>> wellwell, it creates a huge e of paranoia in the west wing, which already existed. the president already thinking people are working against him, and now he has credibility to put that theory out there. >> it ain't paranoia. >> only 60 days from midterm elections. thanks for joining us on "inside politics today." see you back here this time tomorrow. don't go anywhere. the hearing continues. wolf starts right now. hello. i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks for joining us. up first, white house whodunnit. the president goes on the warpath, searching for the source behind that scathing anonymous op-ed in "the new york times." an unnamed senior trump administration official describes working behind the scenes to protect the country from the president's recklessness. one by one, administration officials are lining up today to deny they were behind the anonymous op-ed and to condemn it. among the denials, aides for

vice president pence called the article false, illogical, and gutless. secretary of state mike pompeo slammed "the new york times" for taking a, quote, disgruntled, deceptive, bad actor's word. director of national intelligence dan coats says, quote, speculation that "the new york times" op-ed was written by me or my principal deputy is patently false. the list goes on and on and it's growing right now. let's bring in jeff zeleny. give us a sense of how all of this is playing out inside the white house. >> reporter: wolf, we know the president likes a strongly worded denial. i'm told he's watching and reading all these denials as they're coming in. i'm told aides are printing them out for him and bringing them to him. he's reading them and watching them. who is issuing them and perhaps who is not issuing them. but wolf, this is not necessarily answering the question of who wrote this editorial. certainly it does not go without belief that the person who wanted to remain anonymous could also be issuing a statement saying they didn't do it.

we do not know, frankly, who the senior administration official is. depending on the description of that term, it could be dozens of people, it could be hundreds of people. the fact is here inside the west wing, the white house, the president is trying to find out who it is. but wolf, i'm told the president paying deep attention, close attention to who is issuing these. he's also paying attention to what his vice president said. he talked about it in florida earlier this morning. let's watch. >> anyone who would write an anonymous editorial smearing this president, who's provided extraordinary leadership to this country, should not be working for this administration. they ought to be a the honorable thing and resign. but look, the bottom line is the american people see through all of this. the american people voted for this team, voted for this president because they wanted to see results. >> reporter: so there has been a flurry of statements all week long, of course beginning the week with the response to the woodward book. the president watching those

statements as well. he called it a beautiful statement when his own defense secretary denied what had been reported that he said. so wolf, all of this is certainly weighing on the president. we'll see him later this afternoon as he flies to montana for a campaign rally this afternoon. until then, i think these statements of denials will continue coming in. >> and he's looking, as you point out, very closely at who has not yet issued a flat denial to be the author of this article. jeff zeleny at the white house, we'll get back to you. the op-ed article says members of the cabinet whispered about the 25th amendment to the u.s. constitution. here's what the constitution says about that. whenever the vice president and the majority of either the principal officers of the executive department transmit to the president of the senate and the speaker of the house their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall assume the powers and duties as acting president. here's what that means. if the vice president and

majority of the cabinet think the president can't do the job, then congress can vote to remove the president. this is different than an impeachment process. the 25th amendment would be a last resort, only used in the event of a true constitutional crisis. something former senator and secretary of state john kerry believes is the case right now. >> this is unbelievable. this is a presidency, this is a genuine constitutional crisis. the crisis is heightened by the fact that my former colleagues, the united states senate on the republican side who have taken an oath of office to defend the constitution and the institutions of our country as a whole, which are embraced in that oath, are defending instead not the constitution, not the institution of the senate. they're defending party and the president, who simply doesn't know what he's doing. >> joining us now from capitol hill is congressman tom reid.

