of him. with the acquittal, there are reports he's hope of making a comeback, but for now he's still locked up in the hague pending appeal. thank you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. bombshell or buzz kill? i'm brian stelter and this is how the media works, how the news is made and how we can all get better. anthony cormier and buzzfeed's ben smith are here. how the white house's favorite media mega phones are stoking fear. and what nancy pelosi and ann coulter have in common. that's interesting. we also have carl bernstein standing by, jeffrey goldberg and much more. first, the question on everyone's mind, is it true,

we've all been talking about this story. it's the buzzfeed story that came out thursday night that said president trump directed michael cohen to lie to congress. with a clear-cut impeachable offense being alleged, the story went everywhere within a matter of minutes. but then on friday night robert mueller did something incredibly rare. something his office almost never does. his office issued a lawyerly response seemingly knocking down the story saying buzzfeed's description description of specific statements to the special counsel's office and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office are not accurate. let's go back to the story. did the president tell cohen to lie? who's accurate? here for their first sitdown

interview, anthony cormier and editor-in-chief ben smith. >> thank you for having us on. we're happy to talk about this story. i'm glad you began with the question of the truth of the allegations because ultimately, this is a media show, we're here to talk about process, we're happy to talk about that. just on your air an hour ago rudy giuliani gave this classic rudy giuliani interview where jake tapper asked him about that central question. did donald trump talk to michael cohen about his testimony. rudy giuliani's answer to that was, so what? and rudy giuliani, as you know, through this whole sort of amazing saga has, when news breaks gone on tv to try to get ahead of it. rudy made real news around the core of this story. as we go to on to talk about process, i do want to make sure we also talk about the fundamental core of this story, about a giant construction

project in russia and secret negotiations through the campaign. >> which he seems to have confirmed to continue -- >> earlier the claim was nobody was talking about a russia project in the final months of the campaign. now the claim is different. now rudy is saying, yeah, they were probably talking about it. >> anthony's reporting said it went through the summer, which was a big news break at the time. giuliani seems to have said it went through november. that's extraordinary. i don't mean to get away from the process but i did want to dwell on that because that's important and the heart of what we've been reporting. >> let's get to thursday night and the story that says trump told cohen to live. do you have any new evidence since thursday night that supports your story? >> i have further confirmation this is right and stand our ground. our reportering will be borne to be accurate. >> who are your sources? >> i'm not going to talk about my sources.

rudy giuliani signaled there would be a leak investigation. this is an important matter and in order to protect our sources and not put them in any risk, we're not going to talk about the sourcing. >> you wrote on thursday night, we can put it on screen, the lead of your story, the blockbuster lead, that trump directed cohen to lie to congress. do you have sources beyond the two in the story or just the two sources? >> we're not going to talk about the sourcing matters -- >> it sounds like you've gone back to those two sources since friday and they said the same thing to you again? >> i can't talk about the timing of when we've spoken to people but, yes, the same sources we used in that story are standing behind it, as are we. >> the story goes on to say, cohen told the special counsel that after the election the president personally instructed him to lie by claiming negotiations ended months earlier than they did in order to obscure trump's involvement. you're saying cohen told the special counsel. that's been a matter of debate. did cohen really tell the

special counsel this information? that's one of the details mueller seems to be objecting to. you still both stand by that. >> we're eager to understand which characterizations mueller is talking about there. we take that incredibly seriously. >> you challenged him on friday night to say what's wrong in the story. >> we really would like -- >> have you heard from the special counsel? >> we have not. we heard through "the washington post" a bit. we haven't heard what -- where the gap is and where we can continue our reporting to close it. >> we're interested in the construction of that statement. jason lee sent a request to understand the coms behind that. we want to know why that was constructed, why the deputy attorney's office was involved. we're keen to learn -- we want clarity from the special counsel's office and we want to learn about the construction of that statement. who was involved, when, how, where, why. >> you mentioned your co-author,

