collusion between the campaign and the russians. the truth? how do you explain the manafort allegations as anything but collusion? tonight, an exclusive one on one with president trump's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. and the other big story, the shutdown, getting bloodier by the day. more pain for people who don't deserve to be in the middle, more signs we'll all feel the pain of the economy. and now the president is feeling it, too. the speaker of the house pushes the president to postpone the state of the union. valid security concerns or political power play by nancy pelosi. that's our great debate. and four americans died today in syria. proof the president is right about leaving or wrong about isis being done and guaranteeing things get worse if we do leave. we're going to ask a veteran on the house foreign affairs committee. it's a big night. let's get after it.

all right, so we're going to keep it tight tonight. here's the issue, mueller has manafort at the nexus of two troubling incidents. coincidences. he alleges that manafort was meeting with russians about taming u.s. policy in ukraine, and at the same time, he was running the trump campaign, and at the same time, the party was softening its platform on helping ukraine. the second, that the same faces and places being targeted by the campaign were targeted by russian trolls. is that thanks to manafort giving poll data to bad guys? these questions come as the senate considers the nomination of a new man to oversee the investigation, who says the findings should come out and that this is not a witch hunt, the special counsel still wants to question the president in person. his lawyers are standing in his way. and again, we have one tonight, the main man, rudy giuliani. good to have you on prime-time. thank you for doing it. >> how are you, chris? >> i'm doing well. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> first, let's do some housekeeping. have you been speaking,

interchanging with the mueller team? is there any news about whether or not the president will answer more questions? >> we told them six weeks ago that we would not take anymore questions. that was at the time we found out a lot of very disturbing things about how they've conducted themselves, including one today that's devastating to mueller. and basically, you know, destroying the 19,000 texts that were all done during the period of time of the mueller investigation. every single one of his text messages has been destroyed by mueller's people. >> well, just to get the facts straight, mr. mayor, you said something i don't think you meant. they recovered 19,000 texts -- >> no, they've also -- >> from strzok and page. >> they've also not been able to recover an equal number. >> how many do they know they couldn't recover? >> well, they're assuming. it's actually between 9 and 19,000, if you want to be specific. and we don't have those. and those are the ones that he would be texting to page, the one he was texting things like,

"we have to prevent him from being president," "we have to become an insurance policy if he becomes president." >> right, those all came out. >> "he's a disreputable, sick, insane man." >> they didn't like trump. >> they didn't like trump. they hated trump. >> hate's your word. >> no, when you say that a man -- >> but the inspector general, two of them, said it didn't affect their work. >> maybe if we had these texts, we would find out it did affect their work. >> maybe you wouldn't. >> we don't have the texts when he was working for mueller. mueller's people erased them, even knowing that they would have this history. >> but why? >> you tell me what they would think of us if we did that. they knew that strzok and page had texted these inappropriate things. >> and they removed them from the team because of them. >> that's the reason they should have retained the texts. >> why? they took action against them and they had no reason to question the animus the way you are right now, they were fired. >> the reason they were fired is because of their inappropriate texting.

and you want me to accept that's in good faith when you have a guy like wiseman in there? >> that's what the inspector general said. >> the inspector general didn't know that -- and he can be wrong, too. he's not god. >> you say that. there's only one higher power. but what i'm saying, mr. mayor is, they looked at it, they were concerned about it, and they revealed there is a policy in place, when you surrender your phone, it is erased and given to somebody else. >> not if it's evidence of misconduct, if you do that. >> they weren't looking at it that way, they had already removed them. >> maybe they were so damned bias, they weren't looking at it that way, because they were involved in a witch hunt to get trump from the very beginning. so today we find out, in "the hill," john solomon's article is devastating. i didn't see your report on that, chris. >> i saw it. >> that article says, from day one -- we didn't know this yet, but from day one, they knew that the dossier was bought and paid for by hillary clinton and the

dnc. $1.1 million. that it was a phony document. >> they did not think it was a phony document. >> how about, it put cohen at places he wasn't. >> and that may have been wrong. but there were a lot of different memoranda in it that had different sourcing and some of it was right, some of it wasn't. >> there is not a single piece of that document that has been substantiated. >> that's not true. >> strzok testified to that. >> strzok did not testify to that. >> lisa page testified to that. she certainly did. >> they were testifying on the idea that it was the soul premise of the investigation. you had nothing else. this is what your fisa application was. >> no. no, no. >> this is all you had. and they said, that's not true. >> you know what it was? it was a completely fraudulent affidavit. because the affidavit fails to mention that the dossier on which the case was based, at least in part, whether it's whole or in part, it was a false statement. it did not say to the court that this was an op research.

