wolf? >> our hearts go out to those homeowners as well. what an awful situation those fires were, and less sons have to be learned to try to prevent them down the road. drew, thanks for the excellent report to our viewers, thanks for watching, erin burnett out front starts right now. trump making two concessions to vladimir putin, saying he'll put all american troops out of syria, that's what putin has been begging for on the same day trump lifts sanctions on two major companies. plus, breaking news, bob mueller calling for the transcript of roger stone's congressional testimony. is mueller about to charge stone? and new evidence of how well trump knows campaign finance laws. does this prove that the president of the united states committed a felony? i'm eriner burnett.

president trump announced he's going to pull troops out of syria, something putin wants more than anything. it could not get better for putin today. and trump in a new white house video tonight sticking by his syria announcement. and he did it on a video. he didn't speak to the nation, he didn't answer questions on the decision, he's not answering questions from congress, no, he hid away and put out a video. here's a clip. >> we've won against isis, we've beaten them back badly and now it's time for our troops to come back home. >> he could say it as much as he wants to say it but he said that without taking questions to anyo anyone. his own party is livid.

>> this is a terrible mistake. it's an obama-like move. >> there isn't anybody that's stunned by this precipitous decision, like you just woke up and made it. >> that shock and anger again from his own party. coming in response to trump's twitter announcement that he's going to withdraw those u.s. troops fighting isis in syria. so the original tweet, quote, to announce we have defeated isis in syria. my only reason for being there during the trump presidency. let's be clear, he ray. >> announcer:ed he's pulling u.s. troops out via tweet. adam kinsinger who fought in the war on terror in iraq and afghanistan responded to the president's tweet, quote, this is simply not true. in fact, a middle eastern leader in the midst of this fight told me this summer that islamic terror groups including al qaeda

are regrouping and rebuilding, something the president's own special envoy for the coalition to defeat isis was clear about just last week. listen to this. >> nobody is declaring mission accomplished. obviously it would be reckless if we were to say the physical caliphate is defeated so we can leave now. anyone who looked at a conflict like this would agree with that. >> worth stopping here to be clear. >> brett mcguirk is the person whose job title in the trump administration includes the words "defeat isis." the president's move was met with anger. in a response to trump's move today, putin's foreign affairs spokesperson went on television saying, quote, a very important story that may follow for this decision a a real, real prospect for a political settlement. the russians are happy and trump's decision to go against

his own department and his own party and with putin rendered his vice president mute. >> reporter: mr. vice president, do you stand by what you said to members of the senate? >> nothing say. kaitlan collins is out front at the white house. kaitlan, the president makes this announcement and says nothing to anybody all day and is afraid to take questions, putting out a video where he was safe and secure from anyone asking him anything. >> typically, erin, a president would come out to some kind of address and announce this or someone would appear on camera from the white house but the president tweeted his tweet and the press secretary issued a statement to reporters but did not answer follow-up questions about this statement. and here's insight into how much this cost officials at the white house off guard. they held a background grieving which is typically where an official comes on, explains the

administration's position where they are going forward with this. but during this call with reporters today, erin, they could not say how many troops have come home from syria, what the timeline will be or when the rest of the troops are going to come home as a move they've signal signalled. instead, referring several reporters to the department of defense which, i should note, is referring reporters back to this question. the officials were asked, they refused to be identified publicly. and national security adviser john bolton said just a few months ago that the u.s. will have a presence in syria as long as iran is operating saying it's the president's prerogative and that's where we're going. one more thing i want to note is senator bob corker scheduled a meeting today already inside the west wing when they abruptly canceled his meeting with no

excuse. >> i want to go to congressman mike turner. can i ask you as kaitlan is saying some of these questionings, have you as a member of arms services been briefed on how many troops have come home and has the president shared this information with you. >> as you know, erin, no one has been briefed which is part of the consternation happening on capitol hill. we have discussed before, you can't run foreign policy, you certainly shouldn't run troop deployment through twitter. there are processes, there are implications, there are u.s. troops going to bed tonight and that are hearing the news of the -- their withdrawal, now the president saying imminently and there are allies and those that they are working with in the defeat of isis that are also hearing the news similarly. it diminishes overall their credibility and their relationships and the work they do everyday. >> so what do you make of this, that he announces this on

twitter. and now puts out this video you heard, a propaganda video, he's not talking to you, not taking questions from the media, he seems to be avoiding that all together. why? >> to claim we have defeated isis is a dangerous overstatement to be sure. there's no question that isis has been significantly diminished. if you look at the territory they've held, the number of soldiers they've had, this administration is shifting its policy to dedefeat of isis had a significant impact. this can be a shift of tactics and strategy but that has to be worked out with a process and not just an abrupt statement of withdrawal. >> he is saying that he's defeated isis. just said it again, we won.

