dave, thank you very

much. good to have you both, as always. so a republican sator calls out members of his own party saying they are too afraid to stand up president trump on fundamental principle. senator susan collins, maine, republican. there she is. she has opposed the president. but what does she say about what senator bob corker called out about his own party? we discuss next. a place with 24-hour valet service... and upholstery classes.

a place where seniors get the care they need in the comfort of home. home instead senior care. you finished preparing overhim for college.rs, in 24 hours, you'll send him off thinking you've done everything for his well-being. but meningitis b progresses quickly and can be fatal, sometimes within 24 hours. while meningitis b ncommon, about 1 in 10 infected will die. like millions of others, your teen may not be vaccinated against meningitis b. meningitis b strikes quickly. be quick to talk to your teen's doctor about a meningitis b vaccine. directv now gives you more for your thing. get all the good stuff about tv without all the bad stuff. yes! you can still stream your favorite shows.

yes! with no annual contract. wait, what? it's live tv. yes! with no satellites. what? and no bulky hardware. no bulky hardware! isn't that great news? yes! nooooo! nooooooooooo! try directv now for $10 a month for 3 months. more for your thing. that's our thing. visit directvnow.com a lot of paints say ordinthey can do the job,ver. but just one can "behr" through it all. behr premium plus, a top rated interior paint at a great price. family friendly, disaster proof. find it exclusively at the home depot.

♪ the kenya tea development agency is an organization that is owned by tea farmers. every week we sell this tea, we get paid in multiple accounts. we were looking for a bank provide a safe and efficient technology platform to pay our farmers. citi was the only one that was able to ensure that this was done seamlessly. and today, at the touch of a button, all the farmers are able to get their money, pay school fees and improve their standard of living. with citi, we see a bright future for our farmers and their families. ♪

sometimes you have to shake your head a little bit and take a reset. the need for hard line mercy on dictators, the benefit of free trade with american allies. these are bedrocks of the republican party for generations. now we have a part who flouts ideas and crickets from his party. hip oypocri hypocrisy, fear? representative susan collins is here. thank you for being here. >> thank you. good to be with you, chris. >> i want to play for you what

senator corker said. obviously he has a bill. is against the tariff structure that president trump has designed. he wt support, he believes his party should support. here's what he said. >> 95% of people on this side of y'all support this amendment. but no, no, no, gosh, we might poke the bear is the language i've b hearing in the hallways. weht poke the bear. the president might get upset with us as united states senators if we vote on the corker amendment. so we're going to do everything we can to block it. my gosh, if the president gets upset with us, then we might not be in the majority. and so let's don't do anything that might upset the president. >> ser, is h right? >> senator corker clearly deserves a vote on his amendment. it's a very legitimate issue at he's raising. what the president has done is invoke national security and a

justification to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum coming from some of our closest allies, like canada and the european union. so what bob corker is saying is that he wants to reassert the congressional role, the constitutional role of congress in trade matters. he deserves them both. if people don't agree with his amendment, they can vote against it. >> so he's right in the micro. what about the macro, which is the reason they're not voting is just fear. they don't want to get sideways with trump. is that prevalent in your party? >> well, i've heard a lot of positive comments on bob's amendme amendment. so we've got the defense authorization bill on the floor right now. clearly the president strong following among some base republicans in this country, and

there may be some of my colleagues who are leary of alienating them. but we're in office to make hard decisions and to vote. the president has every right to lobby against bob's amendment. he even threatened to veto it, but bob deserves a vote. >> help me think it through, se saying you hear lots of positive things about the corker amendment, but they're not bringing it up for a vote, it seems to validate what he's saying. which is unless you're on your way out, which corker is, right, which flake is, which gowdy is on the house side, you don't speak truth to power with this president. and if you do you might get primary like we're seeing with stanford and robey on the right side. is that the truth? >> a lot of primary's opponents are coming more from outside groups rather than being recruited by the president or

his staff. what i think we've seen ishe growth of groups on the far left and the far right who are demanding 100% compliance with 100% of their views 100% of the time. so i don't know that it's just the president that people are where he could produce a primary opponent. i think it's both these groups on the left and the right. >> could you imagine if you had a democrat in office and they got sideways with canada and started talking about the prime minister of canada -- i know this is sensiti to you. you're up there in maine. you share a border with the canadians. but the idea of a president doing that with our closest all so many different levels, nobody said anything to him about it. >> i did. well, i said something publicly. first ofall, we should not -- >> it wasn't vintage collins, though. i've had you come at me with

both barrels. that is not what it looks or sounds like. >> the president and his staff should not be alienating our closest allies, our long-time friends, our reliable allies and our biggest tradingers in the case of the canadians. >> and then they all had to watch him go to singapore and say that kim jong-un is a talented man who he's honored to be with and has the love and respect of his people. >> well, let me say that there is no comparison between justin trudeau and chairman kemp. there's just no comparison at all. >> no, but if your allies are getting treated like your enemies and your enemies are suddenly allies, what kind of message does that send, senator? >> i think the president was not focused on the g-7 meeting, but his mind was on the summit to come with north korea. and i think that's very

