the nickname history will bestow on president trump. when it comes to stature, even when you're saluting him, abe seems to turn everyone into the size of one of his shins. jeanne moos, cnn -- >> build that wall, build that wall! >> reporter: new york. >> build that wall, build that wall! >> all right. thanks for watching. anderson's next. good evening. we begin tonight with breaking news. fast breaking news. the federal court for the eastern district of virginia is known as the rocket docket, and today in day one of the paul manafort bank and tax fraud trial, it lived up to its name. a jury was picked. opening statements were made, and the first witness took the stand. as courtrooms go, that is happening at warp speed. mr. manafort, as you know, was chairman of the trump campaign. and as you may also know, the man he helped elect and the people surrounding him aren't exactly imbraesing him since robert mueller's grand jury indicted him. >> paul manafort is a nice guy.

but, you know, he worked for me for a very short period of time. literally for what, a couple of months? >> the president hired paul manafort to handle the delicate process which he did, and he was dismissed not too long after that. >> manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. >> he was with him for four months. >> paul manafort, who played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time. >> you know, paul manafort worked for me for a very short period of time. >> and mr. manafort, as i read it, had requested that there be no mention of his brief tenure at the campaign. >> you worked for me, what, 49 days or something? a very short period of time. >> i believe paul was brought on some time in june. and by the middle of august, he was no long were the campaign, meaning that for the entire final stretch of the general election, he was not involved. >> manafort? manafort? who is this paul manafort you speak of? keeping them honest, they used to know who he was. once upon a time, and they didn't mind saying so. >> i have fantastic people. paul manafort just came on.

he's great. >> paul was amazing. he helped us get through the primary process. >> i brought paul in because a very, very smart friend of mine who knew him very well has said he is fantastic. >> paul manafort remains as our chairman. >> paul manafort. >> paul manafort. >> paul manafort. >> mr. manafort. >> bringing a professional in like paul helped us grow the campaign. and we need ten more of these. everything that paul did for the campaign was one less thing i had to do. >> that's who paul manafort was. now i remember. what a difference a year and about 300 years worth of federal criminal indictments make. joining us now from the federal courthouse from alexandria, cnn, cnn's jessica schneider. so what did we learn today at the trial? >> anderson, we learned a lot. it was only the first day here, but this courtroom is definitely living up to its rocket docket reputation. they managed to whittle down this jury pool of 65 people down to 12 jurors plus four alternates, and then of course we heard the fiery opening statements here. in this, prosecutors shed some

light on paul manafort's lavish lifestyle, and they did it by talking about his 30 hidden foreign bank accounts they say existed in three different countries. and they say that funded that lavish lifestyle that included seven different homes ranging from virginia to manhattan all the way to the hamptons on long island. they also talked about his $500,000 luxury clothing. they mentioned a $21,000 watch, and they even, yes, mentioned a $15,000 jacket made of other triche. b -- ostrich. and then the defense team is focusing on the blame game, saying the only reason paul manafort set up these hidden offshore accounts was because the russian oligarchs who were paying him, they say they told him to. they're also laying some of this blame on rick gates, his former deputy campaign manager. and then at the end of the day today, we did hear from the first witness here, tad devine, a democratic consultant. he worked with paul manafort

overseas in ukraine. and anderson, tad devine talked about the work that they did overseas, and he also talked about paul manafort's very close relationship with the pro-putin former president of ukraine, victor if yanukovych. >> you were saying ostrich feathers. oh please let there be a picture of paul manafort in ostrich feathers. i realize it's ostrich skin. how does gates fit into all of this? >> interestingly, the defense team has already told the jury of what could be a rather bold move here. they plan to lay out their defense really discrediting rick gates. rick gates, of course, was the deputy to paul manafort when paul manafort was the campaign chairman for the trump team. and rick gates was charged with the exact same things paul manafort was. he, though, has since pleaded guilty to lying. he is cooperating with the special counsel's team. the defense team, though, is taking that saying that rick

gates is all to blame here. they're saying he is the one who stole and embezzled money. they're saying he's the one who lied. and now they're trying flip this on the government. rick gates will be the government's star witness, but the defense team is saying how can he be your star witness? rick gates is an admitted liar and he is now cooperating with the government. >> what's next for the trial? what happens tomorrow? >> just day one, we've already seen a lot. but day two we're expecting that the prosecution will be calling two more witnesses. we expect another democratic consultant who worked with paul manafort. we're also expecting to hear from an fbi agent. the prosecution here says that they have a witness list of 35 people that they plan to call, but this trial is really only expected to go three weeks. we saw just how fast this trial moved just in the first day here. so who knows. it could wrap up even sooner. but yes, 35 witnesses of the prosecution is expecting to call. anderson? >> i'm amazed how fast it moved today. jessica schneider, thank you so much. we have new reporting now from cnn's jeff zeleny, more on the