it's like a mission accomplished moment. seems like it doesn't fit with what this intelligence community is saying or his own guy in charge of defeating isis is saying, doesn't fit with what leaders are saying. this issue isn't about russia. this is what vladimir putin wanted. he has made -- that is not a secret. clear they is -- this is a win for vladimir putin tonight. >> what we've recognized is that the whole reason why russia is there is the failure of the obama administration to appropriately handle weapons of mass destruction, the use of chemical weapons that gave the opportunity for russia to step in and we did not have troops that were there for the purposes of counting russia, they were there for the purposes of defeating isis. however, there's no question that the benefit of troops on the ground was certainly a counterbalance to the assad regime which we were opposed to. russia's influence and iran's influence so it's all of those go right to the issue that these troops were in syria without congressional approval.

they're still operating under the mandate of al qaeda, defeating al qaeda -- >> i understand the points you're making. a lot of this is fair. but i'm getting at the bottom line is tonight vladimir putin is happy. there's no bones about that. this is what he wanted and he's gotten it. >> well, i think the point that's important here is that there's no one on capitol hill who say we should keep troops in syria solely for the purposes of a counterbalance to russia. there's no question of that but that's not the purpose the troops there are and there there hasn't been congressional approval to have troops there for countering iran, hezbollah or russia. >> why do you think the president did this? >> you know, i'm -- i've stopped speculating about what the president's purposes or actions are. i can just tell you this -- twitter is no way to run foreign policy. it's certainly no way to run

troop deployment. this is dangerous. it's dangerous for our troops. it's dangerous for our allies, those assisting us on the ground and it's certainly a grave overstatement to say that isis is defeated. so there has to be other twice continue the fight against isis in syria, but that's a part of the discussion and strategy that is short circuited when the president makes an abrupt statement that troops will be withdrawn. >> and let me ask you before we go about the other news tonight, that the president, the trump administration announcing it's lifting sanctions on two major russian firms linked to oleg daeripaska who is individually sanctioned, they were sanctioned, all of this is part of the interference in the election. do you support that decision to lift those sanctions? >> i'm in support of increasing sanctions on russia. we've seen no change in russia's behavior with respect to ukraine, crimea, and, of course, the use of chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction in the uk. and now with the closing off

access to the black sea from the ukraine. it's a dangerous time to do an overture to russia. >> thank you very much, congressman. appreciate your time tonight and your honesty. look, two major moves in favor of russia and putin that are confounding almost everyone tonight. next, we have breaking news, mueller reportedly asking congress for information on roger stone. does this mean stone is about to be charged? plus, more breaking news, the "wall street journal" reporting new evidence of how well trump knows cav s campaign finance laws. wait until you see what they found. it's stunning when it comes to the nell the felony conversation and maryland's attorney general is suing the trump administration in at least 20 lawsuits. why? does he have the goods or he

just looking for a crime? he's my guest. i got beaten within an inch of my life because i was different. [ grunts ] it's a hate crime. so, i created a world where i could be anyone i want. this is hoagie, kind of a braver versions of me. we're one in the same pal. i walk in your shoes. ♪ i got dreams in my head... ♪ you need to face those jerks who beat you up. i'm not really sure how to do this. if i can be a hero, so can you. yee-haw! you want relief fast. only new thermacare ultra pain relieving cream has 4 active ingredients, to fight pain 4 different ways. get relief fast with new thermacare ultra pain relieving cream.

opportunity is everywhere. like here. where you can explore the world knowing you can always find your way home. ♪

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. because when you're with fidelity, coaching means making tough choices. jim! you're in! but when you have high blood pressure and need cold medicine that works fast, the choice is simple. coricidin hbp is the #1 brand that gives powerful cold symptom relief without raising your blood pressure. coricidin hbp.

