nights 6:25 eastern facebook/anderson cooper. i want to hand it over to chris cuomo for "prime time." >> hey, i am andrew cuomo. and this is "prime time." is mueller is looking at misleading public statements to those to the press as proof of obstruction of justice as was just reported the president of the united states has trouble. we have two men who know the law and how to prosecute obstruction cases for the government. and they're here for cuomo's court. and to tackle the meeting between mueller and one of trump's campaign pollsters. how big a deal is it that manafort gave polling to a connected russian. plus the big news that michael cohen, the president's personal lawyer is going before congress and mueller said he's free to talk about whatever they want. and another big headline, the president now saying he will almost definitely declare a national emergency to build more

wall. here's the big question. where will he get the money? wait until you hear where and whom he may take it from. a big night. let's get after it. [ music playing ] >> all right. we learn that the mueller report is already in the process of being written and a potential battle is already brewing before the probe even wraps up about how public that report may become. cnn sources say the special counsel has been reviewing the president's changing stories as well as conflicting statements by his team as a possible way to show corrupt intent in an obstruction probe. has there been an effort to influence witness and obstruct justice through misleading statements? here's what he said about his dealings with russia. the president. >> i have no dealings with

russia. i have no deals in russia. i have no deals that could happen in russia. because we've stayed away. we had a position to possibly do a deal to build a building of some kind in moscow. i decided not to do it. >> inconsistent? yep. misleading? yep. proof of obstruction? i never would have said yes until what was reported today. if mueller sees it that way, what will he say? >> regardless of recommendation, i was going to fire comey knowing there was no good time to do it. and, in fact. when i decided to just do it i said to myself, i said, you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made-up story. it's an excuse by the democrats for having lost an election that they should have won. >> now, remember in context. he said publicly before that, no, it was rosenstein that gave me the memo. that's why we did it.

a few days after the tweet on your screen. i never fired james comey because of russia. inconsistent. misleading. meanwhile, mueller is giving michael cohen the green light to testify before congress next month and he says he's glad to. in public for the first time since gliching on president trump, who tried to play off if t news today as no big deal. >> are you worried about this? >> no. >> cohen implicated his client if federal crimes. the president says he may not be worried him should he be 1234 what else might we learn from his former lawyer? tonight we have foshler acting solicitor general walter dillinger and john malcolm, former deputy assistant attorney general. gentleman, perfect night for both of you. thank you for being available. walter, let me start with you. the idea of public statements being taken seriously by the mueller probe as proof of intent

to obstruct. do you buy it? >> well, sure, of course, a public statement can be a part of the everyday. you know the president's allies pick up bits and pieces that they apparently learn from witnesses who are asked questions and russia out and say that mueller's got to prosecute the president for one statement or another or for firing comey. >> that is not going to be the case. if he makes a calls for obstruction of just nice, it will have many, many elements before mueller would go forward. if the president says, publicly, i will pardon anybody who will agree to testify falsely, that, of course. is a of an element that can be used. we don't know if anything he did say would be in itself a basis for a pros skuchlths if a

president or anyone else makes false public statements. >> that is one piece of evidence. it doesn't establish criminality. it's not the elements of a crime. but before we go running off worried about it. i think it's one piece. it's a perfectly acceptable piece of evidence. >> a piece of evidence. john, i would have pushed back harder on it. the team sent me history that ken starr, which i had forgotten, had put it to then president bill clinton about a tie he was wearing that supposedly they were talking to monica lewinsky, he was talking to them as whether or not he had been using it as a public signal. so if they were going to take that kind of public gesture seriously, why wouldn't mueller make real statements on material matters from his probe. >> any statement or action that the president takes, spoken,

jesstural, it may have significance to somebody, can be probative of somebody's intent. public statements by themselves would certainly not support an obstruction of justice. >> right. >> charge of anything. >> that's the worst part of it, john, are you bringing it up if they use it as evidence of probative intent, that's a whole charge the, you believe that's what it can go to. >> i don't want how close or away bob mueller is ar any other charge against donald trump. however the way you prove intent is by people's actions and statements. >> right. that's why we see, walter, his lawyers have always pushed back on this as obstruction by tweet. give me a break given this reporting. it's not just what the president said about relevant mats. it's how he rewarded people and

condemned people for testifying of those kwik critical of them. >> i think it's important to have concrete proof when the president exercises his constitutional powers. we would agree of a concrete you wouldn't want to surmise a constitutional authority like this charging a cabinet member or pardoning someone but if you've got that prove, if a president says, here's my plan to obstruct justice to this allies, and it's on tape, i think you can use those statements. >> let me ask you, something, john. we also find out that mueller met with one of trump's pollsters.

