about burning here in the state of california, that's more than the land mass of rhode island. that's how much has been burned here. if you look behind me, before we came to talk to you, you could see the flames. but then the winds changed directions very quickly. i'm talking about within like five minutes. >> it's incredible. >> now it's coming at us. we have to wear these goggles because the ashes coming off of there so fast, the winds are speeding up so much right now. this is the problem every afternoon here. and there's no end in sight right now. they're expecting these red flag warnings to continue. >> stephanie, thank you. stay safe. the news continues. >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "cuomo prime time." a roger stone confidant is facing a contempt charge in the special counsel probe. is this about hiding the truth? his lawyer says, no, it's about exposing it. he's here to make the case to you. and looks like trump wants to give himself another tax cut. a rule that is good for him and people like him, not so good for the rest of us.

one of the architects of the original trump tax plan is here to test it. and as charlottesville braces for the return of white supremacist marchers, trump calls out would-be protesters. the problem is he's talking about nfl players taking a knee, not the klan. seriously? it's friday but we've got so much news, we're going to stay light tonight. two hours of "prime time." what do you say? let's get after it. so tonight the focusen speci of special counsel bob mueller's probe is on three people. they are all connected to one man, longtime donald trump confidant roger stone. one of them is a radio host identified as the back channel to wikileaks. another is a friend of stone's known as the manhattan madam. the third is a former aide of stone's named andrew miller, who refused today to comply with a subpoena. so he is now facing a contempt

charge. why dodge if you have nothing to hide? let's get after it with miller's lawyer, mr. paul camanar. welcome to "prime time," counselor. >> thank you, chris. good to be here. >> good to have you. let's test the case. is this about hiding? is this about ducking the truth if. >> absolutely not, chris. this is a constitutional challenge to the lawfulness of the special counsel mueller. what we did was challenge his constitutionality on the grounds that he was not properly appointed under article 2 of the constitution. and we said that if you're going to appoint him under the constitution, he has to be appointed by the head of the department. >> right. >> and the head of the department is jeff sessions, not rod rosenstein. >> right. you made that objection. it was ruled on by the judge in a 90-plus-page decision that every expert that we've had on about it and that i've talked to in the reporting feels confident about it. let me put up the key excerpt

for people. this is what the judge said. multiple statutes authorized the special counsel's appointment, and the official who appointed the special counsel had power to do so. so for these reasons explained in further detail below, the witness's motion to quash the subpoena is denied. in other words, you have made the argument. it's been weighed and measured and found lacking. and while the a.g. didn't appoint the special counsel -- he recused himself -- rod rosenstein, someone who is directly answerable to the president, did. so where is your issue? >> very easy, chris. jeff sessions recused himself from the investigation. >> mm-hmm. >> he did not recuse himself and he could not recuse himself from the constitution, which requires the head of the department to appoint the special counsel. but what you have on the screen there was a different argument in terms of is there even statutory authority to appoint a special counsel? >> the judge said yes. >> this judge said yes. there's another judge who is

also hearing this case in the same court, and the argument she had last week, she said these arguments are -- and this is her word -- compelling. she hasn't issued her decision yet, but you have to -- >> compelling in what context, counselor? compelling political questions, because this judge said that too. these are interesting questions, but they are not legally sufficient. >> no. the judge -- the other judge said that the statutory argument was a compelling argument in terms of the lawfulness. in any event, chris, these are one judge in our case, and the reason we had to not appear at the grand jury was so -- in fact, we even asked this judge to hold our client in contempt of court because under the rules of appellate procedure, you can only appeal a contempt citation. >> right. >> so we had -- >> so you had to be in contempt in order to -- i get that. >> so we're not hiding anything. >> hold on. i get you on the procedural argument. we'll stipulate to that for the

point of this discussion. however, why isn't it about hiding? this guy is not some constitutional, you know, reform zealot. if he has nothing to hide, give the documents over that they say. give the testimony. roger stone says andrew miller has no knowledge or evidence of russian collusion or wikileaks collaboration or any other illegal activity. >> that's right. >> then testify. >> all right. here's the thing, chris. he already talked to two fbi agents for a couple hours. >> he didn't give them everything. >> and then they asked for all the documents. he gave them all the documents. >> he didn't give them all of them because they're asking for more documents. >> well, not really, chris. they're not asking for more documents. they're just asking him to testify about this, and now he is -- >> there was a june deadline that he had to meet in handing over additional document. >> and he did on -- he did. >> he gave them everything they asked for? >> exactly. >> there's nothing outstanding. >> nothing outstanding. so all that's left is, okay, go into the grand jury. and he has a principled issue here. he, himself, is a very staunch libertarian.

