stewards of our constitutions. after all, does an innocent man attack every aspect of an investigation? does an innocent man constantly suggest that the outcome is certain to be bogus? that's why the way trump handled the legal landslide this week concerns me more than any of the other speculation. all right, that is our closing argument. thank you for being with us, for the first hour. but let's keep going, because we've got a bonus second hour of cuo"cuomo prime time" tonight. and our big story is another legal body blow for the president. his money man talking to federal prosecutors with immunity. and reportedly, he knows where all the financial bodies are buried. what does that mean? what could he say? should the president be worried? cuomo's court is back in session. then, president trump calls off the secretary of state's trip to north korea one day

after it was announced. why? evidence is mounting the kim regime is not keeping its anti-nuclear promises. so are negotiations off? we're going to go one on one with the former cia director, general michael hayden. there's a lot to get going on this busy night. so what do you say? let's get after it. the president's inner circle, smaller than it was at the beginning of the week. his former campaign chairman, paul manafort, headed to prison, apparently. his ex-lawyer, michael cohen, pleading guilty, implicating the president as directing his criminal activities. his friend david pecker, an immunity deal from prosecutors about the same payments. and tonight, the big news. another immunity deal, this one for longtime trump organization cfo, allen weisselberg. let's get after all of this with cuomo's court.

carrie cordero and ross garber. ross garber, are you concerned, if you're representing the president? >> i've been concerned all along, and in particular i'm concerned tonight, if i'm representing the president. i mean, chris, you know i've been representing public officials for 20 years. and to me, it does seem like things are -- things are tightening. and in particular, you know, in this case, where you have the government now to some degree or another, inside the trump organization, talking to the cfo, that is very concerning. >> all right. and here's why it isn't, carrie. attack this notion. nah, it's just about cohen. that's why they gave pecker and weisselberg immunity. they're not going with weisselberg with everything that trump ever did. and even if they did, it doesn't matter, he's a sitting president, you can't indict him. there will be no legal ramifications from any of us this. it's all drama.

nontroversy. >> the argument for that is that this particular angle fell out of the special scope of what the special counsel was instructed to do. because of the mandate of the russia investigation, because they came upon information that looked like it was a crime, they referred it to the southern district of new york, and that then the argument would be the southern district of new york pursued the discreet crimes that they had discovered evidence in, when they conducted the searches of michael cohen's office. and that perhaps this is all there is. i mean, one could argue, if the scope of the weisselberg immunity agreement is narrow, that perhaps the whole point was to get michael cohen to plead to the other financial crimes with which he was charged. and that this is an extra. i'm not sure i would make that argument, but you could make that argument. >> well, if they wanted to get after trump for real, ross, they would have given cohen immunity. and it seems the opposite is true. they're squeezing him really hard for things that he most did for trump. we don't know the details as much about the financial crimes. >> yeah, it seems like they

didn't need to give cohen immunity. it seems like he's told everybody who will listen that he'll cooperate completely willingly. and, you know, it could be true, you know, carrie could be right, others could be right. there could be nothing at all to worry about here for the president and his folks. it could be this super, super narrow, you know, targeted, you know, focus on cohen. but i suspect it's something more. you know, when you give immunity, that's something very rare. i mean, in my experience, i can't even count on one hand the number of clients that have been given immunity. it's very rare. and what that means -- >> but they can't charge the president, so where could they be headed. carrie? >> well, see -- >> hold on. let's share the ball here. carrie, where can they be headed? they can't charge him. >> they can't charge him. so the presumption is that the government can't charge the president with something as he is a sitting president. that is the prevailing view, based on prior department of justice legal opinions.

i've had a big question as to whether or not the special counsel commissioned a new legal opinion. we don't know the answer to that, so everybody in the legal circles is operating on the presumption that he hasn't and that he's accepting the 2000 and the 1973 opinions, but those were written for their particular time, the particular investigations of presidents that were going on at the time. >> all right. even if you didn't have it, ross, is there a whole in the president's defense? that he didn't know -- yes, he's clearly lying about this. but let's take it at its best for him. this was all personal matters paid with personal money. the timing is irrelevant. i paid the guy back, michael cohen, and pecker you're wrong about, he did it for his own reasons, he's my friend, had nothing to do with the campaign. there's no crime. >> i actually think those are great arguments. that these payments were not made for campaign purposes. you make these kinds of payments -- and, you know, remember, we're talking about payments to women who have said that they've had, you know, affairs with the president. to me, the notion that those are

