about when they will have finished reviewing documents seized in the fbi raid. they say everything will be reviewed by june 25th. investigators are saying they've reconstructed 16 pages worth of shredded documents collected in the raid. more on that in the coming days. thank you very much for watching. time to hand over to chris cuomo right now. >> thank you, wolf. happy father's day to you this weekend. i'm chris cuomo. the president going on off rants with wild statements. his former campaign chair thrown in jail. china accusing him of trade war. his counsel, rudy giuliani, driving the news cycle once again. a series of provocative and political statements going after joe biden, setting a deadline for an interview with president trump, and a bold prediction about pardons.

a lot to test. and guess what. rudy giuliani is here live coming right up. plus we're not going to let people forget what's happening on the border. jeff sessions said the choice to tear kids away from parents is what the bible tidictates. you deserve to know the truth because you didn't necessarily hear it today from the president ochb all of his different points. so many doozys it might make your head spin. it's friday night. grab a berverage and let's get after it. 100% exoneration. that is what the president is claiming after the doj's inspector general report. a report that didn't specifically address allegations against the president. now, his comments come as his personal lawyer, rudy giuliani,

dropped some bombs on the media. everyone tonight is talking about him but we are going to talk to him. rudy giuliani, welcome back to prime time. >> thank you. >> thank you for being with us. let's start with something that has nothing to do with anything but you made it relevant today. why would you call joe biden what you called him today? >> that he's dumb? >> no. that would have been a compliment. that would have been like an invitation to prom. you called him a mentally deficient idiot. >> joe was last in his law school class. >> he wasn't last. >> he was second to last. >> he didn't do well, i'll give you that. >> he had a plagiarism problem in law school and as a senator. i think that indicates something about character. constantly taking faux pass. >> why talk about joe biden? >> i was asked would he be a formidable candidate? i said no. he would be somebody the

president would like to run against. the president did fabulously as a first time national candidate. >> do you really think joe biden is stupid? >> no. in that category, i think he is. i think that explains the plagiarism. i think the plagiarism is serious. i don't think he'll get beyond that. >> that was in the 80s. >> doesn't matter. he was a united states senator. >> but we hear that all the time about your client right now. that was a long time ago. he did that a long time ago. >> don't change the subject. i mean, biden has a set of problems. so let's leave it this way. i would prefer to see him as the candidate, although, i don't know who you got. i'll tell you what worries me -- >> who's you? >> democrats. thinking your brother maybe. i would think it would have to be somebody from, a surprise, not a rethread from obama, clinton, that whole thing. i think the american electorate kind of got rid of that last time. >> this is why i'm asking you.

i don't really care -- >> i think the clinton type of emergence would be dangerous. >> who knows? they've got their own issues. i don't see it about the race. my wonder is is this part of an overall strategy for the team which is if somebody gets in our way, biden was talking about the summit. if somebody pops up, we crush them right where they stand. >> the summit was a victory for the president. >> is that why you went after biden? >> i gave an honest answer. i do that. >> let me ask you about something else. >> i knew it would get everybody aggravated. >> you took 70 seconds out of my interview for that. you said today, next week. next week we're going to figure out if there's an interview with mueller. what's the percentage chance that you do an interview, 50/50 is not accept snbl. >> i amended that to hopefully by july 4th. then there's enough time to do everything, and given the horowitz report, i think we

understand we don't want to get into ma nip youlating the election. we don't. they shouldn't. meaning the special counsel. so if we can decide by july 4th if we're going to do an interview, they can do it within two or three weeks of that. write their report, and then we move onto fighting it out. if they -- if we don't do an interview, they can decide if they want to fight us on it or just do their report. i recommend with the amount of time they've taken and the things that horowitz has produced about -- you know, i don't find the clinton part of that report is what it was about to be the most significant. i think there were a lot of problems in that and a couple of good points in it. i think the second part was the most dramatic which is how the russian collusion investigation began with a guy like peter strzok, and talking about how trump had to be defeated, are we going to defeat him right, take him out right?