little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla,75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. breaking news. the "washington post" reporting tonight that special counsel bob mueller has asked the house intelligence committee for an

official transcript of roger stone's testimony, a sign mueller could be moving to charge him with a crime. stone, of course has a long time close relationship to the president. he's an adviser. on the phone is one of the "washington post" reporters that broke the story. manuel, tell us what you note. mueller wants the information. what more can you tell us as to why and what? >> well, this is a significant moment in the trajectory of this whole case for this reason. it's common in cases when an indictment might be in the offing that the prosecutor will ask for an official certified copy that could be what's happening here. it's likely that mueller already has the details of what roger stone said during that meeting but it's a box-checking move that legal experts say could

mean that more things are coming soon, possibly an indictment. >> you want to check every word, cross over "t," to make sure an "is" wasn't an "isn't." stone's response said this has devolved in gotcha games, perjury traps and process crimes. i think people can see the political motivation behind this. what's your reaction far? >> i think mueller is in for a publ public relations battle with roger stone. stone likes to mix it up, wants to fight, is going to be throwing punches above and below the belt. it makes the people and congress who have been casting aspersions against him and is used to getting down into the weeds on the details of whatever he's battling about. this is somebody who was formed in dirty trickster political

campaigns and he will probably give as good as he gets. >> thank you very much, manuel, that is one of the reasons why you say look, his friendship with donald trump, another person who likes to mix it up and loves to fight. roger stone is of that ilk. out front, harry sandick, former assistant attorney for the southern district. juliette kayyem and larry noble, former general counsel of the federal election commission. harry, you heard what manuel said, this could be hugely significant. they know what he said. this is a -- you know, you are literally checking every word and you're probably only doing that if you're preparing to be done? >> i think that that's a very good inference and the one that i would draw, too. in the indictment, you're going to want to quote the exact words used if you're bringing a false statements claim based on his testimony. you want to put the document in,

not a paraphrase, because the words he chose are important. you might also want to go back to correct his testimony. sometimes a witness submits an errata sheet so you want to get it 100% right. >> juliet? >> i think that's right. but this is the first time he's asked for the testimony of somebody who testified before the house intelligence committee. i doubt he'll get it. congressman nunes is still in charge. he's never been helpful, he's always protected the president and people like roger stone. >> >> so this goes to the

question of collusion conspiracy. at one point -- and this is his relations with wikileaks and all these e-mails that were damaging to clinton and helpful to donald trump. many times he bragged about his contacts with julian assange who of course founder of wikileaks which we now know was aided by russia in all of this. another final, i have kaeconfide that wikileaks and my hero julian assange will educate the american people soon. roger stone is at the heart of the collusion question. >> totally because we know he gotted t hacked e-mails from intelligence officials so the question is if roger stone knew what was going on with wikileaks, did he know where those e-mails were coming from? if he knew that, there's your coordination right there and if roger stone knew that, did donald trump know that? you'd have to believe so. >> and of course donald trump publicly saying hey, wikileaks,

where are you? russias get these e-mails. but, larry, roger stone has been all over the map. he's changed his story so many times. here he is on the wikileaks issue. >> i actually is communicated with assange. i believe the next trench of his documents pertain to the clinton administration but there's no telling what the october surprise may be. >> what i said in my testimony was that i had never communicated with assange. that is correct. i have never met with him, spoken to him on the phone, e-mailed with him. >> let me be clear, the operative words in the first soundbite were i actually have communicated with assange and the second one was i have never communicated with assange. roger stone at some point has lied and that could be core here. >> yes. and we're seeing this throughout

this investigation. >> if he did have contact with assange or wikileaks and know about the e-mails and take the trump e-mails, they said there's your collusion right there. now he's going to say i was just making an educated guess about what was going to happen but he has a credibility problem here and i think that's the perjury part of it. the question is did he purger himself before congress? if he did purger himself, it gives mueller some leverage over stone, whether he will respond is a different question. >> juliet, a quick question. obviously there's a lie but the other core part of the issue is here, let's say they could prove he did have communications with julian assange, right? and that that was the truth, the other was the lie. in a sense, so what, right? did they know he was getting help by russia, that's the other part they need to prove,