campaign expenditures is sort of outrageous. can you imagine spending, you know, campaign funds to make those kinds of payments. >> carrie, is the analysis that simple? are you with ross? >> well, what's interesting, first of all, michael cohen pled guilty to it. so michael cohen could have challenged the government's assertion that these particular payments were campaign contributions by paying off the women in an intenuated way. ami could have challenged the government's assertion, but instead pecker took immunity. they could have made claims in terms of challenging the government's argument. nobody did that. instead, they went ahead and either took immunity in pecker's case or they took the plea in michael cohen's case. the edwards case, which everybody sort of points to as the last example had an actual trial. in this case, these types of contributions and the argument the government's making has not actually been borne out in a trial situation. but in this case, there's not an

opportunity to actually challenge it in that way. >> when you look at weisselberg, pecker and cohen, which one concerns you the most, ross? >> honestly, to me, they all concern me. weisselberg in particular, because honestly, if i were the president, i wouldn't be that concerned about the campaign finance issues. i wouldn't be that concerned about the disclosure issues, in terms of completing the forms. i would be concerned about what i don't know. i would be concerned that my cfo would be sitting in a room with federal prosecutors and agents without a lawyer, which is how a grand jury works, and answering whatever questions they ask. that would concern me. and then in particular in the context where others are now cooperating around me. >> and carrie, you? >> i think the big question is whether there are other related investigations going on, of the trump organization. if that were the case, if the southern district of new york, for example, has greater investigations going on that look at other financial irregularities of the trump

organization, then weisselberg would be absolutely devastated. >> also, i think you told me, carrie, many months ago, it's amazing how much stuff i'm forgetting these days, but that -- hey, stop assuming that just because they can indict a sitting president means that they can't hand down an indictment or prepare charges and use them after he's gone. >> el with -- well, that's right, you can't charge a sitting president, according to the presumptive legal opinions from the justice department. i think there's wide agreement, even of those who might disagree on the margins of that, that a sitting president could never sit for a trial. but the mechanism would be that a -- either he could be an unindicted co-conspirator. that is for the public to see. congress could they be act on that political my. or the question that i have is whether or not a fresh legal opinion has been written that says that there could be an indictment, even if that document is not acted upon, even if it serves functionally as some type of -- >> who would have to okay that opinion, ross? >> and chris, that would be, in

this case, the attorney general or the deputy attorney general. just a follow-up on the point you were making. even though a sitting president -- let's assume a sitting president can't be indicted, that doesn't mean that a former president can't be indicted. it doesn't mean that a president's company can't be indicted. it doesn't mean that a president's -- >> statute of limitations relevant here? >> -- can't be indicted. there may be statute of limitation issues. but again, in this business, i don't like to rely on statute of limitations, because there are lots of ways they can be extended. >> and then, of course, you have the political question, it sounds like a legal standards, high crimes and misdemeanor. i really encourage people just to google really quickly where it came from. you'll read about madison and el bridge jerry and how they were searching for something so that the bar wasn't too low. and at the end of the day, it's all about votes, as former president gerald ford said. an impeachable offense is what the house of representatives says it is and then ultimately congress, because you've got to go through -- >> we'll debate that next time. >> we'll see what happens. carrie cordero, thank you very

much. ross garber, appreciate it. so president trump abruptly cancels the secretary of state's trip to north korea. but he still sends warmest regards to kim jong-un. what does that mean? where are we in this process in negotiations? former cia director michael hayden is next. when you combine ancestry's dna test

with its historical records... ...you could learn you're from ireland... ...donegal, ireland... ...and your ancestor was a fisherman. with blue eyes. just like you. begin your journey at ancestry.com. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have  a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop.

some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. 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. alright guys let's go! let's do this directions to the greek theater (beep) ♪can i get a connection? ♪can i get can i get a connection?♪

