conversations are within the white house when it comes to her boss and father. regardless, great to see you. thank you so much, kate. wanted to make sure we got that in today. thank you, all, so much for joining me. "inside politics" with nia malika henderson today starts right now. thanks, kate. welcome to "inside politics." i'm mia malika henderson. a new offer to team trump to sit down with the special counsel. does the president think he can convince prosecutors their own case really is a witch hunt as he likes to say? plus, it's day three of paul manafort's trial, and the prosecution is already playing cleanup over their would-be star witness. meanwhile on capitol hill, republican senators worried about keeping their majority are grappling with the president's threats of a shutdown and a battle with democrats over the supreme court nominee. and senator hatch, he is so over

it. >> i want to really compliment the democrats who have stood up and are willing to stand up for judge kavanaugh because they realize we can't keep going down this partisan, picky, stupid, dumb ass role that's happened around here for so long. i'm sick and tired of it, to be honest with you. >> we begin with the white house struggling to find middle ground with the special counsel's investigation and struggling with how to contain or just frame the president's very public frustration with the entire process. in about an hour, the white house will have another chance to weigh in at a press briefing, and we'll bring that to you live when it happens. sources tell cnn that robert mueller's office has offered up some concessions for a potential interview with president trump. those sources say mueller is

willing to trim down his list of obstruction-related questions for the president, but that he insists on asking those questions in person. mueller apparently not biting after the president's team suggested he provide written answers. now, this comes, of course, in the middle of a sudden intense escalation in the president's attacks on the special counsel. cnn has learned that the president's public fury came mere hours after his lawyers updated him on the latest in their negotiations. cnn's kaitlan collins is following this story from the white house. kaitlan, we'll hear from sarah sanders later today. she'll answer some questions about these very public negotiations. what do we expect to hear from her today? >> reporter: well, nia, she could shed some insight to exactly what it is that the president's mind set on this interview is. we know that on his twitter feed, he's lashing out at the special counsel, but his legal team is very much involved in these negotiations. negotiations they have been involved in for eight months now. now, the debate is over these

questions about obstruction. that's not new. we knew the special counsel wanted to ask about that. but nia, the question now is how is the president going to be asked about that? will it be in person or will it be on paper? the latest proposal from the special counsel includes questions about obstruction, which he says he will limit, but he says he does want to ask those questions in person in a sit-down with the president. on the other side, we know the president's legal team, their latest proposal included allowing questions about obstruction to be asked but only to be answered in written form. the questions the president would be asked in person would have to deal with events that happened before he was inaugurated. that means those events would center around collusion and not on the ones about obstruction. now, all of that is going on while the president is lashing out on twitter. the white house is still trying to explain that tweet where he said that his attorney general should shut down the special counsel's investigation. but we know that comes because the president believes he can

sway public opinion into agreeing with him that this is all just one big witch hunt. the white house is going to have to answer questions about that when sarah sanders does come out here. we'll see if she sheds any light on those negotiations, but she'll likely refer back to the president's lawyer, rudy jou joule -- giuliani. >> that will happen later today. thank you, kaitlan. i want to really start with what seems to be at this point a stalemate between the president's team and mueller's team over this question of what questions he answers in written form, what questions he answers in person. why do we think the white house is so adamant that the obstruction question should only be written? what are they nervous about in terms of the obstruction line of questioning? >> well, they're just concerned about putting the president before mr. mueller or his team for an interview because as we

all know in a less legal, more public setting, if you think the president is going to talk for five minutes, he could end up talking for an hour and a half. it's partly a matter of strategically trying to contain the president from himself. but look, the president and the white house are trying to navigate two parallel tracks here. one is how they deal with mueller. the other is how they deal with the court of public opinion. they know there are several plays mueller and his team could try to do. mueller could try to subpoena the president. this could go to the supreme court. if that happens, at least in a public relations setting, it's much better for the president to have been arguing all along, i've always wanted to talk to mueller. it was my team that was trying to hold me back, or it was a matter of being fair about the questioning. if the president comes at it from a posture of, no way, i don't want to talk to those guys, i'm worried about talking to those guys, at least in the public court of opinion, it hurts him, and possibly from a legal setting it hurts him. >> one of the people in the public court of opinion, and

