a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! good evening, thanks for joining us. it's been a wild day at the white house with the made for tv meeting in the oval office. we begin, however, with breaking news. the president is speaking out about the russian investigation, whether he's worried about getting impeached. last night we reported he sees it as a real possibility and has expressed concern to others about it. that was a from a source close to the president. but when he's speaking out, it's a different story. he spoke about that with reuters a short time ago. joining me is reuters white house correspondent jeff mason, who conducted the interview. you asked about michael cohen and his guilty plea over payments to stormy daniels and karen mcdougal.

what did he say? >> i should say the interview was conducted be my and my two colleagues. we did ask him about that. he said, first of all, about michael cohen, he was his lawyer and relied on him, and michael cohen should have known the rules. he went on to say the payments did not violate campaign finance laws, but if they did it would only be civil. but again he said it wasn't a violation. he had a caveat. he said, a, there was nothing wrong with it, but if there was something wrong with it, it would be a civil violation. >> did he say why he lied about it publicly? >> we didn't talk about that specifically. he did say "we" suggesting that they were both involved in the payments. >> with the growing understanding of the connections between the campaign and russia that are being revealed, 16 by cnn's current count. what did the president say about

that? >> we referenced that and talked about the number of people who worked for him before the campaign and during the campaign, who had connections with russia. and he said, i'm just hearing about this when i mentioned the number. we were talking about 13. then he pivoted straight to hillary clinton, saying she had connections with russia. so he -- he just basically -- he pivoted from that question and went straight to his 2016 opponent. >> so, just to be clear, the president who watches more tv than any in recent memory, and watches more cable news than any president probably ever, says he's just hearing about all of these what you were referencing 13, cnn i think has counted 16, connections between the campaign and the transition. he says he's just hearing about it? >> that's right. as we continued to discuss it, he said it was peanuts stuff, he was downplaying that. and then going back to the

clintons, and what he believes their connections to russia being worse or something that people should be focusing on instead of his campaign associates. >> he's talking about connections to the clinton foundation. we reported yesterday that president trump was increasingly concerned that he might be impeached by the incoming house, or had at least expressed that to people. what did he say about that to you? >> we asked him very directly. are you concerned about being impeached with the house of representatives being taken over by democrats in 2019? he said it would be pretty hard to impeach someone who has done such a great job and who has not doing anything wrong. he talked about what he's done for the economy, about regulations, the supreme court, all the accomplishments he's proud of. i sorted pressed him go ahead and said, is this on your radar? >> he said, i'm not concerned, no. >> he said something about

people revolting. what was his exact quote? >> that's right. i don't have the exact quote in front of me, but it was along the lines of, i think people would revolt if that happened. >> how did he say it? when i heard that as a headline, i'm trying to think if barack obama had said when he was president that people would revolt if, you know, something was -- some political move was done against him, i think that would have created a huge outrage among the right certainly if it was interpreted that barack obama was talking about people revolting in order to support him. was that kind of a throwaway line by the president? how did he say it? >> i wouldn't say it's a throwaway line. i think that's what he believes. perhaps he's referring specifically to his supporters, but others who share his opinion that the robert mueller probe has a, quote/unquote, witch-hunt, it was his way of expressing that people would be

upset, and hi wouldn't be the only one talking against it. jeff mason, stay with us if you will. i want more people to join the conversation. jeff toobin, maggie habermann. the president is saying he is not worried about impeachment. does that jive with what you're hearing? >> no. i don't think it's gnawing at him every second of the day, but it's consistent with him, to never admit any sense of security or worry or fear of defeat. but he is concerned about this. he is aware it's a very real possibility. democrats have made clear it's a very real possibility. i agree with jeff it is something he does believe. i don't think he's trying to foment violence. he has used language like this over and over and over again with the chance of trump being denied a nomination, or depending on how, you know, various outcomes of state races

would go, state primaries, so forth. he has said that people will revolt or some version of that. i think he does believe this, and i think he has a fair point that he was duly elected, and people will see this as an effort to undo the election. that has nothing to do with the rule of law or the actual fact set. >> jeff toobin, i don't know if bill clinton, when he was being pursued for impeachment and was impeached, whether if he had said that people would revolt, how that would have been received. i'm wondering what you make of this president saying people would revolt. >> as maggie said, and no one knows trump more than maggie, he never acknowledges weakness and acts like the country is united behind him, which isn't. all this talk about impeachment is somewhat of a strawman, nancy pelosi, jerry nadler have said

