in senator al franken. that will be top of mind for voters. we'll have to see. >> one of the races we'll watch tonight, this one because of these sad allegations, serious allegations. we'll watch these votes tonight and count them tomorrow. thanks for joining us today. hope to see you back here at noon tomorrow. wolf is in now to pick up our coverage. have a great day. hello. i'm jim sciutto in for wolf blitzer. 1:00 p.m. here in washington. wherever you are watching from around the world, thank you so much for joining us. we begin with breaking news. the defense in paul manafort's tax and bank fraud trial has rested without calling any witnesses. manafort telling the judge himself he did not want to take the stand. that now sets the stage for closing arguments tomorrow morning. with me now is shimon prokupecz, who's been following the trial. also, michael zeldin, a former federal prosecutor and former special assistant to robert mueller at the justice

department. shimon, if i could begin with you first. just to highlight this, this is the president's former chairman of his campaign, charged with multiple crimes here. his defense in effect cannot mount a defense or refusing the opportunity to mount a defense here. >> certainly refusing the opportunity. the jurors will be told and have been told that there's no obligation for a defense for the attorneys to put on any kind of defense. i think it's certainly shocking that they didn't put on any witnesses. no one expected paul manafort to testify, quite clearly. such overwhelming evidence from the prosecution. they have e-mails, documents. they have rick gates, who was his long-time business partner. it's not surprising that paul manafort didn't testify. i think people are kind of surprised that at least they didn't put someone on to show that they were making some kind of effort perhaps. while jurors shouldn't consider this as anything negative,

there's always a perception with jurors and how they could view this. it seems, obviously, that the defense here is putting everything on their cross-examination, and they're going to make whatever arguments they're going to make in closing tomorrow. >> michael zeldin, is this the legal e giquivalent of a white flag? >> well, no, because we think that the defense theory is reasonable doubt. they think that through gates they are able to create reasonable doubt. there was one point in the trial, the question went this way from defense counsel downing. after all these lies you've told and the fraud you've committed, you expect this jury to believe you? he's asking gates. gates says yes. then downing replies -- he continues, i'm sorry. i'm here to tell the truth. manafort had the same path i'm trying to change. that's the essence of this trial. if they believe after all these lies and frauds gates is

incredible, one juror, all they need for a hung jury, can say, i have a reasonable doubt. >> court prosecutions regularly depend on the testimony of witnesses who, shall we say, are not saints. think of every mob trial, right. it's not unusual to have a -- someone with not the most stellar reputation to testify. >> what the prosecutors have been so good at doing here is they have all this other evidence. they really didn't need rick gates. e-mails, documents, folks from the banks, the accountants, the tax preparers. that is overwhelming evidence. >> it corroborates. so you could say even if you have a question about gates' morality, his integrity, the truth of his testimony is corroborated by all of the documentation, including the words out of manafort's mouth himself through all of his e-mails where he acknowledges the criminal patterns and

encouraged them to go forward. >> he's spending a lot of money on this defense. paul manafort does not have a lot of money to spend. is there any suspicion here that he's throwing himself if not on the mercy of the jury, on the president's mercy, that this is an indication he's expecting or hoping for a presidential pardon? >> it's a good theory. i thought, and i said it on air, that this was a guilty plea. it may have been a slow guilty plea through the conduct of a trial, but this was a guilty plea because the evidence was so overwhelming. you can have the same thing happen in a few weeks in the district of columbia where he's going to stand trial again for more or less the same charges. i don't understand why you wouldn't work out an agreement to reduce your exposure, even if you don't testify, unless you think maybe if i stand silent and i have something to say and the president knows i have something to say, he'll remedy that down the line with a pardon. >> shimon prokupecz, of course

