only remfresh usesody's ion-powered melatonin to deliver up to 7 hours of sleep support. number one sleep doctor recommended remfresh-your nightly sleep companion. good evening. today, yet again, the white house has been backtracking and trying to explain away something the president himself said very clearly, as well as breaking news in a moment about a possible interview with special counsel mueller. today, the president told millions of people what he wants. he said it plainly and directly, and in fact, he wrote it down. so, he put some thought into it. now, the problem for the president and the white house is that what he wants and what he said, what he actually wrote, it freaked a lot of people out today, because if you're looking for evidence that the president is trying to obstruct justice, this is potentially one more piece of evidence. here's the tweet. "this is a terrible situation. attorney general jeff sessions should stop this rigged witch hunt right now before it can stain our country any longer. bob mueller is totally

conflicted and his 17 angry democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to usa." let me just repeat the key sentence. attorney general jeff sessions should stop this rigged witch hunt. that's what the president said. he said stop it right now. it sounds like the president, the chief executive, wants to see jeff sessions, who works for him, end the russia investigation ended right now. that is what it sounds like, because that is actually what the president wrote. unless, of course, you believe his press secretary and tv lawyer who scrambled to try and convince the public that what the president said about what he wants to see happen and happen right now was in no way a directive to actually make it happen and happen right now. no, according to them, it was only some guy's opinion, the guy who happens to be president, commander in chief. now stopping this investigation, it's complicated. sessions would have to recuse himself. deputy attorney general rod rosenstein might have to be fired, there might have to be a court challenge or political blowback, but if the president of the united states really, truly wants a certain function of his own branch of government to stop, he can, when all is

said and done, make it stop. which is why his tweet raised such concern, but again, if you believe sarah sanders, there's no reason for concern, because this is just someone's opinion on twitter. >> the president is stating his opinion. he is stating it clearly, and he certainly expressing the frustration that he has with the level of corruption that we've seen from people like jim comey, peter strzok, andrew mccabe. there's a reason that the president's angry, and frankly, most of america is angry, as well. and there is no reason he shouldn't be able to voice that opinion. >> see? the president is just like most americans, angry, speaking out on twitter from the white house as president and chief executive, as jeff sessions' boss. but hey, he said should, not must. and besides, he is just a guy with an opinion. it's not like his tweets are official statements by the president of the united states. i mean, what idiot would ever claim that? >> the president is the president of the united states, so, they're considered official statements by the president of the united states.

>> doh! spicer. all right, so, the white house used to claim that the president's tweets are not just idle opinionating, they're official statements with the power of the white house behind him. how many times have people working for the president said the president's tweet speaks for itself or words to that effect? except for today's tweet. that apparently doesn't speak for itself. that needs a spokesperson and a tv lawyer speaking for it, sweeping up after it, quietly trying to wipe it off the bottom of their shoes. when the president of the united states says that one of his subordinates should do something and do it now, how is that just one guy's opinion? it all smacks of another effort that was made recently to suggest that the president didn't really say what everyone heard him say. >> and a key sentence in my remarks, i said the word "would" instead of "wouldn't." the sentence should have been, "i don't see any reason why i wouldn't, or why it wouldn't be russia." sort of a double negative. >> that actually happened. doesn't it seem like a decade ago?

anyway, it wasn't. a little more than two weeks ago. and now another cleanup effort is under way. and just as before, the word twisting also comes with a dose of fact twisting. listen. >> the entire investigation is based off of a dirty discredited dossier that was paid for by an opposing campaign and had a lot of corruption within the entity which was overseeing it, which was peter strzok, james comey, andrew mccabe. we've laid this out a number of times. i don't think that we have to go into it every single time we're in here. >> now, keeping them honest, what she said is simply not true. the investigation sprang from a number of sources, former trump campaign adviser carter page was under suspicion as far back as 2013, and his fellow adviser george papadopoulos' drunken boasting to an australian diplomat in london that triggered the current investigation, not the steele dossier, dirty or not. as we mentioned at the top, there is breaking news. the story centers on talks between the president's legal team and robert mueller over a possible presidential interview. we now have a better idea of the terms mr. mueller may be offering.

cnn's evan perez and glor ya borger got the story. evan joins us by phone. what do you know about where these negotiations stand right now? >> well, anderson, there is an important concession by the special counsel in this latest proposal. we're told that they finally got a response from the special counsel, first time in almost a month that they've heard back from the mueller team. and in this proposal, they are essentially asking, they're suggesting that they're willing to limit the number of obstruction questions that the president would be asked, but that he would still be asked some of those questions in a sitdown interview. so, the president's team has been proposing this idea of a take-home test. i like to call it a take-home test, where the president gets to write answers to some questions about anything related to things that happened after he was inaugurated as president. so, anything having to do with obstruction would come in this written test, so to speak.