>> that's not true, either. there was a footnote. >> the footnote doesn't mention hillary clinton, doesn't mention the dnc. i want says that a law firm -- it says, quote, a law firm paid for this document. >> as opposition research. >> didn't say opposition. >> not in the footnote. >> let's be truthful, let's be truthful! >> always. >> let's stop all of this false reporting. >> what false reporting? what have i said that's false? >> you said they revealed it. they did not reveal it. they revealed something false. that said it was paid for by a law firm. no that was it was political op-ed research. no that hillary clinton provided money for pinpoint not that the dnc provided money for it. that would make it highly suspect. >> they said that it was paid for to get opposition research on a political opponent. >> no, they did not! they said it was paid for by a law firm seeking information on donald trump. not paid for a law firm. you don't think that's relevant? >> i think it's relevant. that's why i'm having a discussion with you. >> they knew it and knew it at the time. they were briefed by bruce ohr,

who testified under oath. hardly a friend of donald trump's bruce ohr testified that he explain pd it to andrew wiseman, one of mueller's chief deputies that has been cited for ethical misbehavior so often that it's disgraceful that he's working for the government and getting paid for the government. should have been fired ten years ago, when he screwed up the enron case, when he refused to provide documents exculpatory to people let out of jail. >> i hear you on all of this and i get the questions. you have made them before. you have made them clear on this show before. >> no, i did not make them before. >> this stuff about the dossier being bogus and paid for by clinton. that's been made many times on this show. >> i did not know they knew about that from day one. they lied about that, they concealed that. i did not know that the strzok and page texts have been eliminated. >> what you do know is that the inspector general looked at them, they had a chance to review the texts, and it was found by an independent body, actually two, who take a look at it, that they didn't believe there was animus that affected

the work. >> that's totally ridiculous! when somebody -- >> because you don't like it? >> that's totally ridiculous! when somebody says, "i hate that person," as a prosecutor, i'm not putting him in charge of that investigation. that is sick. >> i hear you. >> that is a sick, totally biased statement! you tell me you would like to be investigated by someone who hates you? >> i wouldn't want to be investigated by anybody and it was the right move to remove them. >> do you think it's fair to have somebody investigating the president of the united states who has expressed opinions hating him? only after he -- >> they found out. >> only after he started the investigation. >> and the inspector general said that that work was not -- >> only after he submitted the false affidavit. >> mr. mayor -- >> he had done tremendous damage by the time he did that. the amount of false reporting about this case is despicable! >> mr. mayor, false reporting is saying that nobody in the campaign had any contacts with russia. false reporting is saying that there has been no suggestion of any kind of collusion between the campaign and any russians. because now you have paul

manafort giving poll data that winds up leading to this coincidence -- >> well, you just misstated my position. i never said there was no collusion between the campaign! or between people in the campaign -- >> yes, you have. >> i have no idea -- i have not. i said the president of the united states. there is not a single bit of evidence the president of the united states committed the only crime you could commit here, conspired with the russians to hack the dnc. >> first of all, crime is not the bar of accountability for a president. it's about what you knew -- >> well, he didn't collude with russia either! >> -- what was right, what was wrong, and what did you concede? the president didn't have any contact -- >> the guy running his campaign was working on an issue at the same time as the convention. >> he said hep didn't. he didn't say nobody. how would you know that nobody in your campaign -- >> he actually did say that, rudy. he said, nobody, and then he said, as far as i know. >> well, as far as he knows, it's true. >> but i don't know that it's true. how did paul manafort do all of these things and nobody knew? >> he was only there for six

months or four months. >> he was there for the convention. and there for cambridge analytica. you don't have the same questions about them as you do the dossier. >> and they ended up with a stronger platform than they started with. >> no, they didn't. they wanted to put in there that we would give help with lethal weaponry and they changed it to soften it -- >> they took it out and put back in that they were going to give substantial help -- >> but not the same. >> -- the democratic platform, by the way. >> it was softened. who did it and why they did it, we don't know. >> and the president had no knowledge of that. >> he didn't know about his own party's platform? >> chris, come on, you've been around politics. candidates don't know a damned thing about the platform. they don't pay any attention -- >> i was raised by a guy who would have corrected the punctuation in the platform. >> i have been around a lot of campaigns. the platform, they pay no attention to. they care about their acceptance speech. >> fine.

be that as it may, there are two coincidences to answer for. the first is manafort is viable for the campaign at the time that's going on. and then he's viable at the head of the campaign giving polling data that winds up having the same faces and places targeted by the campaign that are targeted by russian trolls. how is that no collusion? >> it's not collusion. >> how is it not? >> because polling data is given to everybody. >> what? >> i mean, he shouldn't have given it to them. >> so it's not given to everybody. >> and i can't speak for paul manafort. of course it is! first of all, the most inappropriate, the most inaccurate stuff is internal polling data. all of it is cooked -- >> they wound up coming to the same conclusions about whom to target and where. if you give people who are trying to interfere in an election information about where to target and whom, you don't see that as a collusion? >> not with the president of the united states, not with donald trump, not with trump -- >> as a minimum with his campaign, and the question becomes, what did the president know? >> he and i didn't know about

