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

this in realtime, 178 pages, got to get it right, want to get the parts that matter the most. stick with us. as soon as i get the was in, i'm coming to you no matter where we are in the show. to the president today, we have to cover this. this is new. not some idle minded tweet. it's hard to impeach somebody who hasn't done anything wrong and who has created the greatest economy in the history of our country. i'm not concerned, no. i think that the people would revolt if that happened. nothing wrong was the word. he meant illegal. you may say it's the same thing. it isn't. certainly not to lawyers and they're going to be all over him about the difference because it's a bad one for him. knowing about people around you lying to investigators and congress may not be illegal but it's wrong. directing fraudulent schemes to keep payments quiet during a campaign could be illegal,

definitely wrong. he says, number one, it wasn't a campaign contribution. if it were, it's only civil. and even if it's only civil, there was no violation based on what he did, okay? no, not okay. he doesn't understand what he's saying. he just saying a lot of things. by the way, michael cohen, if you hear a bus coming, it's because the president also said this. "michael cohen is a lawyer. i assume he would know what he's doing." the president didn't seem like some absent-minded client or some patsy in that take that we broke here on "cuomo primetime." cohen was his lawyer, clearly advising him and the president was then giving him directions. asked about his business with russia before and during the 2016 campaign, the president said the stuff you're talking about is peanut stuff. harvard constitutional law professor larry tribe is here. he literally co-wrote the book on impeachment. it's called "to end a presidency, the power of impeachment." welcome, professor. it's always good to have you. >> it's good to be here, chris.

>> first, let's take a quick look at what the president said. "can't impeach me if i did nothing wrong." i can't believe his lawyers looked what the he said. illegality maybe he's going to make a case. this shouldn't be considered a high crime by those in office. but wrong? that's a low bar. if they pick that standard, i think he has trouble. what do you think? >> i think he doesn't know what he's talking about and he's desperate. he's obviously flailing around because he feels the walls closing in. the fact is that the constitution makes very clear that the president of the united states shall be removed from office if he is impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors, including treason and bribery. that's unambiguous. and when the president says, "i did nothing wrong," his opinion doesn't matter. what matters is whether he's committed a high crime or

misdemeanor, whether it's something the house decides to charge him with. one of the thing he said is people will revolt if a guy as terrific as me who has done so much for you is removed from office. that's really trying to hold the country hostage by threatening riots, threatening violence in the event that the constitution is carried out. we can't accept that. we have to let him say what he wants but then proceed in an orderly fashion. >> so there are three sets to unpack here. the first one is this may the first one is this may well come down to public sentiment. once the mueller report comes out, we'll have to see as people process it with help from the media and others where their heads and hearts are in terms of what action they're demanding. if it's strong, then we're going to get to the second part, which is high crime and misdemeanor and political resolve thereupon. the president says this campaign

stuff, the payments, just civil. even if it happened. it's only civil. it wouldn't matter. and the stuff about me having a business deal, that's small peanuts. he's making a case to the american people because he's banking that's going to be the ultimate judge and jury here, not mueller. there will be no prosecution. we'll get to your argument in a second. when he describes his behavior that way, is it helpful to his cause? >> i don't think it's helpful. there are people who will believe whatever he says, but the more facts come out, the more people will begin pausing. when he says it's only civil, he doesn't know what he's talking about. if the allegations are true, he's violated serious federal criminal laws by directing and coordinating, that's the language of the prosecutors for the southern district of new york, directing and coordinating payments that were hidden because they were funneled as contributions, they were dark

money, and he was denying that he did it. and the evidence is going to be produced as far as we can tell, it's going to be ample evidence that he really directed the illegal payment of money, not in order to spare melania's feelings or make his kids feel better but in order to reduce the chance that people will turn against him at the polls. it's clear as day that this was happening right at the end of the campaign. and the evidence is going to be clear that he basically fraudulently obtained the office by committing felonies and directing them. >> the counter will be just campaign finance reform. and even if it were, john edwards did the same thing. he got away with it. he was charged, it went to trial, he won at trial. so it wasn't even enough to charge. what about that? >> the big difference is that with edwards, it really was an