this is part of the overall mueller investigation. it doesn't relate to russian interference, but these charges were brought by the special prosecutor. what does this mean for the broader russia investigation? >> well, for the special counsel f they get a conviction here, it's going to help them with their credibility politically speaking. i think rick gates is an important witness for them. that's become evident during the trial. >> witness beyond the financial crimes. >> what's important is that he holds up here. if for any reason his credibility is torn down, if for some reason there's an acquittal here and let's say it's rick gates' fault, what will that mean for the rest of the investigation? politically speaking, this is an overwhelming case for the prosecution. they should win this case. so that will be -- politically for them, it's important they get this victory and that the credibility of these witnesses are held up. the other thing is still what can -- can manafort still get some sort of a deal? we know based on a lot of

reporting we've done here that there's been pressure on manafort. they were trying to get him to cooperate. he has refused. could he somehow down the line get a deal. >> any point up until sentencing, that opportunity was there. >> this rule 35 opportunity for him that within a year he has the opportunity to cooperate and then get some sentencing reduction based on that cooperation. he's got an opportunity to help himself if he wants to. >> michael zeldin, shimon prokupecz, thanks very much. now to the president and his escalating feud with former white house aide omarosa. trump tweeted today really a remarkable moment, remarkable words to come out of the mouth of the president via twitter in this case. he said the following. when you give a crazed, crying low life a break and give her a job at the white house, i guess it shouldn't work out. it just didn't work out, rather. good work by general kelly for quickly firing that dog.

dog, low life. the president of the united states using those words to describe a woman who he hired multiple times for this job but also of course back in the reality tv show days. now the trump campaign is taking legal steps against omarosa, accusing her of violating a nondisclosure agreement. all of this coming as omarosa claims she heard trump use the "n" word on an audiotape. she releases a new secret recording of a 2016 conversation that she had with trump advisers, in this case lynne patton and katrina pierson, discussing the alleged use of that racial slur. have a listen.

>> well, pierson released a statement shortly after saying that omarosa made up the story. she says, quote, during the 2016 campaign, we heard rumors about an alleged tape from "the apprentice." it's clear now that those rumors were always being circulated by omarosa and her alone. pierson goes on to say, quote, in her secret tape recording of me, it was one of many times that i would placate omarosa to move the discussion along because i was weary of her obsession over this alleged tape. let's go right now to cnn's white house correspondent kaitlan collins. what else can you tell us about legal action by the trump campaign? of course, president trump himself and the campaign have repeatedly threatened lawsuits that they haven't followed up on. are they following up on this case of legal action? >> reporter: well, jim, so far we're seeing the first legal

action since omarosa did start on this publicity tour for this book where she makes these stunning allegations. this is from the trump campaign. they're filing an arbitration action against omarosa saying that she violated a 2016 nondisclosure agreement that she signed with the campaign. now, we have not seen the agreement that omarosa herself signed specifically with her signature on it, but we have seen one of the campaign passed out to other staffers. in that nda, it does say that those signing cannot disparage the president or his family, and it does have a clause about arbitration, binding them to that agreement. that is what we're seeing here. that is an agreement that most of those staffers signed. we reached out to see if that's the one that omarosa herself signed, but we have not heard back. it's unclear where this is all going to go with this arbitration, jim, but this is the first legal action we've seen anyone take. we saw the president preview this yesterday when he said that omarosa had signed a full nondisclosure agreement.

this seems to be the one he's referring to, but it's still unclear exactly which one he's referring to. jim, what we are seeing is this consume the white house. this book in and of itself leading the president to tweet over almost ten times in just the last 24 hours alone about his former staffer, one of his highest paid staffers here in the white house. now sarah sanders is going to come out during this briefing here in the next hour. the first briefing she's had in weeks since the president was on his vacation in new jersey last week. she's going to have to answer questions about this former staffer who is making these very serious allegations and engaging in this back and forth with this white house that we are really seeing just coop snsume them he. >> no question, kaitlan collins. we should note that the white house had denied in the past or not confirmed there were any ndas signed. also, lawyers we've spoken to have said they're indefensible because it's a freedom of speech expression.