white house strategy for dealing with the trial. item one, distancing the president from paul manafort. we're learning the president watched coverage on his way down to florida today. that's according to officials who spoke to jeff. and staffers ask for regular updates as the trial proceeds. joining us is jeffrey toobin, a former federal prosecutor. so is jennifer rodgers. and jason ask a former adviser. it's day one and jury opening selection statements and the first witness called. what does it tell you how about this trial is going to proceed? >> it's going to be two weeks rather than three weeks. i just have no doubt this trial will go faster than expected. that's how it always works in the eastern district of virginia. and it's a place where prosecutors win almost all the time. it is known as a very pro-prosecution jurisdiction, and given the facts of this case, i think manafort is just in an a world of trouble. >> but jeff, the judges want prosecutors the steer clear of

anything russia-related. that -- is it the elephant in the room there for the jurors? or can they do that? >> i have a lot of confidence in jurors in matters like this. the real problem for paul manafort here is there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he paid his taxes. i mean, he got all this money. it was stashed in these foreign bank accounts, and the taxes weren't paid. now like most people who are accused of a crime with a cooperating witness, he's going try to put all the blame on the cooperating witness that is a standard strategy. it rarely works. but it sometimes does. and but it's just going to be difficult for persuade the jury that somehow rick gates is responsible for the fact that paul manafort made millions upon millions of dollars and didn't pay his taxes. >> jennifer, do you agree that that defense strategy, trying to pin it all on rick gates, who is a cooperating witness, that's basically the kind of defense 101? >> it is. it exactly. the problem here is that rick

gates, of course, was not cooperating until after the charges were filed. they were prepared to proceed without rick gates on board. they have all the documentary evidence. like jeff just said, these are individual income taxes that paul manafort lied about, not to mention some properties on which there was mortgage fraud, had nothing to do with rick gates in the hamptons and in brooklyn. he is going to have a really hard time ping all of this on rick gates, for sure. >> the push from the president's allies arguing that paul manafort was nobody on their campaign, he only worked there for four months, i think the president said 49 days at one point. they can try to put all the distance they want between him and the president, but he wasn't the coffee boy. he was the campaign chairman. >> i think the smarter tactic here is to remind people over and over these charges have absolutely nothing to do with the campaign. and even the witnesses being put forward have nothing to do with the campaign at all with the exception of the one sidekick that followed paul manafort over the last 20 plus years or so of his career.

look, paul manafort was the campaign chairman for a certain stretch, i guess from somewhere like the middle end of june going into the early august time frame. >> four months. >> where his role was essentially -- yes, there was a longer stretch of involvement. but the period after corey lewandowski left and when paul was essentially head of the campaign was a relatively shorter stretch, and his main focus was on the convention. but i do think this has been misportrayed in the media where i think it's come across as though president trump wouldn't have been able to get through the republican convention if it wasn't for paul manafort. did paul manafort help prevent some of the brain damage if it had gone forward and there had been a floor fight and such things like that? of course. but was there any chance that president trump was going to get caught up at convention or he wasn't going to get through or anything like that? of course not. let's not go and blow it out of proportion. so the role that he played was a relatively shorter amount of time. and i don't think we need to go and blow that out of proportion. but again, everything that's happening to paul manafort, those are paul manafort

problems. those are not donald trump problems. >> it's harder to blow it out of proportion, jeff, if your title is chairman of the campaign. it seems like a pretty big time. >> absolutely. and remember what's charged with. he is charged with taking millions upon millions of dollars from victor yanukovych who was the pro putin politician in the ukraine. >> ukraine. >> so it's not that this is completely unrelated to the whole russia situation. remember too that during the convention, they changed the platform toe make the ukrainian section more pro-putin. so the entire thrust of the trump campaign, which the issue of a conspiracy with the russian interests remains the heart of the investigation, manafort's presence in the campaign is evidence of sympathy to putin in and of itself. so in that respect, it's not the criminal charges, but who paul

manafort is, is highly relevant to this investigation. >> but jeffrey, if i could just jump in real quick, is there some sort of crime that you're accusing the president of? >> no. >> here? >> no. i'm not. but when you are asking why the president had this fixation with vladimir putin, which apparently continues to this day, and why vladimir putin was so desperate to see donald trump win and hillary clinton lose, and why donald trump was asking russians to hack e-mails, which they did the same day, all of it is relevant evidence to what happened in this campaign. >> jennifer, at some point rick gates himself will have to testify. do you think he'll find anything out about -- will we find anything out about the larger mueller investigation from that? . >> you know, the one way that we could is that when a cooperator testifies, the defense is entitled to cross-examine him or