trying to shape it, is rudy giuliani. he keeps saying this thing needs to wrap up soon. here's the latest from rudy giuliani. >> we believe that the investigation should be brought to a close. we think they're at the end of it. they should render their report, put up -- i mean, i guess if we were playing poker, but we're not, say put up or shut up. what have you got? we have every reason to believe they don't have anything. the president didn't do anything wrong. they don't have any evidence he did anything wrong. >> and you hear other republicans echoing that same sentiment. >> the pressure is definitely increasing, both personally on rudy giuliani, who came on to the legal team under the premise that he would try to get this to wrap up more quickly, and it seems like he hasn't been able to do that, but also from the president's allies on the outside, you're hearing a lot of voices saying to the president, you need to end this now. get jeff sessions to end this now. get rod rosenstein to end this now. that's not by accident. it seems to be in part because there's more concern that this investigation is becoming more

damaging. both the combination of the michael cohen revelations and also the fact that mueller is still going. it's causing a lot of people around the president to worry, and they're also worried about the midterms. they're worried mueller might drop something before the midterm elections that could be devastating to republicans. >> and trump also seems to believe that possibly if he talks, it could bring this investigation to an end more quickly, but there's not necessarily any evidence of that. >> yeah, i mean, it's interesting the way that trump seems to think that he could charm mueller the way that he thinks he's done with kim jong-un and with other world leaders. if he gets in the room, he can win them over. this is of course a very different situation. the other thing that is interesting where giuliani is saying put up or shut up, the irony in that is that bob mueller is perhaps the only person who we haven't heard from. >> yeah, yeah. he has shut up. >> he never speaks. he speaks through indictments, which he's had a lot of. he speaks through his court

filings, but he doesn't talk himself. so you have giuliani out there talking a lot. you have president trump talking a lot. you have michael avenatti in the other case and lanny davis. you have a lot of these lawyers talking, but bob mueller himself is relatively silent, which his supporters may want to hear more from him given the way his opinion numbers have taken a dive. he's sort of the epitome of talk softly and carry a big stick. you know, he's doing that a lot right now. we're seeing his actions but not his words. >> rachel, yesterday we saw the president lashing out and his reaction to this and this whole idea of whether or not his tweet was a directive or an opinion or just a suggestion or him blowing off steam. of course, the white house, we're going to play a clip of all the ways the white house has talked about the president's tweets and whether or not they're opinion or directives. here you go. >> it's not an order. it's the president's opinion. the president is stating his

opinion. he's stating it clearly. there's no reason he shouldn't be able to voice that opinion. >> should the attorney general see this as a directive? >> no, it isn't at all. it's what it is. as we said, it's an opinion. he used his -- he used a medium he uses for opinions. >> policies are statements and statements are policies. it goes both ways. >> that's absolutely not true. i make lots of statements. they're not u.s. policy. i misspoke. it is the case. the president calls the ball. his statements are, in fact, policy. >> the president is the president of the united states, so they're considered official statements by the president of the united states. >> pompeo there switching it up in the same conversation there. >> yeah, but to go back to the president's tweet yesterday, it's got to be the toughest job in washington, speaking for the president and also being his lawyer. yes, they're arguing he said mueller should end the probe, not he must end the probe and that's a difference. he's just expressing his opinion. but look f t, if the president the united states says something should end and you work for the president of the united states, you see that and you got to be

nervous about it. of course, the fbi, they're going to do their job. they're trying to tune this out and just want to get this done with. but going back also to the obstruction of justice and why he doesn't want to answer questions or why his lawyers do not want to answer questions on this, there's a lot of thinking out there that mueller might have a more solid case on obstruction than he does on the russia interference thing. so they don't want the president to talk about this, but again, trump and his tweeting, he just wants to go out there and put it all out there. this could be a real legal danger to him. >> it deals with state of mind. that's one of the biggest problems for the president's lawyers. it's about what were you thinking when you did, not what happened when. i think that's why it's tricky for him. that's when you open up the president to saying all kinds of things that you may not have wanted him to say. when he sat down with lester holt, he basically started that process by saying, when i fired comey, i was thinking about the russia investigation. that's a big red flag for his legal team. >> when it comes to something like yesterday, again, this is about the court of public opinion. president trump understands news

