hearing process take? a long time. a typical case like this takes 8 to 12 months before a final decision is made. but this could end up taking even longer, and that's because of the partial government shutdown. right now, many immigration courts are closed and any case that involves a migrant who is not being detained, like cindy or allison, they're cases have been postponed right now, so, we don't know if cindy and allison's case will start on the day it's supposed to. don? >> thanks, gary. and thanks for watching. our coverage continues. good evening. the world changed today for president trump and it could change even more tonight if and when democrats, who now control the house, push through legislation to reopen the government. the white house has already threatened to veto it. we'll bring you that as it happens. for now, we'll focus on the longer term and potentially more serious consequence of democrats in power. for the first time since taking office, president trump is facing the prospect of real, extensive and wide-ranging

scrutiny from the opposition party, led by a highly disciplined adversary. >> to the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, i extend to you this gavel. [ applause ] >> that happened at about 2:30 eastern time, about 90 minutes later, markets closed with the dow industrials nearly 700 points lower on the day. on top of that, the government shutdown entered its 13th day. all in all, a very sobering day. so what did the president do in the wake of it all? well, he made a surprise appearance in the white house briefing room with leaders of a border patrol officer union who praised him on his wall. it was billed as a press conference, but neither he nor press secretary sarah sanders took questions, making it something of a stunt. he also put up another weird "game of thrones" posters of himself on instagram, saying "the wall is coming," which is a

subject of the "ridicu-list" later tonight. we'll talk about whether movie posters are just shiny objects to distract from more serious matters like the very real bottom line the president now faces. a whole new world for him. one in which the speaker of the house is a member of the opposition party, and she's not ruling out impeachment. >> we shouldn't be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn't avoid impeachment for a political reason. so, we'll just have to see how it comes. >> she says she wants to go slow, but the new democratic chairman of the house armed services committee adam smith says it's not too soon to be talking about it. his colleague today, congressman sherman, actually took the step of introducing articles of impeachment, which makes him an outlier for now, but it does underscore how potentially serious this could get for the president, who, as you know, is being investigated along with his company and his now defunct charity by robert mueller's team, by the new york attorney and you can add congressman elijah cummings and the house

judiciary committee. >> we have to find out exactly what was going on. we have to look at the russian interference of the campaign and what did the president know about that, and to what extent did he cooperate with that, if he did. we have to look at his business dealings and his lying about that. we have to look at the fact that he surrounded himself with crooks, and we have to get to the bottom of this. >> today, he took a step in that direction, introducing legislation to protect special counsel mueller. he said he wants to hear from acting attorney general matt whitaker, whether he's willing or not. >> trying to get a date. and we'll see what happens. >> will you send a subpoena to him? >> we will if we have to. >> and now for the first time in the trump presidency, the opposition party has subpoena power. whatever you think of the acting attorney general or the president, for that matter, it's a far cry from the days when a chairman of the house intelligence committee, who is friendly to the white house, can go to the white house, get

talking points from someone there, and then later pretend to have just briefed the president on the very same white house talking points. >> today, i briefed the president on the concerns that i had about incidental collection and how it relates to president-elect trump and his transition team, and the concerns that i have. what i've read bothers me, and i think it should bother the president himself and his team. >> the white house-friendly devin nunes no longer runs the intelligence committee, adam schiff does, and he's preparing for a committee vote to send the unredacted transcripts from all their interviews to special counsel mueller. again, you can see the change of power in the house as a good thing or a bad thing, but good or bad, one thing is beyond debate, it is now a different world politically for this president and this administration. we'll, of course, bring you the

house budget vote tonight when it happens. but first, some perspective from congressman eric swalwell who serves on the intelligence and judiciary committees. i spoke to him just a short time ago. congressman, today, speaker pell low say said the incoming house will be, quote, for the people. do you think people will view multiple investigations into the president as for the people? >> well, it will be for a balance of power on many abuses of power that we've seen in the past, but we can't miss the opportunity to also do what they sent us here, which was to clab rat on infrastructure, passing the dream act, having background checks and reforming prescription drugs, and anderson, those are all things that donald trump said he wanted to do, including even at last year's state of the union, but a republican congress never brought forward. so, we're going to put that forward, but we're also not going to shirk our oversight responsibilities. >> some democrats introduced legislation to protect the mueller investigation. even if that bill were to pass in the full house, mcconnell has made it clear, he doesn't see a need for it, won't bring it to the senate floor for a vote. so, is a house vote anything