her about all impeachment material. so if rick gates did things during the campaign that were illegal or go to his credibility, then prosecutors could raise that and the defense could cross-examine on it. you know, it seems from some of the pretrial motions in litigation that the word russia i guess one of the prosecutors said probably won't even be uttered. so it sounds like they don't have that kind of impeachment material that they need to front and that manafort's lawyers will cross on. so i'm suspecting not. but if there is anything like that, that would be the context in which it would be raised. >> jason, president trump has said on more than one occasion about only hiring the best. if that's true, shouldn't the campaign have done its due diligence when it came the paul manafort and figured out if manafort had been operating aboveboard or not? this is a pretty, you know, sleazy track record that the prosecutors certainly have laid out. >> well, absolutely. but there is no such thing as a time machine. and so the fact of the matter is that paul manafort was on board for as i said before, a

relatively shorter amount of time, and he was not the person who ultimately was the campaign manager that took us across the finish line. that was kellyanne, as you know along with steve bannon and a whole host of other folks who were on board. but look, paul manafort, we primarily focused on the convention phase of this, did have a long track record of working with conventions and things like that. but i think one of the other things that i think kind of a little jumbled up in the media is that president trump and manafort weren't particularly close. i don't think that president trump really knew much all about paul manafort's background. these were not two men who would hang out, grab dinner or lunch or chat. >> but to the point the president constantly saying he hires the best, that seems to imply he knows who he's hiring. your argument is he didn't really know this guy even though he went on tv multiple times and talked about what a great guy he was. >> well, he got a mulligan in this one. >> but what's the one thing donald trump knew about paul manafort, which was that he worked for victor yanukovych.

that was basically his only client for years. and the fact that he worked for yanukovych, the pro putin politician in ukraine was good enough for donald trump. that tells you something in and of itself, no? >> but i think the one thing that president trump knew is that paul manafort had convention experience. >> in the '80s. in the '80s. 30 years ago. >> but it's been a long time since there was a real convention fight. keep in mind it had been rite lit rally decades since there was a real convention battle within republican party politics. he wasn't being brought on for any policy matters or any grand strategic vision. he is someone who was going to manage the convention. that was the value he was demonstrating at that particular time. >> all right, jason miller, jeff toobin, jennifer rodgers, thanks very much. up next, the president's trip to florida and his flight from any tough questions or any place he might encounter any tough questions. we're keeping him honest on that. also, breaking news. in the fight over firearms that you can make at home with a

special printer and the plans a court tonight just blocked from getting out. the legal battle and the role the white house played in this with 3-d printing guns ahead on "ac 360." before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, lucy could only imagine enjoying a slice of pizza. now it's as easy as pie. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? back pain can't win. all-night protection. now introducing aleve back and muscle pain. only aleve targets tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve back & muscle. all day strong. all day long. and now is the best time to buy. preparing classic campfire trout. say what? trout. trout. all right. you don't think i need both? why does he have that axe?

make summer go right with ford america's best selling brand. now get 0% financing for 72 months plus $1,000 ford credit bonus cash on a great selection of suv's. during the ford summer sales event, get our best offer of the season 0% financing for 72 months plus $1,000 ford credit bonus cash. agent beekman was one step ahead of them.dits stole the lockbox from the wells fargo stagecoach, 0% financing for 72 months plus because he hid his customers' gold in a different box. and the bandits, well, they got rocks. we protected your money then and we're dedicated to helping protect it today. like alerting you to certain card activity we find suspicious. if it's not your purchase, we'll help you resolve it. it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day.

-we're in a small room. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this?

-[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you. -that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending! but it's tough to gete enough of their nutrients. is if my mom were here. new one a day with nature's medley is the only complete multivitamin with antioxidants from one total serving of fruits and veggies try new one a day with nature's medley. so what do you guys want? pistachio. chocolate chip. rocky road. i see what's going on here. everybody's got different taste. well, now verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plans so everybody gets the plan they want, without paying for things they don't. jet-setting moms can video-chat from europe. movie-obsessed teens can stream obscure cinema. it's like everyone gets their own flavor of unlimited. (chuckles) it's a metaphor. simile, not a metaphor. hm. well played. (vo) one family. different unlimited plans. starting at $40 per line. switch now and get $300 off our best phones

all on the network you deserve. well, it is july 31st and that give us an opportunity to point something else. the white house has only held three press briefings all month. these things used to be common enough that they were called the daily white house briefing, which meant daily. now you can call them nearly extinct, which makes what you're to be hear fairly odd. give a listen and ask yourself, does this sound like a promise? >> we're here. we're taking questions. we're doing everything we can to provide regular and constant information to the american people, and there is a responsibility by you guys to provide accurate information, and we're going to continue to try to work with you. >> well, she said that may 9th.

