congress, the coming congress will be the last one, after the 2020 elections he believes she will step aside but of course, erin, she didn't say that. >> thank you very much, manu. >> thanks, erin. >> thanks for joining us. happy thanksgiving. anderson starts now. good evening. john berman here in for anderson. it's the night before thanksgiving and a nation has turned its collective thoughts to gratitude traveling to be with the family and friends, remembering that we have -- remembering all we have for which to be thankful. the president of the united states, well, he's thankful, too. he sent a heart felt thank you today to saudi arabia. we'll get to that, but we begin by keeping them honest on another front. the president taking a branch of government and trying to snap it in half. he's lashing out at the american judicial community, particularly anyone who rules against him. what's astounding is this has earned a rare response from the

chief justice of the united states. honestly, this doesn't happen. john roberts is drawing a line here. this started after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the trump administration from barring migrants who entered the united states illegally from seeking asylum. that prompted this response from the president. >> well, you go to the ninth circuit and it's a disgrace and i'm going to put in a major complaint because you cannot win if you're us, a case in the ninth circuit. i think it's a disgrace when people file -- every case gets filed in the ninth circuit. the ninth circuit, we're going to have to look at that because every case, no matter where it is, they file it practically, i mean practically, for all intents and purposes they file it in what's called the ninth circuit. this was an obama judge. >> the chief justice of the united states, john roberts who, by the way, was appointed by republican president george w. bush, took issue with that. the issue was clearly a rebuke.

in an official statement he said, quote, we do not have obama judges or trump judges, bush judges or clinton judges, what we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. that independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for. again, it is remarkable that a chief justice had to feel like he needs to issue such a response. he knew it would get under the president's skin, and it did. after golfing the president wrote in part, sorry, chief justice john roberts, but you do, indeed, have obama judges. why are a vast number of those cases overturned? please study the numbers. they are shocking. he goes on to quote fox news saying 79% of these decisions have been overturned in the ninth circuit. keeping them honest despite what the president and fox news want to claim, there are other circuits with a higher reversal rate than the ninth circuit and theirs is only a little higher than average. also, the judge who ruled

against him this week isn't even on the appeals court. now facts notwithstanding, i think we can all agree that nothing says it's almost thanksgiving like the president of the united states telling the chief justice of the united states to study the american judicial system. the president has his issues with the ninth circuit, but he also has issues with justice roberts because, you guessed it, there was a ruling he didn't like. >> justice roberts could have killed obamacare and should have based on everything, should have killed it twice. justice roberts turned out to be an absolute disaster. he turned out to be an absolute disaster because he gave us obamacare. >> it's also not the first time the president has scrapped with a supreme court justice. remember when ruth bader beginsbebegin ginsburg said whatever comes into his head at the moment. he hit back.

justice againstbuginsburg has m dumb statements about me. her mind is shot. resign. it isn't just the supreme court justices that the president has tackled with. the judge in the case against trump university, which wasn't a university, drew the president's ire. he said the judge couldn't be impartial because he was of mexican heritage. remember, he was born in indiana. >> heritage. >> i'll tell you what it has to do, i have had ruling after ruling after ruling that's been bad rulings. i've been treated very unfairly. let me just tell you, i've had horrible rulings. i've been treated very unfairly. this judge is of mexican heritage. i'm building a wall. i am going to do very well with the hispanics. >> no mexican judge could ever be involved in a case that involves you? >> he's a member of a society, very pro mexico, it's all fine. >> you're calling into question

his heritage. >> he should recuse himself. >> the president agreed to a $25 million settlement days after the election. the attacks on judges and the system, attacks that have started before he was elected, it happens when a ruling doesn't go his way. >> the courts are not helping us, i have to be honest with you. it's ridiculous. somebody said i should not criticize judges. okay, i'll criticize judges. i have had ruling after ruling after ruling that's been bad rulings, okay? i've been treated very unfairly. really big problem with the court system. it's a bad system. i tell you. i listen to these judges talk and talk and talk. so unfair. people are screaming break up the ninth circuit. i'll tell you what, that ninth circuit, you have to see, take a look at how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions. take a look. it's really sad when every

single case filed against us is in the ninth circuit, we lose, we lose, we lose, then we do fine in the supreme court. what does that tell you about our court system? it's a very, very sad thing. >> apparently in the president's mind the only capable judge is one that wasn't appointed by someone he doesn't like, b, doesn't rule against him and, c, isn't of mexican dissent. the only good judge is the one biased in his favor. lady justice may be blind but she can see that makes no sense. joining us supreme court biographer, joan piscupic. the chief, the life and turbulent times of chief justice john roberts. you know a lot, joan. you know he's been quiet when it comes to the president's previous attacks against him. you know he's been asked to comment on some of the president's feelings about the judiciary. so why did he come forward this time?