more than symbolic? does it matter? >> well, we also hope that it will build momentum on the senate side that vulnerable senators will see that the will of the american people is that they want this investigation protected, and that it will -- it's already passed on the senate judiciary committee and would come to a full vote. mitch mcconnell, by not allowing this to come forward, is suppressing the will of his own members. i think it's going to take outside voices, you saw cory gardner is talking about ending the shutdown, by not having wall approval, and he's in a tight seat. there are other republican senators in a similar fashion. so, i think you're going to see pressure build. >> do you think this is what we're going to see a lot of, bills that pass, the democratic-led house and really have no chance at all passing a republican-led senate? >> i think a lot of what we're going to do is just purely protect. protect health care from being cut even further, the protections that were put in place by the affordable care act, protect paychecks from seeing tax cuts go only to the

top and not to working families, and protect against corruption. and yes, advance on transportation, prescription drugs, background checks where we can, but it's going to be the 2020 field that's really going to put forward what, you know, a democratic priority will be, if we have the house and the senate in 2021. >> house democrat introduced articles of impeachment today. is that a smart move, in your opinion, or is it counterproductive at this point? >> it's not a move that i support. this president, anderson, may be impeached. but we're certainly not there with the evidence. we're going to, you know, look where republicans were unwilling to look before and build an air-tight case, if that's what's necessary, seek bipartisan buy-in and make sure that if we go that way, the american people understand why. but we should not be as reckless with the facts as donald trump is, and we should give him probably a fairer investigation than he deserves. >> the upcoming vote in the committee to send mueller its unredacted interview

transcripts, what do you expect mueller to learn from them? >> he'll see in the basement of the house intelligence committee are boxes of transcripts that have lies of witnesses who came before us. some of them, like roger stone, have had to amend their testimony over and over, because of free press reporting that showed that he wasn't straig straightforward. i hope those witnesses are held accountable and it helps bob mueller's investigation. >> congressman, thank you for your time. >> my pleasure. >> so, we're seeing divided government play out, and challenges to the president have been coming today. i want to talk about it with jeffrey toobin, also cnn political analyst kirsten powers and former republican senator and presidential candidate rick santorum. jeff, you heard the congressman talk about the very real consequences when the intelligence committee turns over those unredacted witness testimony. do you buy that? >> yes, i think it is significant. i don't know if any of those

statements will be proven to be false, but you could not bring a criminal case without the actual transcripts. so, it is an indispensable -- it is a necessary but not sufficient step for mueller to bring these cases. and it's only logical, it's only fair for him to have these, to do a complete investigation. >> senator santorum, how worried would you be if you're the president and you don't have an ally like devin nunes running the house intelligence committee anymore? >> look, i mean, for the president, this comes down to two things. number one, impeachment. and the house is going to do what the house is going to do. the senate will never, at least given the current state of play right now, is not going to come anywhere close to impeaching the president. the second is simply things that they can do to harass the president. this is one of those harassment things. it's not going to touch the president. there are people that may have said things that, under oath,

that turned out to be wrong. again, that doesn't really do anything other than create more smoke. but no real fire for the president. >> kirsten, do you think the democrats in the house should be cautious on how they approach the prospect of impeachment? we talked about this before, in our next hour, i'm going to speak with congressman jerry connelly, he says he's already seen enough, just with the president being an unindicted co-conspirator in the cohen filing. >> look, i mean, donald trump is obviously extremely unpopular with the base of the democratic party. and so, it's understandable that there are people who want him out of office any way possible and, you know, are letting their passion probably get a little ahead of themselves and not considering the kind of blowback that can come from these kinds of actions. we've seen this in history when there has been overreach. so i think the position that nancy pelosi has staked out, which is really the position of the democratic party at this

point is, you need to wait for the investigation. and if we get to a point where you have a president who has been indicted, for example, then yes, you should start looking at possibly impeaching him. but i don't think based on what they have in front of them at this point, that there are any impeachable offenses that, at least, you know, as far as the average american will look at it, would feel it would be appropriate to be doing. >> and njerry hadder will, the chairman of the judiciary committee, they are so aware of the precedent of 1998, when the house republicans rushed ahead with impeachment, knowing there would never be 67 votes in the senate to remove president clinton. they're not going to do that again. they're not going to make that mistake. so we can -- >> a lot of republicans will say, though, the drumbeat, the pressure is just going to build. and whether or not they right now think they're going to do it, they're going to get led into doing it. >> that's not true. that's just not true. >> senator santorum, go ahead.