ambiguous question. the jury wasn't convinced about whether he was doing it for political campaign purposes or to spare his wife, who was -- >> fighting cancer. >> very, very ill. this is not that case. he was not doing it out of a warm-hearted view of melania he was doing it -- this will have to be proven, but he was doing it to fool the american people so he would win the presidency. that's serious stuff. in fact, the framers of the constitution had that in mind, that very kind of thing when they said surely someone who corruptly gains the office of president cannot be allowed to retain that office. that was their prime example of somebody who should be removed from office. so the president may think it's -- go ahead. >> that takes us to the central question, following your own lead here, professor, which is the d.o.j. after the nixon

situation and once again in 2000, both during republican administrations put out guidance for prosecutors at the d.o.j. that a sitting president cannot be indicted. there were different policy reasons given and the overarching constitutionality of it would be simply said if he does something that bad, you're going to impeach him anyway and then you can have this type of criminal process. we don't want to have something akin to political payback. you say it isn't that clear. >> it is that clear. there are a lot of opinions of legal counsel. that's not binding, that's the opinion of a particular justice department. the framers were very careful. they did not want bills of attainder. they said someone who is impeached and removed from

office cannot be punished by the senate, but they also said the person should be nevertheless liable to full prosecution and punishment. the only way to guarantee that is to not have a policy that prevents the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president. for one thing, a sitting president on the way out could get pardoned by the guy who becomes president. we saw that with gerald ford and richard nixon. the framers didn't want a setup where somebody could get a get out of jail free card by arranging a pardon. secondly, there's the problem of the statute of limitations. a lot of the stuff that was done wrong might not be possible to prosecute later the idea that you just stop the clock in the meantime sound good but there's no law to support that. so the whole design of the

constitution that nobody's above the law, that a guy who actually enriches himself the way it looks like trump has, by worming his way into the presidency with the help of a foreign power and who then retains all the benefits is not going to be allowed to go scott free. and the only way to make sure he faces justice is to leave open the possibility of indicting him while he's in office. if he says he's too busy, well, he's going to be pretty preoccupied with an impeachment trial if that's what he wants. when he says the russian stuff is peanuts, i just can't sit still for that. there were hundreds of millions of dollars he was going to gain from that russian moscow tower and he would have gained them only if the sanctions could be removed on the banks he was counting on for money and he was hiding all of that from the american people. >> there's no question about the last part. he said there was nothing being done. we now know there was plenty going on. professor, when we get more meat

on the bones of what they're going to do and why, that's when the moment will come if mueller asks rosenstein on whether he can indict, i need you back on that night, okay? >> i'd be glad to return. >> all right, the legal argument matters but the fight has to begin on the facts. this all likely comes down to what you believe, not some judge, not some jury. the president knows that well and he's banking on it. that's why today we saw him try to create a record of fact that must be tested. i'll do that for you next.

we'll look through the letters. the main part of it so far is something people lost sight of. when andrew mccabe, the acting director of the fbi, first interviewed the general about these things and they had their first round of meetings, the fbi didn't think he was lying. his lawyers are making a very big point of that in here. we're going to keep processing. we'll have more during the show. we have something set up for you now that you'll need to process. thunder dome is a new part of our political reality. two sides enter but only one can leave with a win. now, the president on one side, the president of the united states, the master of message and in-your-face fictions and on the other, his new foe, the nan-chuck, nancy pelosi and

chuck schumer, wearing smiles and a bunch of new power, ready to give the man some of his own medicine. >> one thing i think we should agree on is we shouldn't shut down the government over a dispute. you want to shut it down. you keep talking about it. >> the last time, chuck, you shut it down. i don't want to do what you did. >> 20 times you have called for i will shut down the government if i don't get my -- >> you want to know something? >> you said it. you said it. >> i'll take it. you know what i'll say? yes, if we don't get what we want one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call,ly -- i will shut down the government. >> you think they were coordinating a power move here and on their side they had facts. let's start with this. the wall. mexico's going to pay for it. no, they're not. they said they're never

