this town. >> i mean, there's a tweet and a commercial for everything. he even knows grimmace, where is he these days. it's like they say, life comes at you fast, fast food comes at you faster and you can always have your way on the ridiculist, special orders do not upset us and that is it for us, the news continues, i want to and it to chris for cuomo prime time. >> very strong. thank you, anderson, nice outfit. i'm chris cuomo, welcome to primetime. robert mueller has just dropped a new filing, evidence of paul manafort's lies after agreeing to cooperate. cuomo's court on what it confirms and what it conceals and what we can read between the redactions. and all eyes were fixed on one man in washington today, the man had who could soon take charge of the mueller probe.

will bill barr product the president who tapped him for the job or the integrity of the special council's probe. did his answers satisfy anxious democrats. we will go one on one with a member of the senate judiciary committee next and the house stood as one against steve king. in fact, even a congressman, himself, threw in a vote to condemn his own racist remarks. where is the president our closing today is about a deaf deafening silence. what do you say? let's get after it. look at the size of this the pa baby, another fat filing filled with reasons that the mueller team believes that manafort was up to no good while heading up the trump campaign. not just before, and not in his past life, then. another bunch of redactions, no question about it. sends the unsettle message that this information is sensitive, and that the investigation is

not over. coombs on the same day that manafort's partner, rick gates had his sentencing delayed for a couple of months. and on the same day, of course, president trump's attorney general pick fielded questions about the special council, he may soon oversee. if the president was watching, he might not have liked some of his answers. do you trust him to be fair to the president and the country as a whole? >> yes. >> when his report comes to you, will you share it with us as much as possible? >> consistent with regulations and the law, yes. >> do you believe mr. mueller would be involved in a witch hunt against anybody? >> i don't believe mr. mueller would be involved in a witch hunt. >> all right had, so, fair to mueller, but sandwiched in the middle there, that consistent with the laws about transparency, it's a red flag. no matter your partisan transcribe, mr. barr did not fully commit to publically releasing the full mueller report. senate judiciary committee

member of rhode island was of there today, he is a former state ag and a former u.s. attorney. perfect guest for tonight. senator, thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you. >> well, another day, another filing by mueller. this one thickening out of the basis of proof for the allegations they have made against paul manafort, this comes from jeffrey wiland, a member of the team, 31 pages and heavily redacted. but clearly they believe they have sum and substance that backs up their allegations. >> krkt. . and the conclusions that one might draw from the extent of the redacted information is that despite a certain amount of chatter in the press about how this is an investigation that is coming to its end and that it's wrapping up and all that, there seems to be an awful lot going on, and one reason you redact things is so that people under

investigation don't know what you are saying about them and if you mix it in with the rick gates investigation statement that he is still cooperating in multiple ongoing criminal investigations, i think it suggests what at least i believe is that the mueller investigation is chugging along and it's no immediate end in site. >> and for people catching up knot news of the day. gate -- catching up to the news of the day. gates sentencing is delayed two months. it's interesting that it comes out with the proof against manafort the same day they push off his partners sentencing. another coincidence. what do you make of the fact that the places that the trump campaign targeted online, wound up becoming, being very similar to where the russian troll farms targeted online? >> well, it could be coincidence, could be coordination. could be collusion. we don't have enough information

yet to be seen. i think the other thing worth looking at and that i'm waiting for a shoe to drop in the mueller investigation is, the plank in the republican party platform for lethal aid to the ukrainian army against the russians and the change that manafort made as trump's political director to the republican party platform against the wishes of a lot of hawkish republicans. and it seems improbable to me that that change pro russia, in the party platform by manafort would not be, should we say, a matter for mueller's scrutiny. so, until some shoe has dropped on that, i think there's another open thread and again, too early to say that this investigation is coming to a conclusion. >> and look, and just for people who did not take the time to google you yet, you understand prosecution and how cases are made. the idea that manafort had nothing to do with changing the

platform and that it was only done because the language was too strong and it was untraditional for any party platform. you do not buy it as a rationale? >> i don't think it's credible. i think paul manafort is one of the more transactional people on the planet. and the idea that this was done with no quid pro quo seems highly, highly, highly improbable. and because it pushed against, strong, strong republican pressure from folks like john mccain, the previous presidential candidate that we needed to up our game for the ukrainian army against the russian little green men, seems improbable that there was not some very significant counter pressure to make it happen. the problem with the allegations is that it was hard for him to do it alone. we know a party platform was not changed by one person. there's committees and votes and delegates and all that. and he had to get the polling data from somewhere. someone had to know he had it and it leads to who knew what and when.