he's a republican from new york. thanks so much for joining us. >> great to be with you, wolf. >> so with the administration saying they are basically trying to save the country, this administration official, from the president of the united states. you've read the article in the "new york times." this senior trump administration official. do you believe all of this is leading up to a constitutional crisis? >> i do not because all you have to do is look at the record. you look at what the president is delivering upon, and when you have an anonymous source as somehow the thing that's going to start a constitutional crisis, that just to me is partisan politics. that's politics out of washington, d.c. >> what about all the others in the bob woodward book who seem to be backing up that same position? they're so worried about u.s. national security. they're so worried about this president. they're staying in their jobs to try to protect the country from the commander in chief. >> wolf, we're almost two years into this administration, and by this time, all the naysayers, the never trumpers, everybody that was opposed to this

administration said we were going to be in a nuke laclear w that there would be chaos throughout the world. look what we're getting. economic prosperity and opportunity here at home. we're seeing peace and stability across the world. it's not going according to their plan. that's why it's going to get louder and louder, this rhetoric out of washington, d.c. >> is the op-ed article in the "new york times" an act of treason as the president seems to think? you saw that tweet where he just wrote in all caps, treason, with a question mark. >> i think it's an act of coward di -- cowardice. that is not how the freedom of the press is supposed to work, nor a person who is so committed as part of this resistance. they can't even put their name on the piece of paper. that speaks volumes to me. >> are you concerned about the president's fitness right now? yes, the markets are up, the job numbers are good, the economy is moving along. but are you concerned at all,

congressman, about the president's fitness, some of the things he's done, some of the way he's behaved? >> he's a disrupter. that's what he campaigned on. i know that causes a lot of anxiety and fear. we'll weigh in with our relationship with the white house to express our concerns, but right now i see him delivering on what he was going to bring to washington, d.c. that disruption this city needed. >> are you okay with the way, for example, he's treated the attorney general of the united states, jeff sessions? humiliating him, berating him, going after him almost on a daily basis. >> wolf, i have publicly disagreed with the president. i have also talked with the white house where i've disagreed and expressed my concern. i think that's the more appropriate way -- when you're talking about style and the way words come out of the white house, to express your disagreement. but at the end of the day, i look at the policies. i look at the opportunity he's delivering for the american people and what this administration is doing. i think on the net overall picture, it's a positive picture that's being put forward across the world and here in america.

>> are you okay with the way, for example, he praises kim jong-un, the north korean leader, the way he praises vladimir putin, the russian leader? at the same time, he's really going after some of america's closest allies, nato allies, including canada. >> i appreciate how the administration is bringing kim jong-un to the table so that denuclearization of the korean peninsula is what we achieve. i appreciate holding russia accountable. i've expressed my disagreement with embracing the russian leader and expressed how i think he's an adversary to america, not a friend. we'll continue to discuss our disagreement, butov overall, lo at the results for the american people. >> is the robert mueller, the special counsel probe, from your perspective a witch hunt, a ruse? >> i don't believe that to be a case. i believe the investigation needs to come to a closure. the charge was to determine whether there was collusion with russia.

it's been a year and a half, millions of taxpayers being spent. let's get to those answers. let's get to the answer of that charge and let the other systems, the other portions of the justice department deal with the other issues. >> we don't know what mueller has come up with. he hasn't released his report. so you want him to finish it, get the job done, then you'll study the report. >> absolutely. >> we don't know how much evidence he has of a conspiracy between trump campaign officials and the russian government. >> and that's why we have to get to a conclusion. if that collusion is there, i haven't seen any evidence of that. i don't see any evidence coming out of the mueller investigation. this town is known to leak. we're not seeing that type of information. bottom line is let's get this investigation closed and move on to the next chapter, delivering for the people back home. >> the mueller team, they have avoided leaks. it's hard to get any information at all from those investigators and those prosecutors. let me play something that we heard from speaker of the house paul ryan today. he said he sees no role for the

house of representatives in investigating who wrote the op-ed. he said this also, listen. >> i know the president is very unconventional. i know his tweeting and uncon veng ve -- unconventional tactics bother people. but the results are good results. our branch of government is in charge of making sure we pass good laws that improve people's lives. >> but doesn't the house of representatives also have a critically important oversight role? >> i would agree. obviously we have an oversight role in the house to make sure that if there's any laws being broken, they're pursued and that we hold people accountable in the administration, this administration and others. at the end of the day, our mission needs to be focused on the evidence, needs to be focused on delivering for the american people. i agree with the speaker's sentiment, that our number one job should be adopting policies