and so that's where they've been pushing. and so, you now have at least some movement from the mueller team. but keep in mind, anderson, they're still insisting that they want a sitdown with the president, and some of those questions will cover this very important question of obstruction of justice. >> do we know at this point where things stand about any questions regarding collusion? >> well, the collusion question, believe it or not, the trump team has been open to having the president answer those questions, you know, if there is a sitdown interview. now, keep in mind, anderson, i think rudy giuliani said in his statement today that the lawyers do not want trump to do any interview at all, but obviously, they have a client who is insisting that he does want to do an interview. he wants to sit down with robert mueller face-to-face because he believes if he doesn't, he's going to get crucified politically. >> in terms of the tweets of the president this morning, i'm wondering if you're learning about what actually led up to them.

was it something he heard that made him unleash this? >> yeah, look, he was in florida yesterday, and he flew back on the plane with some of his friends, some of the people who have been around him, his inner circle, like corey lewandowski were on the plane. and what our team at the white house were told that essentially the president was being riled up by the talk on this plane, where they're encouraging, essentially, for him to try to figure out a way to end this investigation. that, again, the problem is jeff sessions, because jeff sessions recused himself, and the way for this all to end is to simply get jeff sessions to end this. obviously, there's a lot of detail they're missing, which is jeff sessions recused himself from this investigation, so it's not that simple. the president's team says that the president is, you know, has the ability to shut down this investigation if he wants to. he's not doing that yet and he's not firing jeff sessions, at

least not just yet. >> all right, evan perez, thank you so much. with us now, richard blumenthal, democrat of connecticut, serves on the senate judiciary committee. thank you so much for being with us. the idea first of all this new reporting that the mueller team is willing to reduce the number of questions. does that make sense to you? >> well, it makes sense to a point. as a prosecutor, both federal and state attorney general, i can see some limits, but this investigation cannot close without all of the relevant questions about both the conspiracy to aid the russians in attacking our democracy and also the obstruction of justice that is continuing in real-time right before our eyes. you just laid out the word games that the white house is trying to play in walking back the president's very blatant and brazen threats to shut down this investigation, which itself is an act possibly of obstruction of justice. >> it is remarkable the extent to which the president and the

white house, i mean, are continually walking back things that the president has said. he says them very clearly. you know, he's -- whether he's thought about it or not, but i mean, many this case, he wrote it out. it wasn't just a slip of the tongue. and now they're saying, oh, kind of ignore what he's actually said, when in the past they've said, well, no, that's what the president actually believes. >> absolutely right. and in fact, going back in history, the president of the united states actually has fired people on twitter. >> yeah. >> so, to say should stop when it's the commander in chief, has real instructional meaning. >> do you believe this is obstruction of justice, this tweet? >> it's certainly very powerful and credible evidence of malign and corrupt intent, which is an element of obstruction of justice. and often the most difficult to prove. and oven the most difficult to prove. it is a threat, plain and simple, brazen and blatant. its purpose and effect is to threaten and intimidate the

special counsel. but there is also a subtext here, anderson, which is all of the president's surrogates, his cronies on capitol hill that are calling for the impeachment of rod rosenstein, who controls this investigation, and the other kinds of intimidation coming from my colleagues, unfortunately, very unwisely on capitol hill on the republican side. >> do you think the investigation can be properly completed without an interview of the president? >> no. the president has to be interviewed. >> because to figure out intent? >> to know what the intent was, to give him an opportunity to clarify what he meant by these kinds of tweets and a variety of others that he has sent and conversations and other points he may have made privately. a lot of it is in the public eye, but some of it may be privately known only to mueller at this point. mueller knows a lot more than we do. >> if you were the president's attorney, though, you would not want him to sit down with robert

mueller, would you? i mean, given what he said in front of vladimir putin on a world stage with cameras rolling, that they then have to walk back, oh, i said wouldn't, i meant would. what he would say to robert mueller, there's just no telling what would come out of his mouth. >> that's why i think you're seeing this reluctance and constantly moving of goalposts by rudy giuliani about what he would accept as a condition for sitting down. remember, just a couple of weeks ago, he said there has to be proof of a crime committed by the president. you have to show us your evidence. before we'll sit down with you at all. now they're using other goalposts. and i think that ultimately, they are very, very reluctant, and understandably so because the president is a tinderbox of potential perjury. >> senator blumenthal, thank you very much. appreciate it. other views now. joining us, harvard law professor, alan dershowitz, author of "the case of impeaching trump." also cnn legal analyst anne