is that your sensitivity herer? >> i think that is, that is very much the case. we are seeing individual data points in a lot of the charges and in a lot of the pleadings and how they go together and what the conversations behind them were. that was the stuff out of which collusion gets drawn. and look, 31 pages, a declaration on such a narrow scope of allegations. there's a lot, a lot of time spent in, a lot of it is blacked out and redacted, it's about his meetings and transactions during the campaign. and not just the funny money business before. >> correct. >> so, let's shift to the other big topic of the day, what did you think of william barr? >> well, i thought, he did a very good job in some respects. he was gruff, and can dade and he had said wonderful things with bob mueller, he expressed a clear determination to protect

the mueller investigation. denied that it could be a witch hunt if it had bob muellerer in charge. expressed his high personal confidence in bob mueller. that whole area of inquiry seemed to go very much in his direction. the difficult areas are would he release the mueller report, he was caged about what he would release and when had. the concerns about executive privilege. and how much the president would assert executive privilege over the mueller report and what he may then do to push back on it and then, he said that he would not likely to question the existing precedent within the department of justice that a sitting president cannot be indicted by the department of justice. so, it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. if you are the department of justice and you say, you cannot indict a president because of the policy, then a president never gets indicted and the proposition that you cannot

indict a sitting president never gets tested. so we have to look at ways to try to get the question before a court, so that it can be determined where questions of law get determined in the united states of america. that is in court, and not in the upper offices of the department of justice. quick follow on that, does your urgency and sensitivity to the issue, betray a sense that you think the president should be indicted? >> i think if there's crimes that he has committed, he should be indicted. i do not at all subscribe to the olc theory that a president can't be indicted. i think that the office of legal council and the department of justice bends over backwards to take the most executive branch friendly position that it possibly can. but, i think a court taking a look at this would say, no, no, no, no. and if you look at the nixon precedence and others, they don't align with a president not being answerable to the public in the way, and it would create

a terrible situation. you have a president who the public knows is the subject of criminal investigation and could be well involved in criminal activity and you do not get a rez lug resolution of the question? that doesn't seem like an appropriate way to deal with it. >> based on what you know right now, do you think you could bring a case against the president? >> i would want to know a lot more. i'm at the stage, paced d -- bd on what i do know, i would be sitting with the agents and saying, we need to run down that, and run down that, and pin down things before we go. we are in a mode, i believe, of moving toward inindictment and charges of the president. but i do not believe based on what i know, mueller may know more, that we are at the stage of actually being able to make the charge. >> do you think it's fair to say at this point, there's been no real point of collusion between the trump campaign and russian interferers? >> i would not say that. i would say there has been no

direct proof. i think that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that has piled on, that one perhaps could take to a jury. but, as a prosecutor, carrying the burden of persuasion, with reasonable doubt on the defendant's side, i would want to keep investigating and get direct are evidence of it. >> do you believe he needs to recuse himself to oversee his investigation if he were to get the job. >> yes, i think he has the chance to dispell that, with a clear factual, very thorough explanation of how it was prepared and with with whose participation and, when layout the timeline exactly and make sure it's completely clear and then, maybe, he could stand back from recusing himself, but while there's still questions, i think the safer bet is recusal. >> and the safe bet is that he would never do it if he gets in there will and gets to the

office. >> senator sheldon, thank you for your input on the two big stories. >> here's the question, who should be worried about the nominee, we will lay it out. his position and disposition, good or bad, we will set the bar for whom this new ag will help or hurt in the partisan battleground he is about to enter, next. looking good! at booking.com, we can't guarantee you'll good at that water jet thingy... but we can guarantee the best price on this hotel. or any accommodation, from homes to yurts. booking.com booking.yeah

they work together doing important stuff. the hitch? like you, your cells get hungry. feed them... with centrum® micronutrients. restoring your awesome... daily. feed your cells with centrum® micronutrients today.

sorry, is that too loud?oud. feed your cells with you don't need any more hormones in your house. that's why you chose kraft natural cheese. made with fresh milk without the added hormone rbst. it's cheese as it should be.

♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™ let's see how bill barr's answers match up to the president's wish list. mueller is supposed to do a summary report, of his prosecuteive and his declination decisions and they will be handled as a confidential

document. >> he said that trump's lawyers will not get to make corrections and the idea is to get as much information to you as possible. >> my goal and intent is to get as much information out as i can, consistent with the regulations. >> thank you. >> clearly the president would not have nominated barr if he said that he may recuse himself from the mueller probe, once bitten you get shy of a second sessions and barr said as much and he defended his memo of the obstruction part of the probe saying going after a president for bad intent could "essentially pa"essential ly paralyze the government," he warned about focusing too much on russia and while he sees no change or reason to change the policy preventing a president from being indicted, he opened the door to potus being subpoenaed. he said dangeling pardon ones in exchange for keeping quiet is thereat out illegal and maybe the biggest thing he said today, that he is loyal to the job and

the laws he discharges and not to any person. >> i am not going to do anything that i think is wrong. and i will not be bullied in to doing anything that i think is wrong. >> and what he clearly thinks is wrong, is bad mouthing bob mueller. barr was all about bob. glowing assess manies y ies shig assessments of the man and the job, and the need to leave him alone. >> mueller, you say you know him a long time, do you say you have a close relationship with mr. mueller? >> i would say, we are close friends. >> barr likes mueller and thinks you should get to learn from his findings and not in a rush to change the laws protecting the president and not the biggest fan of investigating him. he was thoughtful of about the why in terms of what he said. he has no political goals and ready to leave if he is

compromised. that is what matters most. lots of news. between barr's testimony and this mueller filing. let's sort out what matters and why, cuomo's court is had in session. session. next.w weekday win menu is here: five days. deals. for fifteen dollars get a different deal every weekday til six pm like endless shrimp monday admiral's feast tuesday four course feast wednesday and more. five days. five deals. fifteen dollars. see you before six.

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

new filings this evening from mueller's team, are giving more insight in the focus of the special council's investigation, and what he has got againstpresident trump's one-time campaign chairman, paul manafort, it's a 31 page memo. okay, it's a declaration from one of mueller's agents. it has as an appendix, 157 pages of exhibits. okay. and these are all the contracts and different interviews that back up what is in the 31 pages. manafort, has allegedly lied to federal prosecutors after agreeing to cooperate. what about? his contacts with kiliminik, this 125,000 wire transfer and statements about other doj

investigations. why all the lies? and what more is mueller planning to layout. obviously something, that is why we have all the redactions, let's get better mind on it. cuomo's court is in session. good to have you both here. all right, does everybody agree that redactions mean there's more to come, and maybe a touch of sensitive information for national security? so, let's talk about what it means to ooch -- to each of you. they spend time of the money he owed and what he was willing to pay to pay it off. and what he was doing while he was campaign chairman and how he lied about it. what do you read between the redactions? >> well, look, first of all, there's got to be some reason why manafort felt the need to lie, repeatedly to mueller and his team. that's not good for manafort and potentially the people he was working with. as you point out, he is also got a lot of contact, it appears

with mr. konstantine klimnik, a former russian intelligence officer, not a good thing for manafort. and i agree, it looks like there's a lot more to come, there's a lot more that we don't know than what we do know about mr. manafort and what he is under investigation for. >> jim, what gives you comfort in all this? >> not much. this is a real issue. i agree with most of what was said. we don't know what is coming but we know they are looking in to other issues and the fact that manafort was having the discussions with kliminik were certainly disturbing and troubling. there's a lot to come with manafort much. his lawyers are between a rock and a hard place, they don't want to admit he lied, but they fledged hearing to flush it out. >> it's for the campaign also. here is y two coincidences.

the first one, manafort, is talking to his buddies wiies ab what they want with the soviet and united states. we know that the trump team, made sure that the platform was changed in a way that was better for the russian perspective. how troubling is that to you? >> it's really troubling. because, potentially, it means that there was a policy shift. by a major party nominee and the question was, i think, is whether or not that is done in exchange for something of value. legally that is what the issue is. whether or not there's a quid pro quo, we don't have -- >> for it to be a crime. for it to be a crime of. >> my bar is never a crime. it's just about what was wrong, what should you not have done. and who knew. but i hear you about it being a felony. second piece of coincidence here. the places that much of the

