puerto rico put in a motion asking for a delay, citing that they needed more time to retract private information. the judge said no, you must hand overt information. and so now we will be digging through these records, 12,000 death certificates, to try to get to the bottom of who died n. already we have found cataclysmic storm as a cause on some of those caseut 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. welcome to "primetime." 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 butsort 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 no more redos. bill clinton just dug himself an even deeper hole. we debate 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 administratis looking at in terms of why it was a win in singapore? we are now talking nicely. thbrinkmanship 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 president says 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. denuclearization is now on the table. is that news? and the big point the united states gave, nothing. war games and nbd. however, what did north korea go back to. it reported the u.s. backed off in the region. nothing about nuclearization. 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?

that's what took it to the brink. of course north korea is the provocateur here, of course they're the aggressor, recklessly using munitions, trying to get nuclear capabilities with design on destruction. but the talkk us tsuch an ugly 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 despot 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. what is agreed to in there, the main point, the third point, the promise of denuclearization, that pledge is an echo of what was done with leader moon in south korea, what was agreed to in seoul. the north koreans did not agree to anything new in terms of any 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 queens where i grew up.

so this is the not so fast. the other side is the win. now we're going it. to do that tonight.lly goo 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 ting was out and what came out of it. let's get . 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 the last 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, a lot of fear in the region that the region mighted for some kind of conflict, just 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 do that in itself is an accomplishment. >> polish is different than policy. do you have a fear that this is not in the u.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 ans did not obje 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 wit something that wasn't going to happen for several months, anyway, isn't much of a concession

what will be- what we need to look out for is if the north koreans try to play the same playbook they've played in the past. what they've done with the united states is they talk about doing things. they iist they'll take the first step, second step and third step, and they don't take their steps. or they take cerps 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 success of the administration so many times that the u.s. government and this administration, they understand it, they know it, they're completelyre 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 in this regard, but let's look at it a little closely. the only thing interesting at this point about the promise nos 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 tr another day. on this point, you could argue that the united states has already given north korea more than it ever has before. this is in a meeting that other presidents could not have had, michael. it's a meeting they chose not to give a despotted regime premise 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 alccess to financial system, that allowed them to build up their hard rre. >> but nobody ever gave them diplomacy. >> let's unpack that, too, a little bit. 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 talking too hot now have to think about it when they say, well, he's being too nice. fair point. but so does that happen on your side of the ball. just one pdent ago, you crushed obama for suggesting he would talk to kim without preconditions. the president crushed him for doing anything with cuba because he said, we will no longer stand 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? >> 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 spent more than a came to the 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 look at the stick and the carrot, right, because he's 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 could move the ball further forward. they sort of ran out of time. that was at the tail end of the . 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 despot, and you walked away with a declaration. let's be honest, this is a letter of intent. >> it's the beginning of a process. >> that's all it is at its best, and that's not a bad thing, necessarily, but when it's exaggerated as something more than that, that this is an agreement or this is a deal,

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. he didn't say they made a 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 reans? 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 we see real steps toward denuclearization that will be verified by outside spirits that

a will have to let people in and look at their sites. this is isn't a completed deal, 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 t >> 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. d 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 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 hear a response. >> 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 unjusted held who died. bad for their reputation. another way he highlighted the human rights. >> that's different than this moment, right? even kim said there's been a lot of obstacles to get to this point. i'm just saying it was expected,

especially with a party that's been so consistently against meeting with men 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' by that? >> listen, i'm taking the president at his word. he was the one there one on one with his translators. thme 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 korea, facing japan, facing the 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 then goes and meets with dy who is the opposite of an ally, really, any way you want to analyze it, and has unusually and really the softest words i 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