we'll discuss this war of words, the language the president used. really remarkable language. and those alleged "apprentice" tapes. plus, in the middle of all this, the white house set to hold its first briefing in 12 days. just a short time from now, we're going to take you there live when it happens. nlimited 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.

named 'park' in the u.s. ninety-six hundred roads it's america's most popular street name. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?

i knew at that exact moment ... i'm beating this. my main focus was to find a team of doctors. it's not just picking a surgeon, it's picking the care team and feeling secure in where you are. visit cancercenter.com/breast

booking a flight doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline.

the very public feud is escalating between president trump and his former adviser omarosa. trump now calling her a dog after omarosa claims that trump used the "n" word on an audiotape. joining me to discuss this, michael eric dyson. his new book "what truth sounds

like" dives deep into the conversation about race in america and politics. also, eliana johnson and cnn's senior political reporter nia-malika henderson. michael, if i could begin with you, the president of the united states calls a former senior adviser who he hired himself, a woman, a woman of color, he called her a dog after calling her a low life yesterday. >> i mean, this is reprehensible. we've seen this movie before. jim clark, bull connor, racist sheriffs in the south who dehumanized african-american people and subsequently applied policies that intended to undermine and subvert their democracy. this president even more ridiculously and carelessly and callously calling a black woman a dog. last time i checked, a female dog is a -- and this is what he called her. he's dehumanized so many other african-american people. his policies have undermined our integrity as citizens. a justice department that is

undermining voting rights. we have people in housing who are reinforcing discrimination. it's not just a one off. it's not just a loose cannon engaging in rhetorical animus toward vulnerable black people. this is part and parcel of a policy of both deep and profound personal disintegration before our eyes as well as policies that hurt black people. it's a dangerous cocktail and combination. >> nia-malika, i wonder, is there a political agenda for president behind language and epithets like this? for instance, when i hear the president call maxine waters a low iq person to his crowds, and he knows it gets a clap and a laugh and a smile and some applause, that's with effect and with intention. are we seeing that with this as well? >> i think so in some ways. you do have the history of donald trump going after high-profile african-americans. we saw that most recently with african-american, with don lemon. beginning his kind of political

assent with the birther lie, the idea that president obama wasn't really an american and lied about where he was born. so yes, i do think it's part of his strategy as a politician. quite frankly, we've seen this from republicans before, this idea of using racial division for political gain. you had top republicans basically apologize to the na z naacp. so you do see, i think, with donald trump kind of a replay of some of the things, some of the coarser strains we've seen in the republican party over the last years. and it works. it works on his base. they like it. it kind of stokes white anxiety. it stokes white grievance. and you hear it in his language. >> eliana, we've been down this path before. this president using offensive

language against men, women, children, people of color. we just got a few with the specific dog insults. david axelrod, ariana huffington, alan sugar. each time we'll often ask the question, is there something qualitatively different about this one that will not just get the president's normal, usual critics riled up but republicans, republican lawmakers. i saw jeff flake tweeted something about this today, but east in t he's in the category of republicans who, one, is going out, and, two, is willing to criticize this president. are you going to see paul ryan say something beyond that's not just helpful? >> you know, i'm not sure if you're going to see other republicans come out and condemn the president, but i think there's something different about omarosa for trump. she is somebody that he helped to elevate, promote, make into a national celebrity, somebody he once considered an ally, somebody who learned from him about how to run a media

campaign who is now turning on him and inflicting a tremendous amount of damage on this white house through a drip, drip, drip strategy. and the damage she's doing goes beyond what's on these tapes. she's now revealed that the white house is forcing public servants to sign nondisclosure agreements. that wasn't on the tapes. and turn this into a story that's going on a week now and shows no signs of abating. i think that's really roiling the president, getting under hs skin. >> i just got to say, absolutely true, but the problem is, of course, that she's giving him a taste of his own medicine, a dose of what he's done. beyond that, it still doesn't legitimate or justify the kind of vicious animus he's expressed toward people of color, in particular dog, mongrel. look at all the kkk language that was used. he's evoking an entire history of assault against black people with dehumanizing language. so he might say that about other people as well. but when he applies it to omarosa and then applies it to