he was the lead investigators for the first almost -- from the beginning of that investigation. he was there before mueller. mueller inherited it. and then mueller hired people like him. a guy who donated 36$,000 to hillary. a guy who was crying at hillary's loss party. it creates for us an issue that doesn't have to be exist which is can they be fair? can they be unbiassed? can they view the evidence in the light that's the most fair? >> i'll go through this specifics in a second. the big question is this. have you changed and now believe that mueller is not honest? >> no. i don't think mueller -- mueller is -- >> you say the probe's got to be suspended they need honest people. >> some of the people around him. >> mu mueller is okay? >> i believe that bob made one critical error that's going to doom his investigation no matter what he writes. hiring those people. i would have never done it. if you look at independent

counsel probes, they generally get nonpolitical people. three quarters of the prosecuters of high regard in that country, i'm talking about federal, are not involved in partisan politics. i wasn't involved in partisan politics until i ran for mayor. >> he's not allowed to ask. he's not allowed to ask if you've given donations to anybody, and they are allowed to do so. just a second -- >> here's what i always asked. and i kept my assistant u.s. attorneys who were part of it out a political investigation. they'd go after the mob and terrorism. i didn't have any politically active -- >> neither did he. just because they're giving campaign donations, doesn't mean they backed a campaign, and it was only at most half his team. the allegation about the guy crying at the clinton party, we don't know if it was true. >> we know he was there and partisan and has other ethical violations which are very

serious, including one in a very key case. look, should he have done it the other way? absolutely. does it give us an issue which i would be irresponsible -- >> but he's not allowed to ask his people. >> yes. he is. he is allowed to ask them if they have political biases? >> but he can't ask them about donations. if i had give an $35,000 contribution to donald trump, you think i'd be hired for an investigation on hillary clinton? and do you think that hillary clinton's lawyer wouldn't go after me like crazy? >> what i'm saying -- >> like i'm doing. shouldn't i do my job? >> the suggestion he looked for people with bias isn't s substantiat substantiated. >> he ended up with them. who cares? >> and to say strzok is the reason the investigation started isn't true in the face of the ig report. >> yes, it is. the i.g. report --

>> four layers of supervisors on top of him. >> including comey. >> that's why the i.g. finds this guy was looking for things that are wrong. this i.g. made a criminal reference. this was obama's guy, picked by him in 2011. >> not just obama's guy. he's a good friend of comey. >> but he was looking for things in this report. >> he went easy on comey. i'm sorry. he's history. i want to say what he did find, and i agree, is that the russia collusion investigation with str strzok, page, and other agents was filled with people who were anti-trump. >> he has five guys. >> that's a lot. >> out of the dozen and dozens working on the probe? >> strzok ran it. >> four layers of people on top of him. >> but he ran the day today investigations. >> they were removed -- >> he was removed when the texts were leaked by people outranged.

don't you think it sets the tone? >> your guys are accepting the findings of the report but not the conclusions of the report because he says multiple times in here -- >> wait. wait. everybody gets this wrong. everybody gets this wrong. true about comey. not true about the russia investigation. they never investigated the russia investigation. >> it's not about the russia investigation. it says though some of strzok's cast a cloud, we did not find evidence to connect the views with any specific investigative decisions. >> i don't believe that. >> you accept the findings but not the conclusions? that's a little convenient. >> it's not convenient. if a man says about my client he shouldn't be president, i'm going to do everything to stop him and he's an fbi agent, i'm sorry, the guy shouldn't be involved in the case, and i can conclude that a case in which they can't come up with a single piece of evidence about collusion to this day -- >> but this i.g. report wasn't about that. >> i know it wasn't. >> then why did the president say today, read the report, no

collusion, no obstruction. is he agreeing with the inspector general? >> he said he didn't collude. >> this has nothing to do with that. >> yes, it does. >> this? >> this says that the people conducting the collusion investigation were people who had a severe bias against him. you have to admit it was extremely irresponsible of mueller to end up with these guys. it was extremely irresponsible of mueller to have quarrels. he's not number five in the investigation. he's the chief assistant. he gave a fortune to hillary. come on. chris, you got to be fair. >> but what i'm saying, i am being fair, obviously. i'm saying there are five guys in the report. he's got a dozen lawyers plus. he's got tons and tons of agents working. >> if i were representing you and the guy investigating you and in charge of it said chris cuomo is the biggest liar in the world, i'd go to the attorney general and say take him out.

and if i didn't do it, you'd sue me for malpractice. >> i understand that. you said something else today. you said i think this may get cleaned un, the probe with a few pardons. first, i want to get your intentions straight. >> yes. >> that sounds to manafort and other guys, be quiet, we'll take care of you. >> what i did was say, first, i was asked will there be any pardons. my advice to the president as his lawyer, not as a government lawyer, is no pardons. it would completely change the momentum that we have right now. because it's very strong right now. you can see the polls moving in the president's favor and against mueller. >> then why did you suggest it? >> i didn't. i said he shouldn't pardon anybody. what i said was after the investigation is over, then it has to be considered as a government tall matter, not by me. and what the history has been is these things get cleaned up.