>> anderson, the timing is really important here. i was there in 1997 and '98. bill clinton had just gotten re-elected, and these things came out and the drumbeat started. we were looking at four more years, three and a half more years of bill clinton. here, you're in the middle of a presidential race right now. or, the last two years of his first term, and so, the timing is just very different. the chance to beat donald trump is not going to be through impeachment. we're not going to beat bill clinton. bill clinton was elected for his last four years and the only way we were going to get rid of him was through impeachment. that's not the case here. the case before you is really making a political case for 2020. that's why i think impeachment is probably not going to happen, because it's just not good politics for the democrats. >> god, for the first time ever, i just could not agree more with rick santorum. i think every word you just said was perfect. >> how about that? >> but it's interest eging, bece rick, i thought you were going

to say the opposite, because a lot of republicans we have talked to who have been arguing with jeff about this, you can say what you want right now that they're not going to go for impeachment, but it's going to be irresistible to them. >> i just don't think -- look, what they're interested in is beating donald trump, getting rid of donald trump and gaining more political power. it's going to be obvious that the best way to do that is to do all the harassment, maybe even -- there may be some smoke of impeachment or even some discussion, but the idea of actually trying to force an impeachment resolution in the united states senate, i think, is just very bad politics in the midst of an election. >> i would -- >> also, the other thing you have to remember, i think, anderson, the reason a lot of these people are saying that is, i mean, some of them may believe it, but they're mostly doing it to begin gin up the president's. and they were doing it a lot leading up to the midterms. this idea is this is what's going to happen if the democrats

get control of congress, they're going to impeach the president, so, you need to vote for republicans. i think that people that think this could happen just don't understand nancy pelosi. >> they'll be coming for him, there's lots of ways -- >> i'm talking through impeachment. >> there are better ways to skin this cat. >> i remain on team santorum, but i would not call it harassment. i would say oversight. this is what congress is supposed to do, but i think -- your analysis of the motivations of the democrats is exactly right. >> jeff, what about hnadler, hes said, even a crime should not necessarily equal impeachment, he didn't say the president should get a pass. he said it would take an extreme step. >> it would. and look, it obviously depends on what information comes out. but certainly the universe of

evidence that we're aware of, or what is likely to come out, certainly doesn't suggest to me that there is anything out there that might garner 67 votes in the senate and nancy pelosi knows that, jerry nadler knows that and they're just not going to go on that fool's errand. >> if democrats in the house take it slow and decide it is damning enough to proceed to impeachment, they would be basing that conclusion on the report of a republican former fbi director, recipient of the purple heart and bronze star. i mean, the president's tried to paint mueller as some partisan hack. i guess in an election year, that's an argument you can make, but it's not really true. >> well, look, the bottom line is that bob mueller surrounded himself with a bunch of democrats on his team, and who is, you know, rather, in some cases, scurrilous backgrounds, in terms of who it is they go after. so i don't think mueller is really going to be the issue here.

the issue is, does the american public and a significant number of republicans going to read this report as see this as a nixon-esque type of situation. a former senator from pennsylvania, hugh scott, looked at all the evidence as a republican and went to the president and said, you know, we can't do this. we're not going to stand by you. if it reaches that point, we'll know. the democrats won't have to push it. but as jeffrey said, i don't see anything in the mueller leaks and other information that's been out there that rises to this level at this point. >> you still on team santorum? >> he's on team toobin. it's a beautiful thing, rick. let's just -- it's a whole new year. it's going to be great. >> how about that? >> let's take a break on that. coming up -- let's just bask on that thought for a little while. we're going to talk about the president's name in news conference only, he took no questions, of course, but did say he knows more about drones than anybody. so, there's always there. and later, we'll keep digging into something speaker pelosi

said today when she was asked if a sitting president could be indicted. her answer got the legal and political types buzzing. we'll take a look ahead. i'm ray and i quit smoking with chantix. smoking. it dictates your day. 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. back pain can't win. thankfully there's aleve back and muscle pain. aleve targets tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve back & muscle. all day strong. all day long.

they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!

i am all about living joyfully. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. ♪ it is such a good time to dance ♪ ♪ it is such a good time to [ laughing ] ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo [ goose honking ] ♪ [ laughing ] a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. ♪ progressive helps keep you out there. ♪ walking a dog can add thouswalking this many?our day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move.

