we are talking about -- >> that's denying it. >> they say we had hurricanes that were worse than what we just had with michael. >> who says that? >> people say. people say that -- >> what about the scientists who say it's worse than ever? >> you have to show me the scientists. they have a very big political agenda. >> one is in his own administration. he doesn't trust scientists. how about his own eyes? a week and a half ago he went to see some of the destruction from deadly wildfires in california. >> does it change your opinion on climate change, mr. president? >> no, no. i have a strong opinion. i want great climate. we're going to have that and we're going to have forests that are very safe. >> he wants great climate. unclear what, if anything, the president wants to do about it. i'm not sure he has an understanding of the issues.

or even the basic grasp of the issue. take these tweets. nbc news just called it the great freeze, coldest weather in years. is our country spending money on the global warming hoax? snowing in texas and louisiana. freezing temperatures. global warming is an expensive hoax. to be generous, those were before he became president. but we do have one from just last week. brutal and extended cold blast could shatter all records. what happened to global warming. it's in his report. the president is honestly believing that global warming means it never gets cold anywhere. nasa has a good explanation of the difference between weather and climate on its website. its website for children. we're just suggesting, mr. president, if you don't want to believe science or the 1,600 page report your team tried to slip past the american public on friday, maybe just start with climatekids.nasa.gov.

it's a pretty easy read. it's fun. there are pictures. we're not going to hold our breath. unlike the climate, some things never actually change. hand it over to chris. cuomo "prime time" starts now. >> you forgot uncle john. you forgot trump's uncle john. >> you are right. >> at m.i.t., a scientist. he never spoke to him about global warming though. uncle john was an electrical engineer. >> i remember that. >> he had an uncle john. he says that makes him good at this kind of stuff. >> right. i totally forgot. >> once you factor that in, now it all makes sense. it's good to see you. i hope you had a good break. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." i hope you had a fantastic thanksgiving. back to work. mueller caught manafort lying again. and we have the man at the

center of the migrant situation. what do you say? let's get after it. big news tonight right off the top. he agreed to work with the special counsel's investigation. now the mueller team claims paul manafort chose to lie and lie even after his plea deal. the former trump campaign chair is looking at more time as a result. prosecutors say manafort breached the deal, lying on a variety of subjects two months after he started cooperating. the defense says manafort believes he has provided truthful information. the key word is he believes. maybe he didn't, but he thought he did. that's the law for you. they will take it to the judge for the sentencing. both sides are asking the sentencing to go forward. special counsel's office says it will fill in some of the blanks in this twist down the road. what does it mean? let's bring in cuomo's court. good to have you both on short notice.

the big question is, what was he lying about? two possibilities. one is his money and the men who helped him make it. that he was never really forthcoming on all of it. mueller kept picking up the pieces and decided not to reward him for it anymore. possible, yes? >> that's possible. remember, chris, that at sentencing, the prosecution will detail all of the lies that manafort told and how they know that this is not true and also how it impeded their plea agreement or their investigation at this point. we will see all of that laid out the same way we did with george papadopoulos. what's key is that mueller knows manafort lied. he has information in his possession. let's not forget manafort was the subject of two fisa orders before he entered the campaign. i'm guessing that mueller has quite a lot of information on

manafort's activities leading up to the campaign and thereafter. >> hurts him as a witness if there were to be any prosecution. he is someone who you know has a credibility problem. right? >> well sure. he is not somebody that's going to be believed. mueller presumably has quite a lot of information from many other cooperating witnesses and possibly things like electronic surveillance like i mentioned. >> then comes the second possibility. that is that mueller has caught manafort lying, concealing information related to the campaign and the people connected thereto. that's why it mattered enough for him to bring it up with the judge and want to have a change in the deal. what's your take on that? >> there has to be written information. i agree, there has to be a lot of information that the fbi has. they want mueller to cooperate. they probably gave -- >> manafort. >> i'm sorry. >> don't try to confuse us.