ford did it. reagan did it. carter did it. clinton did it and bush did it in political investigations. >> you're saying after the probe is over, it may be cleaned up with any pardons. >> if people were unfairly prosecuted. do i have anything to do with that? absolutely not. is that historically accurate, like scooter lib by? i believe may be the most defensible pardon of all is his. commutation by bush, pardoned by trump. why? because the case was a case in which they were investigating a crime that they had already solved. >> but they never talked about the pardon of scooter libby during the investigation of him. and trump is talking about pardons. >> trump is -- i was asked a question. is he going to pardon anybody. what's left out is my first answer was no. he's not going to pardon anybody. i have recommended to him every one of his lawyers has

recommended to him, and he's told us, i haven't pardoned anybody, i'm not going to pardon anybody. >> he has some people. >> gosh, that he has a right to do. >> although they do send a message. especially this early in the administration. >> what is he supposed to do? >> wait until the end. >> not do his job because mueller is investigating. >> there's a reason he's doing them right now. you don't think there's a message in any of the pardons? >> i don't think so. i think he's executing his constitutional function. if he didn't do it, he shouldn't be president. >> why do you think presidents usually wait until the end of their administration to do this. >> they don't. presidents give pardons all the time. >> it's almost always at the end. >> it isn't at the end. ronald reagan pardoned 900 people. >> most of the administrations it doesn't happen this way. this early on. the reason pardons got a bad name, they were common before bill clinton and before his corrupt pardon of the guy i prosecuted, mark ridge.

you want a sneaky pardon? that's one. >> how about ford's pardon to nixon? >> maybe, yes, maybe no. maybe it was to let the country move forward. maybe it was to let the country move forward. nixon had a lot of bad things and a lot of good things. this country would have been ripped apart by the prosecution of nixon. i believe gerald ford, knowing he would get hurt by it exercised true wisdom in that pardon. i don't know if there will be a case like that again. >> i don't know why you would get caught saying maybe a pardon. >> because i was asked a question. that's why. i didn't bring it up. i never talk about pardons. i'd rather not talk about pardons today. let me make it clear right now. he is not going to pardon anybody in this investigation. but he is not obviously going to give up his right to pardon if a miscarriage of justice is presented. >> doesn't that wind up meaning that he might? >> well, of course he could. of course he could. >> and that he might? because you're saying he won't say i won't because it would look too bad. it's too close --

>> no. he's not saying he absolutely definitively will not. he might as well give up being president. >> he could say i'm recusing myself from this aspect. >> he's not just -- >> this is just the probe. and look, jeff sessions is causing his own issues that i'm not going to put on the table today. >> jeff sessions my beef with jeff is not going to tell him in advance. i would have done that. it's not a secret. he asked me to be attorney general before jeff. >> why doesn't he just remove him then? if it's so toxic? >> because -- because he understands as i do, that that will take away great attention from what we want to talk about which is how this report points out. what we left out and my biggest surprise in the support, how numerous fbi agents took bribes to give up confidential information to the media. sports tickets, dinners, vacations.

and i don't know, maybe even cash. that is -- that's a crime. that isn't collusion which is garbage or -- >> but it's not instructive of bias for or against clinton or for or against trump. this is something that you got to police and figure out how your people do their business. >> it is not -- >> it is not insight into this. >> i don't know why it's not report if it's not. and he said those are people who are involved in the russia investigation. >> that's my point. this guy was looking for things this inspector general. >> he found dynamite there. >> he found out a lot of things. he came to conclusions you don't want to accept. there was no bias and no bad decisions made with respect to the prosecution or nonprosecution of hillary clinton. >> and the question of russian bias is still open. but he can't say that. he hasn't investigated it. he uncovered it. >> strzok, the guy you keep leaning on, he says none of strzok's decisions reflected the bias. he doesn't have any evidence of that.