>> fair point. it's really interesting, coming f the g-7, the president made a point up there to have very tough words for the allies. he then goes and meets with somebody who is the opposite of an ally, really, any way you want to analyze it, and he has unusually and really the softest words i 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 haalso 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 don'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 starting out with insults and some of the tough rhetoric that the president has used in the past is appropriate at precisely that moment. >> let me ask you something that was written in "the atlantic" about what the trump foreign doctrine is. it comes down to three principlescording to the writer. the first one is no friends, no enemies. everybody is equal to the president 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 1750s, 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 thcircumstance 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 toes, 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 th what sittion has the president followed through on and brought to a common resolve on the international stage? >> well, he's trying to follow through and bring to a common resolve this situation -- >> this was just 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 the strongest possible terms. the president made it very clear that that behavior was unacceptable. and by the way, that behavior was not just unacceptable to him or 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. ostensibly, we're 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? >> first of 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 often, or did for a while,merica fir 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 urough this. it was a mighty historical photo op, but we'll have to see what comes from it. i appreciate you being 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 oneresident ago. let's see who speaks truth on this in our great debate, next. those are great debaters. tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com hey, i'm curious about your social security alerts. oh! just sign up online and we'll alert you if we find your social security 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... all riewww! everything ok? being in the know is very good. yeah, it is. ooo don't shake! don't shake! ahhh! knowl security number is found on risky sites. free from discover. but climbing 58,070 steps a year can be hard on her feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they're clinically proven to relieve pain and give you the comfort to move more. dr. scholl's, born to move. at crowne plaza, we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we' all business, mostly.

crowne plaza. 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? rtual 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, eam faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can rd to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network.

>> just because someone opened many are elated about the sitdown with kim jong-un. but, when president obama once said that he would agree to our enemies including kim. he was dragged through the mud by the same crowd. not to mention he was, villified for his nuclear deal with iran. now they lack to beg to get the same thing with north korea. same unrestored relations with cuba. donald trump attacked him. saying you can't tolerate this kind of oppression. meets with kim jong-un. there is nothing in that letter about human rights violations. double standard? listen to this. this is from now this news.

>> would you as president meet with a leader of a country like north korea? obama said i'd meet wi henator d intentions clear on the campaign trail. >> i will meet not obviously with friend but enemies. >> president obama likes to talk >> i'm going to reach out to these crazy people around the world and try to get thing done. >> obama is bowing and scraping >> obama is bowing to these dictators. >> van 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.u're conflating l 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 and 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 prident 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 was faced 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. >> van, do you see it that way, 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 the way back. >> 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 falling 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 that we don't

know what it is. yet the iran 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, this is 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 evente it. >> that's why it was 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 making. 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 would you 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 obama did because we wouldn't be dealing with it now. >> 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's what we're pointing out 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 who it was -- >> bill clinton went to deal wihe two journalis>> right, bilr 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 dog 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 you don't praise 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 turned a blind eye, shame on us, and the rest of the world has turned 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 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 higher standard just like the other side. 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 country? >> 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 category of asylum for protection. >> he's saying political asylum is j >> asylum, not just political asylum. abuse in this country. >> asylum in this country has been historically based on actions taken by the 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 re 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 thamen are targeted foviolence 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 parm, 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 people, women being targeted as women for women -- what? >> don't toss me in there. that's not fair. i don't have sexist views. >> i'm saying in the old way. you said historically, and all i was ng is ye historically, you might have been on firmer ground. i think in today's world, people understand violence against women is political. >> you would think right now you would be expanding the mandate, not contracting 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 women 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, and 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 plis latest sound. >> i think the norms have really changed in terms of what you can do to somebody 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.y 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 aginocess where maybe he just can't be as precise as we need him to be, but i think his heart 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 on 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 a party. what's your take? hris, there is a concept in

the law, los locus 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've got a lot of good 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 senator calls out members of his own party saying they are too afraid to stand up to president even on a question of fundamental principle. senas, 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. with my home insurance. saved me a ton of money. -love you, gary! -you don't have to buzz in. it's not a question, gary. on march 1, 1810 -- [ ding ] -frédéric chopin. -collapsing in 226 -- [ ding ] -the colossus of rhodes. -[ sighs ] louise dustmann -- [ ding ] -brahms' "lullaby," or "wiegenlied." -when will it end? [ ding ] -not today, ron. -when will it end? [ ding ] join t-mobile. and get netflix included for the whole family.

so you can get lost in space in your own backyard... or get pumped up for your grand entrance. only t-mobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. and right now at t-mobile, buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free.