a guy fab brifabritsio. he says manafort shared polling data. we must surmise, we weren't talking about a quinnipiac poll. it was proprietary stuff that has connection with russian intelligence and mueller's meeting with that pollster. he takes it seriously. do you believe this is proof of collusion? >> i certainly don't think any of it is proof of collusion. it suggested internal polling data has been turned over to russian businessman. >> what's the proof. >> you need to explain the actions and why was manafort turning over that information. did donald trump know about any of this? i mean, paul manafort has all sorts of reasons for his own personal gain to provide information to konstantin kilimnik and russian ol gas, and

been paid tens of millions for years. saying here it is i am writing a campaign he is feathering his own nest as well. i don't know the other evidence. i wouldn't want to speculate as to what he has. so it's suggestive. it's a tantalizing tidbit. it's hardly proof of collusion of any time between the trump campaign and particularly donald trump and the russian government. >> on the side of maybe it's not as big a deal as people have, well, mueller didn't charge him with it. truly it's his declarations as well, what he declines to pros skupt. he didn't charge him with this. there is what we know john is leaving out. when they change that plank and the party platform at the convention, it made no sense to us until we learned about these things and that's not something

that manafort could have done by himself or did do by himself. because the reporting is clear. when the original plank came out, trump people from the campaign were reportedly in the meeting, rejected it, scripted new language and got it passed. relevance. >> yeah, chris, here's what's relevant about cnn's reporting on the manafort polling data. we now have information that would suggest that kroord nation with both ways. >> that is to say, russian lawyer close to vladimir putin in the june meeting at the trump towers, providing information, offering to provide information to the trump campaign. now we have the trump campaign manager providing sensitive internal data back to the russians. so the idea that there has been no collusion, so it's getting

more afraid and we're down to the two remaining questions sean suggested, which are what did the president know and when did he know it? >> and that convention, we will hear more about it. it's not something manafort could have done all by himself. then the last big headline tonight. michael cohen given the green light by mueller to talk about whatever the hell he wants to. he is only too happy to oblige. he will go before the senate judiciary committee. the house intel. schiff said it would be closed. now mueller gave the green light so they could both be push lick, level of concern if you are the president or one of his attorneys. john. >> i want to go on the record, i don't agree with everything that john said about the establishment of collusion. with respect to michael, cohen, i would be surprised mueller told him he can testify. whether he will allow him to speak freely about trump hotel russia. i suspect we will hear an awful

lot about stormy daniels and karen mcdougal and perhaps other dealings when he was donald trump's so-called fixer. we'll hear what he has to say. he has been locked down he's hardly an untainted witness. he's pled guilty to lying, including lying before congress. he is cooperating on some matters, presumably, there are other illegal conduct he didn't feel like sharing with prosecuto prosecutors. she damaged goods. >> she was damaged goods until he wasn't. right? mueller came forward, he's told the truth to us. he's been helpful to us. many men have different facets to them. we'll see what is said by michael cohen and what can be demonstrated as true. walter, john, you guys were so helpful on a night when we needed it. thank you, both. >> good to be with you. >> the president did his nice photo op at the border, day 20

of a shutdown. it was on the verge of a longest we've ever had. we were on the verge, according to president, kind of of his declaring a national emergency to build the wall. we keep hearing this phrase, what does it mean and how will it work? there are some big questions and i got them laid out for you next. 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, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

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.