>> excuse me. chris, as a person on the other side of it, i am entitled to take the conclusion that a man who says that donald trump should never be president of the united states, enwill do anything to stop him -- >> he didn't say exactly that. >> he said he shouldn't be president. >> he certainly showed and said and i'll put a stop to it, but he was obviously kidding. what was he going to do? >> he was running the investigation against him. >> here's your bad fact. >> i don't have a bad fact. >> this is a bad fact. >> to you. >> for you this is a bad fact. >> your interpretation. i'm entitled to mine. >> tell me how i'm wrong. if they wanted to hurt trump, if they wanted to show bias, the minimum standard j especially what you just pointed out with what the men and women are capable in the bureau, only some with taking graft and leaking not a single word of the trump probe for the duration of the campaign. he wanted to stop it so bad, but he wouldn't leak word of the

probe. >> here's how he hurt hillary by trying to help her. he got the weiner fax that should have been a priority. pervert online. lots of, over 70,000 -- >> what did that have to do with hillary clinton? >> we don't know. >> it had nothing to do with hillary clinton. >> yes. >> his activities online? his perverted activities online? >> no. no. >> all right. >> chris, please listen. when he took the server, when they took the server -- >> you'll break my table. >> that's okay. it's glass. when they took the server, there were on the server numerous classified documents from hillary clinton to huma abedin which were either given to him or he stole. >> not classified. >> a large number were. they concluded, he did nothing with them. but you have to have an investigation to conclude that.

>> the ig says that the decision was questionable to him but he didn't see clear proof of bias in the management. >> i'm sorry. if he thinks questionable, i think there's bias. here's the bias. they wanted to keep that under wraps until after the election. and then they opened russia because they were hoping they could get something on russia. >> but if they wanted to hurt trump, they would have leaked it during the campaign. final point to you. >> russia was started completely on the hope that they could come up with something. and to this day, they haven't. that's the key point. >> no. it was started because there was interference by a foreign power in our election, and they heard -- >> with no connection to the president of the united states. to this day, to this day, they cannot come up with a single fact. >> it's not over. nobody knows that better than you. >> they have nothing to leak. >> if you had nothing to worry about, then the president wouldn't be talking about pardons. >> the president is not talking about pardons. >> he's talked about them a lot.

>> he's being asked about it and saying i haven't pardoned anybody. i'm not giving up my right to do it. >> all right. i'll take that as you on the record. i appreciate you coming onto make the case. you're always welcome here, and we'll always be fair in doing it. happy father's day. >> to you too. another big story we don't want you to forget. it's what's happening on the border. there are cases of babies being taken from their mothers. this administration says the bible justifies their choice to do it. i'd like to know what passage that's in. i know that the attorney general put a passage out there. i don't think it was interpreted right. i'm going to ask the man with the good book in his hand right now. cardinal timothy dolan is here to tell us what the morality is here and why they may send a team of bishops to the border. next. coppertone sport. proven to protect street skaters and freestylers. stops up to 97% uv. lasts through heat. through sweat.

coppertone. proven to protect. ♪ ♪ don't juggle your home life and work life without it. business financing to help grow your business. another way we have your back. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. 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 is uncommon, 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.

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. 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.

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 afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. all right. what's happening at the border matters. almost 2000 children were separated from their families in just over a month. that number continues to grow. jeff sessions defended this by quoting scripture. let's ask someone who knows a

thing or two about scripture. cardinal dolan, i was surprised that the attorney general went this guy. in terms of the instruction of what jesus's message was, about how we should treat people like those coming across the border, what's the message? >> it's clear from jesus. i appreciate the fact that attorney general sessions refers to the bible. the quote he used from st. paul might not be the best. for one, st. paul always says we should obey the law of the government if that law is in conformity with the lord's law. no pun intended but god's law, trumps man's law. and st. paul himself who gave the quote that the attorney general used he wouldn't obey roman law when it said it was mandatory to worship the emperor. i don't think we should obey a law that goes against what god intends that you would take a baby, a child, from their mom.

i mean, that's just unjust. that's un-american and unbiblical. >> why is the church thinking about sending down a group from the counsel of bishops? >> the bishops feel very strongly that to violently take a baby from a mother's womb is wrong and also from a mother's arms is immoral as well. we're pastors. we're not politicians. we worry about the souls, the health, the spiritual and moral and physical health of the people. they are people. they're catholics. they love their faith. we think we should go down there and say we love you and you're not alone, we're with you. >> will that be enough? if they say these people are here illegally, and jeff session says i'll tell you what you should do, tell the people not to come here. >> well, i would say that doesn't speak too well of the united states. i mean, you and i are within about a mile from the statue of