cycles. i think we can all agree to that. it was the first full day of testimony in paul manafort's trial. if the president had not stepped in and created his own side story, all of the coverage that day about the russia probe would have been about manafort and the trial. instead, everybody knows the top four paragraphs of every story became president trump on the offensive on twitter. >> and do we expect more of that? i mean, i know it's hard to say. >> daily. >> they would have stronger ground to stand on if he did only use it for opinion. he uses his twitter feed to fire people, to announce policy. it's a realtime look into his mind set. so it's not like he's only using it for his opinion. i think his team is doing all that they can to turn this into a semantics argument. >> clean it up, yeah. we'll have to leave it there. before we go to break, some major news on wall street. apple just became the first american public company to reach $1 trillion in value. apple shares surged to an all-time high just moments ago after the company reported

better than expected earnings this week. for context, amazon clocks in at about $900 billion. google and microsoft both worth more than $800 billion. we'll be right back.

welcome back. as the trial of former trump campaign chairman paul manafort enters its third day, there are questions over the fate of manafort's long-time business partner turned witness for the prosecution rick gates. prosecutors caused a major stir yesterday when they appeared to suggest that gates might not actually be called to testify despite his central role in the case. but this morning prosecutors walked that back entirely, now saying they fully intend for gates to testify, possibly as early as tomorrow. cnn's shimon prokupecz joins us. today you've been following this case. what happened yesterday that they were essentially saying this might not happen, and now today it's on?

>> yeah, it was during testimony from one of the witnesses where the prosecutors were asking questions related to rick gates. i think in an effort to move along, the judge said, well, you're going to have rick gates here testifying, so why don't we just move along here. when rick gates comes in, you can ask him these questions. the prosecutor, i think without thinking, just quickly said, well, we may or may not call him. certainly that signaled to a lot of the reporters in the room, well, whoa, this is the first time we're hearing that gates may not be coming in. as you said this morning, i think seeing some of the news reports, the prosecutors came in and wanted to make it very clear to the judge and to the defense team, yeah, we do intend to call rick gates, and that could happen, as you said, tomorrow, as early as tomorrow or monday. >> and gates of course had come under some pretty withering criticism, this idea that he might not be such a reliable witness. >> yeah, certainly i think that's what the defense wants. they seem to -- he seems to be

key to their defense. they're blaming everything on him. they said so much in the opening statement. it's clear they're going to stick with their guy and intend to bring him before court. we'll see what he says. >> as we watch this trial, we're also watching trump's reaction to the trial. we saw it yesterday. one of the things that's interesting, and politico has this report, in terms of the white house's talking points and having people talk about this trial, this is what they found. more than a half dozen of trump's most vocal tv surrogates told politico that they weren't provided white house or campaign talking points on the case, as is customary for important headline generating matters. some interpreted that as an attempt to keep them from talking about the trial on tv and to starve it of oxygen. donald trump did not get that message. he's not starving it of oxygen. he's providing some oxygen. there seem to be from the white house paul mana-who, like he

didn't work for the campaign. trump obviously having a different perspective. >> there's also another explanation, which is they don't have their act together to come up with talking points to send out. in this white house, that's a real possibility. i think this idea that there's a grand plan around this manafort trial is not quite right because they have settled on as close to something as this as nothing to do with us. that's not a fully baked plan. it's fairly limited in its scope. obviously the president is undermining that every day he talks about it. so this is the white house still trying to figure out exactly where to position themselves on this. as many people have pointed out, the manafort trial is being handled by the special counsel. as much as they say this has nothing to do with his time as campaign chairman, there is a fear that there is something they don't know about that could come back to haunt them. >> one of the things coming out in this manafort trial, his lavish expenditures and his