>> thanks, john. and you know that montage you just showed demonstrated how predictable president trump's active. i think what it comes down to this time, john, is the particular kind of insult that president trump leveled this time and a larger con feks of timing that i'll get to. first, think of what president trump accused the judge of in the asylum case. being an obama judge. he cast him in the politician who named him to the bench as if he was an extension of that politician. chief justice roberts picked up on that precise language of the obama judge. he was parroting back what he said. i know other judges had implored the chief justice to speak out and i think this insult he

finally felt merited it. but one other thing, john, that i think is important for all of us to remember is the context that we're in right after the brett kavanaugh hearings which were so polarized. the chief justice's concern about the supreme court's own reputation, not just the full judiciary, but how people see this court being so divided 5-4, the five conservatives were all appointed by republican presidents. the four liberals were all appointed by democratic residents. what he's striking out at is not just president trump's portrayal but what he fears might be the public perception. >> might be a lonely battle. we'll get back to that in a moment. i do want to ask this. given that he knew, he had to know that the president would

respond to his statement, you know, do you think that chief justice will say anything else publicly at this point? >> john, you're exactly right. i think it took all he had to respond at this time because he didn't want to provoke a man who is so easily provoked. i do not believe you'll hear another word from him on this subject until possibly his end of the year report that comes at the end of december where he assesses, you know, the judiciary for the year, but i do not see him coming back. the last thing chief justice roberts wants to do is enter a political arena with a spat going back and forth. frankly, he will never do it on twitter, ever. >> i think that's 100% correct. that statement in january will be from 10,000 feet, a big, sweeping plotitude. >> stick around. i want to bring in kerry core ca

cordarro and douglas. i want you to weigh in. it is remarkable we're sitting here the night before thanksgiving watching the president of the united states going after the chief justice. what do you make of this? >> reporter: i think, john, that it has to be put into the broader context of the president's continuous verbal attacks on the justice system more generally. this isn't the first time he's tried to denigrate them. he has constantly attacked prosecutors including the special prosecutor. he has verbally gone after the justice department, his attorney general, his former attorney general, his former fbi director. so i think it has to be taken in that broader context, but i think what we're seeing with chief justice roberts response today is that people of integrity who are in the government, who understand in a way that the president does that our institutions are bigger than one person are going to be speaking out more commonly

because the president's attacks, his verbal attacks and his consistent effort to denigrate these institutions and to try to make the american people think that the rest of the institutions are weaker than he is, people in these government agencies and these institutions are going to have to take on a more public and a stronger effort to push back against it. >> interesting question. you've seen it on other fronts, too, since the mid term election, has something changed where people feel more free to speak out. we'll talk about that much more in the coming days. doug, i want to ask you. i was racking my brain recent history for any time when a president and a chief justice were going head to head like this. i couldn't think of anything, but historically speaking -- >> no, we have nothing like this. when fdr tried to so-called pack the supreme court, move the number from 9 to 15, there was a filing of general warfare between the supreme court and fdr. what you have here is i think

chief justice roberts becoming america's justice on that. enough is enough. the fact that trump was disparaging of the u.s. ninth circuit court of appeals is utterly disgraceful. robert's silence would have been in a way, you know, almost backing trump. so he stood up. after the kavanaugh confirmation hearing many people wondered, there goats the supreme court. roberts is stepping up saying, no, i'm an independent minded supreme court justice and the court's not going to fall by the way of trump's ploys. in the end, john, donald trump has a new york southern district problem and he has a wider agenda of trying to disparage judges all over the place because he might have to do that as a strategy in '19. >> joe, we talked about that.

i thought that maybe justice roberts is fighting a lonely battle here when he's trying to make the judiciary apolitical. you read anything and it's always obama appointed, ragan appointed, busch appointed. we always note which president appointed which judge and we're keenly aware of the political nature and makeup of the supreme court so in a way it is donald trump, the president now just voicing a situation we all perceived to be true anyway. >> well, he's taken it much further than any of us would. it's of a different nature, john. yes, we do, i do, you do, most news media will kriel the a pointing president because, frankly, it is a political system. it's a political system of appointments, we just saw that. and that's been the case since day one with the federal judiciary. but what president trump is saying here is not simply that

someone was appointed and might have a particular inclination, he's saying that goes to the wins and losses. he's saying outright automatically, i think he used the word automatic. automatic loss for this administration and that is different, john. it's different than saying, you know, a particular judge happened to be appointed by president clinton or president obama versus george w. bush or trump. so politics has always been in the system but donald trump is on the same -- that there's no rules here. there's absolutely no rules and he is going to attack judges personally and undermind the larger integrity and le git ma city tank. it doesn't have an army. it only has its stature here.