he worked on gary johnson's campaign in 2016. he doesn't -- didn't vote for trump, doesn't like trump's policies. so he committed for a restricted government power. and what we have here with robert mueller is basically a super u.s. attorney, more powerful than the regular u.s. attorneys. and regular u.s. attorneys -- >> he's directly answerable to rosenstein, so how is he more powerful? >> so are these other attorneys. >> that's my point. he can file cases in any jurisdiction, in d.c., virginia, new york. your regular u.s. attorney cannot. but listen to this, chris. all these u.s. attorneys are nominated by the president, appointed by the president with the consent of the senate. so here you have robert mueller acting like a u.s. attorney at large, a super u.s. attorney, and he hasn't been -- gone through the confirmation process. so that's why our two arguments is that if he's an inferior officer, jeff sessions has to

appoint him. if he's a superior officer, the senate has to confirm him. and he's not really being supervised closely by rosenstein. he's basically given free rein. he's indicting russian foreign agents. >> he has a specific mandate. rosenstein reviews it. we've seen that decisions have been made to parse out different things that mueller started looking at and then went to the southern district so that, you know, there's been a judiciousness in terms of what he can do. i don't see why you think that's a clear question. >> well, no. it is because in terms of the supervision, rod rosenstein basically does not effectively control the actions -- >> why not? >> well, because you see that there has been no limits on rosenstein's -- on mueller's jurisdiction and authority. he is now going after manafort, which is -- has nothing to do with the russian investigation. >> but in the mandate, it says that things that arise from it. >> sure. and it can go as far as you want

on that. but we're still challenging whether or not he can lawfully exercise those powers under the constitution. >> what i'm saying is the judge ruled on this, and you're saying you're not satisfied with the ruling even though -- >> yes. >> -- this easily be dispensed with, and mr. miller could go on with his life if he really has nothing to offer up. this seems like a potential distraction of process. >> it's not a -- the constitution is never a distraction, chris. these are important principles. >> right. but you're assuming it's unclear under the constitution. this judge says it is not. >> well, that's one judge. you have the court of appeals. you have the supreme court. chris, remember in morrison versus olson, you had that case in terms of the independent counsel where the district judge ruled he was unconstitutional, and then by the way, they were held in contempt of court too. >> right, but there was -- but you remember what the issue was in that case, right? it's not the same one that you're bringing. >> it's still the same issue as

whether or not the special -- in that case, the independent counsel satisfied the separation of powers in the appointment clause. they ultimately ruled that they did, but in morrison, justice scalia dissented and that decision by the way is basically going to be overruled, if it already has been. many jurists including justice elena kagan says that justice scalia was right on point on this. so that decision -- >> but you had a majority decision that went against what you're arguing right now. >> no, not on point because we had several other arguments that were not addressed in morrison and that dealt with a different issue of whether the three-judge court can be the appointing power. so it is a very weak precedent at best, and the supreme court has the last word on this. we think -- >> is there any case that has ever ruled the way you want to see it? >> well, this is a precedent-setting case. by definition -- >> no. >> -- there isn't. but we have a lot of arguments that we make to show that we do

have a good case. >> right. >> the judge recognized it -- >> if you lose, will he testify? >> he'll have to testify if we lose, of course. >> so he will not hold out because he's libertarian. maybe he would just hold out on principle. >> no, no, no. he's been cooperating with the special prosecutor -- special counsel in this case. so he's not going to be a recalcitrant witness. we're just standing on principle, chris. this is the constitution that's involved and that's what our main interest is. >> both are true. he is a recalcitrant witness, but you're saying it's because of principle. >> he won't testify. >> that's by definition recalcitra recalcitrant. >> usually recalcitrant is i'm not testifying for no good reason, where i just don't want to talk to you. >> that's debatable because -- [ overlapping voices ] >> the court stayed the contempt by the way, and the case law is that if you raise a good issue, a constitutional issue, the judge usually stays that case. >> true. fair point. >> okay. >> fair point.