mil milgram. professor dershowitz, this reporting that mueller's team is willing to reduce the number of questions that ask about potential obstruction, do you this that's going to be enough to get the president to sit down? >> well, it's a very smart move by mueller because it's not about quantity, it's about quality and substance. if they can just get the president to testify about what his motive was in firing comey or about why he spoke to comey about being -- going soft on flynn, those are potential perjury traps. so, mueller is very smart to reduce the number, if the result is that he can get trump to sit down and talk to him. the lawyers are not happy about this. the lawyers do not want the president to answer any questions, because that would subject the president to a possible 1001 prosecution, that is lying to a prosecutor. and so -- i -- and remember, too, the lawyers are saying to him, look, you don't have to answer questions about your intent. we have a very good privilege argument that will probably prevail in front of a court. if you had the right and the

power to fire comey, then you cannot be questioned about why you did it any more than senator or a congressman or a judge can be questioned about why they rendered a decision or a vote. so, i think, in the end, it's going to be very unlikely that the lawyers will lose this battle and the president will actually sit down and expose himself to a possible perjury trap. >> professor, you use the term perjury trap. it's only a perjury trap if someone wants to perjure themselves. isn't it? i mean -- >> no, that's not true. >> well, no one is being forced to lie. it's a perjury trap -- correct me. >> well, i will correct you. if you have the president saying something that he believes is truthful, and then you have another witness, cohen or manafort or one of the others contradicting him without regard to who is telling the truth, you could get a perjury prosecution. and so, i've often advised clients who have insisted to me that they will only tell the truth. i say to them, but it is

possible that any other witness will tell the truth different than yours? and if the answer to that is yes, in 53 years, i've never had a client sit down with a prosecutor. innocent, guilty or in between. so, you are absolutely right that for the most part, if you are completely innocent, the risks are lower, but there are risks, even if you are innocent. if you have people who are being squeezed. remember that judge ellis said about manafort that they're not really interested in him, they're trying to squeeze him, and he used the term, a term that i have used for years, saying sometimes you can squeeze a witness not only into singing, but composing. and if you can get a witness to compose, then it really does become a perjury trap. >> but the biggest perjury trap is having a witness who is prone to lying. >> no question about it. and also i think the way the professor is describing perjury, it makes it seem like if there's two completely different versions of events, someone can be charged with perjury. in my experience as a state and federal prosecutor, that's not the case. to prove perjury is a very high standard, and you actually have to be able to prove to a jury that one version of events is

false. and so, you know, again, i tend to think the same way most people do that, you know, if you have nothing to hide and you're going to tell the truth, you should go in and talk to the investigators. >> that's why you're not a defense lawyer. that's why you're not a defense lawyer. if you were a defense lawyer you would understand completely. it's enormously risky to go in and tell the truth if somebody is telling a different truth, and if prosecutors have an interest in promoting the truth that the other person is saying. it's just too risky. >> if i could switch a little, i think it's worth debating this question of perjury, but i'll tell you my view. my view is that the president doesn't want to go in. and so, we talk a lot about whether or not the lawyers want him to go in or don't want him to go in, and i think that mueller very much wants him in, and so, what we're seeing a little bit is this dance. and my view is, look, people tell the president not to tweet, he tweets all the time. if you were his lawyer, i assume you would have not told him to send that tweet this morning. and he's unstoppable.

so, my view is, if he really wants to go in, he's going to go in. and so, i think we'll know soon enough whether it's true that he wants to tell his side of the story. >> professor, the tweet from the president this morning, saying the attorney general jeff sessions should stop the investigation, the white house said it was an opinion, not an order. i wonder how you read it. previously the white house has said these are statements by the president. they hold the imprint of that. >> well, i don't know what the tweet was untended to do, because he's telling sessions to stop the investigation. sessions doesn't have the power to stop the investigation. sessions is officially and formally recused. he is not permitted to take any action to stop the investigation. if he really wanted to stop the investigation, he would direct rod rosenstein to stop the investigation, or he would fire mueller, which he has the power to do legally, but not politically. politically, he does not have the power to fire mueller. it would be enormously costly to him. nor does he have the power politically to fire rosenstein. so, he's just, you know,

punchipunch i -- puffing off about sessions when sessions has no authority to stop the investigation at all. >> anne, is that how you see it? that it's just kind of puffing off? >> to me it's pretty stunning that we're in the middle of this national conversation that started last week about the president's tweets and whether or not he is obstructing justice in tweeting about wanting to stop or influencing an investigation, and then he literally sends a tweet this morning talking about wanting to stop the investigation. and so, whether or not we could actualize and make it happen, you know, strikes me as almost not the point here. the point is -- >> but -- >> finish your thought, anne. hold on. i want anne to finish her thought. >> i thought you were done. >> the conversation about tweets to me is tweets can absolutely used against someone in a court of law. people's words are used against them all the time. and it is one of those things where, to me, the tweets will be looked at all together, and there are multiple tweet that i think could pose legal jeopardy to the president. so obviously, you know, it's stunning to me that he would be tweeting about this today.