[[clap, clap]] ♪ hey, jen, which tie says, "trustworthy but also fun"? gold down, oil up. oil down, gold up. this is too busy. we need to make sure people can actually use this stuff. which one says, "hours of free live streaming coverage without cable or subscription fees"? aluminum, aluminum? you ready, zack? oh, we're ready. welcome to the show. let's make finance make sense. ♪ . >> all right. just so we have the latest reporting. the president just said in an interview i can't think of any reason why i wouldn't declare a national emergency with respect to the border if we can't get a deal done. it is kind of different of what he was saying. he says i am 100% and there seems to be no deal to be made. the self professed greatest deal

maker we had as president as he told us has once again gone nowhere, according to congress. declaring a national emergency may be the best option for more wall as he sees it. take a listen to this. >> i haven't done it yet. i may do it. if this doesn't work out, probably i will do it. i will almost say definitely. >> probably. almost delaware like so much that comes out of the white house. it's instinctive and feel and the border visit, more hype and planning. the only part is declaring an emergency would be a slam dunk. >> i have the absolute right to declare an emergency. i have the absolute right to declare a national emergency. this is a thing that the lawyers tell me is 100%.

the lawyers tell me 100%. >> do they? would a lawyer tell him it's 100%? why? two problems. the law here is the 1976 national emergencies act. all right. it does create a low bar for declaring an emergency. but the president still has to make a case. because the president keeps getting caught on misleading the border. the white house is rushing everybody in front of a kamerata make the case for him. >> this is a crisis. >> a crisis often our southern border. >> we have a national crisis. >> undeniable. crisis at our southern border. >> it is a crisis. >> we have a national crisis. >> there is a tremendous crisis at the border. >> crisis is all the people living in abject poverty on the other side of the border. that's not what he's talking about. there can certainly be a

problem. there is latitude for a president in that regard. there has been a test of this. it was of a big one back in the korean war. he was backed down for privatizing the steal case, the court said his power grab was a job for the national law makers, not the commander in chief. could that come in play here, maybe. i don't think the challenge is legal. i think the real problem is where the president will get money for his law. he is looking at siphoning defense department disaster recovery money. what does that 19? i will layout some of the places that congress has appropriated money but it hasn't been used. but it's been appropriated for really serious things. people who desperately need

help. so the president can fulfill his farcical promise of a wall on the backs of people you will not believe. that's coming up. if communities are cheated. there will be a legal challenge. from congress, those communities, that will take us to the supreme court. that's where trump's biggest victory could be his problem. >> that newly cemented majority, they are big fans of the president's powers. he may be undercutting his own legal argument about the urgency when he says he prefers to work with congress. how will the supreme court hear that? after all, emergency powers are designed to be use when it's so urgent the president doesn't have time to do anything else. here, that is clearly not the case. so those are facts for you. here's another one. the shutdown has to end.

should the president do it or should he go around congress? right for a break debate. we will have it next.

all right. here's the state of play. the president says i want 5 point whatever billion for the wall. the democrats say, no, we're not giving you that money. now he's saying maybe i'll declare a national emergency. i say maybe then. he is much less definitive than that. maybe he's all over the place because he's thinking it through in real time. can he do it? probably. should he do it? that's a great starting point

for a great debate. jennifer granholm and rich santorum. glad to have you both. jennifer, do you think the president should declare a national emergency? >> no, of course not. i mean there isn't a national emergency. >> you get the government back opened if he does it. >> that's an emergency. that's an emergency of his making. >> i'm sorry if he declares a national emergency, jen, you'd probably get the shutdown over like that. >> you declare a national emergency and set a precedent and say every time the president doesn't get his way, he can go around congress. can you image finance a democratic president said, hey, we have a national emergency on gun violence. i want to appropriate a bunch of money to chicago. we have a national emergency on climate change or health care. >> that is such a terrible precedent and none of the national emergencies that have been declared since the act that you described in 1976 have been

about anything like this, going around congress because the president doesn't get his way. terribly dangerous. >> rick. >> i love those words of jennifer, the president going around congress to get his way. >> you were thinking daca. >> i'm thinking daca. the president got slammed down. >> that was a national emergency act. >> it's the same idea. the president couldn't get his way. i opposed the president doing it. i'm not comfortable with the president declaring this. there is actually much more as chris said, much more legal framework supporting the president's ability to declare a national emergency than what president obama did with daca. there is a statute that givers broad authority. >> they're not apples to apples. >> it's the same tenets. >> that if the president gets it his way, i'll do something -- >> you don't like it. >> no, i don't. i don't like it and i don't like it not because -- in part, because of the whole presidential powers, but secondly, i don't like it