jason leopold to be here. where is he? >> he's out reporting. i dragged one of my reporters who hasn't gotten a lot of sleep into the studio. >> jason's past has been scrutinized because he was accused of making up stories 15-plus years ago. do you have any concerns about his credibility permanently? >> no concerns about his credibility. as soon as this story was published, a real mistake he made and owned 20 years ago. >> by his own admission, he's had a checkered past. >> we're talking a long time ago. slightly more recent -- in the slightly more recent past, we're talking the last 10, 15 years. he's america's leading expert in the freedom of information act, he's been invited by cnn to train your team on the freedom of information act. he used freedom of information act to get hillary clinton's e-mails. he was a pulitzer finalist last year about a series of stories

of russian assassinations in the united kingdom. >> so, i take your point. what you're saying -- >> i think there's a lot to argue, a lot to talk about. i think going after the credibility of these reporters and of this organization is not -- is a mistake. >> that's what rnc is doing and rudy said, quote, we they obviously have a hatred of the white house. >> the white house is very, very eager to take stories they don't like and turn them into battles between the white house and the media, between the white house and us, to divide the media, to avoid talking about the substance of the story. that jake tapper interview was incredible because giuliani came on there to attack us. i don't think he made any news about us, but he certainly raised the intensity of the attacks. be and jake repeatedly pushed him into, well, wait a second. there were secret negotiations through the summer of 2016 about this giant glass apartment building, $300 million in revenue, the name trump, it would have been the tallest building in europe. this is not some side project.

giuliani twice really broke news. the negotiation went on through the whole campaign. that's something they were denying. as you know, incredibly heatly all through the high-stakes campaign. >> no matter how low rudy's standards are, we have to keep our standards as high as possible. i know you agree with that. >> absolutely. >> how long had this story been in the works, anthony? >> months. we've been reporting on trump/moscow for two years ago. >> but this story with cohen to lie. >> a long time. we vet and run down every single aspect of this. >> and on thursday the story started to come to a close. you were ready to publish on thursday. >> well, we've been drafting and and editing this for abges. i don't recall but weeks and weeks. this is something we've been working on through a long time. it's been through the normal, rigorous editing problem. >> editors? >> ult mim ed tors.

it could -- it was ready to go. >> let's take a look at what buzzfeed did to request comment from special counsel. this is first e-mail from jason leopold, co-author of the story, sent to the special counsel's office at 1:50 p.m. on thursday. it says, anthony and i have a story coming up stated cohen was directed by trump to lie. assume no comment from you but just wanted to check. best, jason. to me, this is a shocking casual way to ask for comment for such a serious story. to you think that was an appropriate and sufficient way to ask for comment? >> peter told "the washington post" or people close to him on background, if we had asked differently, he would have given us more information. we absolutely -- that was not -- we were reaching out to get information. that's why you reach out. that's why you reach out hours and hours before the story published. i don't think -- if you got an e-mail from jason leopold saying, hey, we're working on a

story whose substance is that you were involved in an incredibly high-stakes and incredibly shocking thing, that you would say, no, that's not a big deal. i think that we stated the heart of the story there. again, though -- >> when i write -- >> people said -- had the e-mail come in more formal detail he would have responded in more detail? we would have gotten more detail -- >> come on, one paragraph? there's a dereliction of duty to -- >> we have broken the biggest stories about the special counsel's investigation. we brought a lot of details about paul manafort's indictment soon before the indictment came down. we broke the information around the trump tower moscow that would be the heart of the cohen indictment months before. and i think anthony can tell you more about our correspondence with the special counsel about that, but i think that it has not been our experience that the special counsel is forthcoming with information. >> let's look at the reply, though.

the reply to jason's e-mail two minutes later from the special counsel's is why peter carr has the nickname peter "no comment" carr. when i'm sending an e-mail to buzzfeed, it's a bullet long e-mail, everything that's included. i want to make sure everything has been checked first. why didn't jason do that? >> again, i'm -- carr has now said he would have responded in more detail if he had more detail. he could have said that two minutes later. he could have said, that's quite a statement. tell me more pep said, we'll decline to comment. that is the correspondence we've had with him over the last two years as we have broken huge stories about his office. >> you're putting the onus on him. i'm saying -- >> no, i'm saying if we had understood that he would have responded -- he would have been more willing to give us information had we formatted -- had we given him -- we absolutely would have. let me talk for a moment.