trolling that was engineered by russians, the places and people they targeted, jimmy were some of the same places and people that internal polling for the trump campaign said he should focus on. >> coincidence? or troubling? >> well, look, they saw, clearly they saw the polling. and that is troublely that it went there. >> who is they? did they go back to the russian trolls? is it information that manafort handed out did it go that far? >> dushiisturbing if it did -- >> coordination by the campaign. >> they are trying to determine was manafort acting on his own or outside the scope of the role of campaign chairman, was he paying off old debts. we don't know the answers to the questions. one thing we know, he has not been charged with conspiracy, that leads to the conclusion. if her were charge e er -- if h that, the campaign itself may

have been involved. i don't think we are ready to take that leap at this point. >> true, it's about what questions are right are to be asking. i think all of us agree that nothing is out of speculation. herer is a question though that crosses over on both. the idea of them trying to relax sanctions in the white house on one of the russians who is part of the investigation who had has connects to manafort. jim, why do you do that now if you are this white house? >> look, i am sure, there's a process in place for all of that, so, to say that it's just, one group of individuals in the white house, you know, there's a national security team that looks in the issues. so -- >> why do it? why reduce the sanctions on any russian right now? >> i'm not a -- look, they are doing things in the interest -- we have to prezsume they are doing things in the interest of the country, they are not doing

it in association with the probe and the top particul-- and the e probe. there's no indication that these decisions have not been made appropriately. >> and i argue there's only been indications that the president has done things because of the probe. it's all about his best interests with the probe. so, why would anyone who wants to help the president try to push to reduce sanctions on a russian right now, you just had the senate knock it down. >> yeah, no, question, we had 57 senators bipartisan rebuke of that move, chris, and it doesn't, as an american, it the not make sense to mem, given tht russia attacked me. frankly the words and actions that came from the administration have not appeared to friendly. it's a concern to me. maybe as jim said, there's an

skplan explanation for it. >> i will pull my hair out and we will look like twins inside of two weeks. gentlemen, thank you for being on the show, appreciate your jean educat -- appreciate your genius as always. should the president take one for the workers and reopen the government and end the shutdown? should he say something about steve king. reaction to all of it for a monday who was in the middle of the last presidential election. ohio organer, john kasich next. ♪tryin' to hold back this feeling for so long♪ ♪and if you feel, like i feel baby then come on,♪ ♪oh come on let's get it on applebee's all you can eat is here.

now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. you've i like working.areer. what if my retirement plan is i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan. let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. ♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™ transitions™ presents four new colors style colors by transitions™

to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪ the best simple salad ever?d it's the most wonderful life on earth. great tasting, heart-healthy california walnuts. so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org.

once again, new information on our watch, in the last hour, the "new york times" reports that the white house's own economists are acknowledging the government shutdown's impact could be double the previoussts. the damage piling up is putting the u.s. economy at a isk a-- ey at a risk of contraction. ohio governor, welcome to the team, we are benefitted by your presence. >> so we can deal with the elephant in the many room, people want to know what he is

doing. as you know, i have had many years of experience. it's my job to try to explain things to people. i will not explain it from a particular perspective, just what i think. i will be like a umpire calling balls and strikes. and that is what i have been about my career. nobody will appreciate me and talk me in to -- nobody will pressure me and not talk me had in to anything. this is not promoting me, this is doing a job for cnn and helping people understand as best i can, the way things work on the inside and sometimes we will talk about stories that have nothing to do with politics that can give people some hope about what they can do to change the world as we have done on your show before. >> i like all of it. you are always welcome. >> let's get at it. >> let's get after it you have to get the expression. it's not go for it. it's let's get after it. >> all right. >> here's the first pitch, william barr, do you believe the american people can trust what he said today, he is independent

and he is loyal about the laws and integrity of those that he discharges. >> he did a good job from everything that i heard. i did not see the testimony, but i read a lot about it. the report has to come out. people want to know what is in it. if they monkey around with the record, people will not like it. he said that he does not need another job, he will not be bullied? >> do you trust him? >> i don't know him, but i don't have a reason to not trust him. he was raised under senior george bush. and there was quality people in that administration. i can't not imagine he will say one thing and do another. >> he would not have gotten a nomination if he said, look, i think you have trouble. i may have to recuse yourself of. >> the other side of it, maybe he did not need the job. maybe he felt a calling toward it. he did everything, he is like, i'm at the end of the career.