>> they probably gave him an opportunity to correct his testimony, because they want him to cooperate. they probably have information that he doesn't have access to. now they're taking it before the judge for the termination. this is a real problem. judges are typically deferential to the prosecution in these instances. >> what's your percentage chance it's a pardon play? a pardon play meaning that manafort is betting that if he takes even harsher sentence for not telling the truth about things, the president may reward him down the line? >> like i said, i think this is about his version of testimony. this isn't about what maybe rick gates said and something that manafort said. this is about documents. this is about testimony about documents that the fbi has, most likely. who knows what the subject of those documents are? we're going to learn soon. >> right. the substance regardless, it could be a pardon play. you have seen plenty of that,

i'm sure. >> sure. i think in some ways that's the only way to make sense of what is otherwise very irrational behavior. manafort is in a worse position than he would have been if he had just pleaded guilty. a judge is going to take into account he has continued to commit crimes even after the plea agreement. this could be a pardon play. i don't know it will pan out. then, of course, there is the possibility of state charges. i also think that we need to think about the fact that this may have placed the president in potential jeopardy. he has turned in his answers to mueller's questions. according to giuliani, he has a joint defense agreement with manafort, which allows them to share information, which is typically used in mob cases to get your story straight. if trump's story was based on what manafort was saying and manafort is now caught out in multiple lies, then this is not

great for the president because now his answers are in writing and submitted to mueller. >> jim? >> i don't think we're -- i think it's a stretch to say that at this point in time. we don't know what this is about. this could be all about manafort's finances. this could be all about that. nothing to do with the campaign. remember, they wanted a credible witness to cooperate. now they are finding -- the prosecution is finding they don't have a credible witness to cooperate. that cooperation likely has to do with other portions of the probe. >> why is it so hard for mueller to tell the truth around the president of the united states? >> the folks that -- manafort has had a lot of problems over the years. long before then. then candidate trump. now president. to say this has any tie to the president is speculation at this

point. >> manafort was sitting in the meeting at trump tower. he was at the center of everything. they make him orchestrate that foolish speech ploy with the former first lady and michelle obama. and melania. manafort had to own that. he was very integral to the operations while he was there. anybody who was covering the campaign, let alone somebody who has known him for 25 years the way i have, know that that's the truth. >> he worked for the campaign, yes. no one is denying that. >> integral is the word. >> that doesn't mean any of this has anything to do with -- he was integral to the convention piece of it. right? then he was gone. the campaign was run by other folks at that point in time. to say that he was integral to the end is just not right. >> when he was there, he was running things in a very real way and making lots of enemies and eventually wound up getting taken out. which is par for the course here.

go ahead. >> yeah. let me just jump in. i think that especially if this has nothing to do with the president, i think it's hard to understand why the president is so sympathetic to him. at this point, what we know, as you mentioned, is we have someone integral, high up in the campaign who was a crook and potentially a russian spy. yet the president continues to speak fondly of him and says he was -- he has been treated unfairly and is sympathetic and may give hmm a pardon. it's hard to understand why he would do that if he had no other vested interest. >> is it? >> it's not that hard. >> sometimes super smart people like you overlook the obvious. he's good to him because it's good for him. as soon as that changes, he will go bad on him like did he to michael cohen. a man who i would have bet that donald trump would never malign, never, not michael cohen. too loyal for too long. knows and did too much for this man. and yet, as soon as it became convenient, under the bus went

brother cohen. >> look -- >> that's true. i think manafort is valuable -- manafort is valuable to russia also. that's another -- this is someone who worked closely with the ukrainian president. we know that president trump wants to please russia and putin. that could be another motivation here. >> maybe paul manafort can help us understand why the president says nothing about putin with what's going on in ukraine right now. i'm out of time. >> let's remember, no charges against manafort in connection with his work on the campaign. >> true. 100% true. we have to know what he said and what he lied about. we will know more at the sentencing. we will rejoin at that time. thanks to both of you. you saw the headline. plants are closing. i hope this isn't true. you may have noticed that your 401(k) is going the wrong way. what about the robust economy? what about the jobs coming back? we have the reality and the reasons for it.

facts first next. ♪ bum-bum-bum-bum-bum t-mobile believes it's better to give than to receive. some may disagree. (scream) no! others won't believe it. no! no! and some just won't have the words. (laugh) join t-mobile and get the samsung galaxy s9 free. we look forward to your reactions. (scream)