>> mr. carr is a lovely spokesperson, we know him, we've dealt with him in the past on a number of occasions. it's never been my experience to get any signal, wave off, any go ahead from the special counsel's office through that spokesperson. it's not the first time we've dealt with him. certainly will probably not be the last. >> and you should realize he's speaking as one of the reporters. there haven't been a lot of breaks out of the special counsel's investigation. we have been on the outside breaking these huge stories that have subsequently been confirmed in the black letter of court filings. >> that's true. i'm concerned in this case there wasn't enough request for comment with the special counsel's office. >> i told you what i think about that. >> what you're saying is you agree but you don't want to say that. >> this is a process question. we're getting way into the details of process around a story whose substance is not only extremely high stakes and important but also as we are talking about this, has been moving forward this morning because of what we published.

>> process question number two, then. why publish thursday night as opposed to waiting for a third source or fourth source, knowing the stactionz of this story? >> we published because we were very, very confident in the sourcing of this story. we had been waiting. it's not like anthony walked into my office on thursday noon and said, i have this. we've been developing on a long period of time, with sources, with a -- and without getting into the details of sources, with a set of sources who were involved in these huge revelations, where at times we were way ahead -- >> sometimes i write stories and say i have a number of sources. i have more than that but i can't reveal. is that what happened in this case? >> it would -- i think you say what you say in the story and you stand by what you say in the story. i would say reporters sometimes describe someone as senior administration official and that

can be shady and that identity is revealed and you want to say, come on. i want to say the story in this case, these are very narrow, very strong discriminate escrip. i think that is -- that is -- >> so what's going on then? is there a fight between the special counsel's office and southern district of new york and one set of prosecutors are saying one thing and the -- >> we're actively figuring that out. we're trying to figure how to parse this statement from the mueller team and figure out what's happening behind the team at doj and special counsel but we're trying to get deeper inside the room where this happened. >> a lot of people look at the special counsel's statement and say, he issued a flat denial. it's written in a legal way but they're challenging the premise of your story. what does that feel like as a reporter? >> never great but i'm solid. my sources are solid. this reporting is accurate. >> people are saying heads should roll at buzzfeed, you're

hurting the news business as a whole. what do you say? >> i've been a reporter for 20 years. my first job was on on the loading dock with panama journal herald. they wouldn't give me a job inside. i've been doing this again and again and again. the same fundamentals i learned covering city hall, covering the police, covering courthouses. that stands today, right? that is -- i use those same skills, the same rigor to cover the white house. this is going to be borne out, brian. this story is accurate. >> what if the sources are just wrong? >> they're not. >> not intentionally. not trying to hurt you but what if they're wrong? >> they're not. they're not. i'm confident. >> and i think -- this is obviously the highest stakes. there is no source like robert mueller. there aren't other government officials who say, when this is wrong and we're going to say how and why, this would produce the sort of reaction you're bringing here. it's -- >> it's a very weird situation. >> it's a very high-stakes

version of a sorry we're all familiar with. you say, how is it wrong? they won't tell you. a all you can do is continue to report -- >> why not raise the bar further. because the stakes are so high, raise the standards higher. >> our standards were extremely high. >> you're saying it's not about -- you're saying it's not about quantity of sources it's about quality, am i perceiving that correctly? >> it's also true that we, and particularly with the president's lawyer on television demanding a leak investigation. >> what about getting documents? >> there are a lot of limits around what we can say. >> i respect that. >> we have some in the story, we said some things on television. we stand by all of it. i think what we've discussed this morning in the context of the president's lawyer calling for a leak investigation, we're being extremely careful. >> he also said you should be sued. are you concerned about legal challenges? >> we're obviously prepared to defend ourselves and the story in every form. >> you've been doing that for the last two years after