over and over again have said they are not being to impeach him unless there's a realistic chance of a conviction in the senate. there is no realistic chance of conviction in the senate. so all of this talk about impeachment i think in a way, as always with the president, trying to motivate his base, trying to gin them up against an enemy, but impeachment is not a realistic possibility. >> it's also important to look at the context of this. michael cohen is sentenced tomorrow. that's why it's happening. he knows there will be wall-to-wall coverage of him directing michael cohen to make these payments. and he's trying to pre-spin it. >> when you hear the president

saying, 13 trump aides having contact with russia and cnn is reporting 16 that we know about, and the president calling it peanut stuff. in your mind, is it peanut stuff? >> heavens no. i think what this interview demonstrates is really, more than anything, donald trump's delusional state. this is of a piece with totally clear is the president, thank you, last week after the cohen memos and things like that. you know, the idea that this is peanuts stuff, the fact that he lied to the american people during the campaign time and again, saying no dealings with russia, and then all of a sudden, lo and behold we have dealings with russia. that's not potentially a felony, it's also a national security emergency. i mean, the russians have had for two years very compromising information. they knew, because they were the other parties to these transactions, that the president

lied to the american people. it's not surprising that our american policy has looked the way it has towards russia the last two years. that's why i think the president is so worried and calling on people to revolt. this is distasteful, not the way any president, not the way any low-level government official should behave. >> just for accuracy, he wasn't saying people should revolt, but that they would revolt. it's a minor difference. but i want to make sure we're saying it accurately. i want to play the comments that those around president trump made with any contacts with russia. let's listen. >> did any adviser in the trump campaign have any contact with the russians who were trying to meddle in the election? >> of course not. >> are there any ties between mr. trump, you or your campaign and putin and his regime? >> no, they are not. that's absurd. >> we don't know of any contacts with russian agents. >> these conversations never happened. >> this is time and time again lie after lie.

it's disgusting, so phony. >> why would there be any contacts with the campaign? >> i can't think of bigger lies. >> if it's nothing, if it's peanut stuff, why are they all lying about it? >> we have the default over and over again of folks around the president claiming -- not all folks, but many folks claiming something, the default setting, this isn't true. and then when it becomes clear in a court document, the president says, it's not that big a deal. we don't know what it means in terms of the scope, but at minimum, that's a lot of contacts. a lot of efforts to try to interface with the trump campaign. >> it's not a normal number. >> it is not a normal number. at a certain point, not everything can be written off as they were just inexperienced, oh, they didn't know anything, oh, this happened 14 times. that's a lot of times. >> these stories start to merge

together. the alleged soviet -- russian agent, maria butina, will plead guilty to a conspiracy charge on thursday. in 2015, she asked donald trump a question about relations with russia, and he said, oh, you know, i think i can be friends with putin and i think the sanctions should go away. that's precisely the time he is negotiating to build trump tower in moscow for which he needs vladimir putin's okay. so, you know, he is -- he was using the campaign as an opportunity to do business and make money. now, what we don't know or hasn't established clearly is whether the russians were working directly with the president on getting him elected president. that's what the collusion investigation is all about, but the intricacy of the connections between the two is more and more

all the time. >> jeff mason, when was this interview conducted? and do you have a sense of why they decided to do it? other than wanting to speak to you? >> no, i mean, we've asked for an interview, as i'm sure other colleagues of mine and other news organizations have, and it materialized today. so we did it this afternoon. after just a couple hours, i think, after that sort of raucous meeting with the democratic leadership in the oval office. he was in a pretty good mood when we sought down. he was calm. we talked about a lot of things in addition to the russia investigation subject. he also said he would consider intervening into the case of the huawei ceo detained in canada if it was good for the country. that also came out of the interview. >> the quote it's only civil, and even if it's only civil, there was no violation based on what he did, is that what the law says as well?