that until -- >> i'm not saying you did, i'm asking about the president. >> he did not know about it until it was revealed a few weeks ago in an article. i still haven't seen the testimony, i've seen the article, which is based on leaks. so i don't know what was actually said, what was actually done. >> question for you. >> at this point, i have no real solid knowledge anything like that was done. all i have what was leaked to a newspaper, probably unethically leaked to the newspaper. like that counterintelligence report was leaked to the newspaper and the reporters never bothered to ask -- >> it wasn't a leak. it was in the filing, by the way. >> if they started an investigation, a counterintelligence investigation a year and a half ago, don't you think as a reporter you would ask, what was the conclusion of that investigation? >> no, they handed it off to mueller. >> no, they didn't. you can't hand off a national security counterintelligence investigation to a prosecutor -- >> sure, you can. >> chris, i worked for the justice department for 18 years -- >> i know you did. i'm not saying you don't know the protocols. i'm saying -- go ahead. >> chris, let me explain to your audience the truth about that. >> please. >> the truth about it is is that if you're doing a counterintelligence

investigation and you find any evidence of breach of national security, you've got to follow up on it. you can't refer it to a prosecutor. because you have to quickly report that to people in authority so that they can protect america against a national security breach. they found no such breach. >> all right, look, i take your -- >> none! >> and "the new york times" -- >> let's see what's in the report. >> "the new york times," less the innuendo that they might have, because they didn't report that investigation found nothing. >> i take your opinion on that. >> that's the kind of stuff they're doing to this president. >> all right, well, i have two more questions, okay? and then i'll let you go. the first one is -- >> i can stay all night. >> i know, i know. but you know, i have to take commercials and i don't want to hold you over a break. it's very weird to do that. so the idea of transparency. everybody should be on the same page. >> i agree. >> whatever does not compromise national security, and that should be a very tight definition, should be made public. all the findings that the people can see from mueller. do you agree?

>> i agree. >> you have been quoted as saying you should get to go through it first. is that a fair assessment of your -- >> of course, i should. i should be allowed to respond. >> should you be able to change the report? >> i've been misquoted about it also. >> how so? >> because i don't want to change the report, i want to respond to the report. >> okay. >> wouldn't you want to respond to the report if it were about you? and don't you think it's fair we get an opportunity to do that? >> absolutely. >> i have no control over what mueller is going to say. let him say whatever he wants. i have no say over what's national security, what isn't. the government has to say that. as his lawyer, i would like you to see the whole report. i think jay and i could knock the hell out of it. >> you should have that opportunity. i'm just saying, no one should change the report itself before the people get to see pinpoint you agree with that, on the record? >> yeah, and to have one of those senators yesterday suggest that is totally ridiculous. first of all, they wouldn't let me change the report. secondly, i've been a lawyer too long to think i would ever do that. and third, i want them to write the garbage they're going to write, because i want to answer it.

unless they surprise me and they do a fair report, which i'm hoping to god they do. >> and you heard what mr. barr said yesterday about bob mueller, right? he cannot imagine him doing anything that would justify removing him or improper conduct. do you agree with that about bob mueller? >> no, i would not say i cannot imagine. i would say that the president has not removed him and this whole idea of obstruction is really stupid because the investigation has come to an end and nobody has obstructed it. >> i don't think the investigation has come to an end. look how much was redacted in those manafort papers -- >> if it hasn't come to an end, it's certainly come to an end on collusion. they either have it or don't have it. >> how do you know? we just learned the manafort stuff and that's the most damning -- >> that's not collusion and hacking the dnc. >> but that's not the bar. >> that is the bar! >> that's, are you doing something -- no. look at the mandate. it doesn't just say crimes it says contacts. pinpoint says coordination. >> the justice department

doesn't do ethics investigation. >> a special counsel can, it can be part of their mandate and you know that. >> they're doing a criminal investigation. and leading to impeachment has to be a high crime or misdemeanor. >> that's true. >> not an unethical violation. >> that is a political standard. >> they have gotten so beyond his scope, it's absurd. >> how has he gone beyond his scope? >> how has he gone beyond his scope? >> yeah. >> at least four degrees of separation. it begins with collusion, goes to a completely phony obstruction investigation -- >> how is it phony with all of the things that has president has done with respect to this investigation? >> because -- >> if you were in the doj, rudy, and you watched the president doing these kinds of conversations with comey, asking people to leave, asking for loyalty -- >> every right to do that. >> asking him to go easy on flynn. >> every right to do that. >> then they bring in rosenstein and write up an memo about why he has to go, the president says, include russia, he says no, he gets upset, they get rid of comey, he gets upset about russia. if you were hearing those kind of things at the doj, you would

say, what the hell is this guy doing? >> and i would calm down and read the law and find out that article ii of the constitution of the united states which i took an oath to uphold which apparently mueller's people have forgotten gives the president authority to fire people -- >> not for any reason. >> well, for any reason but a criminal reason. it would have to be something like -- obstruction is not based on something like, oh, please go easy on flynn. which he never said, by the way. he disputes saying that. but let's just say he said it. >> but mr. mayor, how can we take his word -- >> here's what an obstruction case is. >> -- as dispositive. >> let's say he said it. let's say he said, please, mr. comey, go easy on the poor general. when i was a prosecutor, that must have happened at least a hundred times >> not by somebody who could take you out. >> absolutely. >> who? >> i'm not going to tell you who. they're privileged conversations. but obstruction is something like this, i'm going to break your legs, take your money away, i'll hurt your family, that's what obstruction is. it isn't giving your opinion on the laws.