because i don't think that gets you where you want to go politically. i think that facing down the congress and getting nancy pelosi to come together and to get a deal, he's a deal maker. he should put a deal on the table and if nancy pelosi does what she did yesterday is say no money, absolutely under no circumstances. she's in an untenable position. you can't continue to say i won't give anything when even members of her party say fencing is an integral part of this whole border security. >> she's not saying i won't give you anything. let's turn to the facts. >> to give no money for a fence. >> no, she's saying i'm not giving 5 point whatever billion. they had a deal, let's call wit schumer and pence. nobody is allowed to negotiate except the president because he went bad on that deal and anything else he didn't like at the moment. >> a fence or a wall. >> i am told that is not accurate. there is money that can go for ballard fencing.

what they don't want is the amount and to reward the president for a farcic am promise. let's see if we can agree on facts here. there was a big part of the promise which is who was going to pay for it? the president said today, you guys are taking me way too literally on mexico paying. i didn't say what you think i said. here's his statement today. >> when i say mexico is going to pay for the wall. that's what i said. mexico is going to pay. i didn't say they were going to write mae check for 20 become or 10 billion. i said they're going to pay for the wall. >> now the facts matter on this. here is the proof that he is completely off on this. >> we will build a wall. you know who is going to pay for the wall? mexico. they're going to pay for it whogoing to pay for the wall? >> mexico. >> who? >> mexico. >> by the way, 100%. >> you know the politician say they'll never pay. 100%. they're not going to write us a

check. in one way or another. >> i want you to know, rick, he's ruined the phrase 100% for me and my kid. my 13-year-old got 100 on a quiz. he actually asked me, if it's a good grade. this is where we are. the point is, we'll remember the argument about remittances and the two-page memo from trump. he said he was going to cut him a check for $5 billion. i want people to remember. i don't think it has ever come from dhs or cbp or anybody. i think it came from the lighthouse. i don't think anybody ever gave it to him. he did say they're going to pay for it. as a matter of fact, rick, shouldn't he own that? >> look. when he did this campaign thing saying mexico was to pay for the walk. i chuck him. to me, this was just you know puffery and trying to rally the troops. but i never thought that mexico was going to pay for the wall. >> i know, most off know it was

bs. >> who even shouted mexico. it was just you know. >> it got. elected. >> it is the bravado that is donald trump. >> it got him elected. shouldn't he have to promise. >> his bravado got him elected. not mexico paying. he did say that. he is not consistent with what he said during the campaign. but i didn't take him serious during the campaign. i don't think most people did. >> they elected him. >> jennifer. we need the wall, jennifer, as a matter of fact. >> i said this is the lead that he was saying this. >> what he says matters. you know, the expression he has. i consider that just words. what? so he said today, as a matter of fact, we need the wall because it will stop the illegal drugs. jennifer, you know dam well that the mark -- the over welling majority of illegal drugs come into this country through ports of entry in vehicles. >> right. >> not on illegal entries across the southern border. is that something that you think will matter in this debate down

the road? >> he is certainly making this case. he is trying to put this. lindsey graham tonight put out a statement saying the president should have a national emergency. i think he was setting the president up for this i think the president will declare it and will try to use the opioid epidemic and the drug coming in through mexico as -- it is an epidemic. the point is does the wall fix that problem? a wall is the least effective way of addressing it because they're all coming through ports of entry. by the way, chris. the fact that only six people only, six came through mexico who were on the terror watch list and seven times that many came through canada and double the amount of canadian visa extensions, who come through, by the way, ports of entry as well are in the united states, more than mexico, why are we just talking about the southern

border, i say that as a canadian, not that i want to build a wall. >> it's your country, jennifer. >> i'm saying the point is that this is a fake crisis, that he is manufacturing. the democrats are willing to shore up border security in a smart way. and what he is putting out there is merely this campaign promise blatter that he cannot get from his own party when they were in control fully, he's not going to get it from the democrats. the democrats and i think the republicans want to do something smart. >> let's leave it there with both of you. rick, jennifer, well argued and thank you. house democrats have just made their first major move to investigate the president now on their watch and power in congress. they're calling michael cohen, his former personal lawyer to testify and he says i'll do it and i want to do it in public and they say great but we have to talk to mueller and mueller says talk about whatever you want, kid. it's a big move. and we have some big