it's friday night, i'll let you end on that one. >> thank you. >> counselor, thank you for coming on. as we learn more about this case, do me a favor. please come back. all right? good to have him on the show. so one of the other roger stone connections is the manhattan madam. she has a name. it's kristin davis. she testified today before the mueller grand jury. she did not have this grand constitutional case that mr. miller has. what does it mean that they brought in the manhattan madam? we also have the case of the curious new radio duo of rudy and jay, trump's lawyers. we take on both in cuomo's court, next. salads should look like this. crisp leaves of lettuce. freshly made dressing. clean food that looks this good.

delivered to your desk. now delivering to home or office. panera. food as it should be. ♪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 transitions™ light under control™ - anncr: as you grow older, -your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life. let's do an ad of a man eating free waffles at comfort inn. they taste like victory because he always gets the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed,

when he books direct at choicehotels.com. or just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com

♪ ♪ ♪ i put a spell on you ♪ yeah, because you're mine ♪ with chase atms serena can now grab cash on the go, all with the tap of her phone.

♪ stop the things you do no card? no problem. life, lived serena's way. chase, make more of what's yours. so why would mueller call the manhattan madam, pause -- i mean to testify about roger stone? and why are the president's lawyers on the radio hosting a show running down the probe? is that going to help them with mueller? let's bring in laura coats and jim schultz for cuomo's court. laura coates, let's start with the manhattan madam. why? >> well, because she has a professional relationship with roger stone, who by his own admissions, his own statements, has alluded to his own relationship with julian assange, who has infamously now posted a lot of the e-mails that were hacked by russians to the 2016 election. so they're trying to figure out what it is she knows about that

relationship are that person? >> why would she know anything? >> because she served add a clerical -- who worked with him as scheduling and calendar and issues around that. perhaps there is something to be had about the corroboration of sam nunberg who said that he told him he was talking to julian assange, was with him at different points in time. so perhaps she could give him information about that particular aspect of it. >> but then stone said he was just puffing when he was talking to nunberg, and nunberg says that could be true. so how do you see the decision to have kristin davis on the stand? >> i see the decision as one that's a comprehensive investigation to not leave any stone -- forgive the pun -- unturned because you have -- >> a good pun by the way. >> you have to have good corroboration about things like that. you can't take anybody's word if credibility is a factor here. >> schultz, let's come in on this. the idea is how tenuous are you going to get? you haven't called stone. if you want to know, call stone. but they're calling people

around him. how far away from somebody, how small a role can somebody play in someone's life and still get called before a grand jury? >> look, they are clearly looking at the people in roger stone's orbit to see what they know before they decide to call roger stone to the stand. they want to get the information, corroborate the information that they may already have, and then eventually get to roger stone and put him on the stand and ask him what he knows and what contacts he really had. >> so they can show that there was some activity that would equate with collusion? >> well, i think they're -- right. i mean that's the purpose of the investigation is to look. it was an intelligence investigation to begin with, a foreign intelligence investigation to begin with, looking at interference with the election. and there was some discussions and public statements made by stone about his relationship with julian assange. >> right. >> and, again, he did say that was puffing.

he did walk that back a bit. but the bottom line is, you know, these prosecutors are going to verify that. >> okay. >> they're going to verify that information and then call him in. >> so one more thing on this, laura. go ahead. >> if i can just say, though, if he is a target of the investigation, he himself, and the goal is not to get to perhaps somebody more directly in with the campaign like donald trump, then they would never call him. they would be trying to get everyone around him to talk about the information they have. he himself may be the target. you got an indictment of those 12 gru agents where they talk about somebody who is an american citizen, who was in cahoot. >> and stone had said he didn't think that was him, but it was so obvious it was him. >> he admitted it was. >> on my show. thanks for watching laura coats. >> i think it's a little premature to label him a target. >> that would be rationale for not calling him. i get your point.