that entire month, there were nine white house press briefings. in june, just five. this month, only three. so tell us what was that again? >> we're here. we're taking questions. we're doing everything we can to provide regular and constant information to the american people. >> everything they can do to provide regular and constant information. everything they can do. see, for a minute there, it sounded like sarah sanders was actually promising to provide regular and constant information to the american people. her why they promised the people one thing and is doing the polar opposite, but we haven't had the chance because there have only been three briefings this sara sanders about her promise, take a number. if you want to see the president challenged about why the white house lied about the president not being involved with wanting to buy karen mcdougal's size after audiotape shows he actually was, sorry, you are out of luck. and the same goes for false and

misleading statements like this one just yesterday. the president tweeting a highly respected federal judge today stated that the trump administration gets great credit for reuniting legal families. thank you, and please look at the previous administration's record. not good. the president neglected to point out that the judge essentially admonished him for essentially making orphans out of kids. you can omit, you can rephrase, you can make stuff up. whatever you want, and no one can challenge you. last year anthony scaramucci, the new white house communications director for those ten glorious days, or was it 11, refused to commit to regular white house briefings. the following may the president threatened to replace them with written handouts he said in the name of accuracy. that didn't happen. but it sure likes the idea of reducing transparency and accountability is actually gaining traction at the white house today. president trump, for example, left for his trip to florida this afternoon without saying a word to reporters. and in case you're wondering, that is par for the course.

alongside italy's prime minister yesterday, the president refused to answer questions 16 times in just the last six days. >> thank you, thanks, guys. thank you. >> mr. president, sir, is michael cohen lying? >> did michael cohen betray you? >> mr. president, did michael cohen debev tray you, sir? mr. president, why did you cancel the meeting with vladimir putin, sir? >> well, that's what we're seeing more and more of, unanswered questions and fewer chances to ask them. and in the meantime, the president reportedly is itching for more occasions like he just finished up at tonight, rallies where he can say whatever he wants and hear nothing in return but applause. our jim acosta is in tampa tonight, joins us. this lack of transparency. is there any other reason they're doing this other than the fact they don't want to answer questions about why the president lied and why the white

house, why the campaign i should say, lied about the president not knowing anything about karen mcdougal and ami and the deal? >> anderson, i think the only thing you can conclude, and you're going to hear some folks here, i think, letting their feelings be known at this rally here in tampa, about how they feel about cnn. but anderson, i think the honest answer to your question is that this white house is obviously hiding from the press. they're hiding the president from the press. they are hiding the press secretary from the press. that's the only conclusion you can come to when they've only had five press briefings in the last month of june, and only three press briefings this month. i mean, that is historically at a very low level. now, one thing we should point out, anderson, at this rally tonight, the president went after what he calls fake news. he even talked about fake polls, even though he touted a poll that he said that he had seen saying he was the most popular republican president ever.

it's hard to understand how you can have fake polls but also out the polls show you being popular. but anderson, despite the president going after the press, he just hadn't given us opportunities to ask him very many questions. and i think there really is no other reasonable conclusion other than they just don't like the questions that are going to be asked right now. you know, i've been trying to talk to white house aides about this, and one of the things you hear, and they've said this before in the past is that, well, when the president has a speech, or when he has an event, they don't want to step on the message of the day. well, the president had a speech tonight, and so there was no press briefing today. it is possible they could have one tomorrow, anderson, but we just don't know at this point. >> so there is no idea when the next one might be held? >> say that again? >> there is no idea, it's not a schedule when the next one might be held? >> you know, i think it is possible. i'm pushing these earpieces in my ear just to hear you, anderson. i think it's possible they could hold one perform. but aides are being very cagey

about it. one thing they'll talk about as they have these off camera gaggles when the president is traveling down on air force one, and that sort of thing to various events. but as you and i both know, anderson, that's not the same as having an on-camera briefing with the press secretary coming into the briefing room. you know we used to call them daily press briefings. they're barely weekly press briefings anything. and i think, anderson, the only conclusion you can draw at this point is they just don't like the questions right now. and it's amazing, anderson. you're hearing some of the insults being hurled at us right now. i've been talking to some of these folks this evening, even though they're being pretty negative towards us right now. i answered a bunch of questions from some of these trump supporters here about all sorts of things, a lot more questions than the president has taken from us in recent days, anderson. >> gem acosta, appreciate you being there. thanks, jim. i want to bring in two new voices. one from david axelrod with long white house experience managing the message. and carl bernstein, who has even longer experience holding presidents accountable,