>> rudy, i hear you about the basic law, but again, adding to the circumstances. he keeps meeting with putin, he takes the interpreters' notes. >> who? he met with putin twice. >> he's met with him several times. >> the summit meeting was the only big meeting. >> but he's on the phone with him, he's meeting with him. >> not really. not really. >> but several times where he hasn't talked to his staff about what happened. he took an interpreter's note. they didn't want to impart what was in the conversation zplp but that's up to the president. the president has to conduct our business with some degree of confidentiality. you can't take notes on everything. >> in this context? the interpreter takes notes and you say, give me those, don't talk to anybody -- >> if the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago. it's either provable or it's not. it's not provable because it never happened. >> what do you mean, if it happened. i thought you used to say, there's absolutely no chance it happened. >> i'm telling you there's no chance it happened. >> how do you explain manafort? it's his campaign, rudy, doesn't that matter? >> i have no idea, never have,

what other people were doing. >> but he ran his campaign! it's not like the guy who he met at the shoe shine shop. >> he also may have had an agenda of his own. didn't these guys owe him a lot of money. >> but who else knew what he was doing? he didn't change a party platform by himself. he didn't get polling data my himself. >> and manafort wasn't involved in that, either. >> what a coincidence, they changed the party platform in the same way that the russians want. >> well, whatever. the president didn't know about it. it was changed back to a very acceptable position. >> it was softened. >> a stronger position than present government policy. absolutely not. much stroeng stronger than the obama -- >> and now they're trying to relieve sanctions. >> and trump has been harder with sanctions on russia than obama was. >> congress forced his hand and now they're trying to relieve sanctions on one of the guys that mueller's looking at. why would you do that? >> congress did not force his hand. he recommended the sanctions originally. and by the way, you can't let foreign policy and the conduct of foreign policy get hobbled by this unfair witch hunt. i mean, that's one of the reasons that this should come to a conclusion.

and don't you think it would be fair, whether you think he's concluded or not, that mueller finally be asked, show us what you got? put up or shut up? >> he's never denied us that access. i want concludes, he puts out the report, and we see what he has. i've always seen this a false argument, the idea that he's not showing us what he has. it's not over. >> it's over enough. >> what does that mean, "over enough"? >> how much longer are you going to let him do it. >> he just put out that your campaign chairman was playing with the russians! >> but we don't -- that isn't -- we don't know a special counsel to investigate a campaign chairman. we have them because the president of the united states is involved. >> you do when the president of the united states seems to be a little hyperactive about the probe and it may not be fair and the guy was the head of the ag at the time was his campaign guy. >> i think it's the most inappropriate investigation i've

ever seen, conducted on an ethical level that's disgusting and allowed to do so because you have a compliant press that loves the idea that manafort's house was invaded. that manafort's in solitary confinement. >> i don't love any of that. >> who complains about the man being in solitary confinement? if he was a terrorist, they would complain about it. >> he shouldn't have messed with the witnesses, rudy. you were harsh with people who messed with you that way when you were a prosecutor. >> hep didn't threaten to kill anybody. >> you put guys in cuffs and march them by in white-collar crime. >> i sure did and they went to jail for three years or four years. i didn't put them in solitary confinement. >> you were tough with guys, too. >> i did not put them in solitary confinement the way manafort -- >> you would if you wanted to keep them from communicating with people, if they were colluding. tampering. >> i would tape record them if i wanted to keep them from colluding. by the way, in prison, everything is tape recorded. every phone call. >> he still managed to do it. >> except with your lawyer. >> all right.

>> he didn't do kit -- no, he didn't do it while he was in prison, he did it while he was outside. that's why they put him in prison, even though they could have taped him, they could have put a monitoring on him. that's what's usually done by fair prosecutors. not by andrew weismann, who several times has been caught doing this to other people and been abraded by courts. and mueller went and hired him, an act of supreme bad judgment. >> the prosecutors are not bad guys when you're looking at the context of -- >> go look at weismann's record, my friend. >> but rudy, i always want to stick with the facts in front of my face in these circumstances. i don't judge people by their past. it's what you did here. it's what's going on here. >> what's going on here is an investigation that should be reported on now, it's gone far enough. let's see if he's got anything. i challenge him to show us some evidence that the president was involved in anything approaching criminal conduct. no. so if you want to do an ethics investigation, fine. do an ethics investigation. but you don't need a special prosecutor for that. >> i hear what you're saying. your arguments are on the record and before the audience. and rudy giuliani, i appreciate