♪can i get a connection? it seems like diplomacy with north korea is on hold tonight. it's been a long week. let's work on this together. let's put up the latest tweet

from the president, trying to figure it out, all right? so, first he said he'd asked secretary of state mike pompeo not to go to north korea, right? that was going to happen. he was going to go there, and then they said, he's going to meet with kim jong-un. and then he said, don't go, because i don't think we're making sufficient progress with the denuclearization of north korea. additionally, because of our much tougher trading stance with china, i do not believe they are helping with the process of denuclearization, as they were once, despite the u.n. sanctions, which are in place. secretary pompeo looks forward to going to north korea in the near future, most likely after our trading relationship with china is resolved. in the meantime, i would like to send my warmest regards and respect to chairman kim. i look forward to seeing him soon. what does that mean to you? well, a source tells cnn that the state department officials were still briefing allies minutes before trump called things off. so is this just about bad communications, but ultimately a typical kind of stall in the process. let's break it down with

somebody who knows the answer. former cia director, general michael hayden. go sir, good to see you. thank you for being with me on a friday night. help us understand this. is this, style points aside, kind of par for the course in a process like this, or do you see a concern? >> yeah, um, i have concerns. now, par for the course in the sense that we always knew this was going to be a long, difficult process with the north koreans. so let's break it down like you suggest. number one, the happiest man in town tonight has to be secretary of state pompeo. he avoids a long time to pyongyang, where i'm told it's not very pleasant, and he also avoids getting personally pinned with a policy that appears to be going nowhere. chris, we left singapore with a lot of smiles and handshakes, but with not even an agreed definition of denuclearization. so we had all of this pomp and ceremony and image, but there really wasn't any substance

underneath it. and any means we had to keep pressure on the north koreans to create that substance, we've kind of whittled away. >> are we still farther along than we have been at any point in the last two administrations? >> no. no, not at all. i mean, we've had the north koreans farther along in terms of actually dismantling some nuclear equipment, coming a bit cleaner with regard to what they have, being more specific with their commitments. no. i mean, we've been in this place or better before. we've just not gotten beyond those places. >> so what happens next? what do you need to do in this? let's play in this other factor. china. all right, fthe president's goig very hard on them on trade. there's plus and minuses, we could do it all night. but doing it at the same time that you're trying to get something done with north korea was part of the diplomatic criticism early on. you've got to pick your battles and be strategic with your given objective. so how does it lay out for you? >> so i think that's absolutely right and the president

criticized his predecessors, in essence saying, they just weren't good enough or smart enough to handle this problem, when in reality, i think folks like me understand that this is a wicked problem. and it may not be solvable in any satisfying way. and so now you've got the question with china that's always been there. the president should have known that. he had two issues that he had to balance and manipulate. he went all in on the north koreans. kind of put that problem on pause. now he's ginned up this trade conflict with the chinese. >> and he did a little cya with the chinese, right? he said, they were going to help us except for those u.n. sanctions. trying to put it off on somebody else. when, really, why would you expect china to be your friend, when you're jamming them up economically? >> absolutely. they're not incentivized to do it at all. and look at this now from the picture of kim jong-un. he's mostly out of the penalty box with the chinese. the sanctions regime is eroding.

he's got a budding romance with moon jae-in, the president -- >> of south korea. >> -- of south korea. and he's just finished the most intense 12 months of missile testing in the history of north korea. he's playing his hand pretty well. >> wishing warmest regards. >> yeah, i -- that just jumps off the page. and it's actually inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the president's trifecta there of tweets. and -- look. the president's met kim, i've not. maybe he thinks this is effective. i don't think this came from the psychological profilers at cia, suggesting that he do it. it jumps off the page, and for me, it just seems weird. >> you know, you've had a lifetime of watching investigations of all kinds. of course, we know your history at the cia and nsa, but your reach, your portfolio is impressive. what do you make of this week and what we've seen come down

against the president? >> yeah, reality matters, chris, and i've been watching your show all week and you've been trying to make that point to all of your guests. you can only get so far by lying, repeating the lie, criticizing institutions, criticizing people, trying to create an image. sooner or later, if you've got people who are persistent pursuing the truth, reality begins to close in on your make-believe story. and i think that's what's going on here. >> you know, i have ten sources who tell me from the southern district, stop saying or letting people say -- that's what i get people blamed for all the time now -- not you, people can't hear from you enough, but people get immunity deals and immunity deals are no big deal and they can be a fishing expedition. they say, no. you have to know something for a prosecutor to want to offer you something like that. because they're giving up a lot on you. so they have to have something on you and you have to give them something that is worth more than you are. if that's true, what is your spidey sense tell you about what they're cooking in the southern district? >> yeah, it's moving up -- we