investigative minds to tell us where it could lead us next. well, one mind. ♪ just got a job as a lifeguard in savannah ♪ ♪ i'm 85 and i wanna go home ♪ [ding] [boxing bell ding] [applause] about 50% of people with evesevere asthma k? have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your

face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

. president trump says he's not worried at all about what michael cohen has to say. congress, however, is very anxious to talk to him. he was the man's personal attorney for many years, privy to the machinations of trump's inner circle and automatic moments that mueller is mulling over. how big a deal? phil mudd and michael isikov joins me. >> why would i care what you said. >> i thought it was funny. you gave me the gas face. >> a greater mind is what you meant to say. >> i did. so, the import of cohen going before congress. two schools of thought. phil, one is, well, you know, we know what he knows already. that's why mueller is letting him talk. do you subscribe to that? >> i sort of do. look, i think there is two courts here. someone a court of law. one is a court of public

opinion. there is snow way a cooperating witness mueller declared has been completely cooperating is going to go in front of the congress in a public forum and say something different. chris i think the significant piece of this is the american people will get a significant picture. i don't think it relates to the legal part of this. i think it relates to michael cohen and say, wow, this is the amount of dirt he saw and is willing to talk about. the story is public. its not a sort of federal court. >> i think you are 100% right that's what makes it scary, this will come down reflective of the court of political opinion. how big a deal could michael cohen be? >> a huge deal. look. this is a the first time we will

have from a major fact witness. all the hearings so far conducted have been behind closed doors it's going to be and there is so much you can testify about. let's start with the campaign finance stuff is trump immersed him. >> according to his lawyer. in 2017, those were debts to cohen that were not reported on the president's financial disclosure form. the nature of those payments, themselves, they were made in the closing days of the election what were the conversations that trump and cohen had about making those payments?

was it explicitly about silencing stormy daniels in the campaign. if it was something ambiguous, the president may have ap campaign hatch. >> mueller says the man is credible and helpful and he is 100% motivated not to lie and this dovetails at the same time we find out today, phil, mueller is looking at statements of potential proof of obstruction or probative of his intent to obstruct. those who things go together rather nicely at this particular time, no? >> they do. i think we need to look at two different baskets. we started down this path with a question whether the president or his associate d has had inappropriate things about that.

there is a question, whether people involved in the campaign for the president, including the president, himself, are truthful. i think that's where cohen is critical. this is not going to be a question about rmpblt it's going to be a conversation about whether there is credible information from the president's lawyer about whether he is a liar and i will suggest to you regardless of what you think about michael cohen. you will think the president is dirty. that's a half a step of saying the president or his pain are dirty. >> you start out reading chairman cummings statement today. he said he intends to consult with mueller's office. so he can ask russia questions and i think it's critical that they do and it's critical for the american public to hear the answers at this point. you know, i was talking before about the campaign finance

issues and the disclosure. look. there is also the trump tower moscow project. which cohen has pled guilty to lying about. something he was pursuing with a kremlin official during the campaign. the details of that, you know, are so critical. what were those conversations. >> he said he worked with members of the administration and figuring out what people said to members of congress. >> look. just to point out, he has testified to mueller. he has told mueller everything he's got to say. if mueller needed him for some future case down the road down the road, they never would have never gone to sentencing. anything with russia from the american public. >> but when we find out, who knew and who were the people who

helped him get that plank changed during the convention, because it is an echo effect of what he was talking with his russian buddies ability. that's going to go to the depth of this campaign and who knew what manafort was up to and who helped him. >> chris, it's a rare moment. i'm half a step away from agreeing with you. write this down in the bad book. look, people are not paying attention to this. we're dealing with the question of whether the campaign cooperated inappropriately and potentially illegally with people affiliated with russian intelligence. have you the campaign manager who is in debt to some of those people, passing information about that campaign. in this case, private polling information to people who were paying him. why did he pass that information, chris? because he wanted to? or because he thought those people could use that information to, to influence the american political campaign. chris, let me cut to the chase. >> please. >> we have half a step finding

somebody close to the campaign cooperated with a foreign service or somebody affiliateed with a foreign service to effect american political campaign. can you get bigger than that? >> i agree with you. i think this matters and the truth will come out sooner than later. >> phil, mike. thank you, gentleman. you made us smarter tonight. i appreciate it. >> all right. big quote. we can't restore our civilization with someone else's babies. when was that, the '50s? nope. the words of the united states congressmen who later told me, he meant exactly what he said. . >> steve king, views on race are now main stream within his party. he was reporting from today that a sitting congressman said, you won't believe. nex

next. to new heights?our next vacation tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental! read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward.