>> professor? >> i just want every american to think about what it would mean if we started prosecuting any american, the president or anybody else, for expressing strong views about the unjustness of a prosecution. any defendant feels that the prosecution or the investigation against him is unjust. every one of my client has railed against prosecutors. >> but your clunt clients don't the power to stop that. >> of course. of course that's right. but he doesn't have the power to stop it through sessions and he really doesn't have the political power to stop it. i want to talk about the civil liberties implications of basing a prosecution on cobbling together public tweets. obstruction of justice takes place generally -- >> but you know they're not basing the prosecution on tweets. you certainly know they've been amassing evidence now for quite some time. >> but it's almost all public. it's almost all public things he did, acts that he was entitled to do under article 2. >> we don't know that. you don't know what they -- >> it's extraordinary weak obstruction case. >> you have no idea what the

evidence they gathered is. >> well, we know what the public evidence is. >> right, well, that doesn't mean anything, though. we know the tip of an iceberg. >> if there is -- look, if he did what nixon did and paid hush money or told his people to lie or destroyed evidence, of course that's obstruction of justice. but engaging in public outrage at a prosecution that he honestly feels is unjust has to be protected by the first amendment, whether you're the president or anyone else. >> all right, professor dershowitz, appreciate it. anne milgram as well. thank you. just ahead tonight, more on how the paul manafort trial may factor into all of this. what went on today as the case tonights to speed through court. also, why the government may never end up calling their star witness. also next, the rage at trump rallies and the president's encouraging of it, directed at reporters. keeping them honest, when we return. my mom's pain from

moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis was intense.

i wondered if she could do the stuff she does for us which is kinda, a lot. and if that pain could mean something worse. joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop further damage enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common. or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, my mom's back to being my mom. visit enbrel.com... and use the joint damage simulator to see how joint damage could progress. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 18 years.

if today's attempt at downplaying the president's russia tweets could be comical at times, this next issue is not. it's downright disturbing. it's something the president encouraged people to do, as he often does, something he's repeatedly encouraged people to do. i'm going to show you the video in a moment. what you're going to see are otherwise respectable people, fellow citizens, fellow americans, people you'd say hello to on the street, shouting profanities, making obscene gestures, emptying their rage on members of the press covering last night's trump rally in tampa. take a look. so, it gets worse, as you'll see in a moment. one of the things that's alarming about this, besides the very real potential that this kind of anger can lead to violence, is that instead of taking steps to tamp down the anger or curtail the protesters or just admonish them, the president of the united states has encouraged them, even retweeted some of the video out to his millions of followers. and if you think anyone in the

white house has the courage or conviction to criticize what the president is encouraging, you would be mistaken. here is sarah sanders generically condemning violence, something that, of course, did not happen last night, thankfully, but saying nothing about what actually did happen. >> the president condemns and denounces any group that would insight violence against another individual, and certainly doesn't support groups that would promote that type of behavior. >> so, she was trying to steer the conversation towards far-right conspirery groups like qanon, which we'll talk more about. and even then, as you'll see, she lumped them together with the press, suggesting there was some kind of equivalence between the two. in fact, there was another reporter in the briefing pointed out, that's not the issue. at issue -- at least for now. it's not the issue. the issue at hand is the kind of open display of rage last night that the president is encouraging in rallies and on twitter. now here is some of the video that cnn's jim acosta put up on instagram. i want to play through it a couple of times. first what cameras saw and then

with portions highlighted so you get a better idea of what jim and other reporters were surrounded last night in tampa while simply doing their constitutionally protected jobs. >> [ bleep ]. >> stop lying! tell the truth. tell the truth. >> so, that's what it sounded like. i just want to play it again with certain things highlighted, because, you know, it's easy to lose it in the crowd. it starts with a man shouting "f the media" and everyone you see

here, they could be your neighbor, they could teach your kids science, they could be in your carpool, they could be saying prayers next to you in church. but at thees rallies that potential church-goer might be raising a middle finger, shouting, as on man says, "stop lying, stop lying" into the camera. now there is another lady who first raises one middle finger. this lady right here is very charming. then she raises both fingers shouting "you suck, you suck." you're only seeing less than a minute of it. but this kind of thing went on a whole lot longer. and again, the president saw fit to encourage it on twitter, and again, sarah sanders did not see fit to just condemn it simply and without reservation. >> the president, as i just said, does not support violence against anyone or anything. and we've been very clear every single time we've been asked about that. when it comes to the media, the president does think that the media holds a responsibility. we fully support a free press, but there also comes a high