lebron james and applies it to don lemon, he's doing something very specific, and we need white brothers and sisters and nonblack people who are allies to call him on this. don't just have the complicity of silence or, oh, my god, and wring our hands. this is an assault the likes of which we haven't seen from the presidency in so many decades. >> nia-malika, the recording that omarosa released discusses another alleged use of the worst racial epithet, the "n" word. you hear other trump advisers discussing it. katrina pierson, long time spokesperson, responding saying how do we spin it, in effect treating it as credible at the time. omarosa has her own credibility issues as well here. is this something substantive that bears pursuit, this allegation from oomarosa? >> the idea there might be a tape out there. i think journalists have been looking into this. it was something that was floated during the campaign.

it was floated by somebody who worked on "the apprentice." >> to be clear, we're talking about a tape that records the president using the "n" word. >> what's so interesting about that is the ways in which you had these three african-american women who were on that campaign strategically to defend the president against charges of racism. it's something that omarosa talks about in her book. this idea that how can donald trump be racist because he was so good to omarosa. that was her role in the campaign. she very often defended him against attacks of sexism and racism. now as he's facing those attacks from her, he doesn't necessarily have a lot of people left who can defend him. >> that's one of the faux pas of many african-american people. he treated me nicely. yeah, the guy who put a plunger up the behind of ab nerks r was dating a black woman.

having affection for black people has nothing to do with the decrying of the hatred that someone might express about black people in general. just because you get crumbs from master's table doesn't mean you ain't on no plantation. >> eliana, let me ask you a question that goes to a broader issue. the president has been accused of this kind of thing. whether it's defense or not, the president uses similar offensive language regarding a whole host of people, as we listed there before. some of them not people of color. is he hearing from anybody inside the white house that this is a step too far, that this damages you, that this brings you down at a time when your numbers could be higher, et cetera? does he hear anything like that from people who are close to him in his inner circle? >> two points to make on that. the president hears constantly from senior advisers that his language isn't appropriate, chiefly that he should stay off twitter. i think that's almost a code for

your language is inappropriate since you hear him less often say these sorts of things, you know, in public statements. twitter is sort of his vehicle for venting. but it's so frequent that i think it loses its punch. the departure of hope hicks, who really was the person who could rein him in, we've seen more of this rhetoric since she left the white house. sure, he hears this, but i think trump himself, he's sort of done away with presidentialism and the forms of the presidency. there's a resignation on the part of white house aides that, you know, this isn't somebody who observes the forms and traditions of the presidency, and it's never going to be. >> you hear that a lot. this has been successful for him, let him be the man he is, seemingly without limits. thanks to all of you. appreciate it. it's a difficult topic. the manhattan madam revealing what happened when testifying about her actions with roger stone. and at least 35 people are

killed -- and these are just remarkable pictures here -- when a highway bridge collapses in the midst of a storm. now there's a race to save survivors buried in the rubble. hi i'm joan lunden. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop. a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising.

-you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that.

it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. 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! for a limited time, when you get fast, reliable internet, you can add voice for just $24.95 more per month. call or go online today. call or go on line today. president trump is doubling down on his attacks against his former adviser omarosa. trump calling her today a dog

after omarosa claims that she heard trump use the "n" word on an audiotape. joining me now is michael ka pew to -- caputo. he, we should say, has firmly denied any collusion between trump's team and the russians. thank you so much for taking the time to join us today. >> thanks very having me on, jim. >> if i could begin on the president's comments today regarding omarosa, is calling a former staffer, in this case a woman, a woman of color, calling her a dog, is that acceptable language from the president of the united states? >> i wish he hadn't used that language. i think it's inappropriate for anyone to call anyone that. i think it's especially inappropriate to call a woman that. i think trying to paint it as a racial slur is a little over the top. if you look at your own graphic a minute ago, he's called people