going to pay for it. the president says, well, we need the wall anyway because of all the terrorists. >> people are pouring into our country including terrorists. we have terrorists. we caught ten terrorists over the very short period of time. these are very serious people. our border agents, all of our law enforcement has been incredible but we caught ten terrorists. these were people that were looking to do harm. isn't that right, mike? >> no. he was saying we just caught these terrorists. his own state department responded, no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through mexico to gain access to the united states. he's making that part up for effect. he just happened do it in realtime. it brings us to the idea that drugs are pouring over the border. did i say terrorists? i meant drug dealers. they're pouring through so we need this new wall. >> i am proud to shut down the

government for border security, chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. >> this is a reality i have lived firsthand, doing drug investigations for 20 years. we just did a documentary on el chapo. here's the truth -- illegal drugs mostly come through the ports of entry and under ports of entry in tunnels. at least the majority come the legal way. who says this, me? yes, from my reporting. but more importantly, a director of homeland security in 2018. but more importantly it was told to congress in 2017. ports of entry are the major points of entry for illegal drugs where smugglers use a wide variety of tactics and techniques for concealing the same. then the president went to the heart, these migrants, they're dirty people, they bring disease. medical researchers looked at two years of data and found that immigrants actually help fight

disease. here's the reality that the president doesn't want to own but he's going to have to. these little boys and girls, their parents, they are being treated like animals. actually worse. if we saw this with circus animals living in these kind of conditions, people would go crazy, and it would stop the next day. not with them. shame on all of us. they may not bring new diseases but they're getting sick. they're all hacking, they live in the cold in their own filth. it's a disgrace. and we are not a wall away from being better. the reality is the system needs fixes on many levels. it's over capacity, the laws don't work. the materials operations and procedures don't work. the things we need we don't have. it's not just about a wall. protective barriers matter. don't say that they don't. everybody agrees we need them but they're not the one thing that the president wants you to believe they are. focusing on one is false. and it turns our collective face

away from the reality. all right? so those are the facts. we're reading into now a new set of facts that we just got from general mike flynn. 178 pages, most it have is letters of support from former political and military people he worked with. when he was national security for donald trump, that's the meeting that got him in trouble when he didn't tell the truth to fbi agents when he was asked about conversations with the russian ambassadors. he's revealed to be a key player. some details you may not remember next. ♪ there's no place like home ♪

argh! i'm trying... ♪ yippiekiyay. ♪ mom. ♪

i really wish you could get to see more of what the "cuomo primetime" team does with all this breaking news. everyone is reading through this 178 pages. it's so important. why? because michael flynn is going to wind up being a big deal here. one of the things he gave mueller in cooperation was, you know, i was talking to other people in the administration about what i was doing. remember those 18 days that went from the time that sally yates and the acting head of the a.g. there in the department of justice, when they said, hey, you got a problem with him, 18 days went before they did anything about it. when they did do something about it, the president said nothing about flynn's potential criminality. why? why? why? let's read this from flynn, okay? "the nature and circumstances of the offense -- general flynn

doesn't take issue with the nature and circumstances of the offense in the presentence report. as general flynn acknowledged, he recognizes his actions were wrong and accepts full responsibility for him. there are at the same time additional facts regarding the circumstances of the fbi interview of general flynn on january 24, 2017 relevant to the court's consideration of a just punishment. at 12:35 p.m. on january 24th, 2017, the first tuesday after the presidential inauguration, general flynn received a phone call from then deputy director of the fbi andrew mccabe. it was on a secure phone in his west wing office. general flynn had for many years been accustomed to working with the fbi in matters of national security. he and mr. mccabe briefly discussed a security training session the fbi conducted at the white house before mr. mccabe felt quote they needed to have

two of their own agents sit down with the contents of conversations with russian represent it have. mr. mccabe's account states i explained that i thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between flynn and the agents only. i further stated that if lieutenant general flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the white house counsel for instance, i would need to involve the department of justice. flynn was getting pressure to do this their way and then he wasn't thinking about protecting himself. that's instructive. flynn stated that this would not be necessary, he wouldn't need any help and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.