but everything that could be speculated about, alleged about roger stone were true, what's the crime? >> well, he cannot, as an american citizen, facilitate or solicit the help of a foreign national of any kind to try to influence the election. that is a part of collusion. that's an umbrella term that's often used, and the focus has always been on members of the trump campaign. but in reality, mueller's mandate is far more expansive. it also includes looking into things he discovers in the course of that campaign, of that collusion investigation. if he is somebody who solicited the help of a foreign national, that is a crime. >> you think stone could get stuck for that, mr. schultz? >> i don't know. we don't know what roger stone -- what communications he had as of yet. i mean that's clearly what they're trying to get at here by pulling these folks in that are in his orbit, to find out what he knew and what he said and the communications he had. >> next topic while i have you here. schultz, are you okay with rudy and jay sekulow having a radio

show and co-hosting and beating up the probe and making their case? >> look, they have a job to do as lawyers, and this probe has been in the public domain, and they have to have a pulpit in order to defend their client. and their client is in the news day in and day out talking about the probe, criticizing the probe. this is an opportunity for them as the lawyers to speak on his behalf, as his lawyer, and make their arguments in public. and maybe that prevents the president from going out and doing it himself. >> coates? >> well, there's a court of public opinion, and then there's the kangaroo court with the peanut gallery. they are now in the latter. it is to me ridiculous that two private attorneys on behalf of the president of the united states, not on behalf of the office of the white house counsel, are making their claims over the airwaves in this fashion. and they, i'm sure, will at some point will try to articulate the attorney-client privilege about different things they've talked to him about. they're essentially throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping one will stick, and they

know full well this is an argument that's going to lead to a greater discussion perhaps if impeachment is ever able as an opportunity. but in my mind as a lawyer, an officer of the court, i think it's pretty unconscionable that they're going to use this medium. it really undermines the credibility of their client and demonstrates they have no strategy other than a focus group using the media and the people who listen to sean hannity's show. >> coates -- >> so day in and day out, you know, the folks that are on the other side of this, the democrats from the house and the senate, the folks that want to see donald trump fail, day in and day out are pontificating about this investigation, making arguments and throwing statements out -- >> nobody is saying they shouldn't be in the media. >> there needs to be someone telling the president's side of the story. >> look, they're on tv all the time. i invite them on here. they take other invitations. they go on. they talk whenever they want. nobody is barring them from having their say.

it's about what coates' phrase was, in this fashion. and when you are simultaneously bashing the probe, saying it's unsubstantiated, shouldn't stand, there are no arguments, it's unconstitutional, and asking the special counsel to accept your terms for an interview, how do you think those things go together? peanut butter and jelly or peanut butter and sardines? >> it depends whether the special counsel is caring about the court of public opinion in making determinations as to what this interview is going to look like. >> they're human beings, right, jim? >> that factors into all of it, and the court of public opinion matters to all the folks involved in this thing. >> well, to answer your question, it's peanut butter and sardines, chris. and the actual court of law has an interest in this as well because if you think about it, they are going to try to make some argument -- rudy giuliani and jay sekulow at some point, once mueller is frustrated by the absence of good faith negotiations and is forced at some point if he chooses to issue a subpoena, they're going

to have to go before a court of law and not a court of public opinion and articulate that they in fact were negotiating in good faith, were not using terms like perjury trap as a pretextual reason for the president, the head of the executive branch, to thumb his nose at the subpoena power of a grand jury. and they're going to be faced with the commentary on that very show, and the court of law is not going to be receptive. that's my hope as somebody who is a member of the court of law. >> i didn't play any sound from the radio interview -- >> there's been no allegation -- >> go ahead, jim. make your final point. >> there's been no allegation that the president's legal team is acting in bad faith in these negotiations. certainly not out of the special counsel's office. it's irresponsible to say it at this point in time. they've gone back and forth a number of times now with some conditions. they're narrowing the scope. that's clearly what the president's legal team is looking to do, and mueller wants to ask as many questions as he can. so those two parties are going to continue to argue and negotiate over this for some time to come.

>> all right. final point. laura coates, defend yourself. he said what you said is indefensible. >> it's not irresponsible. actually quite astute. here's the reason why. their comments that they're making on the radio and other mediums in the interest of their client in the court of public opinion are based on their statements that they are trying to avoid the so-called perjury trap. now, trying to evade a perjury trap, if you know as an officer of the court, which would suggest that every single person who goes into a court of law to answer questions either at trial or an investigation is somehow being nefariously enticed by somebody who is looking to administer justice. and so if that's their basis, that's not negotiating in good faith. and if that's their sole basis and the court hears that exclusively from the radio, then they would make that assertion. it's not irresponsible. frankly, it is inferred by the content of their own statements. >> i reserve judgment on the ruling until we see more facts of what the investigation is. but i will say this right now. they don't want to put the president in that room for one main reason, jim, and i don't have to tell you this because