correct? >> that is true. but let's remind everyone, in july -- a lot of us thought it was weird mueller indicted a couple dozen russian intelligence agents as part of this case. we thought it was weird because there's no way he's going to get ahold of them but that laid the foundation, these russian intelligence agents were likely the ones who got the stuff from the dnc, send it over to julian assange who's in contact with roger stone and let's not forget the last piece. who's in contact with president of the united states. there's your collusion with the trump campaign. we say this all the time, we don't know what mueller knows. there may be evidence out there to show a link -- a different link between assange, stone, and trump. >> there obama administration a filing in the michael cohen case. michael cohen is central to what they are finding out about the

president of the united states, what he knew, what he did. and with what forethought and intention. what do you make of this mystery filing. >> well, i don't think we should jump to the conclusion that it's particularly consequential. there are filings in a criminal case after the conviction and sentence are final. there's a statement -- >> we are where we are right now? >> right. there's a statement of reasons that is filed under seal because it includes certain personal information about the defendant. so it may be that it's totally ordinary information. again, the way the southern district left things with cohen, it wasn't as if he was on the verge of cooperating with them, he specifically refused. >> so there's that, but the president is watching and frank, the bottom line here on the roger stone development tonight is that this is something the president cares about deeply. this is a long-time close friend who knows a lot about donald trump, not just on the campaign

but personally. >> it's another personal you have to worry about. we don't know if the goal is to indict or prosecute roger stone or if the goal is to turn roger stone into another person telling tales on donald trump. it gives you the impression, everything he's said, that he would don't that. >> and roger stone knows the president would pardon him but. and that's the big but next, we have more breaking news because this is a crucial development on the campaign finance front. the president says he had no idea that it was a violation of campaign finance law to pay off women. well, that doesn't appear to be true. he knows a whole lot about election law. a big development tonight from the "wall street journal." and he signed on to sue the trump administration over obamacare, over immigration, over the president using his office to line his own pockets. will any of it stake? i'll ask the maryland attorney general brian frosh. ♪ it's the time of the season for loving ♪

for a limited time, $50 for them $10 for you. applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis,

month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. 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. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira.

♪ there's no place likargh!e ♪ i'm trying... ♪ yippiekiyay. ♪ mom. ♪

more breaking news, new evidence that could be key in building the case that the president broke the law. this is the felony question about paying off women. the "wall street journal" reporting that trump said in a sworn statement in 2000 and then testified back in 1988 -- over an extended period of time here -- that he knew a whole lot about campaign finance laws. this is important because the president is alleged in paying off alleged mistresses just weeks before the 2016 election. michael cohen said the president directed them to do it with the intent of influence the election. that would be a felony.

in order to convict him, prosecutors have to prove trump knew the rules and violated them willfully. this history is crucial. evan perez is out front. evan, how damning could this be for the president? we have 20 years talking on sworn affidavits and on camera talking about how well he knows campaign finance law. >> right. because there always is something in donald trump's past that will always come back in these instances. and what it shows is that the president, at least in this testimony that you're quoting and it's in this "wall street journal" story, it indicates he is boasting about how much he knows about campaign nans lfina law, that he knows about corporate limits allowed to donate to candidates. they talk about that in the federal election commission investigation in 2000 as well as this new york state investigation in 1988, erin.

and, again, the key thing here is to show intent. if the president accidentally violates the law, this could be worked out as a civil infraction because you didn't intend to break the law. but prosecutors can say and show that you have great familiarity to -- with the law and that you had to know that you were breaking it, then that's when you can then cut into a criminal violation and that's what governs all of this. this is the kind of information you have to believe investigators will be using as they try to figure out what to do next. >> thank you very much, evan. i want to go back to our panel. larry noble, i want to go back to you first here, you were chairman of the federal election commission, right? this affidavit, one of them in the year 2000 was addressed to you. specifically to you related to a fund-raising event far senate candidate, trump signed the

affidavit. he makes it clear he was the one holding the fund-raiser, not his company and there's all kinds of things in here, i personally sponsored the reception, i did so solely in my individual capacity, i paid for from my personal funds, the cost of invitations, all kinds of details that go on and on. how damaging is this? would you say this is a guy who knew the rules. i should correct you, i was general counsel, not commissioner. but the justice department has a manual on prosecuting election law offenses and you have to show for criminal prosecution is that it's a knowing and willful offense and knowing and willful means that you knew that it was against the law and one of the things they they their manual is that experience with the law goes to help prove it was a knowing and willful violation, being knowledgeable about the law and this shows real knowledge. he's talking about minutiae of