he is a young man, i don't know why he is saying that. you know, he said all the right things today. i think the democrats are going to, you know, hold his feet to the fire. probably has more testimony to go. >> he did not say that he would defend roe v. wade. i know we are mueller centric, but that was interesting for democrats. he said look, it's clear that roe v. wade is the law. and they said, would you defend it? and he sidestepped and said he had to figure something out. that is not our immediate concern now. you believe, you take him at his word until we have reason to feel differently. >> don't you? i don't know any other way to do it. i understand he has caveates in there. >> order narrowly ly-- ordinari yes, but i have never seen somebody in the game who can be trusted as little as the president can on things that matter. >> chris, i have people that walk up to me all the time, and they have looked at me as a

straight shooter. and they are of both political parties and besides themselves of the craziness that is happening much. like the shutdown. dragging on and on, and now the president's economic advisers are saying, it could slow the economy down. today, before i came to new york, i was exercising today and there was a identify yelling if another -- and there was a guy yelling a another guy, saying, do you know what it's like to not get paid. the banks -- this is real stuff. >> we have to reach out to the landlords and they have done nothing. when you say they have to get it done, do you think the president should take it for the workers. say, you want to stiff me on the money on the border fine, we will take it up in the next election, but i have to reopen the government. >> i believe they can make a deal and it should be this. you don't need to have a wall, but you have border security that the people wanted. the democrats can give him a little more money and then the president can say, all of these dream dreamers let them stay.

they didn't do anything wrong in getting here. >> he said it once and walked away from it. >> keep talking to him about it. because, the economic report is going to pressure him, and look, he is hanging on to his base, but at some point the base is going to say, i think they are going to say, do something. now, i heard a little -- a little birdie told me yesterday, that they suspect that he still may go back and call this a national emergency. then it goes in to the courts and then he said he tried and life moves on. i don't know if that is true. it would be better to get a little deal and that's what i think this has to end. how long will it go on? forever? >> well, look, it's looking like it will go weeks. it doesn't seem the pain of the people matters. and that is a mistake politically for both sides. but this is clearly being owned by trump right now, because he told the american people that. . mcconnell, shame on him for political malpractice or is he being a good boy? >> he should be fully engaged, if i was there, i would be

urging the leaders to send him something. let him veto it. it's why, when mitt romney wrote the op-ed piece and everyone got worked up. i would have probably written three by now. it's not your job to cal tail to anybody. . you have to respect leadership. but i was independent, remain an independent person. let's look at the problem and go fix it and here's another thing, chris. really, at the end, president needs to he lead. he just can't disrupt and disrupt and play politics and i don't care who the president is. the president has to lead, and he these be big enough to say, let's get this behind us. you know what? if he did, oh, there would be voices on the right that yell and scream, but at the end, he may be able to settle it and maybe he could think of expanding his base. because his base is not growing bigger. it's probably getting smaller. i don't understand this. i don't understand this, this mode of operating because it's not what people want. you are not solving problems.

that's why you are in office. to try to fix problems. >> and to lead. great and to lead. >> and that leads us to the last one. the steve king issue was a vet today on the floor of the house was unanimous mi. one guy did not vote for it, he felt it did not go far enough. he is in favor of it obviously, the spirit of it and steve king voted to declare racism something that was an outrage and. the president said nothing. here is my problem and why i will not let him go. steve king is not new, these thoughts are not original, right? the problem is leaders like you and people in the party shouted them down. keep your mouth shut of. you have your right to believe it, but keep your mouth shut. this president is saying nothing. that seis empowering more of th same. >> my problem is, our presidents need to be healers and set a

positive mood for the country. if you see something that divides us, you need to call it out. i mean, there's no other way to operate as far as i'm concerned. you want me to try to figure out how he is thinking? i don't know. >> it's what you are getting paid for. >> well, they are not paying me enough to get inside that head and try to figure that out. we have to switch seats. i was on the stage with him for a long, long time and i could never figure it all out. i will say, he represents a group of people that feel they have been neglected and instead of telling them they are victims, let's raise them up. and raise them up. and become heelers. >> i have so many people in my life, that devoted for the president, and support the president. they don't believe what steve king said and they don't want the nonsense to be revived. >> what they want is a good shake and a fair job, and. if you go and say to trump supporters, should we take kids