you taking the time and laying it out. this is very helpful to the audience. god bless and be well. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> all right. rudy giuliani, ladies and gentlemen. so that is one big story. it's a big mess, right? there's another big story and it's a big mess. the farcical solution of a wall that has led us to a shutdown. now we hear that the economy may suffer as much as the wall may cost if the president gets his way. is that a right thing? why didn't he take the democrats' offer last year? we would have had his wall and we would have had a lot more. should he consider nancy pelosi's proposal now to postpone the state of the union because of the shutdown? key questions, great debate, next! t-mobile knows dancing is better when you include a partner. singing is better when you include a friend.

and unlimited is better with a phone included. it's true. forty bucks with the other guys, doesn't include a phone. so, start the new year right. join t-mobile and get unlimited with a phone included for just forty dollars per line. 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. ♪ ♪

it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪here you come again lookin' ♪a body has a right to ♪and shakin' me up so ♪that all i really know ♪is here you come again, and here i go, here i go♪ here we come again. applebee's all you can eat is back. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

at first slice pizza lovers everywhere meet o, that's good! frozen pizza one third of our classic crust is made with cauliflower but that's not stopping anyone o, that's good! house speaker pelosi flexing her constitutional muscle early

in her speakership. how? well, you could argue by what's happening with the state of the union speech. the speaker is suggesting that the state of the union must be rescheduled when the government is reopened. why? she says security concerns. that a letter from the dhs secretary some time ago about this called it a high-security event. you need to have everybody, and they don't because of the shutdown. so is this politics or is this security? what do you say we debate? s.e. cupp and steve cortez. great panel. good to have you both. s.e., welcome to the show. so s.e., what do you think? power play or price of the shutdown, we can't keep you safe? >> um, i think it's pretty political and craven and fairly transparent, actually. i think it makes democrats look afraid of donald trump. and you know, i'm loathe to say that, but frankly, i think it's pretty irresponsible of the speaker to say that secret

service and capitol police cannot adequately secure the capitol for a night. i think that's not in evidence and i think it's kind of a gross allegation to cast. and she doesn't need to do that. it's unnecessary. they're winning. don't get gross. >> steve, what about the "god forbid" scenario. let's not go through what happens, but what happens if you have it and something did happen and you didn't have the kind of security you usually would? >> look, i don't want to get into those hypotheticals. >> me neither, but that's the good reason she's doing this. but the bad reason is what s.e. says, it's a power play. >> here's the reason we know she's being brazenly political, because secretary nielsen said, we can fully secure this the way we always do. this is the united states, of course we can provide security. nothing's ever fail-safe, but of course we can provide security. what this is about is the speaker of the house saying, we want to silence the debate. we don't want to give you the platform you've earned as

president of the united states and the state of the union -- >> you don't earn it, you get invited. it's up to them to invite you. >> but hold on. chris, you know very well that this has become part of the pageantry of our democracy. >> absolutely. 100%. >> it is a ritual of the united states. >> it's very important, whether it's president obama or president trump. and he earned that right. and my point to the white house is this. if they want to be that petty, and if they want to try to shut you down, go to the senate chamber and do it there. let's do the state of the union there. and by the way, nancy pelosi not invited over there. but my hope would be that she can be bigger than that and say that we're about more than resistance. we're about more than obstruction. let's have a conversation. they get to have a reply, as they did the other night from his oval office speech. they can reply after. >> and why do anything to jeopardize that this shutdown is owned by the president. he said it on national television. the price is getting worse and worse. they had already offered him $25 billion over a number of years for the stuff he wants. he walked away from the deal.

they're in decent position in terms of, don't put it on us. >> yeah, it's unnecessary. public polling blames the president. that might not always be the case, if you look back at the 2013 shutdown >> and when you look intraparty, if you look at the right, he's still doing okay. the right largely believes in this fight. it gets very close about whether a wall is everything, but he's not getting hurt there the way he is overall. >> no, no, no, that's true. and in 2013, if you look at that shutdown, the immediate polling blamed the gop. that bled pretty quickly over into democrats and congress in general. people just get sick of a game of chicken. and they end up sort of blaming everyone. democrats, in fact, had their then record-high unfavorable rating of 49%, right after that 2013 shutdown. so this could bleed into democratic bad polling, but right now, they hold all the cards and the american people are on their side of it.