we're waiting for the house, now in democratic hands, to vote on a series of funding bills to reopen the government. the white house has already threatened to veto the legislation, making it more of a negotiation tactic than anything else. which, in a different way, and perhaps to a very different degree, so was the president's nonpress conference press conference today. kaitlan collins at the white house with more on that. explain what happened in the briefing room today, because it certainly wasn't a briefing. >> reporter: it certainly wasn't a brief egg, baugz at a press briefing, reporters get to ask questions, and that didn't happen today. but they said there was going to be a press briefing with the press secretary in about five

minutes, and you saw reporters scramble to get into the room. you can't really tell in the video, but there were a lot of empty seats towards the back of the room, because some of the reporters just weren't here, because there was nothing on the president's schedule today. then the president came in with these members of the border patrol union and spoke briefly and invited them up to make brief remarks. then the president, press secretary and white house communications director all left the room without taking any questions from the reporters who were sitting there. now, as this was going on, there was supposed to be a briefing with the customs and border patrol commissioner today on the record, on-camera briefing where he was going to take questions from reporters about the state of what's going on at the border, but they bumped that briefing, because they were told the white house was doing a briefing instead. so, instead, that briefing didn't happen. they had the president of the union come out, but he didn't answer questions either, and no questions were answered today. >> so, while we're waiting for the house to vote on a bill to reopen the government, the white house, they've already responded. >> reporter: yeah, we knew this was going to happen, but they

officially put out this statement, saying if somehow those bills do get to the president's desk, he's not going to sign them. in fact, he's going veto them. that's what our reporting from this weekend showed. in this statement, the white house said they can't, quote, accept bills that have unnecessary spending while ignoring urgent border security needs. that's exactly what we expected to come from the white house and that continues as we are very much in this deadlock between the white house and democrats, something that only seems to be getting further and further by the day now, even though we're now 13 days into this. and anderson, this comes as our reporting here at cnn shows that even the president's own senior aides are not encouraging him to accept those democratic proposals and reopen the government. >> all right, catlin cokaitlan collins, thank you for that. back with our team. jeff, what was that today? was that the president not liking the attention on nancy pelosi and wanting to retake the stage? >> that was, i think, a big part of it. and it was just another opportunity to talk about border security. i have to say, throughout the

day, i was so struck by these various pictures of the democratic and republican parties. they look so different. i mean, this is a party almost exclusively, at least at this level, of white men, the republican party. the democratic party is a much more diverse party. i mean, you just look at the members of the house of representatives. you look at the people at that briefing. i mean, this is a picture of the differences between the parties that is just profound. >> kirsten, did that strike you, too? >> yeah, absolutely. i mean, this is something, i think, even as we were on election night looking at the -- all the different types of people that had been elected, primarily in the democratic party from, you know, all sorts of diverse groups of people, there is something very noteworthy that the republican party is very much, it feels to me, stuck in the past, in the sense that it's very much the

mostly white men, and the s, - democratic party is very much the party of the future, which is the direction that the country's moving. i mean, we are a country that has become vastly more diverse than it used to be. and i think that's really reflected in the democratic caucus. >> senator santorum, do you have the same view of the republican party and the future of it? >> ah, i think the demographics for republicans are a challenge, and frankly, i think the approach that donald trump has taken is really the solution to this problem. and that is to appeal to blue collar working people of all races, colors, creeds. trump has problems doing that from a personal standpoint, but from a policy standpoint, and if you look at what -- the lives of people who, of color, who are, you know, wage earners in america, they're doing much better, much, much better. and poverty levels are lower. there's a lot to be said for the policies that the president's

communicating that are actually, you know, look what happened in florida with the school choice issue and the governor's race. there's opportunities for republicans from a policy point of view to begin to reach voters that are more diverse. the president steps on his message too much for him to do that effectively. but i think in the long-term, there's actually a path forward. >> is that because he's a racist? >> well, that's because he says things that are incendiary. we all know that. >> he says racist things. >> no, look, i don't think the president is a racist. i don't think he's any "ist" if you will, sexist, whatever. but the president does say things that are controversial, and that can offend people. and that gets in the way of his message. >> but isn't that the message? >> no, the message is the policy. i mean -- >> no. >> look, people don't really -- people are going to see a president as, you know, for what they are, you know, with all their faults.