to help people. >> the republican leadership in the house has basically walked away, as far as any serious oversight of the executive branch of the u.s. government is concerned, at least for now. the senate, they're still doing it, but in the house, it's been silent. >> well, you know, i'll let the investigative committees and the folks that are leading those charges speak for the results of them, but i believe that oversight role is in the house of representatives. i do support that and will pursue that where necessary, in my opinion. >> we'll see what happens. congressman reed, always good to have you to join us. thanks very much. >> great to be with you, wolf. >> we'll have much more on all of this, including the trail of possible clues in this op-ed that may expose the author. plus, fireworks erupting in the confirmation hearings of the president's supreme court nominee. democrats defying republicans by releasing confidential documents involving judge brett kavanaugh. you're going to see what's in them. >> senator cornyn called me out for it. i'm saying right now that i'm

releasing committee confidential documents. 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. captured lightning in a bottle. over 260 years later as the nation's leader in energy storage we're ensuring americans have the energy they need, whenever they need it

nextera energy.

just the title alone is so ominous. i'm quoting now, i am part of the resistance inside the trump administration. the anonymous op-ed published by "the new york times" has set off a frenzied search for the person behind it, and it's adding to the paranoia within the trump white house. let's bring in our cnn special correspondent, cnn political analyst eliana johnson, and our chief political analyst gloria borger. gloria, let's talk about all this, but the reaction, it sounds like almost a volcano erupts inside the white house.

>> that would be the president, i think, would be the volcano. the reporting from people like jeff zeleny covering the white house is that it seems that the president is getting these incoming denials that people are putting in front of him so he can do his own internal leak investigation about who might have betrayed him. he sees this, obviously, as an ultimate betrayal, an act of extreme disloyalty. while he play may be blaming "tw york times" for printing it, and he's free to do that, he clearly wants to get to the bottom of this. as we know, even paranoids have enemies. this president clearly has one who believes that he is a national security risk to his own administration. >> on that point, i want you to listen to congressman adam schiff, the ranking member of the house intelligence committee. he's deeply concerned about how the president will react to all

of this. the woodward book and now this article. >> i think this anonymous op-ed underscores the fundamental conundrum of everyone working in this administration, and that is how do you ethically serve a deeply unethical president? some are doing it by resigning. some are doing it by staying and thinking they can curb his worst impulses. some are doing it by writing anonymous op-eds. i worry that it just aggravates his paranoia, the deep-state conspiracy theorists mopg hamon allies. >> what do you think, eliana? that's a deep concern. >> it's an interesting way to make the case that we're trying to curb the president's worst instincts because i do share congressman schiff's concerns that by blaring that fact that there are people around the president who he specifically

tapped, political appointees who don't trust him, think he is a menace to the country, on the op-ed page of "the new york times," which we know the president cares tremendously about and pays attention to, that will only serve to exacerbate some of his worst enstingt enstine -- instincts. >> jamie, you've read the bob woodward book. he's sticking his word. the white house keeps denying several of those major allegations in the book. you're getting new information. >> correct. so first of all, i went back to bob woodward today to ask him if there was any update. once again he confirms he stands by his reporting. the other thing we have is something brand new. that is yesterday you may remember president trump said no documents could have been stolen off his desk, this didn't happen. >> he's referring to the book

open where gary cohn, the president's top economic adviser, so concerned the president was about to sign some document that would end u.s./north korean -- u.s./south korean free trade agraeeement a could jeopardize national security. >> right. this is the very dramatic opening scene of the book where he sees this document and he says, according to woodward, that he was appalled and got to save the country and he swipes it. not the only time. yesterday the president said no documents were stolen off of his desk. we have the document. this is a copy of the document that is in bob woodward's book. it is a draft letter that according to woodward's reporting that gary cohn and staff secretary rob porter,

former staff secretary, didn't know how it got there. it had not gotten through the proper channels. and it is from president trump and his u.s. trade representative, and it is addressed to the president of south korea. it is dated september 5th, 2017. >> read it to us. what does it say? >> you want me to read the whole thing? >> give us a sense. >> dear sirs, the united states/korea free trade agreement in its current form is not in the overall best interests of the united states' economy, thus in accordance with article 24.5 of the agreement, the united states hereby provides notice that it wishes to terminate the agreement. and it goes on. but that was what they were so concerned about. what gary cohn, what reince priebus, what rob porter were so concerned about, that the