you have experience with the president yourself. they are afraid of him freelancing and him answering questions in a way that goes beyond the scope of what he needed to answer and getting himself in trouble. and they won't be able to help him when he's looking at a federal officer. that is their main concern no matter what else they're arguing. we know that's what it is. and i didn't play any sound from the radio for one very self-serving but important reason. i want them to do it on this show, not without being tested. you need to be tested to get respect and legitimacy for your arguments. they're welcome here anytime. laura coates, jim schultz, on a friday night, thank you very much. >> thank you. the attorney general slamming sanctuary cities once again. but is his case legit? i have the facts and what figures, next.

now t-mobile has unlimited for the rest of us. unlimited ways to be you. unlimited ways share with others. unlimited ways to live for the moment. all for as low as 30 bucks a line. unlimited for you. for them. for all. get unlimited for as low at 30 bucks per line for four lines at t-mobile. ♪ ♪ ♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ ♪ bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪

♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪ you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? most pills don't finish the job because they don't relieve nasal congestion. flonase sensimist is different. it relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist helps block six key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and six is greater than one. flonase sensimist.

and six is greater than one. i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. facts first. sanctuary cities are in the news again because the attorney general, jeff sessions, is once again bashing them. so where are the sanctuary cities? here's a map. you'll see most of them are on the coast, but there are plenty in the middle of the country as

well. now, are sanctuary cities bad? the sessions/trump argument is local governments don't round up and deport people, so they are putting your life and law enforcement's lives at risk. first, local governments don't deport anybody. the federal government does. semantics, says sessions. if a city doesn't help or release its bad guys, that's bad enough. but is that a fair legal analysis in here are the facts. trump didn't start this fire. he's just blowing on it. both the bush and obama administrations basically deputized local law enforcement to help catch people in the country. so what happened? the cities kept getting sued for profiling, holding people too long while waiting for federal official orz getting them for the wrong reasons because they often didn't have the full case jacket, the information from the feds. and they kept losing cases and being fined and it got expensive. so what they did was start

passing laws saying the federal government needs to do this job itself, okay? so those are the facts. then there's the administration's main policy argument. this is about public safety, collecting immigrants who come here illegally is essential to crime-fighting. that's what jeff sessions says. >> this should be obvious, but if you want to reduce violent crime, then we have to get serious about illegal immigrant crime. >> why? what is his argument? illegal entrants are a significant aspect of crime overall. but that is wrong. even if you count all those who are caught for entering illegally, they are still not a significant part of our crime problem. proof. okay. first, a study found in march that violent crime actually falls more when immigrants are living in a community,

especially if they are here illegally. why? because people who are here illegally have a tendency to stay under the radar. it makes them less willing to commit crimes. that's the theory of the study. more proof. the kato institute, not a liberal place, right? they looked at texas, which ironically is where jeff sessions was making his argument today. and they found that people there legally were 25% less likely to be convicted of homicide as people who were born here. why? well, again, two factors. the first one is that entering here illegally does not mean you are automatically a killer, okay? we keep hearing that from some of our friends and not friends on the right. they're selling it, but it's untrue. and, again, when you are here illegally, you want to hide from law enforcement. how do you hide most effectively? by not committing crimes. so this is a reality that i'm not making up and isn't just

owned by the cato institute. the white house chief of staff john kelly admitted this in april. >> the vast majority of the people that move illegally into the united states are not bad people. they're not criminals. they're not ms-13. >> if they're not, they're not, they're not, then why do we keep hearing it? do you know why? why do we hear that they sell drugs, they rape, they gang-bang, as if it were the rule and not the exception? because they're not gang bangers, but you know what this was? fear. selling fear works. it just happens to be fake fear in this situation. it is fear that drives support for harsh treatment and walls and other things that trump can deliver on and look good. that's sad. sadder still is that there is a real crime problem in this country that sessions could be spending a lot of energy on in this speech and otherwise. but that doesn't seem to be as important, and that leaves us with a question. why not? okay. we're going to take a break. when we come back, president

trump wants to give another tax cut to himself, and this time he wants to bypass congress. our next guest is the man who helped trump secure the first round of tax cuts. marc short is here to make the case. stay with us. ca interrupts) ...and told people about geico... (harmonica interrupts) how they could save 15% or more by... (harmonica interrupts) ...by just calling or going online to geico.com. (harmonica interrupts) (sighs and chuckles) sorry, are you gonna... (harmonica interrupts) everytime. geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. i get it all the time. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go.