would call it, the chain of command, within the trump organization. now, chris, i don't have anymore insight into the details than you do. but based upon this evidence, i mean, you only do this when you're going higher. and they appear that they are intent on going higher. and they really have kind of passed out the hall passes here, haven't they? to a variety of people. so they must think they have something going in this direction within the organization. >> you ever hear a president say before that people cooperating with the government should be illegal? >> no, that comes back to things you and i have shared before, chris. this is the most norm-busting president we've ever had. and there appear to be no limits to his attacking americans or american institutions, to protect his transient personal or political needs. >> norm-busting. that's what -- sounds like my wife when she was trying to explain why my youngest's paint all the time. i'm like, there's something wrong with this kid. and she's just like, no, she's

just doing it her own way. i think that's a nice way of saying what we're living through, but you're a nice guy. general hayden, thanks for joining me on a friday night. she doesn't eat paint anymore. president trump's top money man has been granted immunity and i'm telling you, that's not a small deal. however, we don't know why he was given immunity, how extensive the questioning is, what they find him relevant on. so it is the making of a great debate. coming up, i've got to go apologize to my family. ♪

it's the final days of the ford summer sales event. ♪ there are only a few days left to take advantage of great deals like zero percent financing for sixty months on the built ford tough f-150. so hurry and save big on ford, america's best-selling brand. get zero percent financing for sixty months plus twenty-eight hundred bonus cash on a 2018 f-150 xlt equipped with 2.7 liter ecoboost. introducing zero account fees for brokerage accounts. and zero minimums to open an account. we have fidelity mutual funds with zero minimum investment. and now, only fidelity offers two zero expense ratio index funds directly to investors. because when you invest with fidelity, all those zeros really add up. ♪ so maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪

any way you look at it, tough week for the president. his former personal attorney and his campaign chairman both became convicted felons. the trump organization's longtime financial officer was given immunity. that ain't common. one of his longtime friends who was involved in those payoff payments with michael cohen also given immunity. so the question is, what does it mean? great debate time. katherine rampell and niger ennis. katherine, i am going to give you a bonus for productivity. you wrote a piece, let's put up

a little taste. niger, if you wrote something, i'd put it up as well. you've written many of things in your life. >> fair enough! i'll test you on that. >> so i want to start with your piece, katherine. give us what you wrote about today and why and we'll use it for the basis of the debate. >> so basically, a lot of trump supporters have argued that there's nothing about collusion in any of the stuff that's come out this week. and moreover, we don't care about the campaign finance stuff, because for some reason, we don't think campaign finance crimes are crimes. my point is this. we do prosecute tax crimes. in fact, we prosecute them a lot. and there were a lot of red flags that came out in the cohen filings this week that suggest that basically trump and/or the trump organization may have massive criminal tax fraud exposure. and the reason why i say that, it's a little bit complicated, but basically it boils down to the fact that they had these sham invoices as well as this will very unusual structuring of the cohen payments that suggest that they were probably trying to make hundreds of thousands of nondeductible expenses look

deductible. the bottom line being, they were trying to avoid paying uncle sam hundreds of thousands of dollars. >> sounds like that mattingly letter from the capone case that we all had to read up on today. >> exactly! exactly, yes. funny thing about the capone parallel, and there are a few, that suggest that trump may not to stop making that comparison, is that capone was brought down in part because he had an incompetent attorney who accidentally handed over incriminating information to the feds. so -- >> niger, the point that rampell is making is this, there is a chant that cohen fruonting the money would be seen as an illegal campaign contribution, which is what he pleaded to, or that it was a loan and trump should have booked it on his disclosure form and he didn't, because it would be a liability if it was a loan. he said, i paid it all back. so rampell says, let's look at how they paid it back. cohen put out about $180 grand, they doubled it to $360, which they said was to cover for taxes, and added a bonus of $60,000, so cohen got about $420,000 altogether.