it's what the president is doing. and i think the president's policies have actually been very, very favorable to -- across demographic groups and he just hasn't effectively communicated that. >> i'm not even sure that's accurate. a lot of what's happening in the economy was happening before donald trump came into office. i mean, the economy just doesn't turn around that quickly, so, i'm not sure that he gets all the credit. and obviously, we're having a lot of problems with the stock market, but that's a separate issue. but the fact of the matter is, the way people vote, it's not just about how you affect them economically, it's about whether you're speaking to the issues that are really important to them, the cultural issues that are really important to them. doesn't matter how good bill clinton was on the economy, if somebody felt like he had the wrong position on abortion, they weren't going to vote for him. and it's the same thing with people of color and i think a lot of women when they look at the rhetoric of this president, him attacking nfl players, the constant drumbeat of the republican party against black lives matter, calling them a

terrorist organization, not really speaking up about the violence against african-americans by police officers and on and on. these are the issues that matter to people, and i don't think the republican party has really come to terms with that. >> well, i couldn't disagree with you more. i think the organizations you mentioned, the black lives matter, is, does promote a lot of very hateful things. so, look, the bottom line is that republicans have an obligation to go out there -- >> what hateful things? i'm sorry. >> i don't think we need to spend a whole -- >> i don't think you can come up with an example. >> there are all sorts of clips and posters of folks in these marches that are -- that are as racist on the other way as the white racists -- >> there are posters in all groups that doesn't make the group itself hateful. i mean, basically black lives matter is just the basic idea

that black lives matter and that we need to actually treat black lives with the same reverence that we treat white lives. >> but you just can't wipe away all of the things that are said and written and done at these marches as, you know, as a fringe element. >> but it is a fringe element. >> anymore than you would wipe those away from a group of whites doing the same thing. look, the reality is, setting aside that issue, that republicans have an obligation and work to do when it comes to communicating, you're right, not just the policy, but the fact that we are concerned about these things and we talk about these things and we want to bring people in and engage in those discussions. so you're right on that front. >> do you think that president trump should bend on the wall in these shutdown negotiations? because some senators like lindsey graham are advising him not to bend, because if he did, it would be the beginning of the end of his presidency. >> look, if there was a substantive reason why democrats

didn't want to support this wall, then there might be a reason to bend. but it's not substantive. look, i think 650 miles of border wall that have been put up. the law says 700. chuck schumer voted for that. so, even though the wall that he voted for hasn't been built yet, so, the idea that there is some principled objection to a wall, would they like to tear down the wall in tijuana because it doesn't work? of course it works. i've been to that wall, it works. walls do work. so the idea that this is a policy discussion, it's not. this is purely political. i think the president in that regard has to stand firm. >> all right. >> our honeymoon was good while it lasted, but it was brief, rick. >> jeff, kirsten, rick, thanks very much. with democrats running the house, an impeachment might not be the worst case scenario for president trump. coming up, nancy pelosi if the

president could be indicted while in office. plus, breaking news of the american accused of spying by russia, amid talk he could become part of a prisoner swap, next. with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. so even when she grows up, she'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only with expedia. select hotels to your existing trip. this is a commercial about insurance. but let's be honest. nobody likes dealing with insurance. see, esurance knows it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting. i don't know either. i'm just the spokesperson. but that's why they're making it simple - so that even actors, like us, can understand it. i'm not an actor. i'd love to tell you more but i only have thirty seconds.

so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. when insurance is simple, it's surprisingly painless. what sore muscles? what with advpounding head? .. advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil. my lineage was the vecchios and zuccolis. through ancestry, through dna i found out that i was only 16% italian.

he was 34% eastern european. so i went onto ancestry, soon learned that one of our ancestors we thought was italian was eastern european. this is my ancestor who i didn't know about. he looks a little bit like me, yes. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com

well, that didn't take long. just after the 116th congress got sworn in today, two democratic house members reintroduced a bill calling for the impeachment of president trump. it's not the only possible option that could threaten the trump presidency, depending on what robert mueller's team finds. in an interview this morning, nancy pelosi wouldn't rule out the idea of an indictment against the president. >> there is long-standing justice department guidance that states a sitting president should not be indicted. but it is not the law. >> it is not the law. everything indicates that a president can be indicted after he is no longer president of the united states. >> what about a sitting president? >> well, sitting president when he's no longer president of the united states. >> a president who is in office. could robert mueller come back and say, i am seeking an indictment? >> i think that that is an open discussion. i think that is an open discussion in terms of the law. >> tonight, a new controversy for the president's acting attorney general, matthew whitaker. a source confirms to cnn that