>> it's funny, the president told the chief justice to go study. >> the chief justice doesn't need a lesson on the judiciary. the president has a fundamental -- i won't call it a misunderstanding, he has a non-understanding on the way the system is set up, on the checks and balances and on the independent of the judicial system. this is one moment in time. this is just today where it happened to be the chief justice who teld the need, both to send a message to the judges throughout the country that he values their independence and that he wants the country to know and they are not beholden to the individual who happened to appoint them, nominate them for confirmation to the ben ch. this is part of the broader understanding of government and the president doesn't seem to have that understanding.

he doesn't seem interested in adapting to it. what he consistently is doing is trying to push down the other branches of government. i think it's going to backfire. i think eventually the institutions are going to prevail and he will end up leaving the presidency. >> i don't imagine justice roberts will hold any grudges. doug, how much of this is how the president operates? because i have to say, in just this week he's gone after, you know, four star admiral, four bar admiral, william mccraven, in the raid on bin laden. he doesn't seem to care about the institutions, he seems to care about whether people in the institutions are with him or not. >> exactly. i mean, you're either pro trump or against trump. he's been at war with the fbi, the cia, you name it. it strikes me that he's just trying to change the

conversation. u the stock market tumbled 500 points, his daughter ivanka with the e-mail scandal. he decided to demonize over the holidays the u.s. circuit court of appeals, low and behold, chief justice roberts slammed him, slammed him hard and i think won this showdown. donald trump is now in a muted probably seating and angry at justice roberts for calling his come up its. >> one more relationship that bears watching over the coming months. that is for sure. thank you very much. happy thanksgiving. >> happy thanksgiving to you. >> the president's lawyer says robert mueller could try to get more answers from the president. the question is, will he answer? what kind of a time line are we

looking at? the latest on that next. later, david axlerod sat down with former president obama and a wide ranging issue. what he said they thought he could beat president trump if he was allowed to be on the ballot in 2020. ve than to receive. james may disagree (scream) join t-mobile and get the samsung galaxy s9 free. ♪ bum-bum-bum-bum-bum i think it will fit. ♪ want a performance car that actually fits your life? introducing the new 2019 ford edge st. capability meets power. in the first suv from the ford performance team. the new 2019 ford edge st.

that skills like teamwork, attention to detail, and customer service are critical to business success. the kind of skills, that work for you. americans rose up this november and rejected donald trump. more unhinged by that than ever, this president declared war on the rule of law. but you gave democrats the power to hold him in check. a majority vote in the house can impeach him and expose his lawless behavior for all to see. they just need the will. please join over six million americans and together we can give congress the courage to act. then, we can begin building a more just and prosperous future.

sometimes a cough gets in the way of a good night's sleep. that's when he needs vicks vaporub. proven cough medicine. with 8 hours of vapors, so he can sleep. vicks vaporub. goodnight coughs. i've always been amazed and still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden sign of bleeding,

like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

the president has submitted written answers to questions from robert mueller's office, but there could be more coming. today the president's lawyer rudy giuliani said the questions he answered included what he knew about the russian meeting and the president asking to find hillary clinton's missing e-mails. jeff zeleny joins us now. it caught my attention when rudy giuliani suggested that the special counsel might not be done with the president. do you have any sense why he said that? what more do we know? >> john, good evening. one of the reasons is because so far those written questions have taken the president several months to answer in his back and

forth with his lawyer entirely pertained too before the president was elected. there is a gray area in the word of rudy giuliani about the time election to the time the president was being sworn in. so we do believe that the special counsel has some questions about that transition period, if you will. and of course he has questions about, you know, potential obstruction of justice. even though those written questions are in, rudy giuliani was signaling earlier today that he does believe that the special counsel will have more questions about that but he said the trump team is going to push back on all of that and claim executive privilege. that is where this fight could be headed. it's important to know if that fight actually would go forward. the acting attorney general matt whitaker is in charge of the russia investigation. would they subpoena the president or not.