away from the parents at the borderer, they will say of course not. >> some will not, but most will say it. >> some will say shame on you for bringing them here. and we have those that said they are comparing i.c.e. for the kkk, it's a candidate for president, what do they want? open borders. that's not where democrats are, the majority of them. there's things that happen on either side and either party, and the politician ans have to get the act together and raise their game so they become, they answer people's problems. final thing, you know what people want to know, do you care about me? do you care about me? before you talk about all the political issues in the world, do you get me? do you care about me? will you mourn with he me and celebrate with me? that's the politics of the future and the people that do it, will be rewarded. >> this country is a matrix of minorities, when it comes to somebody like steve king. it resonates they need to hear the president say, i don't care

what people say about me, what he said was wrong, and people who think about that are ugly. >> the democrats of the country are changing. we are at more diverse country all the time. and if republicans want to be successful, they have to get with the issues that the folks care about and the democrats have to build a stronger message for 2020 then they just don't like donald trump, that is not good enough. >> 100% true. >> welcome to the team. great, have a mug. that is how we do here at cnn. >> we are luck to have him, did you see the ad, everyone is talking bit, it's inspired by the me too movement, it's a major household brand taking aim at how we define masculinity, let's take on the controversy, next. [ telephone ringing ] -whoa. [ indistinct talking ] -deductible? -definitely speaking insurance. -additional interest on umbrella policy? -can you translate?

-damage minimization of civil commotion. -when insurance needs translating, get answers in plain english at progressiveanswers.com. ♪ -he wants you to sign karen's birthday card. it's a high honor. sorry, is that too loud?oud. karen's birthday card. you don't need any more hormones in your house. that's why you chose kraft natural cheese. made with fresh milk without the added hormone rbst. it's cheese as it should be.

i can worry about it, or doe. something about it. garlique helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally, and it's odor-free, and pharmacist recommended. garlique

all right, there's a new gillette ad that has nothing to do with shaving and it's sparking a conversation about how we define masculinity. >> is this the best a man can get? is it? we can't hide from it. >> sexual harassment is taking over. >> it's been going on far too long. you can't laugh it off. >> who's the daddy? >> what i actually think she is trying to say. >> making the same old excuses. >> boys will be boys. >> boys will be boys. >> but something finally changes. >> allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment. >> because the boys watching today will be the hen -- today, will be the men of tomorrow.

>> let's bring in d lemon, does it work? i'm talking about it. >> who is mad at this ad? is anybody, a bunch of guys in here is anybody mad at this ad? speak up. anybody mad? anybody up is et? >> no, no. >> anybody think it's an attack on masculinity? that's the dumbest thing that i have ever heard and i just don't understand it. because someone tells you, not to be violent, don't teach your son to, you know, harass women, don't get in to fights with people, and be a bully. what does that have to do with masculinity, that is, that is not even attacking. it's not an attack on masculinity, it's about toxic masculinity, okay, this is not rifle man, the world is evolving the same people upset by the ad

are the same people that you and i talk about and you just talked to john kasich about, about the democrats of the country changing. the country changing. people becoming more aware and more evolved and even now, commercial ads advertisements or whatever you want to call them, they are not centered around traglidites who have never been challenged the way of thinking has never been challenged they are used to be pandered to, so they are upset because something is now challenging them in society. >> they want to reinforce a false assumption. >> being a man doesn't mean you punch a guy in a face. >> that is never what it meant to be a real man. in a way, the definition has not changed. it's our respect for the definition that has changed. look, i have a son. i think all of it is good for him. i have two daughters, all of it is good for them. people should know that how you behave matters and you do not

get away with something because it's the way it's been. it does not work on any willful. >> i would suggest that everyone out there read, there's a gq article out there and it lists the people upset by this this and you will get an understanding of who is it's very small, and very fringe. coming up, you've been talking a lot about russia. we're going to talk about russia, and about barr. and i have james clapper, he's going to discuss that and give some insight. >> another heavy-duty show for d. lemon. i'll see you in a second. another controversy with very deep roots. steve king. it's not about the man, it's about the message. there is a truth that this country needs to face. let's get after it, next. des in. they help restore my natural barrier, so i can lock in moisture... and keep us protected. we've got to have each other's backs... and fronts. cerave. what your skin craves.