extravagant lifestyle. 30-plus bank accounts in three countries. who among us doesn't have 30-plus bank accounts in three countries? seven homes, 6 million on luxury items and services, 3 million in home improvements, $900,000 at a men's clothing store, $123,000 car. and the jackets, of course. $18,000 on a python jacket and $15,000 on an ostrich jacket. i think there's also some sort of vest to go with it. you've got to have the vest to go with the jacket. >> just some of the fun, i guess, in this trial. here's the importance in this. this is how the prosecutors are showing he was living this lavish lifestyle. he was using money, overseas money, money that he had parked in these overseas accounts, and then was wire transferring a lot of this money to these vendors, to this suit guy, the guy making his suits. that's what the prosecutors are using this for. the judge has taken some issue with them showing these photos. the other thing important in terms of the president, when we

hear from rick gates, it's going to be interesting to see how the president reacts to that. he worked on the campaign. we know how the president feels about disloyal people, the idea that rick gates' cooperating flipped. we don't know everything rick gates is providing to prosecutors. >> but the reason why all this is important, the ostrich clothes or whatever, it's like a shiny object. the reason why this is important and interesting is because paul manafort had long-standing, well-established roots to the russians, the pro-russian ukraine leadership at the time, deep ties to that world. the question is, how did the russians get anywhere close to donald trump? we know the answer. this establishes the answer. between rick gates' relationships and paul manafort's relationships. that's the first nexus, and it's proven again and again, at least

with some of the alleged financial ties they're trying to bear out. >> that's what they'll get at today. >> yeah. the question for the president and the president's family and some top aides is did that ever jump to the next level? did it ever move out of manafort and rick gates' world into trump land? but we know that's the establishing basis of a lot of these relationships. >> another thing that came up in court today was whether or not paul manafort would testify. we'll just have to wait and see. >> nowhere close to that. up next, an endorsement from president trump is highly coveted these days, but does it pay off at the polls? one candidate says absolutely. r -- >> it's a game changer here in pennsylvania. president trump is more popular here today than when he won in 2016.

does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month.

call or go online today. as endorser in chief, president trump is very much on a roll. most of the midterm candidates he's backed this year have won their respective primaries. these are just a few of them, and he's keeping his foot on the gas for republicans in several other states. he was in florida on tuesday pushing congressman ron desantis for governor. he'll be in pennsylvania later today stumping for congressman lou barletta, and saturday in central ohio campaigning for a state senator running for

congress. but the president's endorsements haven't always worked. his guy, of course, lost in that pennsylvania special election back in march, and remember he backed luther strange then roy moore in alabama, both of them lost. but the president is clearly reveling in this string of winning endorsements. >> my polls are great, but the question is, is it transferable? now, it certainly was with florida because you saw ron desantis, who's gotten a tremendous -- you know, many, many points. the governor of georgia, where he was down by five and won by 40 after i endorsed him. if you take a look at congressman donovan from staten island, he's down by 10 and wins by 24. so we've had a lot of impact. and that's why i'm going around. >> man, he's clearly enjoying this. kind of looking at the polls and in the weeds on this. the value of his endorsement seems to have gone up. he wants to do more. >> and he doesn't name brian

kemp in there, who's running for governor in georgia. the lack of familiarity with these candidates is kind of interesting. and it's not like he's ushering in ideologues. he's not backing people because of their ideology, often. he's backing them because they like him. he's ushering in a new group of people who really like donald trump. you see that with ron desantis and some of his ads in florida. they're really hugging close to trump. that does -- you know, it's part of the enduring parts of his presidency, the support he still has within that base of the republican party. they're all, you know, clinging to him in ads, which is unusual at this time of year, for people to be clinging to an incumbent president ahead of a midterm cycle that typically is not very good for an incumbent. >> rachel, is there any more method to what he's doing, other than if the guy likes trump he's going to get out there and endorse him? >> it's all about loyalty.

i would say almost 100%. of course, party leaders will obviously ask the president to back someone they're worried about, which they're going in ohio right now. most of these guys he's backing have done something for the president. ron desantis, who's polling ahead in his run for governor, because of trump has been on tv time and time again blasting the russia investigation, defending the president, saying this is all a witch hunt. you talk about lou barletta. i remember when he was the first person on capitol hill to endorse the president in 2016. the president clearly never forgot that. he started a whole trump caucus thing. the president's endorsement is the top prize for republicans, even though he doesn't have the greatest polling right now. if you look at the support amongst republicans, it's the greatest of any other president in recent modern history in terms of favoritabability ratin. it's the ultimate prize. >> he is incredibly popular. he is one of the most popular republican presidents that we've seen among republicans.