just yesterday, whitaker told ed meese that the department of justice is continuing to investigate the fbi over its surveillance of former trump campaign adviser carter page and its clinton foundation probe. now, that's important, because meese is now a private it is seven, gaining knowledge about a probe the justice department has kept silent about for nearly a year. neil, is nancy pelosi right? whether or not a sitting president can be indicted, is that an open discussion? >> it is an open discussion. but you know, i think the president's team has been saying, a sitting president can't be indicted, and at least in this context, that's pretty -- it's a very trumpy claim. i mean, you know, donald trump has not exactly cared about the constitution over the last two years, and now all of a sudden, he suddenly discovers that the constitution claims protects him? it's hard for him to make this claim, because he is a self-described strict constructionist, someone who

looks at the text of the constitution and inter preflts the documents, and there is no clause in the constitution that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. >> do you think he spent a long time looking at the text of the constitution and studying the document? >> one wishes he would, but yes, exactly. that's part of the problem. >> you actually helped draft the special counsel regulations that mueller is operating under. they do require him to abide by establish eed doj policy, is th right? >> that's correct. and so, the justice department has written two opinions, in 1973 and in 1999 that say, in general, a sitting president can't be indicted. however, i don't think they apply to this situation. they say in general, so they're dealing with crimes that occur while the president is in office or something like that. but this -- these crimes go to how he won the presidency in the first place. and the opinions don't encompass that. so imagine this, anderson, imagine we had a race of 1,000 meters, and the winner of that 1,000-meter race would win a get out of jail free card.

and everyone knows that's what the prize is. i don't think we would say that you get to apply the get out of jail card of those who are accused of cheating in the race in the first place, because if you did, you'd be incentivizing people to, you know, take -- dope or something like that, to secretly trip people who are opponents in the race and the like. and, you know, lo and behold, that's exactly what these allegations are, that the southern district of new york, career prosecutors have said, donald trump directed the commission of serious campaign finance felonies, and then covered it up afterwards. and that very well may have swung the election, so, i don't think those opinions apply. >> at the end of the day, is this going to be, at least in terms of the law, out of mueller's hands and in the hands of what is now a democratically led house of representatives? >> well, it's -- i think there's two different actors. the house of representatives and the acting attorney general. right now, matthew whitaker.

because the department of justice special counsel regulations say it will at least be up to whitaker in the first instance to decide whether or not a president could be indicted. and whitaker has given us really no basis for confidence in his judgment. i mean, as we saw yesterday, imagine, anderson, if i started your show today with this, mr. cooper, i'll start by highlighting the fact that you stayed in new york over the holidays, gave up christmas and new year's with your family. you demonstrated your dedication to delivering. if i said all of that to you, i think your readers would be aghast and think i'm just a suckup artist. and that is what the acting attorney general said yesterday in a televised meeting to the president. this is not someone who should be in charge of our law enforcement apparatus at all, and certainly not someone who is deciding this ultimate question of whether a sitting president could be indicted by mueller. or the southern district of new york. >> i would like all my guests to praise me for working new year's eve, actually. just lastly, i want to get your take on whitaker briefing former

attorney general ed meese about an ongoing doj investigation. ethically and legally, is that problematic? >> it certainly could be. we don't know what was said. obviously, you can't give grand jury information or things like that to anyone outside of the circle of law enforcement officials. but it's not clear to me that that's what happened, so, i think we really have to learn more about the facts there, but look, the public record of whitaker demonstrates day in and day out, this is someone who should not be our nation's chief law enforcement officer. >> appreciate it. thank you very much. tonight, breaking news about the american businessman arrested by russia for allegedly spying. the lawyer for paul whelan of michigan confirms he now faces formal s peespionage charges. our matthew chance has more from moscow. so, matthew, while secretary of state pompeo said he couldn't offer much additional information about whelan, the russian news site seems to be

providing an explanation. what are you learned? >> reporter: yeah, rust bolt is the name of this privately owned russian news agency, and they've interview what they say is an intelligence source who has sort of talked through the actual steps, the situation in which paul whelan, this u.s. marine who was arrested for espionage, was actually detained. he was in a five-star hotel in the center of moscow. he was in his room, apparently five minutes, it says, after he received a -- you know, a flash drive, a usb flash drive, with the names of the employees of a top security agency in russia, he was then arrested. that was the basis for his arrest. also, it talks about his russian social media platform. it's been well known that paul whelan, for several years now,