including this one, shares a buyline on the michael cohen scoop. everyone has issues with the preside press. have you ever seen a white house that has had this many issues with the press? >> well, i've never seen a white house who has had many, many issues, not just issues with the press, but every -- this is a precedent-shattering white house. and particularly when it comes to issues of transparency and disclosure, starting with the president's refusal to release his tax returns and running through a whole series of things. i think the important thing, though, here is beyond not answering questions about michael cohen and the probe which are uncomfortable, we've also seen the practice suspended of briefing people, briefing the press when the president speaks to foreign leaders. we are only -- americans are only finding out what the president has said in their name from reports from foreign governments. it's two weeks later. we still don't know what was said between him and vladimir

putin. i mean, there are fundamental things, bits of information that the american people deserve, and, you know, the bottom line is this president doesn't believe that he has any obligation to share that information with people. he calls the press the enemy of the people. he conflates his political interest with the public interest. and he thinks that reporting is a hostile act. >> yeah, the fact is we're not even sure he has told his secretary of state or his secretary of defense exactly what was discussed with vladimir putin in that meeting. it's not clear from their own -- from pompeo's testimony that he really has a full read-out from the president. >> right. >> carl, you fought with many white houses over the years trying to get your questions answered. nixon's secretary ron ziegler had a famously adversarial relationship with the press. how would you describe things

now? >> i think it's far worse. news organizations from "the washington post" to "the new york times" to cnn, ap, reuters are doing some of the greatest reporting we have ever seen on a presidency. and the result is that the american people understand what the facts are. they can make up their own minds about it because of our reporting. the idea that somehow we would expect this president, this presidency, this administration to be anything like open or transparent or honest or truthful at this stage of the game is absurd on our part. and we're doing the right thing by doing our reporting. donald trump is the president of his base. he makes no attempt to be the president of all the people of this country. and part of appealing to his base is to make the conduct of the press the issue rather than the conduct of donald trump and his presidency. so that's where we are, and the great part of this, as opposed to the part that we ought to be

terrified about is that we're doing the reporting. and that's really why he is so upset, why he is so furious, why he is going to ground the way he is, because we have raised the questions about what is truthful, particularly about his relationship with putin, particularly about his relationship with michael cohen. we've raised the questions. they're out there, and the people of this country know that they're out there. >> david, to carl's point, it's not just about making the press the enemy, it's making nfl players the enemy at times when it suits the president, or making, you know, undocumented immigrants the enemy, or whomever it may be to suit the president's needs at any given time. i want to ask you, though, about comparing to the obama administration. because kaitlan collins was barred last week from attending an event in the rose garden at the white house, didn't like questions she asked. obviously the white house has issues with cnn and their

coverage there are those who say look at the obama administration. they didn't always give the same access to fox news as everyone else or the same number of introduce. to that you say what? is that a fair comparison? >> i don't -- no, i don't think it's a fair comparison because they never boxed fox reporters from doing their jobs. i talked to fox news reporters all the time when i was in the white house. they asked questions at presidential press conferences and so on. i don't think it's -- look, as you pointed out at the beginning, every president is irritated at times by their coverage, but most presidents understand that that is part of the obligation of the job. that a free press is enshrined in the first amendment for a reason. but i just want to react to one thing that carl said. it's not just that he's using the press as a foil with his base. he is trying to impeach the media so that when facts are

reported that are inconvenient to him, he can dismiss them as political in nature. and that to me is a very insidious thing. that's really, you know -- that is the stuff of autocratic states. and so while i agree with carl that the reporting has been aggressive, it's been thorough, it's been critical, there is still concern about a president who doesn't really believe in a free press. >> and carl, it is not just the lack of press briefings. you know, the president himself still hasn't directly answered questions about why his campaign lied about their involvement in trying to buy karen mcdougal's rights -- the rights to her story from ami, which the campaign claim they'd had no knowledge of, they knew nothing about the ami deal, nor has he answered any questions about your reporting that he allegedly knew about the trump tower meeting in advance. >> this president and this

presidency and this white house has no -- no interest in the truth as we have known it in every other presidency. this president and this presidency has an interest only in its own propaganda, its own lies, its own version of events that have nothing to do with real existing information. you know, i went to jack kennedy's press conferences, starting with his third one. i was copy boy at the time. and if you were to go back and watch him and every successive president of the united states, including richard nixon, you would not see anything comparable to the lying, to the unavailability to being open and transparent, such as we have seen in this presidency. this presidency and this president is unique. we have never had anything like this in our history in terms of

disinformation. >> yeah. >> misinformation, and an attempt to undermine the truth at every turn. not just in a criminal conspiracy like watergate, but about everything. >> carl bernstein. >> so i think there are no surprises at this point. >> carl, thank you. david axelrod as well. a quick note we should point out that anthony scaramucci's tenure came shortly after the idea the president floated eliminating press briefings. i'm sorry, i was wrong on that. coming up, a federal judge makes a decision on the 3-d printed guns that have been causing so much controversy. and after the president tweets, the white house and the nra have very similar statements about the undetectable and untraceable guns. the latest next. from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. you can barely feel. no, what??