that name of all race, colors, and creed. the president is an equal opportunity offender when it comes to what he says and tweets at times. it becomes difficult to defend sometimes. >> you've seen the president -- and of course, listen, i wonder if your view, does it make much of a difference if it's an offensive, abusive language, whether applied to man or woman or people of color or people not of color, you agree the president should not use that language. why, then, does the president feel the need to use that language? >> that's the presidential model that we have. i think in the end we've all known the president is always on the attack. if you throw one shovelful at him, he'll throw ten shovelfuls back. that's the way he was raised. that's the way he's grown up. that's the way he was in business in that tabloid news town of new york, where as you know, it's a really brutal atmosphere. >> but he's president of the united states.

>> understood. >> the office is bigger than the man. >> no doubt. and a lot of people were thinking that the kind of finer grain sandpaper of the oval office would level this off a little bit. but the president hasn't changed. i think expecting him to change is a little too optimistic. in fact, i think we'll see this kind of language to the end of his time in the oval office. when somebody accuses him of saying the "n" word, which i believe is a really incredible accusation, you can understand why he's upset. you can understand why he's upset that omarosa was recording people in his white house. you can understand why this president, who many talk about his focus on loyalty, is truly offended by what omarosa has done. i can tell you as somebody who used to work on the campaign, omarosa has really never had a

positive impact on anything that the president did in politics, and i wish she wasn't in the white house at all. >> let me ask you about this because there are developments today in the paul manafort trial, really remarkable. the defense turning down the opportunity to prevent a defense before going to closing arguments. an e-mail that surfaced in court caught our attention because it shows in this e-mail that paul manafort three months after he left the campaign was pushing for a position inside the trump administration for the banker who lent him $16 million. he sent that e-mail to jared kushner. of course, the president's son-in-law. his response was enthusiastic. he said, i'm on it. the president has said manafort played a small role in the campaign for a short period of time. this is after he left that role and after the president was lekked. is th -- elected. is this concerning to you? it looked there that paul

manafort had the favor of a banker that lent him millions of dollars. >> we also see nothing came of it. the transition was on the watch for these kinds of things. you understand that paul was on the campaign to try to position the candidate for a successful republican convention. he was replaced after that. he was very successful at doing that, but in the end in the last couple months, he wasn't truly involved. steve bannon and kellyanne conway brought it home. i think it's not unusual. paul manafort was still a friend of the president and a former adviser during the transition process. we got a look at it through those lenses instead of from the perspective of those of us watching on trial. >> was it really credible for the president or his loyalists to say that paul manafort was inconsequential when he was the chairman? he was the head of the campaign for three months, including during the convention.

and felt he had enough pull to e-mail the president's son-in-law with a request for a senior position. we weren't talking about dogcatcher here. he was pushing for his banker to be secretary of the army. >> understood. you know, i know that paul earned a lot of respect when he was on the campaign from a lot of the people, family, and advisers around the president. look at the timeline. when the president came down that escalator in june of 2015 until march of 2015, it was five people who were running that campaign. paul came in, in late march of 2015 and left in august. that's a comparably short period of time but an important period of time. then of course kellyanne, david, and steve came in and brought it all home. it was a kind of group effort, a couple of phases of leadership. and paul had a short phase in a very important time. i think -- i understand what the president and his team are trying to do. it's important to distance the president from any kind of criminal prosecution.

we know the president and his team have nothing to do with anything paul is accused of. i think they're at a safe distance. >> final question, if i can. we had some exclusive reporting yesterday on u.s. intelligence assessments finding that the kremlin, that russian officials were pleased with the helsinki summit between trump and putin, particularly with that presidential news conference where you remember that the president doubted his own intelligence agencies, the country's own intelligence agencies, taking in effect putin's word over their word. i'm just concerned as an american, are you comfortable with a hostile power or rival power viewing the american president's performance as positive for them at such an important moment? >> i think that oversimplifies things. i can see why the kremlin thought that they got -- had a good summit. i understand what they're looking for. they're looking for all the optics they got. i believe the president got what he was looking for as well.