so house republican leader kevin mccarthy is calling out one of his own tonight saying congressman steve king's language is quote reckless, wrong and has no place in our society. what's he talking about? there was an interview king gave to the "new york times". it came out today, where he was asked, white nationalists, white supremacists, western civilization. how did that language become offensive? that's what he said. he added, why did i sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization? i got go problems with this. first of all, steve king, i have interviewed him many times afternoon, congressman from iowa. he is welcome on the show to defend these comments. i made the invitation several times. it remains opened. mccarthy says it has no place in

our society. i agreement it has a place in his party. steve king took over in that party some years ago with this fringe talk is not fringe anymore. the president calls himself a nationalist. >> yep. yep. >> good people were down there, too. marching. >> fine people on both side. let me see, chris, you are such a racist. you are such a racist, man. i know you are not. i'm doing that to prove a point because that's what people say on who believe in that when we point out the racism in our society. and we point out the racism in culture. by the way, i know you are not. so if someone uses this clip to say i'm calling you. >> too late. you know what i'm saying. >> look. kevin mccarthy, not kevin mccarthy. representative steve king has a long history of this. as a matter of fact this whole border wall thing is exactly -- he's exactly where the president got this idea from. >> sure. >> proprietary? >> it all came from him. he has said many controversial things when it comes to race.

some of it gone -- have gone -- has gone unchecked in the republican party. i think it's -- i think it's great. >> we're not going to maintain our civilization with someone else's math. it's not math to somebody else when you are a melting pot. >> the only people we can say, look, native americans can call us somebody else. we all came over here after them. if anyone has any priority to have, to actually claim that america is theirs, it's the native americans. but i think it's great he is being called up by kevin mccarthy. but i think people need to send ut more than a statement, a tweet. i think they need to act upon it. i think there needs to be some sort of censure, so the party can show they're not standing for this they get lip service and the next person does it. they get lip service. they know they sister to say it.

but do you mean snit. >> that's the problem. mccarthy knows. the leadership knows they have to say something. what was steven king's defense? he said, hey, i don't like what those words mean. whatever, they were his because he is now able to stand under the arms of the president of the united states who calls himself the same damndable thing. that's the problem. you say stupid things like that, you give cover to people who believe it, in a way that makes it a reality. that's what we're dealing with. again, maybe i have it wrong. the congress is welcome on the show to make his own case. >> welcome to come on. there's one group that said, i was looking for the quote, that said basically he had become -- >> a white supremacist. >> a white supremacist. yeah. he'd become openly racist. >> the guy's name is angelin. he's part of the white supremacist group and said, he's taking us mainstream, thanks. i got to jump, don.

>> i got to tell you what's on, real quick. >> hurry up. >> a member of congress is going to in front of them. you want to hear what he has to say, trust me. >> 100%. >> see ya. tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of federal workers are going to feel the pain in a very real way. tomorrow is the first pay cycle since the shutdown. so there will be no check and people will now be existing on their savings if they have it. n by the president could potentially end the shutdown. where will he get the money for the wall? i can't even believe he would consider what i'm about to show you. next. from l'oréal paris.ra voluptuous volume. intense length. feathery-soft lashes. this is what paradise looks like. lash paradise mascara from l'oréal paris. take your lashes to paradise. for a nasty cold, take new dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. [a capella] whoa! and vaporize it with an intense rush of vicks vapors.