does that look funny to you? >> a lot of it looks strange and unusual. but, you know, katherine made the comparison, and i guess the president did, too, comparing himself to a former criminal gangster, okay, al capone. i'm actually going to make a different comparison. i think the last time an individual was under this type of targeted assault by the -- two inteentities of the federal government, state government, state of new york, perhaps now even the manhattan district attorney, you can go back to the civil rights era and people like martin luther king, people like my father, roy innis. >> katherine, let him complete the point and then you can put a hole nit. go ahead, finish the case. >> my point is this. as a civil libertarian -- look, the power of government is tremendous. and it can be used against somebody that you dislike today,

but that you may like tomorrow, when the corridors of power are controlled by the different party. and i don't like the fact that government agencies are being used against an individual for political purposes. >> so -- >> now, katherine rampell, i must let you know that somewhere up in the hinterlands of martha's vineyard right now, there's a man that's about 5'9 1/2", about 5'10", and his name is professor dershowitz, and he's going for the first time in his life, amen! to what niger is saying, because he's been arguing exactly that. just because you don't like the present person, don't apply standards that you wouldn't want applied to you, that this is prosecutorial aggregation in a way that leads to nowhere good. >> you know what? trump could easily clear up all of these concerns by disclosing his tax returns and opening his books. and he will not do that. so the question is, what does he have to hide? what is he so afraid that allen weisselberg might disclose? because allen weisselberg has been working for him for decades. for him, for his father.

you know, served on the trump foundation board. he now oversees the trust, the non-blind blind trust that trump's money is in right now. so he knows where all the bodies are buried. he knows if, for example, all of the red flags have been raised about potential money laundering, which, again, i'm not aware of martin luther king ever being accused of doing for the russians. >> or roy innis. >> correct me if i'm wrong. >> no, they were accused of other things by j. edgar hoover and other -- >> please, let me continue. look, there are so many red flags about trump's financial transactions, including just to throw out one, the fact that he used all-cash transactions to pay for money-losing golf courses at a time with record low interest rates and, you know, the whole real estate business is sort of predicated on the fact that debt is tax advantage. that in and of itself -- >> can you prosecute any of it? >> well, if we have information,

if we have his books, if we have -- >> a sitting president? >> oh, no, not a sitting president. but you could potentially prosecute people who work in the trump administration who know about it, unless they've been given immunity, of course. but there's lots of information, there are a lot of questions that we have right now about the way trump has done business over the years. about how solvent that business is. it may be over-leveraged to the hilt. >> okay. all right. >> and if weisselberg has that information, that's very useful information. but trump himself could preempt all of that. >> go ahead, niger. >> you know, chris, there's a point of agreement that i have with catherine. i think catherine revealed exactly what this is all about. at the end of the day, what the left and those who call themselves journalists are pursuing here -- >> present company excepted, of course. >> -- is, is -- for those who are legitimate journalists and those who call themselves journalists are pursuing here is the opening of the president's books, of the foundation, of -- >> like every other president

and major presidential candidate we have had over the last 40 years. >> catherine, let me -- now i'm going to ask you not to interrupt me. the fact of the matter is, is that the president did not, in the campaign 2016, he did not want to make the same mistake that mitt romney did, which was reveal a whole bunch of tax returns that were used -- >> mitt romney revealed basically nothing about his taxes, by the way. >> -- harry reid to lie and to slander his financial records. trump did not want to be used in a situation where he could -- >> how would it be slandered if it were the truth. >> -- death by a thousand cuts. >> how would it be slandered if it was the truth. so he's slandering himself? >> -- because of the missing elephant in the room, which doesn't exist, which is russian collusion. what does all of this nonsense you're talking about have to do with trump conspiring with the russians to get elected?! >> i'm so glad you asked that question. >> hold on. good, good. keep your enthusiasm in check,

both of you, for one moment. let me take a break and we will come back on exactly that. what is the worth of what catherine is saying we should pursue? and then we're going to get to the ultimate question, if he can't be charged, can you make a case for impeachment out of what we know right now? stay with us. this is not a bed. it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's 'biggest sale of the year'. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, all beds are on sale. save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 24-month financing and free home delivery. ends saturday. sleep number. proven, quality sleep. it's absolute confidence in 30,00or it isn't. arts, it's inspected by mercedes-benz factory-trained technicians, or it isn't. it's backed by an unlimited mileage warranty,

or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned, or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event, now through august 31st. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. we're listening to what matters most to you. and we're committed to improving every ride. starting with features designed to make it easy for your driver to find you... taking the stress out of pickups. ♪ we're putting safety at the heart of everything we do... by making it easy to verify your car, and driver. uber has new leadership, a new vision, and is moving in a new direction... forward ♪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™

pah! thano, no, no, nah.k. a bulb of light?!? aha ha ha! a flying machine? impossible! a personal' computer?! ha! smart neighborhoods running on a microgrid. a stadium powered with solar. a hospital that doesn't lose power. amazing. i like it. never gonna happen.