>> no, i think we can see already trump's bait and switch. first he says there was no payment, no payment, then he's caught red-handed, and then he says oh, it's not illegal. it's a felony, and it's really hard to come out with any conclusion. you can say these are minor campaign contributions, a couple hundred,000, but the timing is the thing that's the big deal. this is right before the election, just a few days before, particularly with the stormy daniels payments. this is the most significant campaign contribution ever in the history of the united states. these two contributions very well may have swung the election. so it's really hard i think to poo-poo this as some minor thing. >> first of all, do you agree

with neal on this? >> oh, i don't think you can point to another pair of campaign contributions that were so directly tied to the outcome. you know, especially an election that was this close. it's very hard to count how many votes might have been affected, but you can be sure that's why they paid the money, because they knew they were in a close election, and they didn't want this very embarrassing sinus to -- news to come out. they felt this was a crime that deserved jail time, but if michael cohen deserves jail time for a contribution that he wasn't even a beneficiary of, what does that say about what donald trump deserves? that is a question that -- i mean, it just hangs out there. the southern district doesn't answer it, but it's a pretty remarkable thing to think about when they assert that this

campaign contribution is part of a set of crimes that deserves four years in prison for michael cohen. >> maggie, the notion that the president was simply relying on michael cohen, who as the president says, is supposed to know what to do -- >> who doesn't have a lawyer on hand to take care of this kind of thing after all? >> on retainer nonetheless. does that hold water? i've written about this -- >> actually it does hold water that the president would say, just take care of it to almost anyone around him. what i don't know, and jeff mason would know whether this took place in the interview, but what i don't know is if the president explained in any greater detail why it is he said he didn't know, or what he discussed with michael cohen,

ownership the fact that he directed or what he said to the cfo of the trump organization, which is a separate or but related issue, where in the memo from last week, they described as false documentation. that's not a nothing. so, look, i am not personally willing to say this swung the election, but in an election where the president was backed very heavily by evangelical voters, they would have been two heavy bricks weighing on him. to have two stories of a playboy model and porn star saying they had affairs with him, would have weighed a lot. i think there were reasons to have this go away, besides just embarrassing his family. >> go ahead, daniel. >> one thing i was going to maggie's important point is why up -- he's cooperating with federal and perhaps state agencies, and all of the fraud around those companies and

payments may very well be state violations of new york law. that's not something that either this whitaker, this acting attorney general, or barr, or even a presidential pardon can deal with. >> good point. >> i think this is serious new hot water. thank you, everybody. jeff mason, thank you, a fascinating interview. thank you for coming on to talk about it. we have much more ahead -- we'll show you what happened in the oval office with the president and the congressional leadership. no tables were flipped, but in every other way, it was made for tv. also ahead, president would have you believe there's ten or more people clamoring to replace john kelly. it's no problem whether he had plan "b." we'll get the latest and hear from leon panetta, coming up. with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

[woman 2] ..this... [man 1] ...this is my body of proof. [man 2] proof of less joint pain... [woman 3] ...and clearer skin. [man 3] proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... [woman 4] ...with humira. [woman 5] humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis.

[avo] humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. [woman 6] ask your rheumatologist about humira. [woman 7] go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. if you ever used to think of the oval office as a dignified place, where serious people discuss serious issues in a serious manner, today the reality of what it's become became clear. today the oval office was used as a backdrop, like the fake board on the set of "the apprentice."

one of participants even questioned the president's manhood. the whole thing started when the president called cameras into the oval office during a meeting with house minority leader nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. he called the cameras in. it wasn't that they were accidentally there, and it was planned. the vice president was there, too. you wouldn't really know it, because he sat silently staring down at his hands. while the president tried to star in and produce the show. it might have been gotten away from him a bit with the top congressional democrats not going along with the script he had in mind, but certainly taking part in the made-for-tv event. >> nancy, we've gained in the senate. excuse me. did we win the senate? we won the senate. >> when the senate brags that he won north dakota and indiana, he's in real trouble. >> i did. we did win. it's called transparency. >> i know, it's not transparency when we're not stipulating to a

set of facts and when we have a debate with you saying we want a set of facts. >> you know what? we need border security. that's what we'll be talking about. if we don't have border security, we'll shut down the government. >> that, in the middle of the jabs and interruptions and "the real housewives" techniques, that was the main thrust of the show. perhaps it was orchestrated to appeal to his base, to distract from the headlines, or as maggie said, distract from the cohen sentencing, which may happen tomorrow. whatever the motive, the president wanted to make one thing clear. he says he wants his wall and if he doesn't get the money for it, in ten days he'll shut the government down. >> if we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, the military, anything you want to call, i will shut down the government. >> okay. >> so the president says he'll shut it down. whether or not that's a smart