campaign finance law, about how you put on a fund-raiser. after i left the fec, dmifs private practice for sixth years about i also taught law school and teaching about how to do fund-raisers, having the fun not touched by other people, by having people from the candidate, candidate's campaign committee take the chicks, those details are things you have to teach lawyers so he has a hard time saying he didn't understand that corporate contributions, contributions over the limit, somebody paying hush money for the purpose of influence your campaign was illegal. >> harry, that's the 2000 affidavit that larry is talking to you in which he has referenced. in 1988, trump testifies i've gone through federal campaigns and it test best thing that ever happened to me because you're limited to a $1,000 contribution. i don't know if he's making a choke about being cheap or what but he's saying he knew the rules and he bragged about it on television. here he is with larry king.

>> i think nobody knows more about campaign finance than i do because i'm the biggest contributor. >> what about reform? does it need reform? >> it's very complex -- >> you're the reform party. >> it's a very complex thing. as an example, i'm allowed to give $1,000 to every senator. now i love it because i'm capped out at a thousand dollars per senator. >> soft money. >> can i just say these are the moments where i'm like are we living in like a movie where there's a joke being on us? did donald trump just say i think nobody knows more about campaign finance than i do? he did. he just said it. >> i understand bragging, but what does that say? >> it matters. if you're a prosecutor in the southern district, you're going to go back and look through public statements that trump has made over time like the ones that you've pointed to and that

the "wall street journal" has pointed to and the affidavit and you're going to try to show, yeah, actually this is someone who did know enough about campaign finance law that this was willful and knowing. so you would do the work that the prosecutors are doing to build this case? >> this comes as rudy giuliani comes out and says he doesn't understand campaign finance law. do you think giuliani is watching the show saying holy -- did he just say that? or does he think no one will find that stuff? >> trump's naivete is selective and convenient but this is so perfe perfect. trump is the world's biggest

bragger, he said i know more about health care than anyone else. we could probably queue up -- >> no more about the wars than the generals. >> usually he says that and there's no consequence. now there's consequence. just desserts. >> we're talking campaign finance we're talking about hush payments of women so if he wanted to say i know everything about campaign finance but not hush payments to women and how that plays off, that wouldn't be true, either, because here he is talking about john edwards with greta van susteren. here he is. >> a lot of very good lawyers have told me the government doesn't have a good case. they're spending months and years on this case. i hate to see resources wasted to this extent. >> juliet? >> it's like he knew what was going to happen 10 or 15 years later. >> he was investigating that one closely. >> exactly. since the beginning, since trump has been a candidate there's been this debate, does he know

exactly what he's doing or have no idea. and he knows exactly what he's doing, he just doesn't know how to do it. so he knows how to get the russians to help him but he says publicly wikileaks come do this we're asked too many times to be stun stupid. m his attorney says he told me to get rid of the problem and i got rid of the problem. two plus two equals four. the president knew exactly what he was doing. >> and from a legal perspective, when someone signs an affidavit as he did, talking about very specific things, sworn statement and he goes through these things, there's no cover for him to say well, i didn't read through that, i signed it.

the act of signing it indicates knowledge legally? >> absolutely. this is not just a case where his lawyer is saying mr. trump know this is and that where he can later say as he's doing with michael cohen well my lawyer doesn't know what he's talking about. this is something where he signed and swore to the affidavit. he submitted something to the federal election commission under oath in eggs sense sssenc knew all this information. there's also something else that has to be remembered. he was running a presidential campaign. michael cohen wasn't his own lawyer. he knew enough about campaign finance law that at the very least he would know to talk to other lawyers about this so this is not somebody coming out and getting involved. he'd been involved in campaigns before, he says in an affidavit i know about this stuff and he pays the hush money. i think this is the evidence of the knowing willful violation they need. >> and, of course, then nobody knows more about campaign finance -- i mean who says that.

how does that ever come up? thank you very much "out front" next, maryland's attorney general sued the president and his administration in at least 20 different lawsuits. he's my guest next. plus on this question about a felony, can you indict a sitting president or not? and developments tonight in the case of the seven-year-old guatemalan girl who died at the border. an attorney for the family sharing details about how she was treat eed by the government. those details coming up. y. i didn't like something having control over me. i wanted to stop. the thing is i didn't know how. chantix, along with support, helps you quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke to the point that i could quit. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures,

new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. for me chantix worked.boom. end of story. talk to your doctor about chantix. very high triglycerides with diet and exercise deserves the hard work that went into the science behind vascepa. prescription vascepa. vascepa, along with diet and exercise, has proven results in multiple clinical trials.