president did not understand that by terminating the agreement, it was a danger to economic security, it was a danger to national security, it was a danger to global security. >> but how did it get on his desk is the other question. who wrote it for the president? i mean, it's clear the president didn't write it. so who was it who actually slipped it in there and put it on the president's desk? clearly without the staff secretary knowing about it or gary cohn knowing about it. >> the two words we have said over and over since day one, chaos and dysfunction. and we know that president trump, especially before chief of staff john kelly got there, people were in and out of the oval office at all times of the day, night, putting things in front of him, lobbying for different policy and alternative. that's the best guess of how this got there. >> and the national security team was deeply, deeply

concerned that if the president were to terminate this free trade agreement with south korea, the south koreans would retaliate by punishing the u.s. in terms of national security interests and preventing the u.s. from learning about a potential north korean nuclear missile launching within seven seconds. if they didn't have that cooperation from south korea, they'd have to determine it from hawaii or alaska or some place else. it could take 13, 14, 15 minutes, which in terms of a nuclear missile is a huge, huge deal. that's what was at stake if the president would have terminated that trade agreement with south korea. that was the concern that gary cohn clearly had. all right. everybody, stick around. there's more news we're following. the president's pick for the u.s. supreme court returns for a final round of questioning today. a very nasty fight breaks out over releasing confidential documents about him. we're going to show you how it's playing out right now. join t-mobile, and get netflix included for the whole family.

so you can get lost in space in your own backyard. or get pumped up for your grand entrance. t-mobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. and right now at t-mobile, buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else.

why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart.

a very contentious start to day three of judge brett kavanaugh's supreme court hearing. democratic senator cory booker set off fireworks over the handling of documents, even before the nominee was asked a question today. listen to this. >> so i am right now before your process is finished, i'm going

to release the e-mail about racial profiling, and i understand that -- the penalty comes with potential ousting from the senate. and if senator cornyn believes that i have violated senate rules, i openly invite and accept the consequences of my team releasing that e-mail right now. >> running for president is no excuse for violating the rules of the senate or of confidentiality of the documents that we are privy to. this is no different from the senator deciding to release classified information that is deemed classified by the executive branch because you happen to disagree with the classification decision. that is irresponsible and outrageous, and i hope that the senator will reconsider his decision because no senator deserves to sit on this committee or serve in the senate, in my view, if they decide to be a law unto themselves and willingly flout the rules of the senate and the determination of confidentiality

and classification. that is irresponsible and conduct unbecoming a senator. >> an hour after the hearing began, the chairman, senator chuck grassley, made his opening remarks. so let's disskucuss all of this critically important information. gloria borger and eliana johnson are still with us. page pate is with us as well. several of the democrats on the committee backed booker, saying they would also release some confidential e-mails despite the senate rules. >> committee confidential, as they're called. their reason for doing it is obviously they want to raise questions. they want to raise questions particularly about roe versus wade and whether or not judge kavanaugh believes it is so-called settled law. there is one line in this released e-mail where he had written that, i'm not sure all legal scholars refer to roe as

the settled law of the land at the supreme court level since the court can always overrule its precedent, and three current justices on the court would do so. well, that is true. and we also know that everybody talks about settled law and precedent, and everybody knows that precedent can be overturned if the court wants to. but again, they were raising this to say, look, roe is in danger, and this is a bit of proof about why kavanaugh, who was so important replacing kennedy here could be a key vote in overturning roe. >> but page, and you're a legal analyst, he was right. there are legal scholars who believe roe v. wade could be overturned. >> absolutely. settled law is for lower court judges. it's not at all for supreme court justices.

since he wrote that, there's now another vote to overturn roe versus wade. with a fifth vote, i think it is certain that a justice kavanaugh would look at the issue very differently than a judge kavanaugh because once you're on that supreme court, you get to make the call. >> i want to play a clip. this is the ranking democrat, are the top democrat on the judiciary committee, senator diane feinstein, who said this on this sensitive issue of roe v. wade and kavanaugh. listen to this. >> so thank you, senator feinstein. in that draft letter, it was referring to the views of legal scholars. i think my comment in the e-mail is that might be overstating the position of legal scholars. so it wasn't a technically accurate description in the letter of what legal scholars thought at that time. >> i've actually read these memos that were confidential but now are out. they've been released by some of these democratic senators.