level of responsibility with that. the media routinely reports on classified information and government secrets that put lives in danger and risk valuable national security tools. this has happened both in our administration and in past administrations. one of the worst cases was the reporting on the u.s. ability to listen to osama bin laden's satellite phone in the late '90s. because of that reporting, he stopped using that phone and the country lost valuable intelligence. >> so, as for the last part of what she just said there, the bit about reporting accurately and fairly, yes, certainly people in the media get things wrong. i've gotten things wrong, not often, but we do. when that happens, we correct it. sometimes within seconds or minutes, as fast as we can. the same cannot be said of sarah sanders or the president or others in the white house. keeping them honest, though the example sarah sanders mentioned there about osama bin laden and the phone, that's actually not true. "the washington post" fake-checkers ran it all down 13 years ago. by the time the story sarah sanders was apparently referring to ran in september of 1998, bin laden had apparently already stopped using his satellite

phone. in fact, cnn's peter bergen, who has reported extensively on this as early as 1997 met with bin laden. bin laden's men were already concerned about electronic surveillance by 1997. quoting "the post" headline now, filed the bin laden phone leak under your been myths. now we'll see if sarah sanders corrects herself in a few minutes or a few hours or in a few days or whenever she happens to have a next press conference. i doubt it. we'll see if she holds herself to the same standard that we hold ourselves to. joining us is cnn political analyst david gergen. i mean -- you know, i always try to use the example, if the president was a democrat and you had, you know, a democratic president encouraging people at rallies to scream at reporters -- >> yes. >> reporters would be outraged about it. i mean, if they were screaming at fox news, you know, get off the air and when anybody does that, that's abhorrent. >> yeah, i agree. there are some reporters of other networks who are coming to the defense of cnn on this and

jim acosta in particular. you know, the publisher of "the new york times" went to see the president recently, and he made the point to him which i think is exactly right. the whole charges about fake news is very, very disturbing, but the serious issue is when the president starts calling the press enemies of the people. >> right. >> that's an old phrase. it comes out of the stalinist background, and it really makes them sort of traitors to the country. and there were some hints of reporters being called traitors last night. if you put that together, the enemies of the people together along with a rally, which has a mob quality to it, and then along with the culture of gun violence -- that's a very combustible mix. >> also sarah sanders then talking about enemies of the people, traitors, she is talking about revealing classified information. i mean, there are so many examples of reporters holding back on reporting things at the request of intelligence agencies so that sources and methods are protected or lives are not endangered.

>> i've been involved in many occasions when the head of the cia or someone, the secretary of defense or the president himself, might call a publisher and say, would you please wi withhold this. >> right. >> because here's what's at stake. when we had our hostages in iran, you know, for those 400 plus days, no leaks. they were protected the whole time by press who knew they were in there, but didn't want to endanger their lives. so, we have a president, when he comes in, takes an oath to protect the constitutional rights of all americans. and what this president and this white house seem to not to accept is that that's their responsibility at these rallies, to ensure that a free press can exercise day-to-day work. >> it's interesting because the president has spoken about the importance of the second amendment. >> right. >> many times. you expect the president, and again, i know donald trump is a rule breaker, and that's why he got elected, and people wanted to see things shaken up. but you do expect the president to defend the constitution of the united states. >> exactly.

>> and to explain the intricacies of the constitution. >> right. >> and the sometimes uncomfortable difficulties that the constitution enforces on the country. and that's not something this president has done or really seems willing to do in any way. >> i'm afraid it's as if he's read parts of the constitution like the second amendment but is not terribly familiar with other parts of it like the first amendment. but i will tell you this, anderson, what we saw last night is what we saw frequently in sarah palin rallies way back when in the early part of it. and john mccain, who was her running mate and presidential nominee, went out, went to those rallies and said stop it. let's end this. that is the president's responsibility. and unless he stops this soon, i will tell you, if there is violence against any reporter that's tied to this, the blood is going to be on his hands. >> i mean, it seems -- you know, one doesn't want to predict

anything, but the idea of violence occurring, somebody whose disturbed being motivated by this rightly or wrongly in their -- certainly in their mind, they would be right. but even if it's not what the president said -- >> right. >> just this kind of a mob atmosphere, violence, it doesn't take much. >> it doesn't take much. and we've got this new element of the qanon. >> we're reporting on that tonight. a lot of people -- not a lot, a number of people there last night with shirts with a q on it. >> a lot of people -- not a lot, but a number of people there last night with shirts saying with the q on it. >> but there are a lot of conspiracy theorists. conspiracy theorists are known to act on them. and sometimes use violence as in the pizzeria situation. >> david gergen, appreciate it. >> thank you. day two of the paul manafort trial. prosecutors are urging the judge speaking through their case. there is a lot of tonight what the government says was paul manafort's lavish lifestyle, including details of the $15,000 ostrich jacket. the latest from the court just ahead. my car smells good. it's these new fresh-fx car air fresheners from armor all.