at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

it's softer than ever. charmin ultra soft is softer than ever so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird enjoy the go with charmin

california had the worst wildfire season on record. scientists say, our weather is becoming more extreme and we all have to be better prepared. that's why pg&e is adopting new and additional safety precautions to help us monitor and respond to dangerous weather. hi, i'm allison bagley, a meteorologist with pg&e's community wildfire safety program. we're working now, to enhance our weather forecasting capabilities, building a network of new weather stations to identify when and where extreme wildfire conditions may occur, so we can respond faster and better. we're installing cutting edge technology to provide real-time mapping and tracking of weather patterns. and we use this information in partnership with first responders and california's emergency response systems. to learn more about the community wildfire safety program and how you can help keep your home and community safe, visit pge.com/wildfiresafety

so we got the big tax cut. it wasn't really tax reform, but the cut was supposed to be the centerpiece of the party's message in the midterms. but not so much, at least at this point. why? and what is up with this latest cut that cuts out congress? perfect guest, trump's former legislative director marc short is here. welcome to "prime time." >> chris, thanks for having me on. >> it's good to have you. let's talk about this tax cut. first of all, my suggestion there in the introduction that the gop was supposed to go long and strong with this tax cut, but we haven't been hearing much about it. is that because you know that it doesn't help the same people that put the president in office as much as it helps people like me? >> oh, no, i don't think that's the case, chris. i think if you look at the overall tax benefits of the

$1.7 trillion estimated, $1.1 million is going to individuals. $600 million for companies and businesses. so i think the reality is that people across the country are benefiting from it. unemployment's at an all-time low. unemployment for particularly african-american and hispanic-americans is at an all-time low. estimates say for a family of four earning $70,000, they get a tax benefit of over $2,000. so, no, i think the vast majority of americans are benefiting from the tax relief plan. >> but it's about which people. first of all, unemployment, very low. underemployment, not as low. a more specific problem. what kinds of jobs? how many hours? what is the pay? wages are not moving the way we need them to. people in the middle class have not grown in any way near to what those in the top 1% have. 80-plus cents of every dollar of this tax cut go to the wealthy, not the people who put trump in office. defend. >> chris, i think that the reality again is that those that are taxpayers across the

country, the ones benefiting, as i just said, a family of four that is earning $07,000 is getting a $2,500 tax break. >> some. >> if you're talking about families or individuals that are earning exceedingly higher than that, then pro-rating that, of course there's going to get a higher tax benefit than -- >> why of course? you called it a middle class tax cut. doesn't that mean -- >> it's talking about a percentage. if you're a family of four and you're earning $72,000, that $2,500 is pretty significant to you. >> i like that argument. it's a shaming argument that, hey, you're saying $2,500 is like chicken scratch, but it's not when you make 70. not on my watch, my friend. what i'm saying is if it's a middle class tax cut, then give me the 80 cents of every dollar as a middle class family and not the 20 that you're giving. if you're going to call it middle class, take care of them the most. you didn't. >> no, that's not true, chris. >> 80 cents. that's what the cbo scored it. >> i can walk through this for you again.

you're distorting the analysis. the reality is the top 1% or 2% pay roughly 40% of the taxes in america. so naturally if you're going to look at it that way, then you're going to say that they're going to get a higher percentage. but if you're looking at what the actual income is for an individual in middle income, then they're getting a larger percent -- >> not everybody who makes 70 grand got that cut. there are a lot of different demographic figures that went into it. but if you make a lot of money, you did. what they're trying to do now with the capital gains cut going around congress, but, again, 80 plus cents of every dollar of that cut is going to go to the 1%. i thought you wanted to help the middle class the most. then help them the most. don't help me. >> chris, the middle class is the bun that's benefiting -- >> not the most. >> they're the one that got the larger percentage in the tax rate from what they were pay tock what they're paying now. they're also the ones benefiting from the most from the child tax credit because this is a much more significant deduction for