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 gentlemen, i have just received word! the louisiana purchase, is complete! instant purchase notifications from capital one . technology this helpful... could make history. what's in your wallet? i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early.too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

is part of a bigger picture. that bigger picture is statewide mutual aid. california years ago realized the need to work together. teamwork is important to protect the community, but we have to do it the right way. we have a working knowledge and we can reduce the impacts of a small disaster, but we need the help of experts. pg&e is an integral part of our emergency response team. they are the industry expert with utilities. whether it is a gas leak or a wire down, just having someone there that deals with this every day is pretty comforting. we each bring something to the table that is unique and that is a specialty. with all of us working together we can keep all these emergencies small. and the fact that we can bring it together and effectively work together is pretty special. they bring their knowledge, their tools and equipment and the proficiency to get the job done. and the whole time i have been in the fire service, pg&e's been there, too.

whatever we need whenever we need it. i do count on pg&e to keep our firefighters safe. that's why we ask for their help. 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 ts from his party. 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 want 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 been hearing in the hallways. we might 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. >> senator, is he right? >> senator corker clearly deserves a vote on his amendment. it's a very legitimate issue that 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 reasser congressional role, the constitutie of congress trade matters. he deserves them bot if people don't agree with 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 amendmt. so we've got the defense authorization bill on the floor right now. clearly the president has a 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, senator, because if you're saying you hear lots of positive thin 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 is the 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 sensitive 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 ally geographically, and really, on so many different levels, nobody said anything to him about it. >> i did. well, i said something publicly. first of all, 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.

>> we should not -- >> the president and his staff should not be alienating our closest allies, our long-time friends, our reliable allies and our biggest trading partners 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. >> of course not, 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 are important. >> do you think he took the g-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 l early. >> he said he wanted to add russia to the discussion. >> which is a terrible idea because the reason tsswas kicke changee it illegally annexcrime >> 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, y know, the state of maine has had a lot of trade frictions with canada over the years, and we do right now. but we still count canad as not only our closest labor but as a very important friend. and we don't want to jeopardize that friendship as a nation. >> that theory while reasonable

and probably resonant 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 e our close allies.always going 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 pleased 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 it at the g7 meeting in quebec, no, i do not.

>> understood. senator collins, thank you very much. when we get more meat on the bones with what happened to nor back. you're always welcome tois matt your constituents. all right, from susan collins to don standing by with a preview of "cnn tonight." how are you doing? >> i'm doing great. a new world can begin today, one of friendship, respect and goodwill. be a part of that door where grand opportunity is ready to be open. that was a video that the president showed to kim jong-un. did you see a guy dunking in the video? >> yeah, loved that. was that stock footage?. that's supposed to be kim jong-un? right? you can dunk home peace. >> maybe it was the guy that you interviewed last night. who knows? >> the worm? you would have known it was him. >>chris, seriously, we've got a propaganda on someone used to making these videos and he'll go frame by frame. you know mark mckinnon,

showtime's "circus," he's going to be on talking to us with everything thato do with north korwhat do we really is the president saying good thing about a murderous dictator. we'll talk about all that, see you in a little bit. >> great guest, don lemon. thank you very much. all right, so we just saw a big legal decision. the at&t merger with turner, the judge says it goes through. there is a lesson to be drawn. the reason it happened, what it means, why you should care. i'll give it to you, next. how do you win at business? stay at laquinta. where we're changing with contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. ♪ ♪

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. see how access to j.p. morgan make more of what's yours. see how access to j.p. morgan the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

prepare for your demise, do your worst, doctor. i will. but first, a little presentation. hijacking earth's geothermal energy supply. ase 1. choosing the right drill bit. as long as evil villains reveal their plans, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

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? 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 af 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 merg we need to focus why this happened in the first place. time warner, 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 quote from the president, his basis for

opposing as stated. a merger, again he described as being about cnn. the judge today exposed the hollow nature of the government's case. holding the federal government is too thin a read for this court to rely on. to thin a read. the factual basis wasn't there, there was never good 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. president trump's resistance to that not is defied by almost every move he's made in office. think about it. every autocrat he compliments. every fat cat he adds to the swamp. a tax deal that rewards the rich by simple math. stripping regulations to allow big business to pollute and

exploit others. his attack of the merger was never about keeping power from the few, it was about reinforce the power of one, president donald j. trump. be clear, i'm not defending the deal, the justice system did that. somebody is going to own cnn. sn't matter to me. here's what should matter to all of us, if president trump is gory 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 comes great 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 facts 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 #getafterit is about. if we can't agree on what is factual, feeling, what is right and what is wrong, we're never going to get anywhere. that's all for us. "cnn tonight" with don lemon, the man starts right now. >> you said it. because everybody have been asking. why hasn't he said the man lately. >> because you never answer. you blow me off and just go on with your show. so i didn't say it for a while. >> you're exactly right about what about that and what you said about at&t and what happened in court, theudge says it would be manifestly hard before you appeal e think this. 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. this is cnn tonight, i'm don lemon. now what? trump on his way back tweeting the world has