each scent can create a different mood in my car. like tranquil skies. armor all, it's easy to smell good. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™ transitions™ 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. chicken! that's right, chicken?! candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

only remfresh usesody's ion-powered melatonin to deliver up to 7 hours of sleep support. number one sleep doctor recommended remfresh-your nightly sleep companion. day two of the paul manafort trial focused on what prosecutors said was his lavish lifestyle paid for by wire transfers from offshore accounts. government lawyers also told the judge they might not call his long-time deputy rick gates as a witness. in the courtroom for us today, cnn's jessica schneider, who joins us now. so did we learn today more about how manafort paid for all these expensive purchases? >> yeah, we did, anderson. prosecutors, they're going to great lengths to showcase paul manafort's lavish lifestyle. to do that, they called six vendors to the stand. these were employees at mercedes-benz, also high end retailers in manhattan for luxury men's clothing. and all of these vendors, they said the exact same thing.

they said that paul manafort paid them through wire transfers, through these offshore accounts. and these were really some heavy price tags here. paul manafort paid contractors about $1.13 million for home improvements. he also paid close to $500,000 to a men's clothing store boutique, as well as $123,000 at that car dealership, mercedes-benz. so really, what prosecutors are trying to do here, they're trying to lay out how exactly manafort got all of this money from his ukrainian lobbying, and also how he tried the hide these payments in these offshore accounts, as well as these shell accounts. anderson? >> i was very confused yesterday about the notion of an ostrich coat, which i thought meant ostrich feathers. sadly, it apparently doesn't. there were pictures introduced into evidence, right? >> so, there were pictures. prosecutors have plenty of these pictures, not only of the ostrich coat, but these luxury watches, all the luxury clothing

that paul manafort had. and what's interesting about this is, they have entered it into evidence. however, the jury has not actually seen these photos. the judge has wanted to keep this case moving along, so when prosecutors tried to enter the actual photographic evidence, when they tried to publish it so the jury could see it in the courtroom, the judge said, no, let's move along, the testimony is enough. however, the jury will see these pictures once they go back into the jury room after the case, both sides have rested, when they go into their deliberations. of course, they're not allowed to watch tv, not allowed to see any of the news articles about this trial, so, likely anderson, they won't be seeing it on your show or elsewhere, but yes, they will get these pictures that show just how lavishly paul manafort lived. >> the ostrich coat is a little disappointing now that i've seen the pictures. did the prosecution say why they might not call gates as a witness? >> you know, it's quite possible that the prosecution was just bluffing here, because when they said we might, we might not, it actually came during questioning

of an fbi agent. and he introduced some of the evidence that they got during this raid of paul manafort's condo last summer. and one of the items said gates' agenda. so, as soon as that came up, the judge stopped the proceeding. again, the judge has been very vocal here, and the judge said, why are you questioning him about something gates did? gates' work product. if you're going to have gates up here testifying. that's when prosecutors said, well, we might, we might not. so it's possible it was bluff. it's also possible they're trying to throw the defense off their game, because of course, the defense has said they will rely on rick gates' testimony, essentially, to discredit him as the real liar, the real stealer, the real embezzler. so, it remains to be seen. >> there were also more details that came out today about the raid on manafort's house. >> that's exactly right. they had an fbi agent on the stand who was present for that predawn raid last july at paul manafort's condo right here in alexandria, virginia. he really laid out what happened. now, at the time, there were some reports that this was a

no-knock raid, that fbi agents just burst into the home. this fbi agent said no, we actually knocked three times, waiting before each and every knock. and then when there was no answer, we entered the home with a key we had. that's when we saw paul manafort standing there. of course paul manafort has portrayed it as him being stunned. fbi agents at that point did take hundreds of documents, all of which they're relying on heavily in this case for their prosecution. anderson? >> jessica, i appreciate it. joining me now to discuss cnn senior legal analyst preet bharara. who used to be the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. first of all, the idea that rick gates might not take the stand, that the prosecution may not call him -- i mean, why do you think that would be? because clearly the defense is putting a lot on saying, basically, rick gates is the villain here. >> as an additional matter, the government made the decision to sign up rick gates as a cooperating witness to give him the potential leniency from the judge if he testifies truth

truthlyfully, et cetera. they made a determination that gates had substantial assistance to give to the government. but when it comes down to trial, when the rubber meets the road, it may be true, as the report said, that they're bluffing. but also as sometimes is the case, you see how the evidence goes in and if the documents speak for themselves and if the other testimony so clearly sets out the violation of law, in this case, some of those being paul manafort had an interest in a foreign bank account, didn't disclose it. that's not very complicated. you don't need a lot of commentary. >> may not even need rick gates. >> right. because the problem with rick gates is, with every cooperating itness, it's someone who isch thing to a little bit to save his own skin. >> right. >> so you always have that layer of it. >> and they're going to go after him because of that. >> correct. and one of the things gates plead guilty to is lying to the fbi. not just any kind of lie to the fbi, lying in the context of trying to get a disposition for himself. so, that subjects him to a lot of cross-examination, which we would stand all the time at trial. so, it a balance of seeing, do