the question is on the sensitive issue of abortion rights for women in the united states, you think any of this is going to have an impact on two moderate republican senators, lisa murkowski, susan collins, who are very important on this issue of roe v. wade and may convince them because of this disclosure of what he said that they may vote against this confirmation? >> i don't think this will be enough, but you're exactly right. the ultimate goal in publicizing these e-mails is to suggest that republicans and kavanaugh have been hiding about what his true views on roe v. wade are. if he is confirmed to the court, he will be a vote to overturn this. i don't think this e-mail, which really is a factual statement about precedent and the views of legal scholars will be enough to convince lisa murkowski of alaska and susan collins of maine that kavanaugh -- it says nothing about what kavanaugh's

personal views on the issue are or what he might do if he's not named and confirmed to the court. so i don't think it will be enough to get them to turn on their own party and to scuttle the nomination. if this is the worst thing democrats have on him, i just don't think it will be sufficient. >> because it looks like he has the votes, especially -- he needs 50 votes in the u.s. senate. there are 51 republicans, 49 democrats, including the two independents who vote with the democrats. and there are at least three moderate democrats who may vote to confirm as well. so if it's a simple majority, it looks like he hasn't had a major blunder yet and looks like he's on his way. hnch >> he hasn't. and this memo, he didn't state what his personal views are. that's sort of important. he didn't say, you know, i personally believe that this shouldn't be considered settled law or shouldn't be considered precedent. he was sort of remarking on what legal scholars were saying. so i really -- you know, i agree with eliana. i don't see it as sort it would

the nomination. >> this is important. if the democratic senators will bear down on this issue and say, look, you're telling us your personal opinion does not weigh into your decisions. well, that may be true while you're a lower court judge, but now you have to recognize, you have to acknowledge that once you're on the supreme court, your personal opinions do make a difference, how you view the constitution, how you view roe versus wade, because you will then have a vote to change that precedent if you decide to exercise it. >> judge kavanaugh, if confirms, could spend 30 or 40 years -- he's, what, only 53 years old -- on the u.s. supreme court and have a huge impact well beyond the trump administration. guys, stick around. there's more we're following. we're also getting right now new denials from top trump administration officials over that historic and blistering op-ed article in the "new york times." this as we're told what the

president is doing behind the scenes as all of these denials are coming in. ictable crohn's symptoms following you everywhere? it's time to take back control with stelara®. for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission with dosing every 8 weeks. woman: stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. man: are you fed up with crohn's symptoms following you? talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore

cost support options. remission can start with stelara®. ♪ ♪ they're the moderne stone age family. ♪ ♪ from the town of bedrock. ♪ meet george jetson. ♪ ♪ his boy elroy. with instant acceleration, electric cars are more fun to drive and more affordable than ever. electric cars are here. plug into the present.

it's truly an extraordinary day here in washington punctuated by a chorus of "not mes" comes from the most senior trump administration officials, including the vice president of the united states. there you see some of them. they are publicly having to declare that they didn't write a very damaging op-ed article in

the "new york times" about an active resistance to president trump from inside his own administration. joining us now, rhode island congressman david cicilline. thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> on twitter, you wrote this. dear anonymous senior official in the trump administration, thank you for your words. they would be much more powerful if you came out and identified yourself. i promise there are millions of americans who will hold you up as a hero. so tell us why you think it would be more powerful, more advantageous to the country if this senior official came out, announced it was me, was immediately fired by the president, as opposed to staying inside the government and trying to protect the american people from what this official regards as disastrous decisions and awful behavior by the president. >> well, i think first of all,