♪now i'm gonna tell my momma

♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™ transitions™ presents four new colors style colors by transitions™ amazon prime videonts 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. good news. the house voted 424-1 to approve a resolution rejecting white supremacy and white nationalism. it was unanimous. the lone holdout was african-american democrat bobby rush of illinois. he only voted against the resolution because he said it doesn't go far enough. unanimous. that means even steve king voted

for it. >> i've carefully studied every word in this resolution and even though i'd add some more that are stronger language, i agree with the language in it. so i want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's vote for this resolution. i'm putting up a "yes" on the board here, because what you state here is right and it's true and it's just. >> king even defended himself. >> that ideology never shows up in my head. i don't know how it could possibly come out of my mouth. >> whatever. maybe steve king doesn't really get what he says or why he says it. i don't care. on one level, it would make sense, because bigotry is often born of ignorance. my argument is, this is way bigger than steve king. a congressmember who supports neo-nazis, tweets about not being able to restore our civilization with someone else's babies, characterizes migrants as drug runners with cantaloupe

calves well-developed from hauling illicit drugs across the border. which is, of course, b.s. it is the message that must be attacked and his defense that this is an assault of his first amendment right is as ignorant as his not getting the meaning of his own message. of course he has the right to say it. that doesn't mean what he says is right. and it does not mean that he gets to say it without criticism or consequence. the outrage is not the reaction. it is the reticence. the outrage is that it took this long for his party to step up and strip him of committee assignments, which does render him basically powerless. king's ideas are not original nor new. we had a similar situation to this almost 20 years ago. it was handled very differently and, frankly, better. quickly, trent lott back then made a bigoted crack at a 100th birthday for strom thurmond, who

had run early on as a segregationist. there was no social media back then, but the implication of those comments quickly turned into a firestorm. and president george w. bush quickly and condemned the comments. >> recent comments by senator lott do not reflect the spirit of our country. every day our nation was segregated was a day that america was unfaithful to our founding ideals. >> contrast that with our president now. >> mr. president, what about steve king's remarks? >> who? >> steve king. congressman steve king. >> i don't -- i haven't been following it. i really haven't been following it. >> come on. we know that's not true. he has been following this. and the terrible part is, he's been following in king's footsteps. trump shares beliefs with king, doesn't he? i hate to say it, but it's true. king even defended himself by saying, wait a minute, you know what i am? i'm a nationalist, the same stained term our president uses for himself.

laced with bigotry and false preference. what is new is that not-so-subtle encouragement of people who believe this bigoted b.s. allowing them to get mouthy again. our leaders have traditionally, in the modern era, at least, like bush, shouted down bigotry. let haters know there are not some good people among them. that there is not a "both sides" kind of blame on these issues. that the different are not to be demonized. this country is people by those who rarely look alike, but believe as one that we will all be treated the same. that's our national religion, the laws that guarantee our equality. e pluribus unum. one out of many. the president will get no pass on this, at least not from me. i get that he's compromised. going after obama's birth, the central park five. that was then. and i get that he has been a disciple of king's xenophobia

and that he has used the highest perch in the world to encourage the worst to be first when it comes to spreading this toxic message. and all of that is precisely why we must come forward. either the president should own that he agrees with king or he must condemn the message. you say you're a fighter. show us what you're made of, mr. president, because the silence is deafening. on this crap, what we ignore, we empower. this took too long. and in delaying it, you and your party took us back. people, certainly in the media, are often too quick to jump on what this president says, right? you guys complain about it all time. well, then don't be satisfied with his silence here. don't move on. don't get distracted. this issue matters as much or more than mueller, barr, even the shutdown. why? this is about who we are and what we would die for.

america must always stand as an active opponent to bigotry. what king says that he speaks about without understanding, we all get the reality of it. and we get why the president is quiet. and it cannot be tolerated, especially not from a president. not now, not ever. the president must do his job. and as john kasich said earlier tonight, that is to lead. that is to give this country hope and to remind us, as our greatest ideals -- and i know some of you are saying, that's not what trump's about. he believes what king believes. that's not who he is. too bad! that's his job. and he disagrees with you. he says he's not about bigotry. then why the heck is he so quiet now? this shouts out for his voice. it shouts out for leadership. don't think it's one and done. it's one congressman. it isn't. this country is a matrix of minorities. his words echo.

they rebound to african-americans and latinos, anybody with an ethnic background, lbgt, anybody who feels less than. this country is about uniting and it has to happen now at the top. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. >> on what we ignore, we empower. you just said that, right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. i agree with you. and also, i know this is going to be controversial, so to challenge all the supporters of this president, when you said to john kasich, i know people who support donald trump, they're not bigots, but for people who look like me, other minorities, women who have -- well, let's just leave this to race, this president has said and done so many insensitive and bigoted and racist things that if you support for him -- if you support him, people like me want to understand why you ignored so