it's clear that these written questions were before election. it seems bob mueller has questions after election and after he was sworn into office as well, john. >> it's interesting because giuliani suggests that maybe the special counsel would want to ask more. did giuliani let on whether or not he had an indication from the special counsel's office that they were going to push further? it doesn't seem likely that he has no idea on this. >> i mean, the fact that he was mentioning it at all, the fact that this isn't a likely finish seems to me that he may have had an indication for that. we've seen the president's lawyers talk about this on television because they know the president will see it that way. they want to -- i think it was my sense to sort of lower expectations that this is over at this point but think of all of the other people, the witnesses that have spoken to the special counsel's office.

don mcgann spoke to the special counsel's office for some 30 hours or so. that is why rudy giuliani indicated that he thinks there could be more questions. the question is do they need this information from the president or does bob mueller and his team have this information from other people? so you do get the sense, john, even though we're nearing the holidays and the end of what was supposed to be wrapped up a year ago may not be wrapped up at all. >> jeff zeleny, thank you very much. former trump white house lawyer james schultz and cnn legal analyst laura coates. let's game out the scenario we were talking about. say robert mueller does want to ask the president questions about why he fired fbi director james comey, say he does want to ask obstruction of justice questions and his attorneys say he shouldn't have to. what argument would the mueller team make that he does? >> besides, yes, you do need to do so, you're not above the law.

they would have to argue the notion of explaining why executive privilege does not apply in this context. the president does and has the prerogative to have open and candid conversations with members of his cabinet, people he can rely on for advice. you want to have a candid discussion without the president and cabinet members without having it revealed. you can't assign executive privilege or assert it any time you like. it has to be in the nature of what you're doing, you had to be a member of the executive branch at that point in time. when he was a candidate he was not. at the time of the trump tower meetings he would not have been. at the time of the upcoming rallies and discussing perhaps dirt on hillary clinton, i mentioned that and wiki leagues and why they would be of interest. they would have to actually substantiate that assertion of privilege. if you're mueller, you have to

do a cost-benefit analysis whether you're going to try to fight that in court, whether you're going to rely on the head of the justice department who's the acting ag to allow you to subpoena and follow through on compelling compliance subpoena. it's a long game. that's why they started with written questions to test the waters. >> jim, if mueller does issue a subpoena, it would have to be approved by the new acting attorney general matt whitaker. so if whitaker wanted to squelch it, if he wanted to put it to bed, what grounds could he use? >> well, you know, executive privilege is a very gray area, whether executive privileges can apply. that's not been tested by the courts. mueller has to decide whether it's essential to the carrying out of that information in this matter. >> how important is it in making a determination whether he needs it or not.

then it has to be a balancing act. do we take it up to the dag and the attorney general. that has to be answered before it goes to whitaker. >> what do the higher courts think, have they weighed in? >> the nixon case dealt with documents. we haven't dealt with executive privilege as it relates to conversations. there's never been a president subpoenaed successfully relative to conversations. it's only been documents. we would be a new ground there. that's why we have the d.c. circuit, the supreme court and if ultimately the president objects to going in and speaking with mueller, it will likely end up before those courts. >> in conversations there's a gray area, laura. transitions are a gray area upon a gray area. we don't know if executive privileges extend at all and it

could be that there's a lot to ask about that. >> of course. it's a flow chart. when does it apply, when does it not? it most assuredly doesn't apply. the gray area is more limited. it was around the time of the inauguration and the time he would have been briefed on a number of issues where he would be reasonably relying on his cabinet members for very substantial information. the gray area is not extending to when he was hoping to be the president of the united states. imagine all of the candidates battling to be a part. i was expecting to be perhaps the president, therefore, whatever conversations i had or documents i had are going to fall under that. remember, one of the good things about there being a statute right now that mueller is under that actually sets the parameters of his job is that if there is disagreement, john, in

some way between what he would like to do about getting a subpoena or trying to have it compelled to be complied with is that if he and whit taker should disagree about how to carry out the 2ik objective, he has a job to do. he can go to the senate and the actual members of the house as well and talk about this. so there is some other area he go to rely on if, if whit taker wasn't the obstacle. >> i have to say mueller -- go ahead, jim. >> i said like we saw in fast and furious when they asserted executive privilege, eric holder, about his conversations with president obama at that point in time. you'll see this play out in the courts whether they go to congress or not. should the president refuse to testify or the president refuse to answer further questions, you're going to see that play out. >> yeah, but robert mueller