wolf, the letter to the editor, the op-ed i think didn't really surprise very many of us. it was consistent with the president's behavior and the way this administration is operating. there's nothing shocking in it. the president and his allies are denying it's true, claiming it's made up, not really a government official. i think what would make it very powerful is if this person were to come forward, identify themselves, and the american people would see it actually is a member of the trump administration, a high-ranking official, who would then lose his or her job. i think it would give tremendous credibility to those observations. i think the president relies on the constant denial that there is chaos in the white house. he says it's a finely tuned machine. and this would be an opportunity for someone who's worked in the white house at a high level, shared very important observations to identify, to have the courage to say, you know, it's me and this is important for our country. we can't have our country operate with a bunch of people secretly trying to mitigate the damage the president is causing. we need to shine a light on it in a real way, let the american

people see it, and then elect people who are going to hold this administration accountable. but i think it would be go a long way to piercing the president's claim that all this is made up and some big conspiracy but not actual people working in the white house who are making these observations. so i really hope the person who wrote that is reflecting on it and will come forward and identify himself or herself. i don't think, you know, frankly it matters, but it will give a lot more meaning to this written piece if the person is known. i think it would help. >> the counterargument to that, congressman, is simple. this official would immediately lose his or her job. we assume it's a very senior administration official. they would be replaced by someone who would be presumably very, very loyal to president trump and would not be as concerned about protecting what this person would regard as national security, for example, as opposed to a replacement and the american people might lose someone inside the administration who was out for

them. >> yeah, but the hope is that if this person comes forward, it might begin to persuade my republican colleagues to actually do what they're required to do under our constitution, meaningful oversight. it might cause people to vote for elected officials in the midterms that are committed to responsible oversight. so there are other benefits that will come from this. i think the other thing is the writer of this made it clear he or she is part of a group of people within the administration that are attempting to protect the country from the worst reckless behavior of this president. presumably there are others who will continue to do that. but that's not the way our democracy is supposed to work. we elect people. they ought to be allowed to assemble their teams that reflect their own priorities and kind of relying on people to remain secret in the white house to protect us from our own president is really not the way it's supposed to work. i think shining a light on this, having this official identify himself or herself, and then hopefully that's going to cause a series of other things, like real oversight, like the election of the right people in the midterms and a number of

other things that will have a much more significant benefit for our democracy than this one single person within the administration. >> does this -- what has happened with this article in the "new york times," does it set a dangerous precedent for the future? for example, donald trump is the 45th president. but does it set a dangerous precedent for the 46th president or the 47th president that it's okay to have someone inside the administration, someone who's not elected, working against the sitting president, the sitting commander in chief because he or she as an individual doesn't think the president is capable of doing the job the american people elected him or her to do? >> well, i mean, i think it raises some very serious questions about what your duty is as a high-level official in the government. and people who take those positions take oaths of office, take oaths to our constitution, to protect and defend the constitution of the united states and serve the people of this country. you can imagine there are

instances where people in order to honor the oath they've taken need to take a view contrary to the president, particularly this president. this is a very unusual moment in our nation's history. i don't know there are many examples of it happening before, but there have been a few examples. i think in general, we want people to get elected and assemble the team that reflects their priorities. but these are dangerous times. these are different times. we've seen a president who has repeatedly taken actions contrary to the interests of our country. helsinki maybe being the most recent example where he stood next to vladimir putin and sided with a country that attacked our democracy and undermined the rule of law and the confidence we have in our intelligence agencies. these are unusual times, and i think having people who are willing to be courageous and stand up for our country and put their country over their political affiliation with a particular president is important, but it also is something that people need to understand. that's why i think the identity of this person would be helpful to make people understand that this really is happening at the

white house and completely reject the president's notion that everything is terrific and it's running like a finely tuned machine. we know that's not true. this person wrote about it, and they can help confirm that by disclosing who they are. >> that argument is clearly also backed up by the new bob woodward book, which will officially be out on tuesday. so much of it already out there. congressman cicilline, thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure. moments ago, the first lady of the united states, melania trump, slamming the author of this op-ed, saying he or she is sabotaging the country. her statement, you'll hear it, when we come back. also, as the fallout from the op-ed ripples around the world, a stunning headline out of germany right now where a majority of people now say, according to this poll, what scares them most isn't terrorism, it's president trump. shop at bass pro shops and cabela's stores and online for great deals on great gear. and save thousands on america's favorite boats during our model year clearance sale. bass pro shops and cabela's.

your adventure starts here. are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec®. it's starts working hard at hour one. and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®. their medicare options...e people go to learn about before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67?