political play or not, but what we'll deal with first is what it always seems like we deal with, and that is, simply put, the lying, the lying about facts. you can argue all you want about the border wall, but if you do it, you have to at least have basic facts right, at least if you're the president or the united states. or at least you should. keeping them honest about the claims about a new wall. >> one thing that i do have to say is, tremendous amounts of wall have already been built. a lot of wall, when you include the renovation of existing fences and walls, a lot of wall has been built. we don't talk about that, but we might as well start, because it's being built right now. a lot of the wall is built. it's been very effective. >> a lot of the wall has been

built, but they don't talk about that very much, because they don't want to make a big deal about the wall. if there was actually a new border wall being built, don't you think they would have moved the whole white house down there for a couple days to show us? keeping them honest, the wall has not been built. not a lot of it, not tremendous amounts of it. none of it. the wall that the president promised over and over and over again, that he would build, that has not happened. the big beautiful border wall that mexico was going to pay for, it does not exist. the only new wall sits on the border between much of what the president says and the facts. >> people are pouring into our country including terrorists. we caught ten terrorists over the last very short period of time. ten. these are very serious people. our border agents, all of our law enforcement has been incredible, what they have done. we call ten terrorists.

these were people looking to do harm. we need the wall. we need border security, of which the wall is just a piece. >> keeping them honest, we checked with the department of homeland security. they didn't have specific information about ten terrorists being caught over the last short period of time, as the president said. they arrived to previously issued information not specific to the border wall or to the southern border at all, referring to efforts around the world to prevent people on terror watch lists or people who have connection to terrorism suspected, of trying to enter the u.s. on average last year, every day the department of homeland security say they stop ten people tied to terrorism or suspected of from trying to travel to the united states. it has nothing to do with the wall or even the southern border. it's in embassies overseas trying to get visas. it's all over.

a terrorism report was released back in september, said by the end of 2017, there was no credible evidence of international terrorist groups establishing bases in mexico, working with mexican drug cartels or crossing into the united states from mexico. that's the president's state department. in the meeting, the president also touched on a favorite fox news talking point, the nothing that people are pouring over the border bringing in disease. after the meeting, he talked about it again. >> democrats or most of them, it's hard to believe, but most of them want open borders. that leads to crime and other problems. one of the problems that people don't talk about, you have a tremendous medical problem coming into a country. communicable disease, tremendous problems. people don't want to talk about it. i don't like talking about it. >> again, if there were huge amounts of communicable diseases

being carried across or southern border, do you think he wouldn't want to talk about it? "a," democrats are not calling for open borders. it's not an argument that they're actually champions. "b," there is no evidence of tremendous numbers of people coming into the country bringing communicable diseases. there's plenty of communicable diseases here, by the way. keeping them honest, "the lancet" says the stereotypes that migrants are disease carriers is one of the myths. it might be a fear tactic, but it's not based in fact. look, we know this is the same refrain to the same old song. the lies the president said today, he's been whistling that tune for a while. back in march, the president tweeted this -- great briefing this afternoon on the start of our southern border wall. there's a picture. that's the one that mexico is paying for.

keeping them honest, that's not the start of a new southern border wall. the picture the presidents included in that tweet, our gary tuchman went to check it out. went to calexico, california. those pictures of the supposed start of the wall, it's this -- it was replacement fencing of existing fencing. gary spoke with the local mayor and an mexican official, as well. >> we all as a community want to make sure that the people in the country nose that calexico is not the beginning of a wall project for the trump administration. it is completely different. >> reporter: the mexican counterpart in mexicali wasn't as diplomatic. >> we knew it was a lie. >> here's the statement from the vice president also there. >> reporter: this is nothing new. president trump tweeted this is the beginning of the southern border wall. >> it is. >> reporter: can you acknowledge this is not the beginning?

>> this is the beginning of the southern border wall. >> reporter: this is a replacement project. >> this is a replacement project. but if you will, look at the border wall. this new wall is roughly two or three times taller than the wall that was here today. >> so they're doing routine repairs, not building that big beautiful new border wall paid by mexico, which you remember that part of the campaign promise, don't you? >> i promise, we will build the wall. and who's going to pay for the wall? who's going to pay for the wall? who? [ chanting ] >> it will be a great wall. mexico will pay for the wall. >> mexico will pay for the wall. >> he repeated that to nancy pelosi and chuck schumer after the cameras stopped rolling. apparently he said mexico is going to pay for the wall as part of the reworked nafta deal.