unfortunate, because those allies important. >> do you think he took the 7 off? was he playing soduko up there? was he planning his next trip? what do you think he was doing at the g-7? >> clearly he came late, he left ea he said he wanted to add russia to the discussion. >> which is a terrible idea because the reason that russia was kicked out of the g-7 is because it illegally annexed crimea, and that has not changed. and to get back to canada, you know, the state of maine has had a lot of trade frictions with canada o -- /* -- well still count canada as an important friend and we don't want to jeopardize that friendship as a nation. >> that theory while reasonable

and probably recess nat with most of the audience, it gets no love in the white house. they say they'll be there. germany knows, france knows, they get it, they know they need us, doesn't matter what the president says, do you have that kind of confidence? >> well, i believe the countries you just named are always going to b ourlose allies. after all, the relationship that we have goes back a very long time, and we're not only allies, we are truly friends. so, i think we can get over what was a very unfortunate incident and please that mr. navarro has apologized for his comments. that was needed, and i think we can get over this rough spot. but, do i agree with the way the president handled at the g7 meeting and come back, no i do

not. >> understood. senatorcollins, thank you very much. when we get more meat on the bones with what happened to north korea we'll bring you back. >> thank you. all right from susan collins to don lemon standing by with a preview of "n tonight." how are you doing? >> i'm doing great. new world can begin today, one of friendship, respect and goodwill. be apart of the doors where grand opportunity is ready to be open. that was a video that the president showed to kip jong un. did you see a guy dunking in the video? >> yeah, loved that. was that stoj footage. that's supposed to be kim jong-un? >> it is -- >> you can dock with peace. >> maybe it was the guy that you interviewed last night. >> the worm? you would have known it was him. >> seriously we got a propaganda on somebody whose made these vi. you know measuring mccann non, he's going to be on talking to

us with everything that has to do with north korea, what do we really get out of this and why is the president saying good thing about a murder rus dictator. we'll talk about all that, see you in a little bit. >> great est, don lemon. thank you very much. we just saw a big legal decision. the att merger with turner, the judge says it goes through. the reason it happened, what it means, why you should care. i'll give it to you, next. ♪ ♪ hi! leaving a career to follow a calling takes courage. a personalized financial strategy can give you confidence to take the next step. hi guys! aw yeah! see how access to j.p. morgan investment expertise can help you.

chase. make more of what's yours. chase. 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. yes. it's a targeted medicine proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, and lower oral steroid use.

about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. fasenra™ is designed to work with the body fasenra™ is an add-on injection for pele 12 and up with severe eosinophilic asthma. don't use fasenra™ dden breathing problems or other problems caused by eosinophils. fasenr™ may cause headache, sore throat, and allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens or if you have a parasitic infection. fasenra™ is a targeted treatment for eosinophilic asthma. that's important. ask an asthma specialist about fasenra™. proven to protect street skaters and freestylers. stops up to 97% uv. lasts through heat. through sweat.

coppertone. proven to protect. i'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? vitos? 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. welcome back to cuomo prime time and our final fact. so, the government lost its case to stop the at&t/time warner merger but we need to focus on why this happened in the first place. timewarner as you know is cnn's parent company and that's something the president is painfully aware of. too much concentration of power in the hands of too few. that's a quo from th president, his basis for opposing his

state. a merger, again he described being about cnn. the judge discussed the hallow nature of the government's case. holding the federal government is too thin a read for this court to rely on. the factual basis wasn't there, there was never got precedent for this kind of action despite the government's policy arguments. so, what was this about? here's my take, the most obnoxious part of this was the premise, too much power in the hands of too few. the president's assumption to that notion is defined by every move he's made in office. every autocrat he comprised. a tax that award the rich by simple . stripping regulation to allow big business to pollute and destroy others. his attack of the emergencier was never about keeping power from the few, it was about

reenforcing the power of one, president donald j. trump. be clear, i'm not defending the deal, the justice did that. here's what should matter to al going to try foul because he believes the russia probe seems to be politically motivated, then he should be just as careful about his own use or abuse of power.with great power responsibility, we've all heard the famous words of roosevelt about that, and about our government. so, be clear, what happened here was wrong. it was wrong on the f and it was rotten in its inception, that is the kind of thing that we're going to call out on this show. that's what #get after it is about. if we can't agree on what is

factual, feeling, what is right and what is i don't think we're never going to get anywhere. that's all for us. "cnn tonight" with don lemon, the man. you said it. people have been saying, why haven't he said the man. >> because you never responded, you just get on with your show so i didn't say it for a while. >> you're exactly right about what about about at&t and in court, the judge says even if they appeal this it would be unmanifest and unjust. it was basically saying they really had no case in court, chris. i think you're exactly right. great show my friend as usual. >> always a pleasure. >> yep, see you soon. cnn tonight, i'm don lemon. now what? trump