all right. let's get back to our great debaters. catherine rampell and niger innis. let me catch you up on where we were. niger had reared back with this sort of split-finger fastball. open up the lens to show my arm, please. and he had pitched it like that, saying, where's the collusion in all of this? and rampell had pulled out this bat about 4 1/2 feet long, taken a huge step and was about to swing like this, when i went to commercial. so rampell, you see the charge. you're talking tax evasion, you're talking all different

kinds of potential fraud and mismanagement. where's the collusion? >> well, first, i would like to point out that, of course, the authorizing responsibility -- the authorizing document that basically appointed robert mueller said that he's allowed to investigate any crimes that may come out of looking into russia collusion. so i just want to put out that for the time being. but more importantly, the question was, what does this tax evasion stuff or any of the other kinds of, um, uh, campaign finance violations or anything else that's been alleged, what does that actually itself have to do with russia collusion? and here's the answer. co kompromat, the idea that the russians may have something on trump, and that's the reason they were so eager to be in the white house, need not be a pee tape. >> too much of a stretch? >> i don't think so at all. i think trump has been doing business with the russians for many, many years. his children have said as much. he has a lot of suspicious cash coming in, like in the example

of the golf courses i was talking about earlier. we don't know where it's from. he's flipped houses for very suspicious markups to russians. so he has a lot of connections to various kinds of kremlin-linked folks. he has for many areas. there are a lot of people who know a lot more about this than i do, who study russia, who worked in russia, who study financial crimes, who have said, you know, there is a high likelihood that they know something on him and they're holding it against him. and so -- >> all right. niger, if you look less interested in the point catherine was making, you would have fallen off the chair and gone right to sleep. but you are now back up. why do you find it so unimpressive? >> i actually find it incredibly entertaining. it reminds me, catherine's statement reminds me of a kgb agent year ago -- >> calling you a spy, rampell. that's what just happened right there. lucky your hair's not red. >> first he said i wasn't a real journalist and nowhe i'm a spy.

>> he was talking about me. >> no, with i'm not attacking you! with this agent, what this general said is, you get me the individual, i will find you the crime. and it seems that catherine and many of her colleagues that are after trump are desperately looking for something that they have not been able to identify specifically. >> again, trump could clear this up with the snap of his fingers. he could say, you know what, i was wrong, here are my books, here are my financial statements, here are my tax returns, and has been the days for the last 40 years. >> so you guys can do what a senator did to mitt romney in 2016 and lie about his records and when he was called on it -- >> you can't lie if you're giving up the actual documents. >> -- in 2016 and said you lied about mitt romney's tax records -- >> no, because mitt romney had not released a tax record. >> and donald trump did not -- >> mitt romney had not released his tax record. >> no, actually you're wrong, catherine. mitt romney did release his tax returns. >> some of it. after those comments were made by harry reid.

>> -- and used it against him -- >> no, you're getting the chronology wrong. >> and reid admitted it! >> you're getting your chronology wrong. >> hold on, hold on, hold on. being a civil libertarian does not mean that you're not for transparency, niger. >> yeah. >> you're for transparency. >> i -- i'm for full transparency -- >> trump has not given us that. >> -- requested and demanded -- and demanded by law. but wait a minute! >> only by law? >> he -- he -- why not? >> by the way, you don't even need a law here. >> the president of the united states is required -- >> you don't need a law here. >> -- to give a certain number of financial statements to be a legitimate candidate for president of the united states. he did so. you know, elizabeth warren was asked to give some tax returns going back some ten years when she was running for the united states senate. she did not. why? because she did not have to. >> look, i want to point out something else here, which has come up, which is what would trump be required to do? i want to point out, it would not actually take an act of