it seems, to use steve's words, petty, but also a real unforced error. i just think that most people can see through this. and again it, makes democrats look scared of trump having a big platform on a big night and a lot of people tuning in. >> right. well, steve, what do you think? do you think there is any chance that may be seeing the coast guard and the reaction to that. you know, you're saying you shut down the government because you want to have a fight about keeping us safe and now the people keeping us safe are not getting paid. do you think that as time goes on, it becomes more attractive to the president to say, look, i'm going to reopen the government. and then figure out some kind of deal. he says he's the best dealmaker he's ever had as president. >> right. look, i'll be the first to tell you that, yes, it's a terrible optic, obviously, to have people who risk their lives for our country in the coast guard not getting paid, because, of course, they should be. i'll tell you this. i think the president's willing to negotiate. certainly all the reporting says that he is. that he's willing to come off of his $5.7 billion number. who's not willing to negotiate?

speaker pelosi. she said $1. i mean, how insulting to -- >> they've given over a billion. and it goes to physical barriers -- >> she said $1 for the wall. >> but if we held our leaders to that standard, you would be explaining what the president means all the time on this show. you brush aside his words all the time. they have over $1.3 billion that -- it's just not as much as he wants. that's all. >> here's the deal that i think makes tremendous sense, is the wall for daca, a clean one for one. not the kind of grand immigration reform that was attempted before, but a clean one for one, full wall funding that he requests right now for protection for daca, even if the democrats hate the wall, i would hope that they love these daca young adults more than they hate trump and that they're willing to give them protection more than they're unwilling to give the president a political win. it's a true compromise that neither side loves, which is the definition of a compromise. but where america wins. >> as adam kinzinger says, in situations where both sides hate

what they did, the american people usually love it. let's see if we can get that outcome here. it would be good for the people to win for a change. s.e., what a welcome addition. steve cortez, thank you, as always. all right. four weeks ago, the president declared victory over isis in syria. now, we've seen this mission accomplished movie before and it had a deadly ending. and here we are again. today, four americans were killed by a suspected isis attack in syria. now, is that proof that we should go or that we must stay. a man who knows the reality on the ground and the politics has a provocative take that the president is going to want to hear, next. the latest innovation from xfinity

isn't just a store. 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. the video i'm about to show you is graphic, but i'm not one to shelter you from what we're forcing our fighting men and women to face. this is the moment that four american lives were lost in a deadly explosion in syria today. all right. there's no sound and you don't need it. isis is claiming responsibility for this blast. two american troops dead, a defense contractor, and a department of defense civilian. today, we mourn the loss of

life, but we have seen two very different messages, even from the gop about what to take away from this. first, from the vice president shortly before the white house confirmed the deaths. >> and we are bringing our troops home. the caliphate has crumbled and isis has been defeated. >> later, this from senator lindsey graham. >> my concern about the statements made by president trump is that it should set in motion enthusiasm by the enemy we're fighting. you make people who are trying to help wonder about us, i saw this in iraq. and i'm now seeing it in syria. >> so which is it? where should the party be? where should we be? let's talk to an illinois congressman on the foreign affairs committee who has served in both iraq and afghanistan. adam kinzinger. congressman, thank you for joining us. >> you bet, chris. >> you know, first, let's say

what we must, which is, god bless the troops whose lives were lost, those who were injured, and their families who serve right alongside the men and women who were on the battlefield. that must be said. >> it's a stark reminder. >> yes. and one you know better than i ever will, because of the experience you've had in serving this country. and it's why i thank you for your service every time i see you. >> thank you. >> now, out of respect for them, let's deal with the politics here. because you have very different messages. this bombing is proof that you need to get out. you don't belong there. the bombing is proof that you have to stay, because it's not over. isis isn't done. how do you see it? >> i think the bombing is proof you have to stay. so when we know more about whoever this evil person was that did the bombing, they may not even be syrian. they may be there because they just want to kill people that think differently than them. undoubtedly, they targeted this cafe because there were americans there.

so if you think about somebody that would be willing to do that, maybe, possibly travel to syria. we know a lot of isis travel to syria to fight the west, they're going to be willing to travel to the united states to fight the west, too. i've always said this and i believe this, fighting terrorism is not a choice we have. what we can choose is where we fight terrorism. and when you make a statement like, isis is defeated and the caliphate is defeated, what you've done is empower the recruiters of isis to say, look, we did it, we outlasted the united states! i told you we could do it. we had tough times, like was prophesyized, but what we'll do is come back from this even stronger. what's to do is say there's a military component that's probably going to be ongoing for a while and there's another discussion. but there's a soft power discussion, giving the muslims hope and opportunity so they reject this philosophy within their own religion. >> one more beat on this. the president says, we'll never have enough people to make a difference. they have tens of thousands, the turks have tens of thousands, assad has all of his guys.