♪ bum-bum-bum-bum-bum if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist

about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. the united explorer card makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. look at what's happening with ford and general motors in michigan and ohio. you look at the tremendous number of jobs that are being announced in so many different fields. that's what i'm proud of. they're all coming back. don't move. don't sell your house. >> that was the president of the united states misleading you about the u.s. car industry. take a look at all these cars. don't expect to see any new ones on the road after next year. today gm, after buying back stock and getting a massive tax cut that's ballooning the deficit, it announced it's

closing plants and cutting jobs to improve its bottom line. these are not performing or seen not part of the future. they are all gone. where? five plants. one in canada, two in michigan and one is ohio and maryland. what does that mean? big cuts. 15% of the salaried work force, thousands of hourly workers, 14,800 jobs. why? gm says it's all part of restructuring for the future. taking steps to shift into self-driving and electric vehicles that customers want. do you have to cut labor? that's about bottom line. this move will save the company $6 billion a year by the end of 2020. that is called addition to the bottom line by subtraction of expenses. there are some unique circumstances at play with gm. we will give them a little fairness there. there are other indicators that

the u.s. economy could be slowing. yes, slowing. if you are wondering where the magic of tax cuts and all the talk about growth has gone, there is growth. it's mostly a continuation of trends we saw under president obama and then the current president juiced the situation by giving more money to the rich and to big businesses. small businesses, too. but they react differently to this tax adjustment. i will show you how. the bet was a typical trickle down. you see the uneven results as we did under reagan the last time this was tried. that was also the last time that we saw deficits like the ones we're going to see now once again because of the result of the same type of fiscal lack of responsibility. why won't the tax cuts pay for themselves as the president and his ministers of magic imagined? because they assumed the companies would pass along money to workers. that almost never happens.

take a look. gm, for example, it repurchased $10.6 billion of its own stock this year. this has been the biggest year for buybacks in corporate america. what does that tell you? you gave them more money. you just had the most stock buybacks ever. that's what they did with it. this is business. this isn't a criticism. it's not even cynicism. it's practicality. businesses make money for investors, not to pass along to workers unless they have to. some do. but the numbers don't lie. they spent the money on themselves. other warning signs. look at the housing market. you will see with a little research if you don't see it in your own neighborhood, it's stumbling. it's been in a four-year slump. why? combination of factors. it has to a certain degree become a victim of the economy's success. how so? the federal reserve has kept inflation in check by raising interest rates.

what does that do to mortgages? more expensive. one major bank is asking for more cash down from 20% to 25% down. that's a sign that you want to be watchful of. it shows that lenders are getting careful. if they get tight with their money, there's nobody to borrow from. there's supply in certain places. there's also a reasonable apprehension to make a purchase because of the trumpian uncertainty in the air. there's another manifestation of that that's worth looking at. uncertainty like i discussed and stock prices are a bad mix. the equity markets are at risk of closing in negative territory. this is a sign of rough waters ahead for the economy. i hope this doesn't turn out this way. this is just what the fundamentals are telling us. this is one of them. stock traders are about betting on the future. they are clearly hedging their bets. october is a messy month. look for it now until the end of the year to see if they are just taking gains or making bets that

could be a little frightening for the rest of us. that's one kind of uncertainty. another kind that is certainly much more urgent is what's happening at the border. tear gas was fired. large groups of migrants are trying to force their way into the united states. little kids were caught in all of it. the big question is, how do you fix it? how does it get better? who has to do what? there's one man that can answer these questions better than any other. he is the head of the u.s. customs and border protection. he is here. he will answer the questions. it's great to have him on next. . take your razor, yup. alright, up and down, never side to side, shaquem. you got it? come on, get back. quem, you a second behind your brother, stay focused. can't nobody beat you, can't nobody beat you. hard work baby, it gonna pay off. you got this. with the one hundred and forty-first pick, the seattle seahawks select.

alright, you got it, shaquem. alright, let me see.

74% italian. and i found out that i'm from the big toe of that sexy italian boot! so this holiday season it's ancestrydna per tutti! order your kit now at ancestry.com

bad things breaking out at the port of entry near tijuana. the president falsely described the caravan as an invasion. he seems intent as making it as ugly as he imagined it. this picture captured a specific reality.

see a mom pulling her kids, tear gas in the midst. the key phrase we hear about the situation is not enough. not enough judges, compassion, not enough restraint and certainly not enough planning by the president despite the pandering that was done. in the lead off to the election ability the threat. some 1,000 migrants tried to enter the u.s. by rushing the border. 69 did breach it. we are told they were arrested on the american side. our border patrol agents fired tear gas on the ground in response, we are told, to what was being thrown at them. mothers and kids were in those crowds. once again, the president gave a different version of what we know the reality. that was captured in the picture. this is what he says. >> are you comfortable tear gases children? >> they're not -- as you know, they had to use because they were being rushed by tough people. they used tear gas.