then less than two hours later at 2:15 p.m. -- look how fast that happened. you think that would have triggered something in flynn's head, fbi deputy assistant director peter strzok, remember that name, became an infamous part in this, but he and mccabe are the names connected with flynn. so strzok and a second fbi agent arrive to interview general flynn. by the agent's account, general flynn was relaxed and jocular and offered to give a tour around his west wing office. the agents did not provide general flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 usc 1001 before, during or after the interview. why does that matter? it's about feel, it's about what they were making flynn think. what it's suggesting is that there was an atmosphere here of

amiability. it matters because the theory of the case is man this flynn is sneaky. he's just a lying, sneaky, manipulative -- not here. not here he wasn't. he let them into the office. he didn't have his own lawyer present, wants to show them around the office. they don't warn him of the penalties. would he know them? of course, he's a savvy guy. but they didn't for feel, keep him comfortable. it's going to matter in the sentencing, i promise you that. prior to the fbi's interview of mr. flynn, mr. mccabe and other fbi officials decided the agents would not warn flynn it was a crime to lie during an fbi interview because they wanted flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the reporting. no kidding. that's what one of the agents reported. before the interview fbi officials also decided if flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words flynn used to try to refresh his recollection. that's not unusual.

if flynn still would not confirm what he said, they would not confront him or talk him through it. one of the agents reported that general flynn was unguarded during the interview and clearly saw the fbi agents as allies. now, i think that this is important. legally i think it's important, i think it takes away from the idea that flynn was manipulative and looking to get away with something, okay? that's going to be relevant to the judges and certainly it was for special prosecutor. doesn't mean he didn't lie. doesn't mean what he did was wrong, which he now takes responsibility for. but remember, this is about understanding the man in full because he's going to offer information that goes beyond his own crime. who knew what he was saying to the russian ambassador, why he was saying it, jared kushner was there for one of the meetings, jared kushner got another meeting with the russian ambassador's help afterwards,

what did they know and why? it's all going to be in there and that's why this matters, to understand flynn in full. that's what i say. what do the great debaters say? let's teal with this quickly. angela rye, my reckoning of why this is in this sentencing report and this is flynn putting the best face on his situation that he can, but to the extent these are factual recollections of how he was with people when they asked him about this, what does it mean to you? >> i think it is important to note that this is the defense's sentencing memo. they cite his 33-plus years of military experience. i would say because of his 33 years of military experiences, he knows the importance of the veracity of statements.

it's also important to realize that when you have served your country in this way, perhaps in general flynn's role, he somehow thought that he was privileged, thought that he may have been above the law. it is so interesting to me, chris that, this is the same man who stood on the stage during the republican national convention and led a chant of "lock her up." it is just fascinating. >> hoisted on his own petard, they say, a petard being a bomb. winds up blowing him up. yeah, he lied, yeah, he got sneaky, he owns it, but he knows other things, things that we should believe and he's not a bad guy through and through. nobody's who's been with him thinks that about him. i think that creates exposure for the president, even though this is his defensive posture, flynn.

18 days you know what he did, 18 days they thought they could be compromised, maybe pence, too. the connections with kushner. i think there's something here we're going to here again. tell me i'm wrong. >> i think you're right. i always thought the most interesting this evening flynn will have to say is who told him to talk to the russians during the transition and what was he instructed to say? you don't pick up the phone and make those kinds of calls on a whim. i've always believed that when we find that out, we're going to know about where mueller is headed on that piece of the investigation. i think this guy served his country, i think he made a huge mistake and karma is a you know what. the "lock her up chants" are going to haunt him and follow him the rest of his days. if you're a military officer, you know not to lie. whether he gets jail time or not i'm ambivalent on, but i think his career has obviously been destroyed, his life has been

changed forever and he should have to do something to acknowledge that he broke a code and that code is whether you're an officer of that rank, you do not lie to anyone, let alone your own government. >> and that transcends your military involvement. let's see where he turns out at the end of all of this and where he reckons in terms of the overall part of the puzzle. >> angela and scott, do i get an amen on my new nickname of nan-chuck. for nancy pelosi and chuck schumer with the way they went toe to toe with donald trump? don lemon gave it to me i was going to go with palumer or -- >> none of them. those are awful. >> after what we saw in there today? that was trump's theater. lights are on, he's saying