isis, to the extent they exist, they come and go. we're outmatched, it's not our war, it's a civil war, we should get out. >> well, it sounds like rand paul talking points. and i'll tell you, the great thing about being the united states military is that we can be outnumbered, but never outgunned. our presence in syria, for instance, and iraq, even is about a force multiplier. it's about equipping and training and emboldening the people on the ground to do the fighting, too. no doubt, our troops are exposed. but the bulk of those 2,000 troops are there to stiffen the spine of the people who can do the fighting that otherwise we would have to do. i actually think syria is a great example of leveraging special forces and other people to help irregular forces in the region win the fight that otherwise 100,000 american troops would need to do. we're not engaging in attacking the russians and the iranians all over syria, but what we are going to do is have a seat at the table when the negotiated

solution to syria comes forward, and i have no idea why we would want to give up that leverage and allow iran, allow vladimir putin to carve up syria as they see fit. >> thank you for your perspective on what certainly is a hard day for the fighting men and women today and it begs perspective. thank you for providing it. all right. let's take on another tough issue right now. the shutdown. you believe the shutdown is a mistake. that that's not the way to leverage a negotiation. the president disagrees. what do you say? >> this is a government of the most powerful country in the world that's shutdown. look, there's enough criticism in my mind to go to both sides of this debate. i think there's an easy way to compromise on immigration and i think 80% of americans would be happy if we did it and happy with the bill. but we've gotten into this stupid point in politics where everybody thinks that the only way you can win is if the other side completely loses. and that's where we're at. we're not budging. the reality is, we have to get back to saying, there can be win-wins. i don't care if you call them lose-loses. but what i've learned is

wherever republicans and democrats can actually put their differences aside and get something that maybe nobody likes, the american people typically really like it. this is an embarrassment, our inability to have this debate is an embarrassment, frankly, around the world that looks at us as this model democracy and this is on all of us. and i would say to your viewers, they have to demand more of their politicians, too. compromise is not a dirty word. we can get to where we all have something in this we like. but it means putting our pride aside for a bit. >> how many republicans think as you do? >> i don't know. i think a good number, maybe. i think a good number of democrats think like i do. but we're kind of hostage to this, i don't know, i don't want to call them necessarily the extremes, but this viewpoint that you can never compromise. and guess what, if you can never compromise, we're going to be stuck in this, and there's a lot of innocent people not getting their paycheck. >> do you think that republicans like you can get the president to make a move that on the senate side, they can get mitch

mcconnell to put something on the floor so that the men and women there can be held accountable for what they want? >> i hope so. i think it's going to be something that ultimately comes out of the senate. and i have to -- look, i have to be fair in hitting my democratic colleagues, too. to say that the starting position is absolutely, we will never do anything that has to do with a wall, the president has never said that, unlike daca, for instance, and dreamers. so i think there's an opportunity, if we all can say -- you know, both sides can declare victory. it doesn't matter. but if we can save some money here, let's fix the daca situation, which we all want to do, americans would actually look out here and go, okay, well, that was a stupid 30-day shutdown, but at least we got something good out of it. >> congressman, thank you so much for joining us tonight. and thank you for your service to the country. >> you bet. take care. >> credit where it's due. it's good to have a republican congressman or any congressman saying, hey, let's both be a little disappointed and figure something out. fine. but facts first. democrats have a little bit of a mixed message here, but here's what we

understand. they have offered money. and a lot more than $1 for border security. right now the number's at about $1.3 billion, including more bollard fencing, which is what we call the wall. now, it's just a fraction of the $5 billion that the president is asking for, but it's not nothing. now, part of this is on the dems, not because they did the shutdown. this was the president's doing he told you all on national television. but they do keep saying they don't want to fund the wall. in fact, you heard senator schumer say exactly that, it will never pass in the senate, that he'll never get the money for his wall. they're talking about the amount, not the wall, at all. it is a messy answer, fair point, and it's a messy situation. the end the shutdown movement should be the reality for everybody. next, if the president has a rallying cry about the russia probe, it's "no collusion!". well, what did his lawyer just tell us, next. herb-brined, fresh-baked, and hand-crafted, with 100% clean ingredients. just a few good reasons to give into your cravings.

now delivering. panera. food as it should be.

the best simple salad ever?d great tasting, heart-healthy california walnuts. so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org. don't get mad. get e*trade, dawg.

♪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™

let's be clear the president's rallying cry first was no contact with anybody. then it was no collusion. here's what his lawyer told us. >> i never said there was no collusion between the campaign. or between people in the

campaign. >> yes you have. >> i have not. i said the president of the united states. >> here's one of dozens of trump tweets. the russian hoax. was that the trump campaign colluded with russia, it the president, his positions must be owned by his attorney. d. lemon, what do you see here? >> i was just doing some homework. he's moving the goal post. of course he's moving the goal post just as in the conversation that you've been having about the shutdown. the president is moving the goal post as well and his supporters are catching on and doing the same thing. yes, he's moving the goal post. wasn't it with you that he said truth is not truth? >> no. >> he didn't say that to you? not tonight. >> no. >> in a previous interview, i thought he said truth isn't truth. >> no, it wasn't me. he banged on my table a lot. he was upset. >> collusion is not a crime. >> this is not about rudy giuliani not understanding or misspeaking. he has to own what the president has said.