it was unfortunate to see such negative coverage of it. i know why the president was upset with his intelligence agencies. i know he believes many of them or several of them were trying to keep him from being president and even now some of them trying to eliminate his presidency. i get that. i understand that frustration. but it really has nothing to do with whether or not russia was trying to impact our electios. i didn't like the way it was kind of brought together. i think it was important for the president to say he believes that the russians were trying to impact the elections. i don't think it was important for him to turn to vladimir putin and wag his finger or to repeat the exact words of a reporter who tried to script something he would say to the president of a competitive power. i think that's expecting way too much. but i'm not surprised -- >> he did a lot less than wag

his finger. he doubted the u.s. intelligence assessment. it wasn't the coverage that was negative. it was republican lawmakers as well who were concerned and criticized the president's performance there. >> and i was concerned too. i spent a lot of time there. i know a lot object russia. it was my specialty in university. i know that we have to deal with russia in a certain fashion, but every single presidency, one after the other, in modern times has tried at first to get along with russia. we saw that with barack obama. we saw that with george w. we saw that with even bill clinton. i was in russia, being sent there by the clinton administration. we were very positive, very bullish on boris yeltsin. i don't think just because donald trump is a former businessman and not a lifelong politician he should have to come at this in some kind of a negative view.

i believe the president wants better relations with all nations. i don't think we did -- we got a great deal out of helsinki though. >> michael caputo, thank you for taking the tough questions today. >> thank you very much. have a great day. >> we'll talk again. coming up next, why cnn's exclusive poll shows that rudy giuliani's media blitz against robert mueller may be working with some americans. and the white house briefing ahead on cnn. these are live pictures from the briefing room. how will sarah sanders respond to the president's really just degrading attack on his former friend and senior adviser omarosa? we're going to take you to that press conference live.

if you're turning 65, you may be learning about medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything ...only about 80% of your part b medicare costs. a medicare supplement insurance plan may help cover some of the rest. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start.

call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. you may choose any doctor that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan... ...goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. call today for a free guide.

welcome back. in a new exclusive cnn poll, 66% of americans say they would like to see special counsel robert mueller wrap up his investigation by the midterm elections. some three months away. 26% said that should not be mueller's goal. joining me now to discuss is democratic congressman ted deutsch from florida, a member of the house foreign affairs judiciary and ethics committees. thank you very much, congressman, for taking the time. >> it's great to be with you, jim. thanks. >> we should note about that number there that democrats appear to be a significant portion of that number and may have different motivations from republicans for wpting anting t up the investigation. when you look at this, do you believe mueller should speed things up, get to it, put out his report before these midterm

elections? >> well, what we want and i think what everyone wants is for mueller to complete the investigation to get to the truth. the interesting numbers in the poll that you just released are that nearly six in ten americans think the president is lying when he talks about the investigation, and nearly six in ten think that he's trying to interfere in the investigation. that's what we've seen when he sent his lawyer out over the past couple of weeks to change the story. first, the day mueller was appointed, the president said there was no collusion. he said it dozens of times since. then he sent out rudy giuliani to say, well, maybe there was collusion but it's not a violation of the law. he sent out rudy giuliani to do the same thing about that meeting where the president first said that he hoped that comey would go easy on flynn. then rudy giuliani said, well, it wasn't really a directive, it was a question. then he said it didn't happen at

all. the reason people don't trust what's coming out of the white house is because the story changes literally from hour to hour. that's the important job mueller has in completing this investigation and getting to the truth. >> you make a good point. clearly this is part of a campaign. the president, his lawyer have been trying to undermine the special counsel for some time. you do make a good point. 66% want it to wrap up. 70% of americans we found in the poll think trump should testify. 56% believe that he's lying. 58% call it a serious matter. what strikes me about this, and i wonder if this is the headline here, that it is -- that campaign you talk about by the president and his advisers appears to be working with republicans but not with democrats. and the president's approval rating, as cnn found in this poll, staying at 42%. if you look at the history here, that's been a fairly rock-solid number for the last several months of this year. what is that telling you? does that tell you that folks