things, half of which isn't true. but he puts people on their heels. not today. was that some kind of battle cry that we're going to fight you on your own terms and -- >> i really think they were doing what good leaders do. you call people to the carpet, you hold them accountable, you ensure that they are having conversations rooted in fact. they were having a conversation with someone who is supposed to act as the commander in chief and he demonstrated that he was ill prepared. donald trump thought that this was a reality show, perhaps another season of the "apprentice" and little did he know these people are professionals, they've been doing this a very long time and they're coming in not just to advocate of what's in the best interest of their constituents but also for their constituents and not just they're parties but what's in the best interest of the american people. donald trump should have been taking copious notes about what it looks like to have a meaningful conversation, how to find common ground and how you

get to compromise. >> i don't know that they checked those boxes. i saw it as more pageantry than anything else. i thought it was ironic that chuck schumer kept saying let's go negotiate, let's go negotiate and trump kept speaking and they kept interrupting and exposing him. i don't know why he let that keep going on. what kind of deal would he be willing to make? he seems to feel he's got a knuckle up on the wall. i thought we'd gotten past this, mexico's not going to pay for it. they're building lots of walls and structures down there just on the border, down by tijuana, where everything is going on. they need lots of different things. we are not a wall away from a better reality. but why make it so singular as an effort? >> i think it has to do with the political campaign to come. donald trump's kept a lot of promises on a number of front, where they're about to keep more

on criminal justice reform and the farm bill. he kept his promises on tax cuts and judges. and this is maybe the most famous promise that he made that has not truly been kept. whether it's right the right answer to solve our immigration matters is up for debate. i think with pelosi today what you saw is it's easier to be aggressive when you're holding more cards. all she has to do is play out through the month of december, if she can get to january, she's going to take over as speaker, i think she solidified her support today. she's got more cards to play. she started to play those today. i think that's what her conference wants her to do. she didn't have those cards before. the president is going to have to learn to deal with someone who has aces up their sleeve. >> what a way to start the year, if the president feels he has to make good and gets congress to

shut down the government through the holidays? everybody says we make such a big deal, everybody winds up getting paid. cash flow matters. you don't have your paycheck coming in one, two, three weeks over christmas and new years, that matters, let alone the other nonessential benefits that make a difference. is that something you think would be acceptable for the democrats? >> no, it's not acceptable. a government shutdown as starting point, which is what i believe we saw today. donald trump's baseline of i'm shutting down the government no matter what, it sounds like a child in the playground that doesn't know how to play with other kids. >> and pelosi kept cutting him

off today and saying you're wrong, you don't have the votes, let's vote tomorrow. does she know the republican side of the equation that well? >> even if not, it's a great calculated risk on her part because to the point, she's not running the house yet, she's not the speaker yet. so this is a great opportunity for her to say this is still under republican control, this is still on your watch, what are you really going to be accountable for? how are you really going to go about this? it's not just about building a wall. immigration reform is a comprehensive, complex policy piece that he's not been able to -- >> but they won't get it done that way either. i'm not saying start with the wall. i'm not saying start with the wall for the dreamers. in fairness, i've been covering this for about 20 years, been in lots of different manifestations. if you talk to the men and women fighting the fight for us, you will hear them say barriers help, man, barriers help. i can't be everywhere but i need sensors, i need fences, i need the law to be reviewed in terms of how we let people apply for

asylum so that it's the same right now if you wait in line or if you jump the fence, you wind up being better off if you enter illegally. look at that. can we change the laws so we can keep families together? can you get us more judges to process the facilities of the flow you've made more accountable. not one of these questions has been considered. not one of them. so if you just do a wallow over >> i'll do you one better on it, chris. if you talk to anybody who builds things, cleans things or grows things in this country, they are also screaming for immigration reform because of labor issues. the president found this out on that story regarding the people who work at bedminister. the president needs to pivot to asking for the wall plus. it's about barriers but it's also about a lot of other technology, maybe more human beings to guard the borders and enforce the laws down there. i think in order to get where he wants to go on some kind of a