them that they're receiving from the tax plan. so, yes, the middle class is the one that's benefitting from this tax plan, significantly so. it's why you're seeing such tremendous economic growth in our country, why you're seeing gdp at 4.1%. i know you want to talk about what it was in the obama years -- so, yes, the economy is growing from that tax plan, and those benefiting are the middle class. >> there are a lot of different reasons the economy could be growing, but i'll give you that point for the sake of argument that there's no question right now the economy is agreeing in robust fashion, and we'll debate why as we get closer to the elections. let me ask you something else while i have you here. so you were on the inside with trump. when he would bash the media, what did you say to him about it? when he would attack the media, when he would attack situations and lie about them, who around him said -- because you were in the room, so i want to know. did anybody around him say, you know, that's not true by the way? >> chris, i'm not sure that the

president was looking for my opinion about the way he handles his interactions with the media. i think that by and large you see that roughly 90-plus percent of the coverage of the president has been negative, and i think he's anxious to find a day when he actually gets a fair shake in the mainstream media. >> it's about what he says and what he does, right? it's not like you have to cherry pick. i mean that's the point. it's just weird, marc. you're there. he's saying all these things. you don't say anything. but then you came and join the enemy. you say nothing then, but now you're with us. why? we're glad to have you by the way. glad to have you. >> i can tell you are. i appreciate the invitation to be on your network. i'm excited to be able to provide a perspective that perhaps your network was missing as far as advocating for the trump administration policies. so i think that will be hopefully beneficial to your viewers to get a different side of the conversation as well. >> 100%. but i want the perspective of somebody who was in that room. so you're saying that people who were there felt that it was so unfair to him, that it was okay

for him to attack the coverage. and if he tells the truth, he tells the truth. if he doesn't -- >> chris, you've heard me say previous will i was asked this question on a different network, i said the free and fair press is a cornerstone of democracy. it's what's essential to democracy. i think you'll hear me protect the right and freedom of press question.e you ask me that so, yeah, i think there are plenty of us who believe the press is not the enemy of the state or enemy of the people. but at the same time, i do think the president has had an unfair representation in the media in the coverage that he's received, and i don't think there's any doubt about that. >> i think you can believe both of those things at the same time obviously, and the president doesn't. that's why i asked you about it because you know what? your perspective on economics but also the mind set and the tactics of the president are going to be invaluable to the office. -- to the audience, and that's why i'm happy to have you on the show. you are welcome back again anytime. >> thanks, chris. >> marc short, appreciate it. welcome to the team. all right. so turns out we have problems

with north korea. president trump said the threat was gone, but the only thing that is gone for sure seems to be any positive momentum. so the question becomes why? do these things just generally go this way, or did we take the wrong approach? phil mudd says he can feed your mind on this in just three points. feed your mind. that's what i meant, phil. don't make that face. it made sense. next. crisp leaves of lettuce. freshly made dressing. clean food that looks this good. delivered to your desk. now delivering to home or office. panera. food as it should be. the most highly recommended bed in america just got better. panera.

introducing the reinvented tempur-pedic. designed with the most pressure relieving material we've ever created and superior cool-to-touch technology. find your exclusive retailer today at tempur-pedic.com. a place with 24-hour valet service... and upholstery classes. a place where seniors get the care they need in the comfort of home. home instead senior care.

♪ hawaii is in the middle of the pacific ocean. we're the most isolated population on the planet. ♪ hawaii is the first state in the u.s. to have 100% renewable energy goal. we're a very small electric utility. but, if we don't make this move we're going to have changes in our environment, and have a negative impact to hawaii's economy. ♪ verizon provided us a solution using smart sensors on their network that lets us collect near real time data on our power grid. (colton) this technology is helping us integrate rooftop solar, which is a very important element of getting us to our renewable energy goals. ♪ (shelee) if we can create our own energy,

we can take care of this beautiful place that i grew up in. ♪ so the kim regime in north korea is now calling american proposals to give up its nuclear weapons gangster-like. that's not good. let's discuss it with cnn counterterrorism analyst phil mudd who is here. you say you can take care of this, clarify in three points, and they go to pace, posture, and progress. let's start with pace. is this the way it usually goes, that it seems ugly early? >> no way. look, you got to go into this with an understanding of what your adversary wants. in this case we went in misunderstanding our adversary. we go in with what we call a rational actor, model, chris. that is he can't feed his own people. he must be willing to give up nukes so we can relieve sanctions and he can feed his own people. kim is sitting there saying, if they want this so bad, they must