has engaged on russian social media, like the russian version of facebook. many of the people on that -- on that site that were his friends, basically were former or current members of the russian security forces. what the rust bolt article says is that those people were prepicked by u.s. intelligence for him to befriend and to extract whatever information he could. we can't independently verify that report or its content. and, of course, the intelligence source may have actually had a, you know, a reason, a narrative to build around the arrest, but it's an interesting idea. >> you spoke to whelan's lawyer yesterday. what was he able to tell you about the charges or reports about the flash drive? did he say anything? >> reporter: no. he wouldn't be drawn on that. he would only talk about the

actual condition of paul whelan in this prison in a suburb of moscow. he said he was pretty cheerful. he said he wasn't depressed in any way. lacked a few -- some sanitary, sort of items like razors and clean underwear and things like that but that was being sorted out. painted a generally very positive picture of paul whelan's incarceration. and he's applied for bail, as well. but he also warned that the russian legal system can be very slow, and he said it could be, what, six months before this espionage case gets to trial. so, he could be in for a long wait. >> matthew, stay with us. i want to bring in steve hall, a retired cia chief of russia operations. steve, does -- what do you make of this, about this person, about what's going on? >> well, anderson, i hate to be smug, but you heard it here first. it took the russians only a couple of days to come up with some really, really good propaganda and some really convincing and compelling

stories to westerners ears, american ears. that all sounds really reasonable. you had this american who is somehow tasked by u.s. intelligence and he's in a hotel room and somebody shows up with a flash drive. and the russians have made all of this up. there is no rule of law in russia. there is no, you know, free press. the whole idea that the russian lawyer, by the way, who works for the government, for putin one way or the other, because he lives in russia and is, therefore, susceptible to any pressure the government puts on him. so he's not representing this american. he says the whole thing might take six months. there have been other conditions when vladamir putin has wanted to do something within 24, 48 hours and it simply happens on a legal front, because, again, he can overrule anything. so, this is all one big show for vladimir putin. and he's just figured out a way to kick america around, and it's by taking, essentially, hostages. this guy is a hostage opposed to anything else. that's the best way to think of it. >> you think of him as a hostage? >> i do. because he's certainly not an intelligence officer.

there's no way that he would have done any of this. you mean, that's simply not how american intelligence works in moscow or other places. although, they will paint a very compelling picture, because the russians are excellent at doing this. so, they've just arrested this guy. it could be anybody, it could be you, it could be me. i would not advise any friends or family to go to russia at this point, because it doesn't matter if you're delivering papers for a living or you work for a company, you could be snatched up and used in whatever political ploy that vladimir putin wants to do. >> it's such a scary idea that you hire a russian attorney and you say, because he lives in russia, he's not really representing his client. matthew, now that whelan has been formally charged, any idea when his case might go to court or, to steve's point, could this be handled in some other way, you know, based on higher levels of government intervention? >> reporter: well, i think it's absolutely right to say that,

you know, if putin wants a guilty verdict in russia, he's going to get one. i mean, there's not the sort of separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary in this committee that you have in the united states or any other sort of democratic country. and i think what putin's angling for, and this has been speculated about a lot, is some kind of prisoner swap, we've got maria butina in the united states who is going to be sentenced shortly, and she's cooperating with the authorities at the moment, but she faces a prison sentence. the russians want her back. and there's a number of other prominent, sort of russians that are being held in u.s. prisons that i'm sure the russians would absolutely love to get back and may use paul whelan as some kind of negotiating chip in order to do that. the person that springs to mind to me is victor boot, one of the world's most notorious arms traffickers and serving a 25-year prison sentence in a u.s. jail. he's been dubbed the merchant of death. the russians sorely want that

individual back, and they've called his detention by the united states a hostage situation, as well. and so, i'm absolutely sure that some kind of prisoner exchange or swap in the future is what the kremlin may be thinking about. >> steve, do you agree with that? >> yeah, absolutely. and the victor boot example is a very good one. it could be somebody that putin is looking at. look, this guy's lawyer, whelan's lawyer, is the one who said himself that he's really intent on getting butina back. so there's no doubt as to what's going on here. the bottom line, anderson, until the united states of america, and until the rest of the west and the alliance that we have, not just nato but our western relationships, decide they're going to push back hard on vladamir putin and they're not going to put up with this stuff anymore, that they're not going to put up with hostage taking with arresting random americans and then holding out for somebody like victor boot or anybody else, butina, whoever it might be, he's going to keep doing this. and based on this

administration's relationship, comments, thoughts about vladamir putin and russia, i am not sanguine as to the likelihood this is going to end well for the united states, or perhaps for this american citizen who is being held by the way in a horrible prison. it's not a nice place, regardless of what this lawyer says. >> steve hall, appreciate it. matthew chance, as well. thanks. coming up. remember that fake movie poster that was sitting on the table in front of the president at his cabinet meeting? kellyanne conway was asked what it meant today. her answer just ahead. by that, i mean the "ridicu-list" is next. 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. -morning. -morning. -what do we got? -keep an eye on that branch. might get windy. have a good shift. fire pit. last use -- 0600. i'd stay close. morning. ♪ get ready to switch. protected by flo. should say, "protected by alan and jamie." -right? -should it? when you bundle home and auto... run, alan! ...you get more than just savings. you get 'round-the-clock protection.