way to tell his people i checked this box, he's going to have to have a more nuanced position. he's going to have to always come back to be able to say i built something. he's going to call it a wall, somebody else may call it something else. but now he's going to deal with people he didn't have to deal with before. this is the great tragedy for the republicans. now they're dealing with democrats. >> now i got to tell you, angela, come and look at those kids in the face, look at their parents in the face. i don't have anything to do with, it i'm just a reporter. but it's an ugly reality we're allowing and enabling. >> and a wall won't solve it. all he's doing is putting up walls around people's hearts. and you both just talked about this, it's not just a wall. they've tried technology as well as a physical wall. it failed. the question donald trump and his administration at least need to be asking is why and why do they continue to change the missions of organizations like cbp inside of dhs or i.c.e. there are reasons why these are

mission-specific agencies. they need to fulfill those specific missions. if you want to strengthen things, figure out what they are saying are the issues and negotiate around that. >> fair point. >> it's way to complicated -- >> and he's got a star. he's got the love and respect of the men and women. he want people to get fair treatment from this country. he does not want to be seen as some storm trooper squad. that's not what his men and women are. i believe him about that. we'll believe where it goes. angela rye, scott jennings, thank you. despite me, 178 pages, our guys are going through it, there are nuggets in there about general flynn, nuggets we didn't know about that we have to put in context. we're going do that right after this. [[clap, clap]] ♪ hey, jen, which tie says, "trustworthy but also fun"?

gold down, oil up. oil down, gold up. this is too busy. we need to make sure people can actually use this stuff. which one says, "hours of free live streaming coverage without cable or subscription fees"? aluminum, aluminum? you ready, zack? oh, we're ready. welcome to the show. let's make finance make sense. ♪

we're truck and jeep experts,ore than a store. and have been for over 50 years.

from wheel and tire upgrades. to full custom builds. 4-w-p has you covered. whether you want to order the best parts online or shop in-store. do the work yourself. or get it done by a pro. all roads lead to 4-w-p. do your rig right. shop online or find your store at 4-w-p.com.

all right, we're doing this stuff in realtime. the headline is that michael flynn in his defense submission is basically saying i'm the best thing you've got, there's a lot of false narratives about me, i haven't talked, i haven't gone out and tried to win public favor, this idea i was being recalcitrant, wasn't helping, it's not true, i'm no papadopoulos. he said as soon as this happened and they came to me, i started to help. mueller said the same thing. he asked for probation. which of course would be the most lenient kind of sentence. mueller basically says the same thing. you're going to have to remember this will be a function of what he actually gave them. what i see as most important is not what he puts in here. what he puts in here is kind of mass. thousands of documents to the d.o.j. even before the voluntary pre-plea proffer sessions he had

given them tons of stuff from his two companies, rather than fight over the breadth of subpoenas. he went along with it is what he's saying. he's also saying when the stuff came out about strzok and mccabe and all that drama, you know that, jordan and all those guys and the right, nunez were trying to report, he says i never changed course. i could have played with that momentum and tried to pull back, said i never did any of that. interesting. let's bring in somebody who understands this much better than i and has had more time to look at it, michael zeldin, former special assistant at the d.o.j. when mueller was there. thank you for doing this, pal. is that a jets ball in the back? we'll talk about that another time. what do you see in these documents? >> i think they make a compelling case for the downward departure of no prison time. remember mueller didn't directly

ask for no prison time. he said the downward departure, including the possibility of no prison time would be appropriate, so he sought a sentence in the low end of the sentencing guidelines range, which is zero to six months. now, flynn through his counsel in their 178 page submission said no time is really the appropriate sentence. they say it in terms of not only the fullness of the cooperation that flynn makes and his service to the united states but i think they take a bit issue with the manner in which the interview that gave rise to the lie arose, saying indirectly we really didn't expect this to be the type of interview where if i didn't remember anything correctly, it would result in a

thousand and one -- >> right. i read that to people in this. we get that idea he wasn't playing it like a liar, he was trying to be cooperative and he was open and easy and, if anything, they took advantage of that. that's their case to make. anything else in these documents that you think might wind up being instructive down the road? >> well, i think that really what is instructive is how much cooperation flynn was able to give mueller on myriad topics, so that to the extent that mueller's investigation needed to be fleshed out by an insider, flynn really seems to have been that person. surely manafort didn't turn out to be that way, nor did papadopoulos. we don't know what gates has given them. flynn seems to be the linchpin of the mueller investigation as we watch it unfold into other areas of inquiry. i think this is an important case for mueller and i think flynn is going to prevail in not getting jail time. >> interesting. you don't think flynn will get time. we'll see soon enough. cohen, flynn, manafort, different situations and scenarios, but a common factor that mueller has cared about, they told us who else they were talking to at the administration and in the campaign when they were doing the things that they have now pled guilty to. that to me is haunting.