we don't use it on children. >> the problem if you shoot tear gas and there are women and children there, you are putting tear gas where they are. that's the reality of the situation. lying about it doesn't make it harder to understand. just last hour, he was asked about the use of tear gas. again, here is what we got from the president of the united states. >> first of all, the tear gas is a very minor form of the tear gas itself. it's very safe. you say, why is a parent running up into an area where they know tear gas is forming and it's going to be formed and they are running up with a child? in some cases you know they're not the parents. these are people -- they grab a child. >> there is no grabber. does that sometimes happen? maybe. we haven't heard anything about that. we haven't heard about what the president just said. he provided no evidence for the same. if you talk to witness accounts as we have done and you have seen, video, pictures, it all tells that whatever they were getting sprayed with did the

job. changed their eyes, made it hard to breathe. all the things that i experienced with tear gas more than once. this is all little parts of a much bigger situation. it may get worse before it gets better. we have the perfect person to ask. the head of u.s. customs and border protection is here, the largest law enforcement agency in the country. the man in charge of what we are watching down there as far as u.s. involvement. this is still mostly a mexican effort. we are very happy to have commissioner kevin mcalinana here. it's good to have you. >> good to be here. >> i know you are very, very busy. i know that this is something that's developing while we are speaking. i appreciate the time and getting the word out to the audience. what can you tell us about the scale and the situation right now? >> we had a very serious situation yesterday. as you have seen unfold on multiple video cameras, lots of

media there, we had over 1,000 individuals involved in large group attempts to rush the border, both at our port of entry, the largest in north america, and at multiple points across a two mile stretch of our border over the international border fence and through the tijuana river channel. that was a dangerous situation. our border patrol agents responded with professionalism. and resolved it out serious injury on either side of the border. >> you say there are people staging in tijuana, that there are several thousand there. you expect close to 10,000 people may be there. how many are you expecting? how soon? what are your concerns if that does happen? >> that's correct. we have about 8,500 migrants that have been involved in the caravans, the large groups crossing from central america through mexico over the last 5 1/2 weeks or so. they have arrived in baja, california, about 6,500 in

tijuana itself. they are making that journey across the state of baja, california. we see follow-on groups of 1,000 to 2,000 that are broken up, making the journey north. through the states. and making their way to baja, california as well. >> what's your concern in terms of how long it will take to process and what you are expecting to come to the border? >> that's what we are working on. we work very hard to process people arriving without documents, seeking asylum, lawfully at a port of entry every day. we do that about 300 a day. with these large groups forming, and with the request to have people present lawfully at ports of entry, that's something we need to work on with mexico. how do you manage this group, provide access to a lawful process and mexico has gone out of their way to provide protection, to offer asylum, to offer work in mexico to this group.

a number of the migrants have taken advantage of that. others say they want to wait to present to the u.s. of course, we saw over 1,000 of them try a different route yesterday. >> what does the law say about where you get to present for asylum? >> as you have seen unfold over the last week or so, the president issued an executive order which directed that people seeking asylum should come to ports of entry. that's the lawful and safe way. you don't have to pay a smuggler. don't put your family's life at risk by crossing illegally between ports of entry. district court in the ninth circuit enjoined that order. the law, whether people cross illegally or present at a port of entry, they can still request asylum in the united states. >> you can't change legislation by executive order. that's not your job. you are not a politician. the president was openly critical of president obama for doing that with daca. he tried the same thing here. he got the result he got in court. let's talk about the acute situation that you had to deal with. what is your understanding of

what happened that led to the officers responding? >> we had several very dangerous and challenging situations at multiple points of the day yesterday and at multiple areas of the border. after the caravan, who is marching relatively peacefully and ordinarily toward the mexican side of the port of entry, the federal police tried to stop them. they didn't want them to stop traffic, lawful traffic. we had 115,000 people a day that cross the border each direction every day. a huge amount of commerce, lawful travel. people go to school and appointments. the police wanted to stop that from being disrupted. they went around them and down through the tijuana river channel and tried to enter the u.s. unlawfully. through the southbound lanes. we responded and prevented that access at the border. they went back around and then started to look for a weak spot

in the international border fence on the east side. at several points they tried to tear down parts of the wall and make a large group entry. it was in those engagements where people started throwing rocks, assaulting our agents. we had four agents hit with rocks. thankfully, they were wearing protective gear. we don't have any serious injuries. they had to respond to resolve those assaulting engagements as safely as possible with less lethal pepper ball spray. as well as gas. >> tear gas. >> correct. >> is there such a thing as the good kind of tear gas? every tear gas i have been hit with has been nasty. there's only one kind. i get what pepper balls are. that's something else. tear gas is tear gas? >> the gas we deploy is standard law enforcement issue. >> there's one kind. >> it's in our equipment inventory. all of our agents experience it like you did before they carry it, much less deploy it. >> why did they need to use that when you knew you had women and kids out there?