would have to choose to have that fight. i don't know if we've got an indication. do we have an indication that mueller wants this kind of public fight? >> no, and, in fact, maybe the opposite. he is willing to compromise and have even written questions in lieu of the expected oral testimony, this is in and of itself a compromise he didn't have to make. you do see he is malleable in some way. we whether he is manipulable, i don't know. >> one of the swing votes could be a guy that the president has been fighting with today, chooef justice of the united states, john roberts. great to have you with us tonight. i a previews preesh yat it. first the president gives a pass to saudi arabia for murder and now he thanks them. one of the people in the senate says he's acting with what

rhymes with witch. we'll explain next. (urgent drumming) ♪ (drumsticks clatter) (lights clank off)

so the day after president trump more or less gave saudi arabia a pass for killing a

u.s.-based journalist, today he thanked them. it is thanksgiving, after all. this is what he wrote. oil prices getting lower, he said on twitter. great. like a big tax cut for america and the world. enjoy $54, just $82. thank you, saudi arabia, but let's get lower. this is senate foreign relations chair bob corker hit back hard saying, quote, took our nation to a very low level in the wake of the killing of jamal khashoggi and hawaii congresswoman gabbert had this to say. hey, donald trump, being saudi arabia's bitch is not america first. joining us is max, why i left the right, and "new york times" investigative correspondent mack mazetti. you wrote an article about the messages being sent by the president around the world. you called it a blueprint to foreign leaders, a guide how

they might increase their standing in the eyes of the u.s. president in terms of how far they can go without raising american ire. >> the president made it clear in a statement yesterday that if you buy american arms, if you could potentially create american jobs, you can get away with a whole lot and he values his allies and partners based on what they may provide to the united states, what's good for boeing is good for the united states and there was nothing at all about, you know, what america might see in its allies, et cetera. what we're seeing is what people think of the khashoggi killing. >> getting away with murder, max, and does it send the message that other countries can do the same?

>> of course. it's a horrible message to send. this response to the murder of jamal khashoggi shows that donald trump's foreign policy is a value free zone. i mean, donald trump is tougher on admiral bill mccraven, a person who was responsible for killing osama bin laden than he is on the crown prince who is responsible for killing jamal khashoggi. >> what about the thank you? the president knows that he stirred things up with that statement. he knows the coverage out there and even in light of that he decided to say thank you today. >> it is just so bizarre. it's not like oil prices are down because the saudis are doing us a favor. in the first place, saudi arabia is 13% of world oil production. they don't set the world price of oil. there was a miscalculation by oil producers who thought demand would be higher than it is. this is part of a consistent

pattern with trump. you would never know from this that the united states, we are the stronger party in this relationship. the saudis need the united states much more than we need the saudis but donald trump acts as if he has to kiss up to crown prince mohamed bin salman. >> at this point is there any sense that the united states is getting anything for this? has saudi arabia said, hey, you know what, we're going to give you oil for free? we're going to pay double for your weapons? i did see some statements from some other gulf nations today basically saying they were grateful the u.s. stuck by saudi arabia. are there any benefits? >> one of the interesting things yesterday was how much president trump wanted to say that he is basically powerless. he can't push saudi arabia or else they could cut production so the american president really doesn't have much power in this situation, but to the specifics of what we do or don't get, i mean, it's been pointed out that all of these numbers floating

around about the hundreds of billions of dollars of arms deals, a lot of it is promises that haven't seen fruition and most people don't think it will. they're sort of empty paper in terms of what actually will be delivered in terms of what the saudis might buy from raytheon, boeing, lockheed, et cetera. the united states relationship with saudi arabia is complicated and it always has been. there's been a certain amount of hypocrisy that's gone into it. one of the interesting things also from this is how much the president basically made saudi arabia and mohamed bin salman one and the same, that he has to support mohamed bin salman because the relationship with saudi arabia is important. it needs to be pointed out. he is not the king yet. >> right. >> you're not the king until you're the king. so it is very interesting this administration has thrown its lot with this young crown prince and, indeed, if he's king, he could be king for decades. he's not there yet and it will