liberty. in my mind that represents what's noble and sacred about the american dream. mainly that people are welcome. we bishops have no trouble. we say we should welcome the immigrant, that same thing tells us government has the right to secure and safe borders. we're for that. it's not to be proportionate. and you can have secure and safe borders, alleluia for those who provide that, while still maintaining welcoming the immigrant and refugee. that's part of america, and i don't want to see that spoiled? >> you don't believe they need to do what they say they need to do right now? >> i don't think so. if they want to be safe and interviewing and screening immigrants, fine. if they want to take a baby from the arms of his mother and separate the two, that's wrong. i don't care where you're at, what time and condition, that goes against -- you don't have to read the bible for that. that goes against human decency. it goes against what's most sacred in the human person. >> i heard one of the things

that led me to you as an authority on this is that i heard you'd been saying you don't have to come to me as a cardinal about this. it doesn't matter what you believe in in terms of your religion to believe this is wrong morally. >> i don't know if you want the jewish or christian scriptures, the kroran. we're talking about the american people and the noble american tradition. you don't have to be a believer to know this is not right to take a baby from its mother and say get lost and i don't know when you'll see your baby again. not good. not american. not human. not biblical. >> this is a key theme for pope francis. >> it is. >> i was when he was cardinal done in argentina. he's been talking about this a lot lately. >> yep. >> he recently -- we'll put up the quote. he spoke it sounded like to this situation specifically. he was saying there's no christian joy when doors are closed. there's no christian joy when

others are made to feel unwanted when there's no room for them in our midst. it was in january but it applies. >> he's become the leading prophet when it comes to the defense of refugees, when it comes to advocate for the immigrants. i'm glad he is. he's doing what jesus would do and st. paul would do and what moses taught the people of israel and he's reminding, i think, us americans of our most cherished principles. welcome to the immigrant. >> what do you say to the lawmakers? i know you're not a politician, but if you want to find a solution here, when the bishops go down there, if they're going to extend their love, their also going to wind up addressing a problem. they say this is the law. they came here illegally. and what they need to do is stop which is why the attorney general said the christian thing to do is tell them to come only legally. >> no. if i understand correctly, chris, there is such a thing as

discretionary implementation. you have a prudent judgment. they can use discretionary prudence not to implement a law that would take a baby from a mom. that's prudence. that's charity and justice. >> to people who say they're christians who say i like it, because it's her fault, she shouldn't have brought that kid her. she broke a law and took a chance. she's coming here and hurts my family and my chances of getting a job. she hurts the lawful people who want to get in. this is on her. we're not doing the wrong thing. she did. >> i would say they probably said that to your great grandparents when they came here from ireland or italy or poland or france or germany. some people may have said the same thing. thanks be to god our better angels prevailed. >> they'll say nobody came illegally like now. >> i would say if you claim to be christians, you'd better read st. matthew's gospel when he said this is what jesus is going to ask us when we stand before him on judgment day.

when i was a stranger, immigrant, you welcomed me. all right? come to heaven. but to me, that means a lot more than any particular law that we're debating about. >> you spoke at the trump inauguration. >> i didn't speak. i prayed. >> i'm sorry. you prayed at the inauguration, and you spoke about solomon and the idea of letting leadership come from the heart. >> yeah. >> how are we doing? >> well, i think we might need -- you mentioned pope frances earlier. you know one of his real trademarks is to speak about the heart. you might remember. you were there. in fact, i think it was last time we chatted when he was installed on march 19th, 2013,. he spoke about -- he gave a ring call for tenderness. what the world needs is tenderness. all right? and i just say we need a little heart here. we need some tenderness. you bet we got some cold laws that need to be enforced in a

prudent, just way. we also need, we also need a good dose to the heart. we need a good dose of love and charity, and we need that. and i think america is asking our leaders to do that. you're too young. i can remember july of 1986. governor's island in new york, ronald reagan signed one of the most comprehensive just reforms of immigration ever. he and tip o'neal can get together. two people partisan and you talk about -- if they can get together and their two parties to pass that comprehensive immigration reform, i think our leaders can do it today. enough of blame. enough of retribution and accusation. we need to get together and say let's make this work. i rejoiced that president trump could sit down with the president of north korea. certainly i hope he can sit down with paul ryan and the leaders

and say we got to make it work. we owe it to our people. and our image is suffering in the world. you don't think the rest of the world is watching american border agents taking babies from the arms of their moms? this isn't good for us and the country that we love. >> hopefully they hear you and hopefully there's action on common ground. everybody says they don't like this but nobody is doing anything about it. >> that's the problem. >> thank you for taking the opportunity. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, i appreciate it. all right. the president spent a lot of time talking to reporters today. something he almost never does. one thing he didn't talk much about, the fact that china just accused him of starting a trade war. next, we'll bring fact checkers a aboard for a fact check. next. 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... ewww! everything ok? being in the know is very good. yeah, it is. ooo don't shake! don't shake! ahhh! know if your social security number is found on risky sites. free from discover. 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 to target and remove eosinophils. fasenra™ is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with severe eosinophilic asthma. don't use fasenra™ for sudden breathing problems or other problems caused by eosinophils. fasenra™ 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™. 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.