>> right. >> the original position was nobody did nothing. then it turned out that a lot of people did a lot of things. then it was, nobody colluded. where is the collusion? show us the collusion. >> then it was not the president. >> manafort passes the duck test for collusion. remember, collusion isn't a crime. and that isn't moving a goal post. well, if it's not a felony, it doesn't count, don. that's an argument for the attorney to make because it's a political contest and they're trying to lower the bar, but it's pretty obvious. >> i think the collusion is not a crime thing, when you say, chris, you know what i'm talking about, right? it's just a word or a phrase that sums everything up when you say collusion is not a crime because it could be obstruction. it could be conspiracy, and that all falls under that. >> what the president knew is the ultimate bar. >> would you agree that fareed zakaria is smarter than both of us? >> times two. >> he's going to join me. >> your head may explode from the kinds of thought he may impart to you. that's going to be a great guest. another night to watch.

>> see you. >> president trump still quiet about the hateful words of representative steve king. we have proof that silence is a problem, next. hey. i heard you're moving into a new apartment. yeah, it's pretty stressful. this music is supposed to relax me, though. ♪ maybe you'd mellow out a bit if you got geico to help you with your renters insurance. oh, geico helps with renters insurance? good to know. yeah, and they could save you a lot of money. wow, suddenly i feel so relieved. you guys are fired. get to know geico and see how much you could save on renters insurance. [kno♪king]

♪ memories. what we deliver by delivering. (male announcer) we know these memories will last longer than the wrapping paper. we know there's some things you just can't put a bow on. we know the best gift of all is still out there. we know the great outdoors. we love the great outdoors. bass pro shops and cabela's-- where incredible selection, great people, and an experience like no other all come together. sorry, is that too loud?oud. 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.

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. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth.

♪i've been really tryin', baby ♪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. ♪ (buzzer) ♪ olly.

so now steve king's hometown paper, "the des moines register," is calling on him to resign from congress. but when the white house was asked about the president's position, we got this. >> his comments were abhorrent, and the republican leadership, unlike democrats, have actually taken action when their members have said outrageous and inappropriate things. i hope that democrat leadership will follow the very strong and rightful leadership that the republicans have done over this. >> all right. so forget about the camera work. it wasn't an answer, and that's not acceptable. and there's no whataboutism on my watch, not here. when a president will not take the opportunity to condemn a message of white supremacy, choosing to do nothing here sends a message. as the epic rock band rush taught us, even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. and this choice echos to all who comprise america's matrix of minorities, who fear being treated as less than, blacks,

latinos, ethnics, lgbt too. none is welcome in that message of hate. still worse, the president's quiet forces the suggestion that he supports what he fails to oppose. factor this in. karen pence is the wife of the vice president. she's teaching art at a place where the application requires would-be employees to initial next to a list of beliefs, including certain moral misconduct, includes homosexual or transgender identity as being disqualifying or any other violation of the unique roles of male and female. now, don't cheapen my argument by saying, cuomo's equating christianity and white power. please, that's just a slip of an obvious point. i am a flawed, failing, repentant christian, okay? if i had any bias, it would be in favor of faith. the point is that the value of exclusion is embraced here, and

our vice president's wife, in the place where she is, it does the same thing, and it adds to the anxiety for people around why this white house, why this president doesn't speak out against a member of his party that embraces a message that isolates the same kinds of people that are being singled out where the vice president's wife works. remember, this all comes after the president said good people march with the kkk and all the other crap that makes the hateful grateful for this president. either the president agrees with representative king or he does not. the president finds time to tweet about myriad minutia. he can tweet about this, but he doesn't. is he really afraid of losing people who agree with such ugly ideas? how about this as a counterthought? imagine how many people he might add to the fold from the tolerant majority if he were to show that he rejects this virulent minority. new argument.

maybe the time has passed, and maybe the passing of time has given us our answer. the next time my brothers and sisters on the right say it's wrong to have people call them out on issues surrounding bigotry and intolerance, remember this moment. remember what the president who heads your party refused to do. i won't forget. none of us can. this matters too much. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. giving you the show early because you're that good. >> well, i thank you for that. still no response, right? you said that this was a moment for the president, a moment for his supporters to -- and, what? >> she ducked it. >> yeah, she did. listen, this is what people should understand. like you said, it wasn't an answer. people from all different backgrounds, all different ideologies, republican, democrat, independent, whatever,

people say stupid things all the time. >> mm-hmm. >> that is different than a pattern and a practice of racist behavior or condoning it, people saying it, doing it. >> there are moments when people do the right thing. god forbid when you and i are out, which happens on a regular basis, somebody comes up and says something ugly to you, it happens. >> you embrace them. you hug them. >> yeah, i hug them with three knuckles. the point is you stand up against the ugly people and you do what has to be done in the moment because none of us tolerate that kind of b.s. the president's job is to care about all of us and he's got to stand up against it, and you can't let him get away with saying nothing. either you're for king, or you're against him. >> so you say that, right? and i believe that if that actually happened if we were out. >> 100%.