he's polling at something like 84% among republicans. and you see that. that's why people want his endorsement. the other thing that's interesting, though, is if you look at the kind of enthusiasm he brings among republicans, he also brings out opposition among democrats. it's at an all-time high. the question is what's going to matter more? the opposition that democrats feel towards this president or the loyalty that republicans feel for him come midterms. >> i think the loyalty part is -- if you're a republican, you can't do without it. it may not be enough to overcompensate for what the democrats are doing, but as a republican, you cannot go into a general election without really firm support from your fellow republicans. but that being said, i mean, the battleground for control over the house is going to be in the suburbs.

where are democrating going to -- democrats not only going to be able to get their base out but those conflicted moderates in the middle, the one-time republicans who are maybe a little more disenchanted with trump than others, maybe who have stopped identifying as republicans. >> particularly subyou aurban w women, college egtsducated wome. >> honestly, anyone who says they know doesn't know. that being said, it doesn't diminish the value of trump's endorsement if you are a republican. you cannot go into a general unless you've solidified your base. >> it is kind of fun to see the president lay a little groundwork to give himself space if it backfires. hearing him say things like it'll be interesting to see whether my great popularity transfers. >> the big test will be the general election, right. it's one thing for his endorsement to matter in a primary, but come the general election, for instance, if you're barbara comstock, you don't want him anywhere near your campaign. >> although, if you're barbara

comstock, it's kind of baked in the cake already. that's sort of -- it's like a self-fulfilling prophesy. the republican lawmakers who will be craving president trump's visit and endorsement are inherently not barbara comstock. so it's sort of the geography is destiny problem for a lot of these folks. you don't want the president campaigning against you, but if he's campaigning for you, there's some place where is that really helps turn people out. there's some places where that just reminds democrats and swing voters to don't like president trump, why they want to turn out the other way around. every president in a midterm year craves being as relevant or as important as he is in a presidential year. president obama went through this also. and the second time around in 2014. he wanted to be out there, but he was benched in a lot of places. president trump has not exercised the same discretion, but so far his instincts about where to go and the places where his team have been able to

maneuver him have been pretty smart. >> and he always highlights the same things when he tweets these endorsements, something that philip bump discovered in "the washington post." basically tough on crime, strong on the border, and he's going to offer you his full and total endorsement if you meet that criteria. we'll see what happens in november. coming up, thanks and see you soon. the president tweets out praise for kim jong-un. [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 ♪

topping our political radar today, the trump administration says it plans to freeze an obama-era clean car regulation. that rule required automakers to

make cars more fuel efficient. now, the epa and transportation departments cite safety as one reason for the rollback, arguing it would make cars more affordable and allow more people to buy safer cars. 20 state attorneys general say they are prepared to go to court to challenge the clean car rule. the white house says north korean dictator kim jong-un sent president trump another letter yesterday. president trump thanked kim for that letter in an overnight tweet, but it's still unclear what the president means by "i look forward to seeing you soon." this morning, vice president mike pence complimented the president on his negotiations to bring home the remains of u.s. troops killed during the korean war. >> he secured not just a promise to create a pathway for denuclearization and peace, but he also secured a promise to bring our boys home. today is the court deadline for the trump administration and

the aclu to present their plans to reunite 500-plus immigrant children who are still separated from their parents. but as these children wait to see their families again, ivanka trump said the family separations battle was a low point for her during her time so far in the white house. >> that was a low point for me as well. i feel very strongly about that, and i am very vehemently against family separation and the separation of parents and children. these are incredibly difficult issues, and like the rest of the country, i -- i experienced them in a very emotional way. >> do we know what ivanka trump did to actually help the kids get back together? i mean, she's sort of sitting