an mexican official familiar with the issue responded by saying, mexico will not pay for it, no matter how you spin it. multiple times the president said he would proudly shut down the government over this, and not blame anyone else, including schumer. >> i will take the mantle. i will be the one who shut it down. i won't blame you for it. the last time you shut it down, and i'm going to shut it down for border security. >> but we believe you shouldn't shut it down. >> joining mess david gergen and david axelrod. david gergen, you worked for a lot of different presidents, have you ever seen the oval office used in this way? >> no, including the reagan years when he was a showman in so many ways. i do think actually, anderson, it was good theater. we went into the room where it happens, and we had a sense of what actually a negotiation is like within the trump white

house. so i thought that was helpful, but i think it backfired. i doubt they'll want to do it again. >> in what way? >> he painted himself into a corner about the wall. he's going to let a shutdown occur, proudly accepting responsibility for it, and that will hurt. or he will surrender on the wall and not go forward with it and let the government stay open, and then he'll look weak. >> but he could also just continue to lie and say, well, we are building a new wall, it is happening, and they're repairing existing fencing. >> well, but if he -- then why would he shut down the government then? there's something else important that happened in this session. i think nancy pelosi basically wrapped up the speakership.

she went toe-to-toe with the president and won. i think it will strengthen her case to be the speaker. >> david axelrod, what did you think of this in the oval office. part of what was so fascinating is you had congressional leaders sitting there basically telling the president to his face that he was lying. >> yeah. well, they obviously were going to send a message. i agree with david, i think nothing rallies a caucus more that the leader of their party going up to the white house, really a president of either party, if there's a controversial issue, and taking their side and being tough about it. so i think she did profit from that. but let's be clear. donald trump knew what he was doing. i think he called the reporters in for a reason. he likes that -- he likes that storyline that he's willing to stand up to the liberals who are standing in the way of a border wall, and that he's willing to

go right to the shutdown if necessary to do it. i also agree with david that the problem with it, is that eventually you get to the end of the line and you have to make a decision. people don't like shutdowns. we've been down this road several times. whether or not it would profit him to shut the government down for the wall is a different issue. but in this news cycle for this day, he put on a show for his base, and i bet he's happy with the show he put on. >> the reporter from reuters who interviewed him afterwards, said he seemed to be in a good mood. david gergen, i want to play another part of what happened today in the oval office. >> i also know that nancy is in a situation where it's not easy for her to talk right now. i fully understand that. we're going to have a good discussion. >> mr. president, please don't characterize the strength that i

bring to this meeting as the leader of the house democrats, who just won a big victory. >> david gergen, it seems the morale of that is that the president shouldn't man-splain to nancy pelosi. >> i think the conversation got amp from him. i think it was interesting theater, about you when he says i would be proud to shut down the wall? shut down the government or border security? most people probably say, what? why would you be proud of that? i just can't believe that was -- the talking points, i can't imagine that was in the talking points. >> david axelrod? >> i'm not sure that he minded that message. i think he thinking that message goes right to his base, but

there was another point where pelosi said if you feel so strongly about it, pass it through the house. you have a majority through the rest of the year. he said i could do it, and she said no, you can't you don't have the votes. that was the nancy pelosi he'll have to face. nobody counts votes in that house better than she does. i'm sure she's right. if he could pass it through the house, he would. >> so david, this is a harbinger or preview of the next two years for the president? >> well, i think it's going to be tough. i think part of what he did today is he didn't want you and others leading off with the mueller's investigation. >> that i agree with. >> as he often does, he was trying to distract from that. but those walls are closing in on him. the more he feels trapped, the more i think he'll lash out. i think what the leaders signaled today is they're going to be tough and steadfast here, so i think we're in for a -- we're in for a stormy couple years. >> buckle up. appreciate you both. how the president doubled

down with the democrats in the oval office. and later, what a judge is ordering stormy daniels to do after dismissing one of her lawsuits against president trump. ♪ [baby laughing] [baby crying] [baby laughing] [baby crying] [baby laughing] [baby crying] we hide hotel names, so you can find four star hotels at two star prices. ♪ h-o-t-w-i-r-e hotwire.com

a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today!

welcome back. we reported quite a scene made for tv in the oval office today. the president says if he doesn't get what he wants, the long-promised wall, he'll shut down the government. after the meeting he doubled down. >> part of border security is a wall. i don't mind owning that issue. chuck's problem is when -- the slowdown was his idea last time, and honestly he got killed. he doesn't want to own it. rather than us debating, i'll take it. if we close down the country, i will take it, because we're closing it for border security. i think i win that every single time. >> with me now, kiersten powers, and former rnc chief of staff, mike shields. good to have you both. it was certainly hard to keep up

with how many things about the wall and the border the president said that simply wasn't true. >> if you go right back to the main issue is this sort of manufactured crisis about our country being invaded by undocumented immigrants the entire things is something that's been manufactured to gin up support for a wall that frankly we don't need. you add to that all these other stories constantly being told about people bringing in diseases. this is something that comes up every time. it came up with the border children came across. they're unaccompanied children flees terrible circumstances trying to get to safety. you had people on the right saying they were infecting us all with diseases, which never happened. it's the same thing happening again.