publishing the dossier. let me ask you about documents like the dossier. anthony you said on cnn friday you have not seen the documents you describe in the story. jason leopold said, we have seen the documents. can you explain that to us? >> we can't get into the details. at this point because of the calls for a leak investigation and the sort of sensitivity around that matter, we can't go any further at all in order not to jeopardize our sources. we make a commitment to them. >> this is out in the culture now, ben. look what "snl" said about you last night. >> look, buzzfeed, i think it's great. we all think it's great that you want to help, but this isn't really what we need from you. y'all are buzzfeed. you do memes and lists. >> buzzfeed's reputation on the line. how do you react? >> that's a wonderful job. it's a joke they've been making for seven years. >> it's dated because buzzfeed

has -- >> it's a joke we love and embrace. buzzfeed includes a very, very wide range of media, including very silly entertainment. and i think unquestionably very, very serious journalism. we've gotten people out of jail in chicago. we've changed the way sexual assault is prosecuted in the united states and we've had a series of revelations about about the investigation of the -- of donald trump's relationship of russia from the same two reporters who published this. >> and you've been breaking news about it. if this story turns out to be wrong, do you feel your job on the line? >> i think we're very confident in this reporting -- >> i worry about buzzfeed's brand as a whole. if this story is wrong, buzzfeed as a whole is in trouble. >> i appreciate your concern. >> but are you concerned -- forget about me. aren't you concerned about that? >> you know, we're confident in the story and we are -- and i think he we also do think while there is right now and notabl a

understandably a focus on the media story, the important story is about the relationship between the trump administration and russia. >> i agree with you. so let's talk about what you think happened here. >> our reporting was central to that and -- >> forget the cameras are on. >> it's hard. >> it is hard. what really happened, is it that trump said to cohen, take care of me, don't screw me? is it mob talk? it wasn't directing him to lie. it was, don't skroou screw this up, michael. >> do you have -- >> that's what i'm wondering. >> but you guys tell me, is that what happened? >> we don't know. we're trying to get the exact language that was used. we'll get there one day. we continue to report like mad, as we always do, but what we reported, the president of the united states directed michael cohen to lie to congress is accurate. that fundamentally accurate. we're going to get inside the room where it happened and bare it out. we've taken this to ground. here we'll go further to get

inside that room. >> are you fed up, ben, that the mueller investigation is taking this long and we don't have answers to these questions? >> no, i understand mueller. i understand the amount of stress and pressure they are under. we are certainly not trying to write the mueller report. we're not trying to project inside his head, inside his office's head. we're writing about the evidence and what our sources have told us about the evidence. but i think, you know, we -- it's difficult, i think, in this media environment. i say this as somebody who came up in this environment and very much a part of it, to say we don't know everything. we know what we know, we know what we know is accurate. the words you were talking about before, what he might have said. >> what he might have said. >> there is a transcript. you don't have it and i don't have it. every reporter in the country is chasing it right for you. we're confident our reporting is going to bare out but i

understand you're on television 24 hours a day, on the internet 24 hours a day, it's hard to say, wait for mueller's report, wait for more reporting. that's obviously what we're all doing. >> anything i'm leaving out? anything i haven't asked you. >> that's the best reporter question. no, i really appreciate you having us on. we're here to talk about our work. i'm glad to do it. it's been two years. we've broken some of the biggest parts of this story. again, i'd like to go back to the fundamental part of it. during the heat of a presidential campaign, a candidate said he had no business dealings with russia. later turns out he did. his attorney goes to congress saying these negotiations ended in january. we were the first to report that, no, that happened in june. this morning rudy giuliani is making even more news. he's saying, maybe it wasn't june, it's november. the core of the story is the president of the united states has a business deal that he and the people around him wanted to keep quiet from the american public. that's -- that's where we're reporting and we're going to keep going. >> for viewers there the united

states, that interview is going to reair in 40 minutes. you can watch it here on cnn. i greatly appreciate both of you being here and being transparent. i think it helps viewers understand how these stories happen. >> we really appreciate the opportunity to come on. >> come back soon. thank you very much. quick break here. we'll chew over all of it, talk about what it means and about how the rest of the news networks in america ran with the story as soon as it was published. carl bernstein is standing by to react. much more straight ahead. i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate

to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. also, in a great-tasting chewable. woman 1: this... woman 2: ...this... man 1: ...this is my body of proof. man 2: proof of less joint pain... woman 3: ...and clearer skin. man 3: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 4: ...with humira. woman 5: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. (avo): humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection.