all right. well, the president put his full matrix on mendacity on display this week. you may remember this unsubstantiated declaration. everybody can feel much safer. there is no longer a nuclear threat from north korea. there's, of course, zero proof

kim is really going to give up his nukes. he still has them. he has his missiles. they're capable of reaching the u.s., and everyone can feel much sa just 24 hours after that tweet, the president's own department of homeland security put out a warning after detecting incoming cyber attacks by north korea which is actually the most pressing threat that they present. and president trump never mentioned a word about addressing that with kim. today an onslaught of falsehoods, one after another. i pulled out a few for you. let's roll the first. >> i think that the report yesterday maybe more importantly than anything, totally exonerates me. there was no collusion. there was no obstruction. the i.g. report yesterday went a long way to show that. >> the i.g. report doesn't address any of the allegations about obstruction of justice or the mueller probe. it doesn't. the report was solely on the fbi's investigation of hillary

clinton's e-mails. let's roll the next one. >> manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. he worked for me for 49 days or something. a very short period of time. >> he's not even close. actually, mr. president, you know manafort worked for you for 144 days. you hired him in late march of 2016. he resigned in mid august of that year. he was all over the campaign. he was the face of it for a long time. he was the chair of the campaign. that's not a nothing position. then there was this. >> i hate the children being taken away. the democrats have to change their law. that's their law. >> now, this one should bother you. okay? this is not true. there is no law forcing trump, and it is him behind this. this is his department that's doing this. there's no law forcing him to do it this way. the only law that does exist from 2008 was signed by president bush.

okay? the president is also claiming that there is no trade war with china despite imposing tariffs on $50 billion worth of chinese goods. listen to this. >> what about the fact that there are a lot of people who say what's he doing? he's going to start a trade war? if he slaps 25% on $50 billion china, that's going to be good for americans? >> no. the trade war was started many years ago by them and the united states lost. >> you're saying we're on the losing end? >> there is no trade war. they've taken so much. >> the chinese responded with tariffs of their own aaccused the u.s. of launching a trade war. all right. time for a great debate. we got katherine and steven here. it's good to have you both. thank you for joining me on a friday night. >> great to be with you. >> of course. >> steven, i almost feel bad about burdening you with the responsibility of defending any of those statements as true. would you like to do that or would you just like to take a

stipulation that they're not true, let's talk about something else. >> let's start with the last one. congratulations on the new show. i love it. >> thank you. >> let's talk about the issue of china and trade. i'm a free trade guy. i agree with trump that we have been and we haven't called it a trade war, but we've bipartisee trade war with china for years. china steals about $400 billion of our computer software and drugs and vaccines, those products, and they don't pay us for it. we know we've been running very large massive trade deficits with china for 25 years. we know that china has much higher tariffs on our goods and services than the tariff that we charge them. and i think trump is right. no president not bush, not clinton, not obama, stood up to

china and stood toe to toe with them and said we can't take this anymore. >> right, but he said no trade war. they just said you started a trade war. now we're going to retaliate. >> chris, with all due respect -- >> that's -- it's. >> that's okay. >> the question was to me. >> okay. finish the point. i want katherine to have both barrels at you. what do you have? >> i just wanted to say this. trump's point is it's been like unilateral disarmament. we've let china steal our products and impose high tariffs on us and we've done nothing. >> that's fine, but he said i will do this. there will be no trade war, and if this was really about intellectual property theft, we wouldn't have done what he did with zte. he went from putting sanctions to giving them relief. that sent a mixed message. if that's not a national security threat, i don't know how any of the other tariffs