congress to get trump to release his tax returns. there are three different congressional committees that by a simple majority vote in any single one of them, they could require trump to release his tax returns. they would demand the tax returns and they could publish them. and it would essentially require just one republican senator to say, you know what, transparency is important here. there are so many red flags about trump's own financial entangleme entanglements, about all of these strange and suspicious transactions that he has had, comments that he's made that are adoring of putin himself. you know what? it would be a good thing for the american people if we had some transparency and we saw for the greater good, for the public interest, these tax returns. >> niger? >> you know what's transparent, catheri catherine? what's transparent is that at the end of the day there are a number of people that are still frustrated that president trump committed a crime. you know what that crime is? he defeated hillary clinton legitimately in 2016. >> are you sure that's the only one? >> -- and delegitimatized his

presidency. >> well, he -- >> which, by the way, i think is going to come back to haunt all americans and undermine the presidency. >> oh, you think that's going to be the scar on american history here? >> i believe actually, that this is going -- >> it's not that congress has not been exercising its constitutional duties here? you think that the scar on american history here is not going to be any of the egregious policy moves that trump has made, including separating, you know, infants from their families. >> oh, now we're getting into some truth! >> you have ideological disagreements with the president of the united states, therefore you want to -- >> oh, i certainly -- >> death by a thousand cuts -- >> that is false. that is false. i have multiple complaints about this president. some of them are policy -- >> catherine has been transparent about what her real agenda is. >> my agenda is in favor of transparency. i am a journalist. i am constitutionally obligated to want more sunlight rather than less. i also happen to have disagreements with his policy. i'm an opinion columnist. all of that stuff is out there for the public to read.

i hide none of it. >> i would love some transparency, by the way. >> i hide none of it. >> i would love some transparency -- >> this is not about me. this is about the president hiding his financial -- >> -- also to the 33,000 e-mails that were deleted via bleach bit, okay -- >> okay, didn't you just make the point that hillary clinton is not our president? why are you going off on this red herring about hillary clinton? we have a man -- >> red herring? >> it is a red herring! >> i have 33,000 e-mails. >> really? >> you have beliefs about him having, uh, uh some love affair with putin, which is just pure fiction. >> oh, you mean, there's no evidence -- there's no -- trump has given us no evidence? he has not praised putin repeatedly? he has not said nicer things about putin than any one of our -- >> what do you think's in there? >> -- that wants to bring russia into the united states -- >> chris, don't let this become a hillary debate. >> i just don't think there's any basis for the curiosity. i think it's the unknown. i think one of the problems with a lot of the speculation that you get as part of trump defense

is pursuing the unknown. and it's just ironic, because on the one hand, you're saying, let's not pursue the unknown with trump. let's cut it off right now. we haven't seen any collusion. let's end it right now. and then when it comes to hillary clinton, it can't be open-ended enough. >> i'm not even sure that we've seen no collusion. i mean, given the fact that it's easier to keep track of how many people in the trump campaign didn't meet with russians than those who did meet with russians. and we have don junior saying -- >> that's true. that's a fair point. that's a fair point. >> -- he was happy to get dirt from the russian government. >> the crime is not collusion, the crime would be conspiracies, and you would need overt actions that were illegal in advance of whatever kind of collusion there was. that's a fair point. let me ask you both one thing before i let you go. do you believe, rampell, at this point that we've seen anything that would make the standard of a high crime or misdemeanor for congress? >> look, that's a political act. that's a plipolitical decision. i think there are certainly red flags and i've talked about a bunch of them related to

possible criminal tax fraud exposure, possible money laundering, all of those kinds of things that would befulne felonies. and certainly they would count as high crimes in the popular sense of the term. what that means in terms of whether it's an impeachable offense, that's a question for congress. >> niger, do you think that bill clinton met the standard? >> i think that bill clinton met the standard, and here's the fundamental difference. >> please. >> what bill clinton did was something that he did while he was operating as president of the united states. thus far, mueller nor any of these wonderful journalists that are going on a scavenger hunt against president trump have revealed anything to the american people where he's done something or even been accused of doing something as president of the united states. >> what about the cohen payments? the cohen payments were made in 2017. >> there is no there there. >> the cohen payments were made in 2017. we got these charging documents this week that disclosed how those payments were structured -- >> it is legal for an individual to give to his own campaign!