be willing to give me something up front, and we of course said no. we both went in with a common problem. we misunderstood our adversary. >> all right. that takes us to how we went in, posture. they had the summit. was that the right move? >> i believe it was the right move to figure out after years of mistakes, after years of misunderstandings what we should are walked out and said we understand they may not be willing to move on denuclearization. what's the next step? we haven't gotten there yet. >> the way they came out of summit and what the president said, is that the right move? >> of course not. you go into this saying the primary thing the north koreans want is to pretect the regime of a dictator. we wapts nt to get nuclear weap off the table. if you take them off the table, if you go into that misunderstanding what your add v -- adversary wants.

you don't core a goal. >> progress. how do you make progress? >> we got to make two assumptions that nobody's going to like. number one, are we going to show some leg going in. are we going to tell them we'll leave sanctions before you denud denuclearize. the second thing are we going to give them security assurances about the future of north korea. i don't think we'll do that. >> did you just say show some leg? >> what we do every time ke we out for beers. s >> as your friend, stay off the drugs. it's the one year anniversary of that deadly w horror show. president trump says the proes t -- protesters should be called

out. he's not talking about the white supremacists. he's talking about the nfl. why? closing argument, next. this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage.

talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. agent beekman was one step ahead of them.dits stole the lockbox from the wells fargo stagecoach, because he hid his customers' gold in a different box. and the bandits, well, they got rocks. we protected your money then and we're dedicated to helping protect it today. like alerting you to certain card activity we find suspicious. if it's not your purchase, we'll help you resolve it. it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day. ♪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 transitions™ light under control™ if these packs have the same number of bladder leak pads, i bet you think bigger is better. actually, it's bulkier. always discreet quickly turns liquid to gel, for drier protection that's a lot less bulky. always discreet.

i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig.

comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. the nfl preseason kicked off. the jets are playing right now and their clearly the dominant team. i'm a delusional jets fan. i'm not surprised that president trump picked up right where he left off criticizing players who choose to take a knee or raise a fist in protest. he says the nfl players are at it again. taking a knee when they should be standing proudly for the national anthem. numerous players wanted to show their outrage in quotes, in something that most are unable to define. they make a fortunate. be happy, be cool. a football game fans playing so much to enjoy to protest. find another way to protest.

and the proudly for your national anthem or be issues pep -- suspended without pie. why is trump doing this? so many protesting players, white and black have said this isn't about disrespecting the flag. he knows that. he doesn't seem to care. why? this works with the part of his base. how do we know? he said it. cowboys owner jeffrey jones gave sworn testimony that trump told him, quote, this is a very winning strong issue for me. tell everybody you can't win this one. this one lifts me. how does this lift anyone? it's okay if it divides people and stokes prejudices. that's winning? this is like a domestic foreim, targeting a minority. in this case, mostly black players. once again he is suggesting they

are stupid by saying they're unable to define why they protest. what's what he says. here is another thing. he knows that isn't true. he said it. >> i'm going to ask all of those people to recommend to me, because that's what they're protesting, people that they think were unphysical therapily treated by the justices and i understand that. >> if he understands, the question is does he really care? for, the trump administration is working on prison reform. that could make a really positive difference for minority communities. we have to see what happens. if he does, that's a point for. point against, he takes on the nfl protest and ignores the trash that's heading to charlottes which i wiville to m deadly racism by having another rally. the president says nothing. he picks on the nfl players who are part of one of the most

unifying aspects and ignores the ugliest division. the president said he's the least racist person you know. the president says he's all about uniting the country. we only know what you show . if you're not racist then attack the racists instead of targeting most lly black protestesters an suggesting they are dumb especially after the shameful moment about charlottesville a year ago. he should not ignore the anniversary, you embrace it. you bring people together in america in the spirit of what is most american, rejecting intolerance and bigotry. go after the nazis peddling hate, not our sports hero who is are protesting injustice. that way, the president gets his

win and that win doesn't make the rest of us and what this country stands for losers. that is the closing argument. i don't have to say good night because we're going to keep going. we have a bonus second hour of cuomo primetime. bob mueller's team seems to be circling roger stone. is he target? if so, what cold thuld that mea the president. you will meet democrat sherice davis. there she is. great to have you. talk to you in a bit. senate republicans fearful that hard right conservative may win the primary for an especi