woman 6: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com got it.r pickup order? ran out of ink and i have a big meeting today and 2 boxes of twizzlers... yeah, uh...for the team... the team? gooo team.... order online pickup in an hour. hurry in and save on tax software. at office depot officemax 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. but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. discover card. i justis this for real?match, yep. we match all the cash back new cardmembers earn at the end of their first year, automatically. whoo! i got my money! hard to contain yourself, isn't it? uh huh! let it go! whoo! get a dollar-for-dollar match at the end of your first year. only from discover. and i don't add trup the years.s. but what i do count on... is boost®

delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life. we're back now on "reliable sources. we're talking about buzzfeed's story which could be a smoking gun if it's true. but those two words, if true, they're two of the most dangerous words in journalism. a lot of reporters have been through what those buzzfeed reporters and editors are going through now. a story comes out. it could have profound consequences, but it could be wrong, according to a key spokesman. think back to watergate. think about the time this happened during watergate and let's talk about it with a man who was there, living it, carl bernstein, the legendary journalist is joining me now to sort through all of this. i was hoping you could react first to this buzzfeed controversy. you've been in this situation before.

>> i think it's going to take time before we fully understand what the exact truth is here in terms of the facts relating to mr. cohen and whether or not the president directed him to lie. and the facts regarding the attribution in the story that buzzfeed ran in which they attribute part of it not just to sources but to documents the special prosecutor has, et cetera, et cetera. we don't know where we are with this story right now. and it's going to shake out perhaps and i hope in cohen's testimony coming up on the 6th, 7th, 8th of february. >> when the story came out on buzzfeed.com, virtually every

news outlet in the country ran with it. cnn ran with it, msnbc, even fox news a little bit. all of us, including you, kept saying, be cautious, be careful. did we all make a mistake by running with buzzfeed's story? >> no, i think we had to report it and attribute it to buzzfeed. as i said on our air, we don't know whether or not this story is accurate, contextual, true and it needs to be run down. but buzzfeed, indeed, has been at the front of this part of the story. i think you also need to look at what the pattern has been in terms of the reporting of the russia story by all of the press. that is is that it is the press that has been accurate throughout this. hundreds of thousands of stories by the ap, by "the washington

post," by cnn, by reuters, by all the major news organizations, "the wall street journal," that have turned out to be true and the president has been telling one truth after another in regard to russia. his conduct has been the issue here. not the conduct of the press, which he would like it to be. the record of the press in reporting the russia story is actually pretty spectacular. when there have been mistakes made -- >> trump's allies point to the mistakes. they point to big mistakes that happen at cnn and elsewhere. are you saying we're not batting a thousand but batting pretty close? >> what i'm saying is the reporting on the russia story and the trump presidency has been excellent, by and large. yes, reporters make mistakes.

news organizations make mistakes. in watergate we made a mistake, a very serious mistake in terms of how the press and "the washington post," bob woodward and myself were. er receiperceived for a few day because we reported the chief of staff had directed the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the watergate burglars and other undercover activities against the opposition. democrats, according to grand jury testimony. well, it turned out the grand jury testimony did not exist because the prosecutors didn't have the grand jury ask about it. we surmised from something a source had said that the grand jury had. it took us two days to figure out what the mistake was. we were right. the chief of staff controlled that fund and in the watergate report of the special prosecutor

and in the hearings it was established that he directed $350,000 just as we had said to be spent and it was apparent within two days that we were right. it may not be apparent within two days who was right, what the exact context is. we'll have to wait to find out. it's clear that from the mueller statement that some part of what buzzfeed wrote the prosecutor believes is in error. is it the substance of cohen saying he was directed by the president to lie on is it about how the special prosecutor came to know such a thing happened. we'll have to wait. i keep saying the same thing.