be interesting to see how it plays out. >> the point that mark is making is a very important one because donald trump is conflating saudi arabia with the crown prince. the crown prince has only been in office for a year. we have had 80 years of a u.s./saudi alliance without the crown prince. there's no reason why our relationship with saudi arabia has to be contingent on the crown prince. there are many times when we've pulled away from despotic leaders. given how toxic mbs has become, we would strengthen our relationship with them if he were moved. >> is he going to the g-20? isn't he continuing to play on the world stage? >> right. this is part of the script. he will continue to be the purported leader of saudi a rag

yeah on the global stage. it seemed as if president trump in a statement yesterday was trying to basically end this matter, we're done. we're past the khashoggi killing. we're moving on to bigger, more important things. now, you know, we'll see if history turns out that way, but they clearly want to turn the page on this and go onto the other issues they want to deal with saudi arabia. >> thank you very much for being with us. i appreciate the discussion. happy thanksgiving to both of you. i'm thankful for you. appreciate it. >> thanks, john. >> david axlerod's exclusive interview with president barack obama, he asked him if he were on the ballot in 2020 how he would match up with president trump. the answer might surprise you.

once i started looking for it was a no-brainer. i switched to geico and saved hundreds. that's a win. but it's not the only reason i switched. the geico app makes it easy to manage my policy. i can pay my bill, add a new driver, or even file a claim. woo, hey now! that's a win-win. thank you! switch to geico®. it's a win-win. very high triglycerides with diet and exercise deserves the hard work that went into the science behind vascepa. prescription vascepa. vascepa, along with diet and exercise, has proven results in multiple clinical trials. vascepa looks different because it is different. over a decade of extensive research and development achieved proven results.

that's the prescription power of vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about what the science behind prescription vascepa can mean to you. amarin thanks the clinicians and patients who participated in the vascepa clinical trials. 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.

tonight we have an exclusive interview with former president barack obama. this week he sat down with his old friend and former strategist david axlerod. it was for the action file's podcast. it comes after president obama spent weeks campaigning for democrats running in the mid

term elections and he said he's proud of how his party did. he talked about that and looked ahead at 2020. axlerod asked his former boss a pretty interesting question. >> do you think if you were on the ballot in 2020 that you would defeat president trump? >> i mean, i -- i -- i will not answer that direct question for obvious reasons. >> the reason i ask people say, you know, we can't have another candidate of color, we can't have a woman. >> that -- that -- that kind of stuff i don't buy. i am -- as you know, i'm fairly confident. >> yes. that is apparent. >> and when i left office i think people felt after having gone through all kinds of ups and downs that i had taken the job seriously, worked hard, been

true to my oath, observed and hopefully strengthened the norms and the rules and the values of our democracy. i think america was more respected around the world than it was when i came in and, yes, i feel very confident that i was in a position to -- had it not been for both the constitution and michelle, to continue in office. with respect to going forward, the idea that there's some demographic or profile of a particular candidate that is the optimal one or the ideal one, that's just not how i've seen politics work.

i think people respond to candidates who speak to the moment in some fashion and, you know, you're the first one, ax, who talked about the fact that you sort of don't know how somebody's going to play out until they're in the race. >> right. >> and they're off and running. i think it's fair to say that although by the time i announced i was running for president, people were familiar enough with me that they thought, this guy has talent. they didn't necessarily think we were going to win. in fact, i think the odds were -- >> i think they wanted to see you run the whole gauntlet to see how you handle it. >> exactly. our current president, nobody expected that would happen, but it did. you don't know how all these various factors are going to

converge until you try. generalizations that we draw about, well, a woman's not going to win this time. oh, this is ideal time for a woman. you've had one black guy so you can't have another black guy. vivia >> but you know why -- i'm not subscribing to that theory, but you know why it comes up. >> because i'm a black guy. [ laughter ] >> right. you spoke -- your great -- [ laughter ] >> for those of you who are listening and not watching, the president enjoyed his last comment. [ laughter ] your reaction to the midterm election tz, you jumped in there. i remember you telling me the bushes taught you a lesson in how

. test

good evening. john berman here. chris cuomo is getting after it somewhere near turkey. thanks for spending part of ire thanksgiving eve with us. if you're anything like the president, you spent the day engaging in prethanksgiving day events like golfing, and lecturing the chief justice of the united states about how the courts work in this country. that last part was after chief justice john roberts in a rare and stunning rebuke took the president to task for claiming a recent ruling against him was a disgrace from, quote, an obama judge. cnn's senior white house correspondent jeff zeleny joins us now with the very latest. jeff, we're going to get back to you in just a minute. now i'm told we have jeff zeleny in florida racing to the microphone, braving the warm weather to be with us. jeff, tell us what the friction