there as like a bystander, if she was just only witnessing the whole thing and not actually working in the white house. >> we know a little bit. this is an issue she talked about behind the scenes with her father. we know her position on this behind the scenes is as she describes it there, that she didn't agree with the policy. but how did she go to the mat? what effect did it have? did it have more to do with the public backlash? those are the sort of things we don't know. this just reflects the kind of nuanced position that you have when you have family members serving in either an official or unofficial kind of advisory capacity, which is that they have to weigh their family loyalty to the loyalty of their own convictions and that they have to be discreet enough to be able to come home for dinner once in a while. >> there's always been this tight rope she's walking, rachel. she's sort of in the white house but not of the white house on

any number of issues. >> yeah, this interview created some buzz. we were talking about this in the makeup room and also during the break. does she have political ambitions? i mean, she just sold her company. she's showing that she's going to be here in washington, at least for the foreseeable future. she's tried to paint herself as the more pragmatic trump, the trump whisperer who can talk to her dad and bring him closer to something that, you know, both parties can get behind. but again, she could really get hit for not, for instance, speaking out publicly on the family separation issue until it was over. she hasn't pushed back a lot on her father publicly at least. >> and it takes a lot less courage, i think, to speak out against it now after families are now being reunited than it would have been at the time. but i do think that it's like a joke of waiting for president trump to pivot. speak to a broader electorate. ivanka does seem to try to do that more, to speak to a broader slice of the electorate whereas president trump is always

speaking to his base. so she does have a little bit of that. >> there are real questions about her efficacy in the white house in the time she's been there. she says she stays in order to make an impact on what she can, but the reality is trump hasn't moderated on almost anything, including many of the things she says she cares about the most. i think that's why people are sort of skeptical about her, especially at times like this when she after the fact speaks out forcefully against something everyone thought was outrageous at the time. >> all right. we'll have to end it there. next, former senator al franken won't rule out another run for office. what his democratic colleagues are saying about his possible return. hi, i'm joan lunden with a place for mom, the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools,

public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

but if something happened to you... you need life insurance! and chances are selectquote can get it for you for under a dollar a day! selectquote found michael, 38, a $500,000 policy for under $23 a month. selectquote found anna, 37, a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. selectquote's secret? they comparison shop select group of great companies like these for your best rate. give your family the security they need... at a price you can afford. since 1985, selectquote has saved over a million families millions of dollars on life insurance. call the number on your screen. or go to selectquote.com.

discover what over a million families know. we shop. you save.

a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! former senator al franken says he's considering a return to politics. the minnesota democrat resigned back in january after several women accused him of inappropriately touching them.

now he says never say never when asked about running again. >> i miss the whole job. i love that job. i love the job of senator. if i say anything there, you'll put it in the story. so i -- i don't know. i don't know. i haven't ruled it out. i haven't ruled it in. >> franken's friend and former colleague senator amy klobuchar didn't exactly get behind the idea of his comeback. >> al made his own decision to resign, so i don't see this in the cards that he's running right now. >> this isn't just wild speculation. he's the one saying he hasn't ruled it out. i guess i'm just wondering, would you like to see him back in congress? >> i'd like to see him back doing good work and using his skills and his passion for public service in a way, but that doesn't mean he necessarily has to run for office.

>> that would be a no for amy clo klobuchar. >> that's just so uncomfortable. it's noteworthy, too, because klobuchar was a friend of franken's for a long time. she was not one of the first women to ask him to resign, so she's saying stay away. he should probably stay away. let's be clear, he can try, but he will not succeed. just revisiting some of the allegations against him alone would sink any campaign he would try right now. we're talking about groping, forcible kissing. this stuff is not acceptable in this day and age, and women are speaking out. that's going to poison him for the rest of his life. i just don't see a comeback. >> one of the things we saw, gillebrand was really one of the first people out there. she's received some blowback. this is what she said. if standing up for women who have been wronged makes george soros mad, that's on him, but i won't hesitate to always do what i think is right. it goes on to say that if somebody does something wrong,