because that is going to go to what the president knew and when he knew it. and it may not go to illegality, but it will certainly go to things that could be found wrong in a political trial. >> that's right. and you and i have had a dialogue about cohen memorandum by mueller where cohen indicated that he socialized his testimony with the white house before he gave it. that was the false testimony before the congress, and if he socialized it with the white house and the white house in any way subborned it, in the way that president trump did with the june 9th meeting with junior, that is a very, very serious and easily provable crime. >> michael zeldin, thank you for putting your eyes and head to this very helpful, another big development. so another big story today. some democrats are open to

compromising with the president on the wall. we'll see what that turns out to. one of them is not bernie sanders, okay? the senator from vermont came to tell us what he thinks about the wall, where that's going to go but just as importantly, he's got a huge vote tomorrow to force the administration's hand on saudi arabia. wait until you hear this.

hi susan!hs) honey? i respect that. but that cough looks pretty bad... try this new robitussin honey. the real honey you love... plus the powerful cough relief you need. mind if i root through your trash? new robitussin honey. because it's never just a cough.

a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! there's a new power dynamic in washington, and we got a taste of what the next two years could look like with schumer and pelosi's visit to the oval office. the president wanted cameras to catch the clash over his proposed wall, but i don't think he was bargaining on this. >> i am proud to shut down the government for border security, chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. so i will take the mantle. i will be the one to shut it down. i'm not going to blame you for it. the last time you shut it down, it didn't work. i will take the mantle of

shutting down, and i'm going to shut it down for border security. >> now, we did a fact check on everything the president said there. you'll see it online. go to our twitter site and you'll see it. he knows, though, the president, that a shutdown over the border wall will fire up his base. he's actually betting that shutting it down is a win. raises a question. how did the democrats counter that? do they even have a plan to fix our broken immigration system? i know they say they do, but when are we going to hear it? how are they going to try to put it into action? we had senator bernie sanders from vermont, the independent. obviously he caucuses with the democrats. what did he think? senator, did you like what you saw in the oval office today with schumer, pelosi, and the president? >> no, i did not. i find it incomprehensible that we have a president of the united states, the leader of our government, who wants to shut down the government, impact the livelihood of some 750,000

federal workers and seven government agencies, which impact millions of americans. i think it's totally absurd and disgraceful. >> what's wrong with the move of saying what the democrats say quietly, which is we're in favor of border security. we're funding stuff they're doing on the border right now. give him the wall and get back what you want for the dreamers. you shake your head no immediately. why? >> we have veterans in this country who are sleeping out on the street. we have elderly people on social security trying to survive on $12,000 a year. they can't afford prescription drugs. we should not be wasting $5 billion or in fact a lot more than that, which is what trump eventually wants on a wall. we need strong border security. no one argues with that. but the most cost effective way to do that is not build a wall. >> but those who operate on the border do say that additional barriers and types of sensors and different ways of stopping people from coming in is one of their priorities. >> well, to my mind, we should utilize technology, utilize

manpower. there are ways that we can strengthen the border, protect the border without building a wall and wasting billions of dollars that should be spent in more important areas. >> are you confident that you win this fight? the president said today, i can get the votes in my side of the party with one phone call. i've got the votes. nancy pelosi said, no, you don't. do you think you win, the democrats and those you caucus with, if it becomes a wall and whether a wall is right or wrong? >> of course i can't give you a definitive answer, but my understanding is he does not have the votes in the house. i think there are a lot of folks here in the senate, republicans, who are also not supportive of building the wall. >> let me ask you about another big vote tomorrow. you see the situation in yemen and the united states' military