i just switched to geico and got more. more? got a company i can trust. that's a heck of a lot more. over 75 years of great savings and service. you can't argue with more. why would ya? geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more. 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.

a federal judge in washington state has issued a temporary restraining order stopping the release of blood pressures -- blood pressuueprin. how to make a plastic gun with a 3-d printer. a court battle ensued. last month there was a settlement that aloud the plans to be posted online starting august 1. multi-sta multi-states' attorneys general have moved to stop it. it doesn't seem to make much sense. hours later the white house deputy press secretary said this on air force one. >> in the united states, it's currently illegal to own or or make a holy plastic gun of any kind, including those made on a 3-d printer. the administration supports

nearly two decade-old law and will continue to look at all options available to us to do what is necessary to protect americans while also supporting the first and second amendments. >> so it strikes a lot of the same chords as the nra statement, which reads in part, quote, regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. a federal law passed in 1988 crafted with the nra support makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sale, shift, deliver, possess, transfer or receive are an undetectable firearm. joining me now is washington state attorney general bob ferguson, who just scored that court victory stopping release of the blueprints, at least temporarily. thanks for being with us. attorney general, the temporary restraining order that you've been granted, what does it mean going forward in terms of the law here? >> yeah, in terms of the law -- thanks for having me on again, anderson. appreciate it. this is a nationwide ban. so what it does is takes us back to a period of time before the federal government flipped on

their policy regarding these 3-d ghost guns. what it means is if anyone posts this information online, they're in violation of federal law and can suffer very serious consequences. so it makes it unlawful to post that information and make it available to the public. >> why did the government offer a settlement to allow these blueprints on the internet in the first place? do we know? wasn't it the state department that stepped in to prevent them from being posted online? >> that is a very good question, anderson. and truly, it's baffling to me and many others why the federal government made this decision. and just to be clear, to your point, there has been a court case going on texas in which the obama administration and the trump administration opposed this entity down in texas from making this information public. the state department filed declarations, talking about the national security risk and public safety risk of any process, no procedure, no nothing. they caved on a case they were winning and allowed this entity to go forward. it's truthfully breathtaking, and the risk to public safety is hard to overstate.

>> yeah, the cody wilson, the man who invented the first 3-d printed gun told cnn today that despite your suit, he has already uploaded plans for the ar-15 semiautomatic rifles have been downloaded more than 2100 times. how concern ready you? and is there anything you can do than? once it's out there, it's out there, isn't it? >> so i am very concerned than. and every american who is be very concerned about that. and the president of the united states should be very concerned about that. and he can put a stop to this right now. he should tell his attorneys to stand down in this litigation and allow us to declare victory in this case and move forward. so, yes, some folks have been able to act a says information. but obviously, anderson, if it's allowed to go forward for days, weeks, months, obviously many more thousands of people would have access to it. we want to limit that damage, and we're very thankful our judge here in seattle granted our request for a restraining order to shut this donation wide. >> this notion from the white house and from the nra that, quote, regardless of what a person may be able to publish on

the internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. so that you say what? >> well, i say why are you fighting in me in court, then? we're going to court to go back to a time in which it was illegal to do this. the u.s. government was in court today saying no, the entity should be allowed to post this information. so once again, we have an administration, we have a white house where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing. they're not communicating in concert with one another. there is nothing new about that, anderson. i've been on your show many times and i've filed 32 lawsuit against this administration. in ten cases, we have decisions. i won all ten of them. one of the reasons i've won all ten is because this administration can't keep their story straight. they're sloppy. and frankly, they're dangerous when it comes to public safety. and that's why i'm so relieved judge lasnick took the action he did today. >> thanks for being on today. >> thank you. this is a day after his private tv attorney rudy giuliani said the same thing.