that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients?

i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire, find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about aarp medicare supplement plan options and rates to fit your needs. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance.

a new op-ed in "the new york times" dropped bombshells about the trump administration, but also raised a constitutional question. an unnamed senior administration official wrote, and i'm quoting, given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. the author of the article said they decided not to do so, afraid of precipitating a constitutional crisis. so what is the history behind the 25th amendment to the u.s. constitution? our correspondent tom foreman is here to break it down for us. explain this to our viewers, tom. >> the 25th amendment, wolf, grew out of long simmering concerns about what the nation would do if a president became

incapacitated. the question was first raised when woodrow wilson suffered a debilitating stroke, again when dwight eisenhower suffered serious health scares and when president kennedy was assassinated, it became law. what does it say? specifically, section 4 allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet or some other group named by congress to declare the president unable to serve. but the rules also make it quite difficult to use this amendment to simply push out a president. this is how it's supposed to work. say a president appears to have suffered some wildly debilitating injury or illness or is acting as if he's simply gone insane. the vice president and the cabinet could tell congress he's got to go. we are now in charge. and they do take control. but the president could then immediately respond, no, i am fine. i get to stay. and he immediately takes back

control simply by that declaration. at which point the first group, if they want, can then go back to congress and they can say we want a ruling from congress, and at that point, if within three weeks two thirds of the members of congress say yes, we agree, the president is no longer fit to serve, then he is out. but make no mistake. none of this was designed for foes of a president inside or outside of his party to simply take him down because they strongly disagree with his policies or behavior. the 25th amendment is specifically aimed at measurable provable mental or physical incapacity. >> the other option is impeachment, which is in the constitution. a simple majority in the house, but two thirds in the senate would be needed to actually remove a president from office. tom foreman, thanks for that explanation. the fallout from the so-called resistant op-ed about

president trump in "the new york times" has gone international. and the overwhelming reaction from u.s. allies in europe seems to be less than a surprise. in fact, a german weekly has now replaced its coverage of the op-ed with an eyebrow raising poll on the things germans right now fear most. coming in at number one with 69%, look at this, president trump. he beats out fear of refugees overrunning germany at 63%, and terrorism, which got 59%. coming up, is it the one word that could unlock a mystery, as speculation builds over who wrote the op-ed. one unusual term used by the author is getting a lot of attention. we'll explain. billions of mouths. billions of problems.

dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. (seriously, that's what we call tit. officially.all a huge drag. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

to senate judiciary committee confirmation hearing for judge kavanaugh as the next u.s. supreme court justice. sheldon whitehouse is questioning kavanaugh. >> -- protection they feel you are owed. it's up to you do do that. >> i spoke to reporters at the direction and authorization of judge stark. >> you are citing the exact same words you answered me with beforehand. >> it's relevant to the answer of the question, if i could continue? >> what i would really like to

get is an answer to the actual question i asked rather than a disquisition in the general topic area i asked. this is a very simple thing. you either will or will not or if you wish, this is -- you're welcome to say, look, i would like to take that under advisement and get back to you after some reflection and consultation, but our situation right now is that reporters may very well information about what you told them during the starr clinton investigation that they are unwilling to divulge now because you were a confidential source. can you release them from that by simply saying here publicly, anybody i talked to, say what i said, it's not a problem. i don't need confidentiality anymore. >> senator, if i could just get 30 seconds on this. if that's okay. >> 30 responsive seconds, i'm all for that. go for it. >> okay, i spoke to the reporters at the direction and authorization of judge starr and

therefore judge starr would be the one who would be part of that process. i was not acting on my own. >> no. no. nope, that is not the way that reporters look at it. they look at it as you are the source, you are the one to whom they owe confidentiality. starr's name has not come up. >> i was in turn acting as part of that office, and therefore i guess -- >> but it's yours to divulge. >> it's because i can't do that or don't think i should do that isn't a matter of appropriateness given i was working for someone else who was running the office. i talked, of course on the record. >> the answer is you're unwilling to do it. i'll move on. you have said today, you have never taken a position on the constitutionality of indicting the president. let me ask you, has there ever been any