>> when the president is right, talking about the shutdown, if he's selling this as a shutdown for border security, he will win on that every time? >> first of all, there's so many things we discuss about the president every night. we rarely actually have a policy debate. here's a policy debate. actually right in the oval office with the leaders of the country debating each other i thought was an amazing thing to watch. >> wasn't it for just cameras? that's not a real debate. >> not like a proper debate, but i'm saying the american people don't always get to see the leaders of opposites parties interacting with each other and fighting. they take shots at each other and tweet against each other. they're actually having a policy conversation. the policy conversation is funding for border security. republicans believe this is a winning issue for us, even in the suburbs. when you talk about this in terms of should we protect the border and stop drugs coming across the border, versus a party where the, you know,

deputy chair wears an open border t-shirt, that sets it up for the president. >> mike, who's arguing, yeah, we want more fentanyl coming across the border? you're saying this is a debate, a policy discussion. the president is lying about building his wall, being already built, he's lying about hordes carrying diseases. >> i don't think he has to go that far. i think that's too far. i think if you look at polls, look specifically women in the suburbs, a critical voting bloc for reps heading into 2020, they want border security. that president is well served to stick to that. when the democrats say we shouldn't shut the government down over a disagreement, they're saying we don't want to talk to the real issue, we're not commit to do border security the way the you are.

>> kiersten, are democrats not committed to border security? >> no, i don't think there's any evidence of that. actually they have gone gone a lot of criticism from immigrant rights group. president obama was called the deporter in chief. he was being criticized for being too hard around the border in terms of catching people, and, you know, putting them in detention centers and so on. so again, this is just a made-up statistic. it doesn't -- it doesn't happen. there's really no one in the democratic party who is seriously arguing for open borders. i'm not saying there aren't democrats that exist who believe that, but it's just not the policy. the policy is so far removed from that, if you actually look at the bills that democrats have put forward, i've actually been critical of them being too harsh, and a lot of immigrant

rights groups have, as well. this is just something that republicans say, but it's just not true. >> mike, the president said, this thing is getting a lot of pickup. i wanted your feedback on it. the way he said it maybe makes a difference, but he said i'm not concerned, no. i think the people would revolt if that happened, talking about impeachment. does that worry you at all, the president talking about that? i keep thinking if president obama had said, well, if somebody does something to me, or trying to impeach me, the people would revolt if that happened. i feel like he would have gotten a lot of criticism for that. >> there's a lot of ways to revolt. they can revolt at the ballot box. i think he's right, by the way. i think impeachment is going too far. i think the democrats will not be able to help themselves. i think they can't stop it. i think the democratic

leadership told all of their candidates don't talk about impeachment because it's a bridge too far based on what we have seen. the base of their party gets so angry at the president, and you see adam schiff sort of stirring up the hornet's nest, they will go too far. i worked for newt gingrich in the '90s. i have seen this movie before. the party will be driven by the base to go too far and overplay their hand. i think that's what will happen. >> kiersten, when you hear the president say there possibly could be a revolt, do you think there's too much being made of that? >> i think he's right, but i don't think it's even something on the table. republicans just have these talking points, and they just say these things like they're facts, and they're just not true. it's just not true, no matter how many times a republican comes on cnn and says that

democrats are planning on impeaching the president -- >> that's not -- that's my analysis. >> don't interrupt me. don't interrupt me when i'm talking. saying this is based on the information, that is a falsehood. it's not true, but it gets the base riled up. that's what will turn them out. the democrats will not do that. there's no reason to do it based on the information that exists. also, nothing will happen in the senate. >> with i have to go, but i want you to responsible. >> that's not a talking point, kiersten. that's my analysis. i will tell you most establishment people are naive about what their base is getting ready to do. >> mike shields, kiersten powers as well. >> thanks for explaining the democratic party to me. i appreciate that. >> you're welcome. thank you both. what the president told

reuters about his search for a new chief of staff. i'll talk to former chief of staff -- former chief of staff about the likely landmines. leon panetta joins me, ahead. ♪ ♪ this holiday season, families near you need your help. visit redcross.org now to donate.