have pretty much made up their mind on this president? >> well, it's telling me that nearly six out of ten people in this country recognize exactly what the president and his surrogates are doing and trying to confuse the matter and changing the story. they even changed the story, jim, about the meeting at trump tower, which you remember was initially about adoption until even the president acknowledged, sure, it was about trying to get dirt on hillary, and there's nothing wrong with that. instead of focusing on the 40% or 42%, i think it's wise for us to look at the fact that 60% of the people in this country look at what's been coming out of the white house with respect to this investigation and they don't believe it. that's why mueller -- they want mueller to complete this investigation so that they can get the truth. the best, as you point out, the best way to move this forward, and rudy giuliani knows it and the president of the united states knows it, is for the

president of the united states to testify under oath. it's no wonder that the only topics that jougiuliani says th president won't testify about are the things he's changed his story on time after time after time. we've got to get to the truth. this is ultimately about russia's attempts to interfere in our elections. and yes, look at what we've seen from mueller thus far. we've seen the president's campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, national security adviser, top foreign policy advisers on the campaign, all of them either indicted or having taken a guilty plea, presumably cooperating with mueller. there is so much that we're going to learn. you bet we all want to learn it. but the best way to move this along is for the president to do what i think everyone wants him to do, which is to go on and tell his story under oath. >> right. we'll see if the president fulfills that promise. congressman ted deutch, thanks for joining us today. >> thanks, jim. thanks for having me. and still coming up, turkey's president calling for a

ban on american electronics as tensions with the u.s. and nato ally intenti ally intensifies. how the dispute is affecting the global economy. no, what?? i just switched to geico and got more. more? got a company i can trust. that's a heck of a lot more. over 75 years of great savings and service. you can't argue with more. why would ya? geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more.

you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from an allergy pill? flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. flonase. rewards me basically aeverywhere.om so why am i hosting a dental convention after party in my vegas suite? because hotels.com lets me do me. who wants to floss me? hotels.com. you do you and get rewarded.

turkey's president erdogan calling for tariffs on steel and alluminum imports to the u.s., some fear it could lead to a global financial crisis. cnn money editor at large

richard quest joins me now. so, richard, how big of a risk is this for the global economy right now, especially when coupled with the many other trade disputes under way with chine the eu, et cetera? >> reporter: it adds another element of unease and uncertainty, at the very moment when we don't need it. how these two leaders, donald trump and erdogan get out of this, it's not easy to see. they're both very strong populist leaders. erdogan has recently been re-elected. he has a new constitution. he enormously powerful in the country and this power structure. so how do you get out of it? indeed, neither man wants to be seen as weaker than the other. erdogan is courting the russians and others. at the same time donald trump knows he can't just abandon turkey. it's a member of nato. anyway, the sudden raising of

the tariffs last week arguably over the detained pastor was capricious. it was just out of the blue. it came from nowhere. it hasn't been declared. so we're left in this situation where, frankly, at a time when turkey's economy is going downhill fast, this is extremely serious. >> no question. it's a risk. richard quest, thanks very much for walking us through it. coming up next, the first white house briefing since omarosa released her audio tapes, since the president called her a dog, since the firing of the former fbi agent peter strzok, we will take you to that press conference live. to that press conference live. stay with us.

to that press conference live. stay with us. 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. hi there, i'm brooke baldwin. you are watching cnn. thank you for being with me. 99 days since the first lady launched the best anti-bullying campaign online. her husband is now tweeting out some of the worst comments ever to come from the office of the president the president made them today against omarosa newman, the former white house staffer that came out with a negative and mostly unverified book on trump. tweets are a statement, citing the mr. president of the united states. when you give a kradz, crying