>> again, the people facing our agents were adult males throwing rocks. that was the lead element who was threatening our agents. that's what they responded to with the less lethal devices. it was effective at ending that threat, moving the situation back safely into mexico and dispersing the group. >> what about the women and children? >> unfortunate that parents are putting their children at risk. bringing them into that situation to try to rush through the border illegally and being present for that kind of interaction. if people are throwing rocks nearby, you are facing law enforcement professionals, it's not a good place to have your children. it's unfortunate they were affected. >> i want to get it straight for the audience what was going on. again, this isn't about you having to own what the president says. he wasn't there. i don't know where he is getting his information. the idea that a lot of officers were seriously hurt and that's why this had to be done, that's not true. they were hurt but they had the

right equipment on. they didn't have to save their lives. that's good for the audience to understand. the idea that the parents were putting the kids in harm's way, why? if they are making a run for it -- they are trying to get across the border. there was no way to avoid putting tear gas where the mothers and kids were? >> it's dangerous to try to enter with a large group making a rush across the border. when lead elements of that group are throwing rocks to try to back off a border patrol agent who is trying to prevent the dangerous situation from unfolding, you have to be aware we have to resolve that and secure that border. >> was there an order given by you or other in command saying, this is what you do if this happens? >> that's not how law enforcement use of force works. it's up to the professional law enforcement agents and officers on the ground who go through training, who have to follow strict use of force policy that's in constitutional parameters, that's tested and trained and use equipment we

have vetted, verified and they have been certified to use. it's based on that individual officer's perception, the totality of the circumstances they face to choose what method to resolve that situation with. >> you are going to review it. the mexican authorities are also asking for it to be reviewed. it's an interesting point they are making. they are saying, we didn't do that. we were dealing with the same thing the americans were. we don't use those methods. we think they are inhumane. >> the officers did get overwhelmed by this group at the start of the incident. they did a very good job protecting the port of entry, which were the top priorities. obviously, this group ranged far and wide along the border and tried to breach it in multiple points. there were no mexican officials in the immediate vicinity helping resolve the situation at the time. it was left to our border patrol agents to address the challenges at the border. >> what you are telling me about what the reality was, mothers and children weren't being targeted by the individuals, they were in groups that were

trying to rush across and they wound up being part of the area where the tear gas was put, but they weren't the target. okay. i understand the story. i don't know better than you are telling me. i want to put something up for the audience that's different than what you are saying. this comes from dhs. she doesn't have the authority you do. these are not her men and women the way yours are. she's not getting the information you do. she says it appears in some cases that the limited number of women and children in the caravan are being used by the organizers as human shields when they confront law enforcement. i will tell you what's troubling about that. i don't want you to get on top of each other. you have been working for the american people for a long time. you are a lawyer and officer of the court. you work for the people watching this show. i haven't heard that from any other verifiable source, that these kids only exist to be human shields, that the guys were having them in front, i can't find a single photo, any video of guys throwing a rock -- like we have seen in other ports

of the women -- and women and children in front to create an impossible situation for those. do you know of that happening? >> our border patrol chief, who was on the scene for the entire event in multiple places where these engagements occurred, did note that today. he stated that in an interview that we did see women and children being pushed to the front or included in the front of an assault group. >> not because they wanted them to get through first? women and children first? >> no. that's not my understanding of what he saw. he saw people throwing rocks right next to women and children. they did that actually behind members of the media as well. i have seen video of a scene where rock throwers are hiding behind camera people taking photographs of them while they are throwing the rocks. it was a really dynamic, challenging situation that our agents tried to resolve as safely as possible. they were successful overall. >> one more thing about what we are dealing with right now. that happened yesterday.

there's no reason to believe it won't keep happening. because of the process that you are dealing with. you were there to understand the flow during the obama years. we have seen years where there were more people who came across than are coming now. not in this size of group. you have the size of the caravans and the limitations of your resources. you are the largest law enforcement agency. the asylum procedure, not by your doing but by the executive branch, by the white house and by the agencies involved, has been made more tedious and longer. that sounds like a terrible combination. longer process to get asylum, less judges. you don't have more judges like had been requested. and you have a huger group of people. how do you see the future here? >> it's extraordinarily challenging. first let me comment on the caravan. we have been seeing it for year weeks. this is different. a large caravan crossing with violence across two international borders, primarily adult male. not like prior caravans.