we have enough evidence that speaks for itself without having to call this person who is going to attract a lot of terrible cross-examination. >> but the defense could still call him to the stand. >> potentially. >> but he would have less power if the prosecution hasn't called him and put a lot of weight on what to what he has to say. >> you to be careful what you wish for. in some ways, rick gates, pr presumably, that the government signed him up, has the baggage, yes. but also probably has a lot of devastating commentary he could give about the intent of paul manafort. >> so if the defense calls him up, that could still come out as well? >> it could all come out. then the prosecution would cross-examine as to all the other things. so -- it's unclear, sometimes -- it would be very bad for the defense, i think, in some ways, if they don't -- if the prosecution doesn't call rick gates, even though the defense can call him, they made a big show of how terrible rick gates would be, it's a little bit of a different circumstance when it becomes a defense witness versus a prosecution witness.

>> interesting. the idea that manafort was paying for all this stuff directly with wire transfers, a, i didn't know you could do that at stores. but is that -- is that legal? >> only ostrich coat stores, apparently. >> apparently. but i just seems if he's not paying taxes on this stuff, isn't it idiotic for him to get wire transfers from offshore banks into stores? doesn't the government track that? >> there is a lot of idiocy in crime generally, and it seems that paul manafort is no exception to that. it seems like he was making a lot of money. he could have paid taxes on that money. what's interesting, in some of the reporting that we've seen about the trial, is that the prosecutors are making a big deal of how he spent the money, the lavish lifestyle, the ostrich coat, talked about it at some length this evening. which can sway the jury and have the jury feel, well, this person was motivated by greed and was cheating in a way that is offensive to the jury, but you do have to be careful about that. you can overdo it and you can be not proportional about it. and jurors begin to see if you're piling on. i wasn't there at the trial. i assume it was done elegantly

and proportionately. but you do have to be a little bit careful because it doesn't matter if he was spending money on an ostrich coat or his mother's surgery, the crime is the crime and how he spent the money actually doesn't matter, necessarily. >> i have to say, looking at those coats, it's not sort of like, oh, my god, i can't believe he bought that brown coat. it's like a bunch of coats. >> i'm not familiar with ostrich. i don't wear ostrich. >> i thought it was going to be feathers, in which case -- >> i'm a wool guy. >> a wool guy. all right. give it time. a few years in tv you'll be wearing ostrich. >> i follow you. >> preet bharara, thanks. up next, the tsa is supposed to keep us all safe, of course, in the skies, so, why is the agency considering not screening thousands of passengers? the answer in a cnn exclusive report in a moment. sarah always chooses to take the stairs. 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.

gacan start in the colon, n, and diarrhea and may be signs of an imbalance of good bacteria. only phillips' colon health has this unique combination of probiotics. it helps replenish good bacteria. get four-in-one symptom defense.

tonight, a cnn exclusive. the trump administration is considering a major change to airport security, stopping tsa screenings at more than 150 small and medium-sized airports to save money, screenings that started after the september 11th terror attacks to keep everybody safe, of course. the reporting that broke late this afternoon is already making waves. details now from cnn's renee marsh. >> reporter: tsa is considering allowing thousands of passengers to board commercial airlines across the united states without being screened. that's according to internal documents obtained by cnn. the documents from june and july

outline an elimination of security screening at small and some medium-sized airports that operate commercial planes with 60 seats or fewer. tsa's recent cost analysis estimates the move could save $115 million that could be used to bolster security at large airports. >> i think it's stunning that this is even being seriously considered. >> reporter: the proposal does not lust which airports could be impacted, but says screening would be eliminated at more than 150. tsa currently screens passengers at 440 airports. according to the proposal, passengers and luggage arriving from these smaller airports would be screened when they arrive at major ones. their operating theory is attacks with small aircraft would not be as attractive a payoff to terrorists because the potential for loss of life would be less than what terrorists could achieve with larger planes. national security experts disagree. >> isis, their message is attack

in any way you can, big or small against anybody you can go after. and so, the opportunity to go after a 50-person passenger jet or aircraft is going to be >> reporter: in an e-mail to cnn tsa said, "this is not a new issue. the regulations which establish tsa does not require screening below a certain level. so every year is the year that tsa will reconsider screening." cnn asked tsa to point us to that regulation. the agency has not responded. 20 tsa employees recently met to evaluate the cost-saving proposal that could mean less hassle for thousands of travelers. the group determined the plan could increase security vulnerabilities at airports. but overall the risk is low. >> rene joins us now with more. i understand there have been some new developments just since your story broke. >> right pl anderson, after our