qualify. go ahead. >> okay. thank you. thank you. i'd love to jump in on this conversation. first, it is true. it is true that china has been a bad actor specifically with regard to our intellectual property. if you want to do business in china, often you have to transfer your technology to chinese firms. that's a bad thing. it's false to say that obama did nothing about it. the transpacific type, tpp, was specifically about keeping china in line. it wasn't only the united states that had companies that were suffering as a result of these ip infractions. it was lots of other countries' companies as well. this was about bringing together a coalition of the willing to use an ek presentation used by larry kudlow, to basically ban together and try to get tough on china. the way to get tough on china is to get together with your allies who are also suffering and use that as leverage. instead, trump withdrew us from tpp and is instead going through

with these sort of willie nilly tariffs that are bad for u.s. firms in addition to not inflicting a lot of pain on china. if you really want to get tough on china, we had a way to do it. we had 11 other countries or so on board, and we pulled out. there were plenty of multilateral ways that are much more effective that have proven much more effective, and instead, trump decided he didn't really feel like learning about them, and said you know what this i'm going to come out guns blazing and just slap tariffs on stuff. and at this point we could be trying to reenlist the allies in this fight against china to get china in line, and instead we're alienating them through steal and aluminum tariffs on our allies and other rhetoric. i think we're going about this the wrong way, and again, it's absolutely false to say that there was no attempt prior to this administration to do

anything that made sensible -- that was a sensible strategy for this. >> steven, i have a sneaking suspicious you've been quiet because you agree with a lot of that. my basis is i've had this discussion with you before. i know you weren't in favor of a lot of stuff the president has done. >> i agree with some of that. i do think if you're going to fight -- let's not call it a trade war, but trade dispute. i don't like the term trade war. >> china likes it. >> history tells you you don't want to fight a three or four front war at the same time. i agree. it doesn't make sense to be picking a fight with canada or germany or korea at a time when we're trying to really go after the bad actor which is china. i don't agree that somehow if we had -- and i was sort of open-minded to the tpp. i wasn't hugely in favor. i think there were real problems that trump identified. i don't see how that -- >> like what? >> let me finish this point.

i don't see how that alone -- >> i like the question. what were the problems? you got to specify on this show. >> yeah. what were the problems? >> and how did he fix them? >> well, look, those countries have very high tariffs that weren't going to come down nearly enough, actually. i mean, look, if you look at the situation around the world today, i just looked at the numbers. >> oh, please. >> katherine, let me finish the point. virtually every country except australia has higher tariffs on us than we have on them. i'm a free trade guy. trump says i'm not against free trade. i'm for fair trade. one other point. almost nobody in the media has focussed on this, but in the last hours of the g7 meeting this weekend, this past weekend, in canada, trump at the behest of larry kudlow who ju mentioned, katherine, put zero tariffs on the table. >> oh, that was so disingenuous. oh, yeah, he wants no tariffs

whatsoever. come on. he is the one who is levying tariffs on not only china who i will -- as we have both agreed, is a bad actor. on canada, on mexico. places that have -- >> because they have -- >> they are comparable to ours. they are comparable to ours. he is talking about putting -- not talking about. he has actually levied tariffs, worldwide on steel and aluminum in ways that are completely bad for u.s. industry. when you look at the numbers, the number of firms, the number of jobs that depend on steel and aluminum as inputs, it's many, many multiples. so come on. it's just bonkers and completely bogus to say trump really just wants to bring down tariffs? >> he put it on the table. he put it on the table and none of the other countries took him up on that. >> because it's disingenuous. >> it's a fact. they have higher trade barriers on us. how can we be the bad actor.

>> they don't. look at world bank data. there's an average tariff rate across wul industries and products and we are comparable to a lot of the other countries you're talking about. >> no. >> yes. >> we're about half the level. can ka -- canada, you're right. >> go to the world bank site and look it up. >> i want to move on. one of the problems of having smart people is sometimes you argue nuance. you got to look at it apples to apples. that was what was being brought out there. yes, they may be higher but if you look at the number of jobs and firms you start to scale it up and see it's not as disproportionate as you're suggesting. people can do their own research. we'll lay it out here. i want to ask about something for black and white. the administration says, steven, we have to separate families at the border. it's what the law demands that the democrats put in place. that is false. the 2008 law that applies here was signed by bush, catch and

release which was a policy was a policy choice by the obama administration. trump doesn't like that policy. he's made a different choice. this isn't about the law. it's about what trump wants to do. fair point. >> so, i'm not a lawyer. i did some preparation for this show and tried to look into what exactly is the law with respect to parents who bring -- you know, who -- migrants who bring their kids with them. i was trying to figure it out. i couldn't quite figure it out. >> here's the law. you don't have to do this. you choose what you prosecute and how you don't. if you do prosecute, you have certain rules you must follow. >> okay. i'll bring up that point. here's a couple points. number one, trump said today, and i'm in agreement, that we should move away from a policy. i think almost everyone agrees. we don't want to take kids away from their parents. let's accept that. >> i can't accept it, steven. he's doing it. >> okay. but here's the point. i listen to your conversation with the