last spring and the year before. this is a different phenomenon. they used force against mexican police. they used force to try to enter the country yesterday. this is a different group. the size, as you noted. we have not seen caravans come together at this scope and size to have 8,500 people in one mexican state at the same time intending to be a cohesive group to approach the border. that's different. that's a challenge. in terms of the structure, the incoming congress is going to have to grapple with the fact that the legal framework we maintain is incentivizing this behavior. alongside the 8,500 people. since the group formed. over the last five and a half weeks since this group formed, we have seen over 60,000 people cross our border illegally, 85%, or arrive at our ports of entry and claim asylum lawfully. that's a massive flow. they know they will be released into the united states to await a court proceeding that could be years out.

whether congress needs to face a reality of that. in that process, they are paying smugglers, putting themselves and children at risk. it's not safe for anyone. we have vulnerable people in the hands of violent criminals throughout this cycle. that's not a good place to be. >> did what happened yesterday put at the top of your mind to tell the officers, many of whom are latino, many have families that migrated the way we are seeing here now, that be careful with that tear gas, don't put it there where there are women and children, there are other ways to deal with it? i'm not the one there. i'm not there who has to take the rocks. i'm not the one with the training and equipment. is that a moment where you guys are going to say to them, don't do that unless you absolutely have to because forget about optics, the reality of what is means for women and children is horrible. we have been around tear gas. i can't imagine what it would be like for one of our kids. >> that's the last thing we want to have happen. let me just say, we have worked very hard on our use of force policy, our train, our tactics

and procedures. it's done through a rigorous, self-critical, transparent process. after every incident. we issued a new policy in 2014. in the five years since that has been in place, we have reduced lethal force from 55 to 15 last year. because we're using less lethal devices. we study any use of force. to look at it from a training perspective, policy perspective and ensure we are improving what we do. right now, under chief scott's leadership, the team in san diego is evaluating the use of force and seeing what they can learn from that and how to improve for unfortunately what we might see as future engagements along these lines. >> you have this forum to tell the american people what's going on and what to do to make this high with respect and law enforcement.

if the situation requires you give me a call. i'm there within hours. >> thanks for the opportunity for this conversation. >> be well. >> good evening. trump took shots at everybody. let's go to commercial. but one in particular requires a little about the of re-examination. do you remember mia love? the republican congresswoman conceded. she had a heck of a race. she would have been a big first. she did big things for the party. however, he said she gave him no love before. she really gave him no love today. wait until you hear what mia love said about the president and the party next.

amazon cyber monday week with deals in every department. low prices, and free shipping on millions of items. amazon cyber monday week ends december 1st. ♪ ♪

our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. holiday inn express. book now for at least 20% off during our annual sale.

♪thisi'm gonna let it shine. ♪ it's energy saving time, ♪ i'm gonna reduce mine. ♪ californians all align ♪ to let our great state shine. ♪ let it shine, ♪ the power's ours to let it shine! ♪

republican congresswoman mia love made waves in her concession speech today by taking shots at her own party and the president for his comments about her. take a listen to this. >> this election experience and these comments shines a spotlight on the problems washington politicians have with my minorities and black americans. it's transactional. it's not personal. because republicans never take minority communities into their home and citizens into their homes and into their hearts, they stay with democrats and bureaucrats in washington because they do take them home, or at least make them feel like they have a home. >> strong medicine. you may remember trump had declared that mia love lost her election on election night. votes were still being counted. i don't know why the president doesn't seem to get that. this is what he said. >> mia love gave me no love.