[a capella] ahhhhhhhhhh! new dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. i'm 85 years old in a job where. i have to wear a giant hot dog suit.

what? where's that coming from? i don't know. i started my 401k early, i diversified... i'm not a big spender. sounds like you're doing a lot. but i still feel like i'm not gonna have enough for retirement. like there's something else i should be doing. with the right conversation, you might find you're doing okay. so, no hot dog suit? not unless you want to. no. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade®.

amazon prime video so when you say words like... show me best of prime video into this... you'll see awesome stuff like this.

discover prime originals like the emmy-winning the marvelous mrs. maisel... tom clancy's jack ryan... and the man in the high castle. all in the same place as your live tv. its all included with your amazon prime membership. that's how xfinity makes tv... simple. easy. awesome. all right. so let's say the president declares a national emergency. likely, some kind of legal battle then occurs. whatever the outcome, the real problem will then be in the president's lap. how to pay for his wall. i put it in quotes because you know what i think. the wall's a farce. he keeps making it more and more like the bollard fencing that's already there and saying, look, my wall is being built. he never intended to do this, in a race he never intended to win.

now he thinks he has to make good on it. the hype has come back to haunt. here's the scary thing. while the president may be fumbling with this idea of an emergency, he does seem to have an idea about how to pay. and his idea is really problematic. >> if we don't make a deal, i mean, i would say 100%, but i don't want to say 100% because maybe something else comes up. but if we don't make a deal, i would say it would be very surprising to me that i would not declare a national emergency and just fund it through the various mechanisms. >> forget about all the other stuff. mechanisms? what does that mean? reportedly, it means title 10 of the u.s. code. it says in part that the pentagon can perform construction projects under a declared emergency, but they may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction and have not been obligated. what does that mean? it means there are billions for disaster recovery projects that haven't been paid for yet.

so that money is there. but communities in more than a dozen states were promised that money. lots and lots of people's jobs and their day-to-day realities in their communities are counting on that. like what? some pork public works boondoggle? no, six projects in puerto rico devastated by hurricane maria. you know that. projects to protect infrastructure there from flooding again. several projects in texas could be at risk including billions for levees and seawalls, the only way they can protect and fix and help communities before another harvey happens. levees in mississippi, dams in california, fire protection in california. dozens of projects in florida aimed at hardening what was destroyed in the past year. all those are projects that are easy pickings, let's say, but if the administration opts to strip money from projects that are already under military contract but not paid for, they're

vulnerable, too, and there are billions more there that he could get and going to need it to fulfill the amount of wall he says he needs to build. what loses there? fire station at quantico. child development center at joint base andrews. improvements to navy s.e.a.l. combat training facilities. who knows if he takes that money if congress would probably more funds to save those projects? and who knows if that something the president even gives a damn about. is it unfair for me to stay he doesn't give a damn? no. because if he's considering taking money from these people, and he is, if he really isn't worried about the shutdown because someone told him many of the affected workers are democrats then he doesn't care about their welfare. he doesn't give a damn. let's be clear. the president is already doing all of this for a farcical wall that will never be built. all that would happen she wouis

would use all this money to fulfill the requirements dhs laid out for where they need bollard fencing and other technology. there is no trump wall. there never was going to be. there never will be. now, he might raid these other projects to get the money to convince people that he did something big. sure, he could do that. that would be the president putting his political future before the safety of you and your family. why? because a wall no matter what he wants to build is not a cure-all. how? the overwhelming majority of terrorists, drugs, and illegal entrants, don't come across the southern border on foot. he is sacrificing all the other begged for fixes by those who keep us safe, putting all of his effort into this wall, a wall he made up as a stunt during the election. you have to understand that. that's why he focuses on the wall. because he thinks it's good for him. he knows it's not a cure-all.

how do i know he knows it? he's been told that. don't question his intelligence. question his motivations. question his ability to tell you the truth about why he's doing things. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. >> did you watch the photo-op today? >> i did. >> and what'd you think? >> i thought that was a nice white hat he had on. i also thought that, look, i don't like him putting the men and women who are doing that job of keeping us safe in this position. >> right. >> putting all those bags of drugs, they're all now forced to support a farce. the drugs don't come across the border on foot in any major way. the tunnels that i had to walk in that el chapo documentary, those are real, but most come through the ports of entry in vehicles. he doesn't talk about the x-ray equipment the way he talks about the wall because he doesn't give a damn about the dr