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

tonight, it's not just congress taking president trump to task. one state's attorney general has been fighting him in over 20 lawsuits. leading the charge even taking the president to court today. out front, the democratic attorney general of maryland, brian frosh. appreciate your taking the time. you're contending that it's unconstitutional for matt whitaker to be deputy attorney general of the united states. do you think you'll win this. >> yes, i do. this is a motion in our case defending the affordable care act and matt whitaker was not

properly appointed attorney general of the united states. they ignored the attorney general's succession act which says the deputy attorney general is next in line and then down the line so whitaker's appointment was illegal and he's clearly unqualified to be attorney general. >> my question is now the president said i want william barr to be my permanent guy, whitaker is my transition guy. is this worth litigating at this point for you? >> well, it is. we have a long time before mr. barr gets his hearing in the senate and perhaps gets confirmed. it's possible we will have mr. whisker as the attorney general or purporting to be the attorney general for a period of months and it's too important a position to allow somebody unqualified to fill in. >> so you'll continue with that. i want to ask you about another

line you're fighting on amidst some of these 20. the president that you say using the office of the presidency to line his own pockets, it's the formal word, emoluments. you've issued dozens of subpoenas, are they responding? are you getting the information you've asked for? >> well, their responses won't come for another couple weeks and given their past performance we expect them to drag their feet to file motions to stop our discover discovery. >> so these are part of over 20 lawsuits you're bringing against the president right now. what's your goal? some might say are you looking for something? do you have something already?

>> we've led in others and a couple other ags lead in others and in each case we've won. the only case that you could argue that the ags have lost is the muslim ban case where the first two iterations were declared to be unconstitutional and the third that added korea and venezuela was found to past muster. >> so the president's fate may come down to whether a sitting president can be indicted. people said it's a matter of precede precedent. where do you stand? can a president corps not a president? >> i think he can. this doesn't bar indictment of a sitting president. no one is above the law in our

country and certainly not the preside president. there's other waysover getting at him, by impeachment, but i believe he can be dined? >> thank you for being here, brian. >> thank you for having me. a new development in the case of the seven-year-old girl who died in custody at the mexican border. and how michelle obama brought down the house last night. take a look at this. >> this is after the trump administration, waving from air force one. can you walk me through -- >> bye, felicia. [ laughter ] and then, more jobs began to appear. these techs in a lab. this builder in a hardhat... ...the welders and electricians who do all of that. the diner staffed up 'cause they all needed lunch. teachers... doctors... jobs grew a bunch. what started with one job spread all around. because each job in energy creates many more in this town.

energy lives here. it's proven quality sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999... intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. and the best gift of all? a silent night. how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you shed those sugar cookies, get a running start on the holidays, and take it all in with the patience of a saint. queen sleep number 360 smart beds from $999. plus, it's the last chance for 48-month financing. ends monday.

tonight, attorneys for the family of the 7-year-old girl who died while in the custody of customs border protection says that neither she or her father were provided water after they were detained. ed lavendera is "outfront" on the border tonight. >> reporter: when 7-year-old jakelin caal maquin arrived at this remote border checkpoint with her father, the station was closed. there were only four border patrol agents on duty to handle the 163 migrant refugees who turned themselves over to the agents. customs and border protection officials insist the father and daughter were given food and water as they waited nearly eight hours for buses to drive them to a border patrol station 95 miles away. but now, attorneys for the young girl's father paint a different picture. >> what we do know, and what our client is unequivocal with, is