she lost. too bad. sorry about that, mia. >> were her attacks on trump and the gop true/fair? to the great debate. you are transactional, my brother. that's the problem with you when it comes to how you deal with african-americans as constituents. as voters. you want the vote but don't care about them. that's what mia love said. >> mia is a friend of mine. a tea party pack that i led when she first ran gave her money. i think she -- i was heartbroken when she lost. heartbroken for her personally. but more heartbroken for the people of utah that are losing a great leader. i disagree with mia on this question. the fact is, if the republican party is guilty of anything, it is not engaging the black community enough and taking that

vote seriously enough. it's not transactional. the black community gets less than 8% of its vote normally. to the republican party. there's >> why did she say it? >> there's no transaction being made. >> why did she say it? >> i think mia was -- it was one hell of a race. i think the president was wrong even though he has his justifications. he was wrong to hit her when she was down. i think she is sore at that. she's sore at a loss. she's also sore at the democrat that she felt very unfairly dragged her name through the mud to win the election. i think she is licking wounds. i think that she needs time to recover. i have to disagree with my friend mia on this question. >> interesting point there. she didn't go after the president. she went after how he was

talking about african-americans. and about what he really wants and what people in her party really want when it comes to them. i have never heard a republican say anything like that before. >> i haven't either. i think if i remember correctly, the transactional comment was referring to president trump specifically in that he doesn't have relationships, he is all about what he can get or what you can do for him. i think that assessment, if you will of the president, is true. we have seen that in other respects. i don't think people of color in this country, black americans or anyone otherwise, should give their vote blindly to any political party. i think there's work that each political party has to do to earn the votes of americans, of all ethnicity and race. >> i agree with you. >> i have an article talking specifically about this issue. with that being said, i will say that mia love's assessment, if you will, her short assessment of the republican party is that they are not doing the necessary work to truly earn the votes of

people of color, a large swath of votes of people of color, particularly black americans in this country. i would think that would prove to be true. there was an assessment in 2012 done after mitt romney lost. with everything that has happened since that time, the republican party has really moved away from where they said they wanted to go. i think it's not healthy in america to have one political party that seems to have a monopoly on the support of people of color in this country. meaning because i think the democratic party has done a better job in communicating with voters of color. it would be healthy if the republican party could do a better job of communicating with and earning the support and votes of people of color. >> unfortunately, this isn't the great debate. this is the great symphony. there are things that she said that i agree with 100%. >> shocking. >> there are -- there's a great deal of support for the president and republican parties, conservative principals, if they stay true to

those within the black community. you have polls going from 12% shown by msnbc up to 36% showing the level of support in the black community for the president. the republican party, it's gold, but they have to find the gold and big the gold and develop it. in that sense, i agree. mia, a friend. i say with this love. mia, before the election in 2016, was part of a group called never trumpers. there were 160 commentators, that openly said they would vote for hillary clinton or not vote for president trump. the president has a very, very long memory about these things. some of those folks like lindsey graham who was on that list but

after the election really built a partnership and alliance that shocked a lot of people. >> that's for sure. >> i don't know -- >> i will give you the shocking part. >> i want to note that mia love is a haitian american. if donald trump thought that earning the vote of mia love encompassed referring to african countries as shit hole countries and encompassed disparaging and debasing haitian people, which is what he has done since he has been president on many occasions, i don't think he wanted her to earn the vote necessarily of her or even the people that she represents in utah. that's an important point. >> that's the complication to the conservative point. however, when you support people that are way too close to bigoted notions, you will lose them forever. i don't have to tell you this.

you grew up dealing with this paradox. the president is in mississippi endorsement from any african-american organization ever. roy moore, same story. >> roy's a little different. roy's problem was the allegations against them about molestation, it wasn't racism. >> roy moore had a long history. i've gone at it with him more than once about things. and i'm saying i'm wondering if you can explain why does donald trump who keeps saying don't call me a bigot, i'm the least racist person i'll ever meet in your life, why would he ever support a corey stewart, a roy

moore or a cindy hyde smith? >> i don't know that i would put her into the that category. i know what she said was sloppy, it was stupid, and quite frankly it is an insult to white m mississippians who have come a long way and have turned the page on that kind of talk many, many years ago. so i don't want to -- what she said was wrong. it was offensive, and she should have apologized, and she did. i don't know that i would label her and put her into that category. >> what about sending her daughter -- what about the fact that she attended a segregationist high school and then voluntarily elected to send her daughter to a segregationist high school? now, frankly i'm not calling cindy hyde-smith a racist, but i am saying there's some questionable things going on, and she's clearly not for all mississippians. on top of all of that, she was onboard with taking away

pre-existing conditions. i mean really. >> that's a policy argument. and it's a humanitarian argument, you could even argue. but i wanted to stick something else onto that other issue because it's really puzzling. if you want to get african-american voters, why would you ever back anybody, endorse anyone that you know warms up to bigotry the way these individuals do? i don't get it. but i'm out of time. niger, we'll keep discussing this. it's a long conversation. symone sanders, always a pleasure. thank you to both of you. >> thank you. all right. paul manafort accused tonight of lying again to robert mueller even after making his plea deal. big questions in the russia probe may still be unanswered, may always be unanswered. but there's something going on in the world right now that you're not paying attention to that shines such a bright light on something we need to know. the closing is next. [sneezing]