time now for the ridiculist. last night we told you about the curious case of the fake movie poster in front of the president. at his cabinet meeting. it was a blownup version of a tweet he sent out in november with sanctions are coming in the game of thrones font. at the time it referred to sanctions against iran. the question was, why did someone now print out a poster sized version of that, and why did they set it on the desk yesterday directly in front of the president? luckily fox and friends was ready to get to the bottom of it.

with kellyanne conway today. >> what was with the poster on the table? >> that's just the president, sanctions are coming. i think the president is speaking for 95 minutes shows his transparency. and shows and he's always willing to have the press in the room. i talked to him last night after the situation room. he's willing to invite them all back. and perhaps let the cameras in. they can decide that. >> that didn't really clear it up. she continued to speak for 1:04 talking about transparency and how much time the president spends in the cabinet room and mitt romney, welcoming solutions. everything but the poster. we're going to pick up the stream of consciousness at the point where the fox and friends friends tried to get an answer. >> they need border security, they need more people at the border, steel slats, they need a wall. any number of measures. >> the poster just happened to be there, was it a message? i mean -- >> it was a message.

>> are sanctions coming november 4th? i'll let it speak for itself. and the president will maybe be asked about that later on? >> november 4th was -- it could be november 4th next year, i guess. i'll let that speak for itself. >> what could speak more for itself than a game of thrones ripoff two months ago. referring to sanctions and never being referred to. when you think about it it's clear as cofeffee. the white house explained that one with just as much. this is a true blast from the past. to the era of audio only we have to go back to the press briefings by the one and only sean spicer. >> do you think the people should be concerned the president posted an incoherent tweet last night and it stayed up for hours? >> no. >> why did it stay up for so long? is no one watching this? >> the president and a small

group of people knew exactly what he meant. blake? >> what does covfefe mean? >> what is covfefe? >> obviously there wasn't any small group of people who knew what that meant. just as that poster doesn't speak for itself. today something showed up on the president's instagram. the same knockoff with a new slogan the wall is coming. so is this the poster that should have been on the table yesterday and some intern or the acting chief of staff printed the wrong one. if it was the right one, is trump one of the white walkers or one of the night's watch guarding the wall. that hasn't been built. >> it couldn't be. john snow -- i guess we're going to have to hold our dragons and see what happens on the next installment of the ridiculist.

speaks for itself. the blue wave officially washing into the house. and president trump desperately trying to change the message. a whole new washington than it was today. we're live at the white house and capitol hill next. high blood pressure and cholesterol. but they might not be enough to protect my heart. adding bayer aspirin can further reduce the risk of another heart attack. because my second chance matters. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. who doesni do.ve a deal? check out the united explorer card. savin' on this! savin' on this! savin' in here. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com.

guess what day it is! gueshuh...anybody?is?? julie! hey... guess what day it is?? ah come on, i know you can hear me. mike mike mike...mike what day is it mike? ha ha! leslie, guess what today is? it's hump day. whoot whoot! ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? i'd say happier than a camel on wednesday. hump day!!!! yay!! get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. walking a dog can add thouswalking this many?our day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move. it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now during our lowest prices of the season. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it can even warm your feet to help you fall asleep faster. so you wake up ready to make your resolutions, reality. sleep number is ranked #1 in customer satisfaction

with mattresses by j.d. power. it's the final days of the lowest prices of the season. the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed is only $1299. ends sunday. sleep number. proven, quality sleep. they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!

chris cuomo is off tonight. there's breaking news, the newly democratic controlled house of representatives is getting ready to vote on legislation to end the government shutdown. it will not include funding for the president's wall, the white house has already threatened to veto it. however, it could become the opening position in negotiations between the president and democrats who now for the first time hold a share of the power and a portion of the responsibility for what happens on this and anything else that really matters. breaking news coverage at both ends. of