that no water was provided to either him or his daughter. they were provided cookies, essentially. with limited bathroom facilities. >> reporter: homeland security officials have not responded to this latest accusation. according to the timeline released by customs and border protection, jakelin started showing signs of distress just before the bus departed from the port of entry checkpoint to the border patrol station in lordsburg, new mexico. >> there's a small little table, right, you know, about this big, this wide. >> reporter: congressman raul ruiz who's a doctor was part of the delegation that toured the facilities. he says he was stunned to see the room where border agents used a table in a utility room as a bed to treat the young girl who had stopped breathing. >> i'm not saying that they didn't try. i'm saying that there are some clear under-resourced, under-trained, under-equipped and lack of standards and

procedures that reflect the highest possible care that we can give to any child. >> reporter: cbp officials say the decision to keep jakelin on the bus was the best means to provide the child with emergency care. but the father's lawyers questioned whether that was the best decision, and want to know why they didn't choose to airlift her from the checkpoint area sooner. >> some time before the bus left, some time around 5:00, there was an indication of distress and a decision was made at that point to transport her by bus, anyway. one of the fundamental questions that needs to be answered that we don't have an answer for is if, in fact, she was in distress. >> reporter: it's hard to overstate the remoteness of the antelope wells outpost on the u.s./mexico border. customs and border protection officials say human smuggling routes into this area is a brand-new phenomenon. in the last two months officials say, extremely large groups of

migrant refugees have been arriving together, smugglers leaving parents and children on america's doorstep in the middle of nowhere. erin, lawyers for the young girl's father also alleged today that in the hours after jakelin's death, customs officials got the father to sign various documents in english. the lawyers say they don't know what was in that document, in those documents but they expressed anger and frustration that they would do that in if the process of this man's grieving. one other note we're also still waiting on official autopsy results and that could take several more weeks as what exactly took this young girl's life is still not clear to everyone involved. erin? >> all right, ed, thank you. and next, jeanne moos on michelle obama and who is this felicia? f the season for loving ♪ for a limited time, $50 for them $10 for you.

applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. opportunity is everywhere. like here. where nothing stands between you and your best friends. ♪ oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar

and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin

may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.

♪ there's no place likargh!e ♪ i'm trying... ♪ yippiekiyay. ♪ mom. ♪ tonight, michelle obama

tells us what she was really thinking. here's jeanne. >> reporter: the band seemed to wish michelle obama was still first lady. ♪ earlier, she and jimmy fallon surprised tourists when their elevator opened. but an even bigger surprise was the former first lady's response when fallon showed her a photo taken right after -- >> the trump inauguration. just waving from air force one. >> yeah. it's like -- >> can you just -- walk me through -- >> bye, felicia. >> reporter: just two little words. >> bye, felicia. >> reporter: maybe you remember hearing, bye, felicia, about a year ago when former trump adviser omarosa got dissed by abc anchor robin roberts. >> she says she has a story to tell. i'm sure she'll be selling that story. >> we'll see. >> bye, felicia.

>> reporter: what does felicia mean? it comes when character -- >> bye, felicia. >> reporter: when mrs. obama said it, most people took it as dissing the trumps. columnist piers morgan said, stop it, michelle, for someone who hates going low, you're sniping at melania just to sell books is a cheap tacky shot. critics definitely weren't letting michelle obama forget about her famous high/low rule. >> when they go low, we go high. >> reporter: somewhere in the middle was michelle's face when she mentioned another inaugural moment. >> and the tiffanys box. it was just all, you know, a lot. >> yeah. >> reporter: ah, yes, the awkward tiffany box handoff. the box containing a picture frame. mrs. obama couldn't figure out what to do with it, which is odd, since eight years earlier, she presented a similar box containing a leather journal and pen to laura bush who stuck it behind her back when they posed for a photo and discreetly passed it off once inside.

it's not nice to say bye, felicia, to a box. jeanne moos, cnn -- >> bye, felicia. >> reporter: -- new york. >> and thanks so much for joining us. see you back here tomorrow. "a.c. 360" starts now. declaring victory and getting out. john berman here h in for an anderson. that's what president trump is doing in the fight against isis in syria and the way he announced it all by itself is stunning enough. then, again, so was the reaction. the surprise, dismay, the outraou outraiou outrage, even the outright mockery. that's just from fellow republicans. >> the decision to withdraw american -- an american presence in syria is a colossal, in my mind, mistake. >> pulling the plug on these troops without giving due consideration to the consequences, i think, is something that i don't think any of us want to do. >> if obama had made this