he said i have at least ten, 12, 12 people that want it badly. i'm in no rush. a lot of people want it. joining me, leon panetta. thank you for being with us. do you believe him when he says that? >> i think when it comes to appointing a chief of staff, you won't just that you will a name out of a hat. if they're going to appoint

someone to be chief to the president and someone who can perform the role of chief of staff, it has to be someone that the president trusts and that person can trust the president. i don't care how many want this job. it won't work. we've been talking about it from the beginning of this white house. and you have raised red flags that have all proved to be accurate. steve bannon made point that the white house has known about this change for months and now they're having this, in his words, audition call in the middle of the time the democrats are, again, in his words gearing up to take the president down. is this something they should have dealt with before? certainly the stories of general kelly leaving have been reported

for quite some time now. >> you know, it's an issue that i've seen with president bush in terms of his ability to kind of talk honestly to people about what's going to happen. obviously if john kelly was going to move on, it would have been important for the president to have had a face-to-face discussion with whoever would have been his successor. they had a discussion but clearly this individual did not want to take the job on a full-time basis, only wanted to take it on an interim basis. if they knew that was the case, then they should have immediately looked for somebody else to have replaced john kelly. i think it's a failing of this

president in terms of his ability to really talk honestly to people. >> you talked obviously about the need for whoever is the chief of staff to have an actual relationship with president trump trump. just in terms of other qualities, is it more important for this -- for a new chief of staff to be politically savvy or to have congressional experience given what the president is likely to be facing from the democrats in congress as he heads into 2020? >> well, you know, again if you look at the history of those who have been chiefs of staff, first of all, everybody president that i've served with or under and there have been about nine presidents, all of them wanted an organized white house and one that operated with discipline. i mean, most presidents like to have organization, like to have a policy making process, like to follow strict discipline so that everybody's in the same message. that's not the case with this president. the one thing that is clear is

that he doesn't like to have that kind of discipline imposed, and that makes it even tougher for any chief of staff to be able to do the job. >> i appreciate your time and expertise. thank you very much. i want to check in with chris cuomo to see what he's working on. >> once again, late-breaking developments on our watch. the president saying me worry? i'll tell you how i feel about impeachment. he then said something i can't believe his lawyers will ever let him say again. i'll take you through the words and why he's got to watch it. and we're going to go deep on the central question, can you or can't you indict a sitting president? i have a better mind here tonight. a good friend of yours, lawrence tribe, he says i've got it wrong. and we have bernie sanders who is here to give his take on the new thunderdome we witnessed in the oval office today.

he is making a move to change the relationship with saudi arabia. he's got a big bill and a big boat. >> who was tina turner and who was mel gibson in "thunder dome." >> ladies and gentlemen, there is no besting view from -- >> we all know our "thunder dome." chris, thanks very much. up next, what a federal judge is ordering stormy daniels to do after a failed legal fight against president trump.

life isn't a straight line. things happen. and sometimes you can find yourself heading in a new direction. but at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

a partner who makes sure every step is clear, ♪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! ♪ a judge has ordered stormy daniels to pay legal fees after the judge tossed off her defamation suit against the president. news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo primetime." >> thank you, anderson. welcome to "primetime." general michael flynn just entered his response to his sentencing. it is some 178 pages long. we're getting it online. we're going through it and we're going to get you the latest in a minute. all right. but there's more news on our watch. the president with a new take on

impeachment. he just made a statement about his future that i doubt his lawyers will ever let him make again. we're also going to go deep on the main question facing the mueller probe. is it true a sitting president cannot be indicted? fair statement? i would argue the answer is yes, you can. but a way better mind than mine says i have it wrong. professor larry tribe has an op-ed racing around the internet and he's here to make the case. ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to thunder dome. the president went toe to toe with his new foe and he got man chucked. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer took on the president. in his favorite ring with cameras rolling and it was something to see. we'll show you the highlights. and senator bernie sanders is here. he says he knows the future of trump's wall and he's making a move to force the president's hand on saudi arabia. it's going to happen tomorrow. wow, our plate is full! time to eat! let's get after it.

all right, we are processing