♪ you don't want to cancel your plans. [sneezing] cancel your cold. the 1-pill power of new advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. new advil multi-symptom cold & flu. [ horn honking ] [ engine revving ] what's that, girl? [ engine revving ] flo needs help?! [ engine revving ] take me to her! ♪ coming, flo! why aren't we taking roads?! flo. [ horn honking ] -oh. you made it. do you have change for a dollar? -this was the emergency? [ engine revving ] yes, i was busy! -24-hour roadside assistance. from america's number-one motorcycle insurer.

-you know, i think you're my best friend. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. that's okay. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. ♪ ♪ ♪ oh yeah. it's back. applebee's bigger bolder grill combos. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood. a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! the mueller report is coming sooner than later by all indications.

but here's the argument. expectations. do you expect that you're going to get all the answers? did you expect that you're going to be satisfied? here's my argument. if you think mueller is going to take down the president with his report, that will be highly unlikely. why? well, if for no other reason, the doj guidance restricting the ability to indict or even prosecute a sitting president prior to impeachment. all right? that, and we have seen no action on anyone that suggests anything like, and now that's how it links to the president. could i be wrong? 100%. but this isn't just a guess either. why? prosecutions follow patterns, and if there were going to be more prosecutions like what we've seen, there would be connective tissue with what preceded them. not always, but usually. and we haven't seen that yet. could we still? yes. could the probe end with respect to the president but continue with respect to others and threads?

yes. how do i know that? that's even what the president's own attorneys think. if you think the president will be shown to have done everything right, that is also highly unlikely. clearly there were many around the president who were all too anxious to solicit and receive information from bad and arguably illegal sources. and actions taken by those in power including the president that may not be illegal, but that is a very low bar for responsible behavior. but here's one thing that continues to puzzle so many, and it's also going to go unanswered, i suspect. and that is why does this president seem so supple when it comes to vladimir putin? look at what's happening right now in ukraine. i know you guys aren't that interested, but you should be, and here are two reasons. one, russia just rammed and robbed several ukraine ships. they took their sailors after injuring them, and they don't give a damn what anybody says about it. you're watching what happened.

our president says not happy about it, but he sees it as a both sides issue. no other leader of a democracy said anything like that. his own secretary of state didn't say anything like that. russia has done bad things in ukraine. a plane was shot down there, mh-17. remember that? i was there. the guys who were there securing the site that's behind me said they were russians. they were working for a russian who proclaimed himself the prime minister of a region of ukraine. they left the dead to lie in fields, unrespected, no dignity for the dead. local farmers had to risk their lives and get in the faces of armed men, who said they were russian, demanding respect for the dead and for the inspectors. i watched it all happen in realtime. now, president trump spoke about

all this in 2014. when the crimea annexation was going on, he called out president obama. he called out the way he was with putin, said he was too soft. he said a president of the united states must take fierce steps to prevent escalation. listen to this. >> we should definitely do sanctions, and we have to show some strength. i mean putin has eaten obama's lunch, therefore our lunch for a long period of time. >> well, vladimir putin's been having three-course meals day in, day out under this administration. and now trump is in a similar position to that which obama was, and he is not the man he suggested obama should have been. why not? what changed? why have the secretary of state say what the president should have? what is it about putin that makes this man so malleable? he is tougher on the american press than he is on vladimir putin, even his own staff he's

tougher on than he is on putin. why? that's a question that i don't know we'll ever get the answer. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" starts with don lemon right now. maybe you know. >> it always comes out in the rinse. one day, sooner or later, it will surface. >> i don't know. >> i don't know how sooner or how later, but i think a really good indicator would be tax returns, would be a little -- >> i don't know. >> yeah, i think -- >> i don't know because, look, where he makes his money, how he makes his money -- look, i think you're going to get your answer there. >> if he borrowed money from, let's say, russia, or china -- >> he borrowed money from a lot of places. it doesn't necessarily make him loyal to them. but you may get your answer, don, to be honest because i'd be shocked if the democrats don't try to get his tax returns. >> yeah. >> there's a committee that has that within their purview, ways and means. and richard neal, the guy who was the congressman who we believe is going to be in charge of that for the democrats.