>> i'm talking about criminal tax fraud. >> catherine, i'll agree with you that it is terrible judgment -- >> first of all, it is not legal for him to give to his campaign without disclosing. >> niger, here's the problem -- here's the problem with the analysis, and we'll have to learn more, because i've got to leave it here. but you're running with a point and i respect that. you guys have done a brilliant job. the only mistake that's been made in this debate is i should have had you on at 9:00 in the original hour. but the only thing is this. can you put your own money into your own campaign? yes, buckley versus vallejo, everybody can read the case, it's seen as political speech, but you've got to disclose what you do. and if this was a loan and you pay it back, you're supposed to book it as a liability, and he didn't it. that's why the lying can be a problem. is it enough for a high crime and a misdemeanor? we don't know yet. and in one part, it's about votes. you two did a hell of a job. i could have sat back and watched this for a while. you disagreed, but you did it with decency. rampell, you're a heck of a journalist. i hope some day i grow up to be

as good as a journalist as you are. >> i know i am. i don't care if people make ad hominem attacks against the quality of my work, because i know it's good. >> i like that. i'll use it for myself, even though i don't believe it. chris cillizza has the most outrageous parts of representative duncan hunter's indictments, next. and what a fetching ensemble he's brought us tonight. blp it's a lot of blue. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission

in as little as 4 weeks. 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. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their day back... to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today.

neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.

you made moonshine in a backwoods still. smuggled booze and dodged the law. even when they brought you in, they could never hold you down. when i built my family tree and found you, i found my sense of adventure. i set off on a new life, a million miles away. i'm heidi choiniere, and this is my ancestry story. now with over 10 billion historical records, discover your story. get started for free at ancestry.com .

the cfo of the trump organization, they say his immunity deal may be the biggest news of the week. well, that means there is other news. that means we're going to get a ranking from a group. but that is a fetching ensemble you have on, my friend. did it come with a corsage? >> you should see the pants that match this. >> i'm surprised you have any on. >> i like -- >> the ambition you showed up top. >> i like to step out on friday nights, chris. i'm not going to lie. >> i respect that. >> may is the important word. we don't know. right now what we know he is was granted immunity to talk about the cohen case. what, if you connect -- if you add one-and-one you'll get two on this is he is the guy who can say, yeah, i don't -- we paid $130,000 to stormy daniels, it was supposed to be a retainer to michael cohen but it wasn't

really. there's a lot of diceyness in there which is, i think, why the trump organization faces some liability, not just michael cohen. so he is a guy when granted immunity in that regard can shed light. >> not just anybody gets immunity. even if it's not about trump. we have hyper focus on that. what about other members of the organization? what about other family members that are members of the organization? could there be exposure? >> correct. that's .1. so that is cohen and in that campaign. so that is there. the question is, is there a broader immunity here for weisselberg. i start going to the broadcast news. alan weisselberg is the guy that is the books guy. the money guy. >> sirns his father -- >> for decades. >> fair point. we have to wait on that fact. >> we don't know.

>> i am short on the clock. duncan hunter, the california representative, did he really say my defense is simple. ask my wife? >> he basically said he doesn't interview with fox news and he said my wife is campaign manager. as a rule to ask her about it. he is trying to throw her 100% under the bus. i read the 47 page charging indictment. it is remarkable. they had $37,000 in overdraft fees over a seven year period. 1100 times they were penalized, 1100 times in seven years. she once had him buy hawaiian shorts at a golf pro shop and say that it was golf balls for wounded warriors. this is the stuff why people hate washington, chris. and sometimes when i read this stuff, i understand why. spl i would say there is a lot more good people than what duncan hunter is alleged to have done. >> true. chris, thank you, brother. have a good weekend. thank you for wearing that. >> thank you. >> before we go, a word about something serious. senator john mccain, as you

heard by now, he has ended the treatment for terminal brain cancer. he is once again showing what he is made of. i know how hard it is for somebody in their family to make the decision that he's making. right now, he gets all of our respect. war hero, political icon this is a man who is a renegade in a culture that is all about cya. he never sought cover for any position. to his family, we're thinking of you. we wish you the best. the nation is going to remember this man. thank you for watching us tonight. a cnn special report, the most powerful man in the world is next. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say ahh. introducing the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. read our reviews, then try the leesa mattress in your own

home. order during our pre-labor day mattress sale and save. for a limited time get 150 dollars off and free shipping too. sale prices are available right now. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed. oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer,

multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.

the following is a cnn special report.