we'll have an examination of that just ahead. (burke) at farmers, we've seen almost everything so we know how to cover almost anything. even "vengeful vermin." not so cute when they're angry. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

so chances are, you've seen us around the house. or... around the yard. on the shelf... or even... out in the field. your mom knew she could always count on us... and your grandma did too. because for over 150 years, we've been right by your side. advancing the health of the people, plants and pets you love. so, from all of us at bayer... thank you for trusting in us. then... and now.

it took a while, but president trump followed in his private attorney's footsteps today tweeting:00 collusion with russia in the 2016 election. quote, collusion is not a crime but that doesn't matter because there was no collusion except by crooked hillary and the

democrats. rudy giuliani said pretty much the same thing yesterday morning cnn. >> which i don't eno ifs they a crime, colluding about russians. >> okay. >> you start analyzing the crime. the hacking is the crime. the hacking is the crime. >> yes. of course not. that's the original -- >> well, in the strictest sense, both president trump and giuliani are correct. there is no statute against collusion. joining me to deconstruct, retired colonel ralph peters. this change from the president months and monthsingi there was no collusion, now saying in addition to that collusion was not a crime. the fact that giuliani is saying that as well. does it seem there is a strategy behind that shift? >> a strategy of desperation, if a strategy at all. collusion outright may not be a crime in and of itself, but, anderson, treason is a crime. collaborating and conspireing with a hostile foreign power against the united states is a

crime. receiving material support, clandestine material support from a hostile foreign power is a crime. and we get to the people around trump. moneylaundering is a crime. tax fraud is a crime. lying under oath is a crime. so there is plenty of crime to go around. but what trump and giuliani and all their paladins have been doing is doing their best to blind the american people, to overwhelm us with various forms of diversion and obscure data, to cloud the issue, to muddy the waters. pick your cliche. but for me, as someone who genuinely cares about this country and who doesn't give a damn about either political party, for me there is one core question facing our country today, one paramount question, and that is has the president of the united states committed treason against the united states, specifically, in service in thrall of some sort to vladimir putin? i hope i'm wrong. i hope it didn't happen.

we'll see what robert mueller brings to the fore. but we must focus on that question and not be diverted by clownish antics, because trump is a brilliant entertainer. in a peculiar way, he may be history's greatest entertainer. he commands global headlines every single day, and we make a mistake of thinking about him as a politician or a leader when he is an entertainer. and by allowing ourselves to be constantly entertained, we lose sight of fundamental ethics, values and security of this nation. >> you talk about him as a propagandist and a very effective propagandispropagandi >> yes. >> not only the simple catchphrases, but repeated time and time and time again so that they just become normalized. it's also part of -- it's not just about repeating phrases, it's also used as a diversion. >> yes. >> to take you off focusing, take the american people, the media, whomever, their eye off what's really happening, what really matters. >> yes. and anderson, consider what a

brilliant move it is to attack the press as the enemy of the people. instead of having the spotlight on trump and his alleged misdeeds, on his daily misdeeds against this country, it turns against the press, the press as generals would have said or the enemy of people. enemy of the people is a loaded term. it does go back to roman times. but there the modern era the first person i can find who really used it is robespierre in the french revolution. a student of russian affairs, it's the enemy of item t people in russia. under stalin during the purges, if you were called an enemy of the people, it was a death sentence. and given all of trump's other ties, to russia and things russian and people associated with russia, it hardly seemed a coincidence that he calls our press the enemy of the people. and anderson, our press is not

above criticism. >> sure. >> it's made of human beings. human beings are flawed. i have -- when i thought the press deserved it, i have criticized the press fiercely, but i hope constructively, because without a free press as our founding fathers recognized, democracy cannot function. >> lieutenant colonel ralph peters, always good to have you on. thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to check in with chris cuomo at the top of the hour. >> peters makes you gulp. >> the way talking about stalin, it's pretty intense. >> it's just weird that they're using the same phrase. so tonight we're going to take a little bit of a different tact on this issue about collusion not equalling a crime. i actually think that the media got out over its skis on this, and i think we're missing the forest for one tree, and i'm going make the legal case today. and i think it's mostly common sense where you can start with where we're hearing from the trump legal team right now, but still wind up looking at a whole garden basket of potential

criminal activity that stems from this. so we'll lay out the case. we're also going to take on the man who wants people to be able to make their own 3-d guns at home. he is going to make the case to the audience as to why. and we are going to test it, my friend. >> chris, your screen getting bigger and bigger, your white board there? >> yeah, it is actually. i actually have two white boards. >> either that or you're shrinking. >> i am slimming. i hope this new suit lets you know, that anderson. this is the big board. i have two. >> good to know. >> don't be jealous. you have everything else. >> i covet the board. thank you very much. >> kind of look alike again. >> you know, i'm trying to follow in your footsteps. >> only from here down. >> on capitol hill today, the top officials were peppered with questions about the trump administration policy of separations at the southern border. one official said he was told family separation was not part of the policy. coming up, we'll talk to a senator who was there.