you have to speak up and be counted, whether it's president trump or a democratic colleague. >> something of a gift for amy klobuchar, this thing coming up, in some ways. but this is a bad conversation for democrats. they do not want to be talking about this again. in part because it brings up really deep tensions and bitterness among some democrats who feel like he was pushed out prematurely and others who feel like krirsen gillibrand used this as an opportunity to raise her profile at a time when she's thinking about running for president. it's better for democrats to have al franken not even talking about coming back, but kristen gillibrand is going to use it to her advantage. distancing herself from him is not exactly the worst thing. >> and i'm not surprised frarnkn is doing this. he was fairly defiant in his farewell speech in the senator and hadn't ever really

apologized or admitted any wrongdoing at all. >> you got the sense he was leaving because of the pressure, not because he had come to his own conclusion that he needed to leave. but if you're a democrat, you don't want al franken on tv giving interviews at all right now. he seemed to realize what he was saying and sort of saying like, this is going to be a story if i say it. then he goes ahead and says it. i think he hasn't given up the dream, but i agree with rachel. no way. >> seems like a no go. next is a big upset brewing in texas. a new poll shows in striking distance of ted cruz.

a new poll in texas is giving democrats at least a little bit of hope that they can pull off an upset in this year's senate race in texas. democrat beto o'rourke is losing to senator ted cruz by just six points. he's still a long shot to be sure, but o'rourke has also raised more money than cruz and has had more cash on hand as of the end of june. o'rourke is running as an unabashed liberal in texas. he's pro-choice, wants an assault weapons ban, a path to citizenship, an obamacare public option, and cruz says o'rourke sounds like he's running in massachusetts, not texas. matt, you have a great piece in "town & country" magazine. you asked the question, can a person who looks like kennedy and sounds like kennedy win in

texas? >> yeah, and you're right he does sound like he's running in massachusetts. he's an unabashed progressive. he talks about gun control in a state that is heavily armed. he talks about immigration issues, against the border wall in a state with the longest border with mexico. he talks about climate change in a state that deals a lot with the energy sector as an important part of its economy. so he is talking up these issues all around the state and getting a lot of reception among democrats. but there's still a big question. it's still texas. this is the shiny object for democrats every couple years. >> we saw wendy davis, for instance. >> and they always lose. i think beto is seeing a lot of momentum on this. he's polling closely. fundraising is coming in, a lot of it from out of state as well, as democrats look to this as a hot race. >> and what's your sense, rachel? is ted cruz scared? should he be? >> if he is, he probably

shouldn't be. this is texas. but this is a sign of the blue wave coming. it's not just ted cruz who's experiencing this. there's a bunch of house freedom caucus members, hard core conservatives, who are in safe seats, or used to be safe seat, and are now having to run a real race. he'll have to be careful, but it's texas. cruz will be fine. >> that's the thing. i feel like this is the white whale, lucy and the football. but we'll see. maybe this year will be different. we're waiting for the white house briefing to begin. wolf blitzer is going to bring that to you live when it happens. he picks up on our coverage right now. hello. i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. any moment, the white house press briefing is scheduled to begin. it comes as we learn of a new proposal from the special counsel robert mueller to

president trump and his legal team, talk to me in person and i won't ask you as many questions about obstruction of justice. that's the mueller proposal we're told. this development could be what potentially set the president off yesterday when he tweeted that his attorney general jeff sessions should end the mueller investigation right away, right now, his words. so now is this an offer the president will accept? we're going to find out presumably soon enough. while we wait for this press briefing to begin, i want to bring in the veteran journalist carl bernstein. his reporting with bob woodward during the nixon administration helped expose the watergate cover-up that led to president nixon's resignation. carl, thanks so much for joining us. i'm anxious to get your perspective on what we're seeing right now. let's start with the latest offer from robert mueller, the special counsel. he says he'll limit the number of specific questions on obstruction of justice if president trump will talk to him in person and not simply do it in written form.

do you think this means mueller isn't as interested in obstruction or more interested? what's your analysis? >> i think we shouldn't read too much into that exact language. of course he's interested in obstruction. of course he has and has been preparing a case for obstruction of justice as far as any of us who have been covering this can tell. it's not 100% certain. but more important, and if you read today's "new york times," and i think it's generally accepted that the story in "the times" says he's also, mueller, looking into possible coordination between the russians and trump associates. that would include members of trump's family. i think we need to look at that aspect of it perhaps as