story broke tsa sent talking points out to all of its senior leadership communicating just how to respond to the many inquiries at airports nationwide. and the talking points note that a final decision has not been made. and it goes on to say that tsa remains very committed to its very core mission and it says that any potential operational changes to better allocate limited taxpayer resources are simply part of predecisional discussions and would not take place without a risk assessment. and you know, it is cnn's reporting that there was a risk assessment completed. >> is this the first time tsa's considered this? in your statement it seemed like something that every year it's kind of under review. >> right. and some of our sources who've been at tsa for quite some time push back on whether they're being loose with the word "consideration." we do know this. the idea was floated as far back as 2011. it met a lot of resistance from

cities, states, the airline industry and even congress. the proposal has since been resurrected. but the people within the agency who are veterans who've been there for quite some time say this is different. this proposal involved a cost analysis as well as a risk assessment. they say that doesn't happen every year, anderson. >> all right. rene marsh, appreciate it. want to check in with chris, see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. chris? >> well, you and i disagree about twitter. i say that the tweets matter, especially the president's. you tell me not to go so heavy on twitter in general. but tonight i win. and here's why, anderson. i'm going to make a case tonight. we're going to point out on the magic wall why the tweets matter on two levels. why they may matter to prosecutors and not as opinions but as potential admissions. and why they matter on a larger part of our political reality right now with the introduction of the president's new conspiracy pals of q anonymous.

>> i should point out i'm not saying the president's tweets or tweets in general don't matter, i'm just saying your tweets. you need to back off a little bit. you don't need to put your heart into them. >> i stretched what you usually say to effect and to play for advantage. but you are telling the truth. you usually limit it to just to me. it just wasn't as helpful to me in this argument. >> i just think you'd be happier in general. maybe not. >> anything's got to help. >> i'll still follow you on instagram. chris, very much. david gergen mentioned early in the program, chris just mentioned as well, we're going to take a look at an element of trump rallies including last night, members of this group called qanon. you see their sign there. believers in conspiracy theory. their movement is just now surfacing to a large audience. we'll detail what it is ahead. i visualize travel rewards.

i receive travel rewards. going new places. (oh!) going out for a bite. going anytime. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com

with the right steps, hasn't left my side. 80% of recurrent ischemic strokes could be prevented. a bayer aspirin regimen is one step to help prevent another stroke. so, i'm doing all i can to stay in his life. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

you may not know very much about a group called qanon, a group that embraces a wide variety of these theories. you can see signs last night at trumps rally. qanon's presence is growing. randi kaye tonight has an explanation. >> reporter: qanon is a fringe group built on conspiracy theories and devoted to donald trump. the q represents a real person. someone who is anonymous who claims to have access to government secrets. intel that he or she refers to as crumbs that are revealed in dark corners of the web. those so-called classified secrets, all of them false, then are shared on websites like facebook, twitter and youtube. some of the conspiracy theories that have been shared under the banner of q, that the las vegas concert shooting was actually a botched attempt to assassinate the saudi crown prince. and that president obama and

hillary clinton are actually the ones under investigation by robert mueller, not the trump campaign. also that trump was pretending to favor putin so it would force an investigation into the democrats. the group seems to have grown stronger last year after the president said this. >> you guys know what this represents? i don't know maybe it's the calm before the storm. >> reporter: weeks later someone calling themselves q began to post cryptic messages in an online thread called calm before the storm. q claimed to be a high-level government insider. followers believe q even flew on air force one. at one point qanon had falsely suggested certain hollywood celebrities were pedophiles, posting video of the alleged victims on youtube. another theory that gained steam, lies about slain dnc staffer seth rich. >> explosive developments in the mysterious murder of former dnc staffer seth rich.

>> reporter: one of the theories posted read "q bombshell. debbie wasserman schultz ordered seth rich's murder." and suggested someone has put together some very significant qanon bread crumbs and baked a bombshell loaf of bread. police say it was a botched robbery. wasserman schultz called the rumors vial. more recently qanon evangelists started bombarding a reporter for the conservative website the daily caller insisting he ask about qanon at the white house briefing. he refused to do it. >> i have people commenting on my personal instagram photos saying i'm a coward who needs to do my damn job and ask about q. so yeah, it was like a nonstop of three, four days of online harassment. >> reporter: while it's unclear how many people believe these lies, awareness of qanon really began to mushroom after the so-called pizzagate conspiracy. a wild theory that falsely connected high-ranking

democratic officials to an alleged child trafficking ring at a pizzeria in washington, d.c. but people believed it. leading to one man opening fire on the restaurant. no one was hurt, but some worry it could be a precursor of violence spawned by the group's outlandish claims. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> weird. quick reminder, don't miss our daily interactive newscast on facebook. it's called full circle. you can see it weeknights 6:25 eastern at facebook.com/anderson cooper full circle. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> i love full circle, by the way. so does my 15-year-old. look at you breaking into a new generation. and thank you for randi's setup piece. it is the perfect transition to the case we're going to make. thank you, my friend. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." mueller wants to talk to trump about obstruction. this is a fact. believe nothing else. this is on the table.