. >> certainly we believe as catholics to love the stranger. but the question is -- where the cardinal is going with this -- i wonder where you and catherine fall on this t basically saying anyone who wants to come into the country can come in. >> no, it wasn't saying that. catherine, the government said something very interesting and i want to tee up. the idea of the president saying i hate this, i wash i didn't have to do it. it's just not true. the gov was defending a suit against the aclu. he was the defense, zourt has no authority to order either form of this relieve which was asking them to do to change because these are dris cession fair immigration actions that are shielded from review by statute. you don't have to be a lawyer to foe what that means. it means this is what we want to

do. it's within our per view, you can't stop us. >> i think the whole policy has completely put the lie to two things that republicans have claimed to stand for which is family vale and law. the president argues he has no choice than to separate children from their parents, some as young as 55 weeks old for this reason, we have to prosecute everyone who commits a crime for crossing the border. >> which is a misdemeanor. >> right. itself completely false. first of all, a lot of people who are being prosecuted did not actually commit a crime. if you look through that acl lawsuit that you referenced, there are a number a asylum seekers that did exactly what trump administration and the federal government for that matter for many years have instructed them to do. they have presented themselves at a port of entry, they have not actually crossed that border

and crossed into the united states unlawfully. what they've done is, is said, hi, i'm presenting myself and my kids and we'd like to apply fir asylum. and they're saying, okay, we're going to arrest you now. t not the case that they're breaking the law, which is again the excuse the trump administration is saying, saying, we do this with all criminals. this is so disingenuous, the reason the trump administration is blaming democrats -- >> because it works catherine. let's leave that there. the bottom line is, if the president doesn't want to do what's happening at the border he can stop it with a phone call. don lemon up next. he's standing by with a preview of "cnn tonight." cardinal and rudy giuliani was -- rudy dropping bombs about

how the mueller project is dirty. >> and you used to need facts, that's all you needed. i'm so glad that you drove down on that with that past panel. and you also talked about, how the president just came out to do and gave that impromptu press conference, if you want to call it that on the lawn. it's great he's talking to the media but there were a lot of lies in that. he said i hate that children are being taken away, the democrats have to change that law. that has been debunked by many news -- it is not a law, this is the trump expression. >> thank you very much. i'll see you in a second. >> yep. coming up, i wen face to face with one of the most notorious serial killers we've ever had. it's part of a documentary i'm doing with cnn called "inside

evil" next. e! instant purchase notifications from capital one . technology this helpful... could make history. what's in your wallet? proven to protect street skaters and freestylers. stops up to 97% uv. lasts through heat. through sweat. coppertone. proven to protect. 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!

noooooo! no! noooo. try directv now for $10 a month for 3 months. more for your thing. that's our thing. visit directvnow.com 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 is uncommon, 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.

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 afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. this sunday we're going to delve into the mind of one of

america's most notorious serial killers on the cnn documentary "inside evil" here a preview. >> did you get a rush from the killing? >> 17 victims. >> joe rib kin is a psycho path. >> he wanted us to know. >> it was terrifying. >> it was very quick second. everything changed. >> "inside evil" premieres sunday on hln at 8:00 p.m. eastern. that's all for us tonight, thank you so much for being with us this week. we're back monday night. "cnn tonight" with don lemon starts right now. that series is no joke my

friend. >> yeah i -- >> don't watch it alone. especially you. >> i'm not a scare di cat. you know what i didn't get to talk to you about. i think there was a method to the president's madness this morning. >> what do you got. >> i think he was trying to distract. he knew it was going to come out with paul manafort it was going to be bad, and with michael cohen and on and on. i think he was trying to change the news psyching. that's just my -- >> don lemon it is rare that someone is gifted with the looks you have and such a keen insight. we know he did, all the signature traits, impromptu, he teamed up with rudy. you think that that was an accident? on a friday morning rudy comes out of nowhere and calls joe biden what ever he called him. joe biden, how'd he enter the discussion? you know why, because he know we'd pick up on it.