yeah! we hide hotel names, so you can find four star hotels at two star prices. h-o-t-w-i-r-e ♪ ♪ ♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ ♪ bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪

trump administration officials in charge of immigration policy at the southern border faced a lot of questions as a senate justice

hearing today and those questions e listed some pretty remarkable answers. at one point, it was said the facilities were, quote, more like a summer camp. that's what he said. take a look at this exchange between senator richard blumenthal and an official at the department of health and human services who acknowledged separating children from their parents was a bad thing. >> would i be correct in assuming that the answer to you was, in effect, that's the whole purpose of the policy, to inflict pain so as to deter asylum seekers from coming here, correct? >> no, sir. we were advised that family separation was not the policy. >> he had raised concerns about the policy there. well, that's interesting he was told that because here's attorney general jeff sessions on fox news talking about the policy. >> are you considering this a deterrent? >> i see the fact that no one was being prosecuted for this as a factor in a fivefold increase

in four years in this count of illegal immigration. so, yes, hopefully people will get the message. >> it was intended there as a deterrent. jeff sessions said it. so did john kelly on camera. at the hearing was minnesota senator amy glclowe ba sure. when he tried to get some clarifycation about the family separation policy, even he was told it was not the policy. i mean the standard answer from the government, how do you square that with the world actually seeing the separations as well as multiple members of the administration describing what they say as not a policy, as a deterrent. >> well, it's very clear when you listen to the leadership, the words you hear from the attorney general, from the chief of staff of the white house, that they did view this as a deterrent. but the problem is then they're using kids as a weapon. and i was at the border, and the families i met, some of whom had

been reunited, all they wanted to do was to get back to their mom. a little 10-year-old boy and his mom, she had fled honduras as a victim of domestic violence. and then to have her child yanked away from her at the border, didn't know if she would ever see him again. and he said, well, i knew i'd always see my mom again because she'd find me. those are heartbreaking stories, and that's what we heard today at the hearing. and it's very clear to me that there were some people of good will at those front lines whether they were people that worked at the agencies, whether they were the like sister norma from catholic charities who runs the operations down there in mcallen, or the volunteers that came from all over america with good hearts to try to fix this. but it should never have happened in the first place. >> thernl certainly been a lot of reports, stories about what the detention centers holding the kids were like. today we heard this other description from an i.c.e. official who said this. i want to play it for our viewers. >> i think the best way to

describe them is to be more like a summer camp. these individuals have access to 24/7 food and water. they have educational opportunities. they have recreational opportunities, both structured as well as unstructured. >> i mean you've talked about having been to the border. i'm wondering what you make of that summer camp description. >> this is not what i heard from these families. one pair of siblings who were separated from each other, one went to florida. one went to texas. they described themselves as being cold. they described themselves as wanting to go and see their parents again. and you still, anderson, have 711 kids that have been separated from their parents. over 400 of them, they can't find their parents. you know what the difference is between summer camp and this? you go home to your parents after summer camp. >> there's also been reports of kidding being given psych oh tropeic drugs without a parent's permission. i don't think that happens at

summer camp. >> no, it does not. >> did anyone ask that official if he would send his children to summer camp -- to that kind of a summer camp? >> those kinds of things were asked and we got some vague answers. there was one official from hhs, commander white, who clearly said that he told his superiors he was concerned about the psychological effect on these kids. and he also said, you know, this was a policy that we applied to uncompanied minors. but these kids were accompanied. they weren't accompanied by their parents. >> this announcement from facebook today that she shut down a disinformation campaign that was targeting the midterm elections. you introduced legislation aimed at trying to prevent election interference this past fall. are you happy with how facebook handled this? >> i'm glad they came forward and said what we believed is true and that is the russians are still trying to do this, or it looks like russians because they're similar to what they had before the election. one of them had nearly 300,000 followers. these same kinds of ads that are

trying to turn americans on each other from controversial issues, from immigration issues, and they're doing it again. that's why we have to pass this bill so that you have clear information about who's paying for these ads and what they are. it's called the honest ads act, and it's a bill i'm leading with senator mccain and senator warner. >> senator, appreciate your time. thank you very much. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris. "cuomo prime time" starts now. >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." collusion is not a crime except when it is. and remember this isn't about words. it's about behavior. we have a lawmaker who is going to tell you the facts of what could be headed for anyone who did collude. he was also in that hearing today, and you will not believe what the government admitted about its plan to force families apart. there's senator coons. we'll be with him in a second. the mueller probe faces its