therein as not just unconstitutional but unethical given what just happened with jamal khashoggi. how so? >> no. it's deeper than that, chris. i don't know how many people know that right now in this very poor country of yemen, we are witnessing the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet earth today. we're talking about as a result of the saudi-led intervention in the yemen civil war three years ago, we're talking about 85,000 children who have already starved to death. 85,000 children. and the united nations tells us that yemen is on the verge of a mass famine where millions of people might starve to death. the united states should not be led around by the despotic regime in saudi arabia and destroy a country and create a humanitarian disaster. so tomorrow i hope we're going to win the vote to end the united states' participation in that saudi-led war. i hope that that leads us to

rethinking our relationship to the saudi regime, which as most people now know, where you have the leadership, mohammed bin salman, ordering the murder of a dissident in an incredibly cold blooded way. i think we have to rethink our relationship to that regime. and last but not least, what this vote tomorrow is about is re-establishing congress' constitutional authority to make war. it is not the president of the united states who has the constitutional right to determine where our troops go. it is the united states congress, and the constitution is clear about that, and it is long overdue for the congress to re-establish that authority. >> two points to follow on. one, you and i have had this conversation before in the context of the authorization of use of military force.

it does not ever get to the level of political outrage from your brothers and sisters down there in the senate to come to a real debate and really rethink it. president after president has taken power from you guys. >> that's right. >> clinton, obama, bush. >> that's right. >> you let them have it all the way back to nixon. why do you think it would change now? >> i think there is a growing concern that we have troops in dozens and dozens of countries around the world that we have a war in afghanistan that has gone on for 17 years, that wars in the middle east have cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of brave men and women.

and i think we're also spending some $700 billion a year on the military. and you are quite right. this is an issue that the united states congress, under democratic presidents and republican presidents, has not faced. and i think -- i talked to a number of republicans who are saying, you know what? we were wrong. it's time for us to reclaim our constitutional responsibility. and i think the war in yemen and the devastation and the humanitarian crisis, you're having people from progressive wing, conservatives asking, why are we involved in a process which is resulting in mass starvation for the children of yemen? we should not be there. why are we allied with a despotic regime which not only does not tolerate dissent, treats women as fourth-class citizens and kills their opponents in cold blood. >> senator bernie sanders, thank you very much for the interview. you're always welcome here on "prime time" to talk about what matters. good luck with the vote tomorrow. >> thank you, chris. >> it's a big vote, right, because it will be playing on jamal khashoggi, made the time man of the year along with other journalists they see as being the warriors for truth. but it will also make the administration have to do something about the posture towards saudi arabia if bernie sanders can get the votes, let

alone a veto-proof majority. that would take both houses. we'll see. that's all for us tonight. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight with don lemon" starts right now. big night. >> it is. >> flynn dropping that 178 pages on us. >> it's a big story. even the khashoggi story and the "time" magazine story, big story, but there's so much news, i hate that it gets pushed down. but look at what happened today. i saw you talking to the guys earlier -- by the way, you see how i look, right? >> you look fine. will you stop with that? your looks are not your problem. >> i call them tide pods, but it's the theraflu pods. >> that's also the problem. when you have work done, don, and then you get sick, sometimes it does weird things to your face. we talked about this before that weird weekend you had in mexico. >> no, but what i was saying is that i saw you talking to angela. >> yeah. >> and scott. and you were talking about the name that we came up -- >> you came up with it. in fairness, my name was not good. i had pelumer, and schulosi.

nanchuck is great because it's like what bruce lee would do. >> as i was laying -- taking the theraflu as i was laying in bed this afternoon and saw this on television. and just objectively speaking, i was like, oh, my gosh, nancy pelosi is a boss. i mean she handled herself amazingly. a lot of people don't like nancy pelosi. i'm sure democrats are going all across the country tonight, thank god for nancy pelosi. >> well, it's amazing what a few weeks' difference can make. you know what i mean? she had all those people bringing the hate parade on her about whether or not she should be speaker. when i interviewed her the day after the election, she was like, i'm going to be speaker. you'll see. and sure enough she really held her own in that room today without it being too nasty. i think the president was right to say, i do believe he was nanchucked by the two of them. they weren't there to be mean and bitter. i think that's important too. >> was that the vice president or was that madison -- >> madame tussauds?