we don't know know. what we do know, though, is donald trump has been claiming from the beginning that he's the victim of a witch hunt by mueller. he's been attacking mueller day in and day out. he can no longer say with any credibility that this is a witch hunt because the special prosecutor has taken this opportunity to say, i want to be clear on the facts and in my view, my view as special prosecutor, there is some error here that needs to be clarified or corrected by my office. and knowing this will be something that will stop some of the talk on the hill about impeachment, et cetera, et cetera, as well as play to the president's favor. so that witch hunt aspect is pretty much out the window about mueller at this point. >> can i ask you one more question before you have to go?

a lot of critics reacted to the buzzfeed story, there it is, the smoekking gun. is that the wrong way to look at that? >> i think one of the unfortunate legacies of watergate is there had to be a smoking gun to establish richard nixon was a criminal president because it had already been established by many of the tapes, by john dean's testimony, by a preponderance of absolutely certifiable, circumstantial evidence that was moun totainou. he was successful in establishing this standard, unless you have a smoking gun, i should not be removed from office. well, it turned out that on the tapes there was a smoking gun

that confirmed what john dean had said. so, we were left with that legacy. i think that in what what we're dealing with with donald trump, you have a similar situation. we have a president of the united states and we need to wait for the mueller report. it is absolutely essential that we all take a deep breath and wait for the mueller report. in the meantime, from available sources, including filings by mueller and the southern district of new york, we have established, the press has established that the president of the united states, his family members, people closest to him in the campaign have lied at every turn in almost everything having to do with russia, including largely on this trump tower business when, in fact, the president of the united states said no such thing was happening at the time and it's

his family members who said long ago, we get a tremendous amount of money from our business in russia while donald trump was saying, no, we don't get any money from russia and russia. the issue here goes back to the truthfulness of the president of the united states. which is we have learned untruthful and so one of the problems we have in the press, i hear myself sort of jumping backwards when i say that out loud on television. i'm not used to saying out loud the president of the united states lies serially over and over. >> it's difficult to say but they have to tell the truth. >> but yet it's truth. one of the things that has gotten lost in this story, the

same reporters and news organizations, including cnn, including "the washington post," "the new york times," including me, including bob woodward, including all these reporters that trump attacks, he loved us during the primaries when we were reporting on hillary clinton's e-mails. we could do no wrong. so this idea of fake news, we're reporting real news. and donald trump knows that. >> he does. he knows it, he just has to lie -- >> but it is a -- but the question at issue is we have a president of the united states who lies, and this is historically demonstrably, factual, a president of the united states who lies serially, routinely, compulsively such has never happened in our modern

history of the presidency. >> that's a problem. it's a problem getting worse. >> ask what happens to the president of the united states. >> on that point, carl, thank you so much, being here, putting it in context. i want to turn to one of america's best known journalists on that same subject. the "atlantic" magazine is leaving no doubt where they stand on the trump presidency. it seems impeach in big, bold letters. they stress it is time for action in order to bring the debate about trump's fitness for office to congress. jeffrey goldberg is joining me now. i wanted to ask you about buzzfeed, but why did you release this cover several weeks before you were planning on releasing it? >> we released it earlier last week. it seemed as if the news was demanding that we release this.

the new democratic congress, people talking about impeachment already. the shutdown, unprecedented, as so many things about this presidency are. the real active debate, this is what moved me the most, the real life debate about whether the president of the united states is a winning or unwilling russian depate. it's like we're living on earth two or something. with all of these things going on, the pieces are carefully constructed piece by the historian of american institutions, knows his stuff and i thought the argument in this for beginning an impeachment process was very strong. i figured since it was finished, people should see it sooner rather than later. >> the buzzfeed report, it made impeachment talk even louder on friday. obviously your story was written before then, it was out before then. what do you think are the consequences of this buzzfeed

dispute about how accurate the story was and whether it was wrong? how do you think that plays? >> i don't know. nothing lasts long-term. everything is so frenetic. buzzfeed has a proven record of getting these stories right. let's not miss some important underlying facts here. one of the underlying truths of this is if you ask me, does ben smith, the editor of buzzfeed, have a deeper commitment to truth than donald trump, i would say, ben smith, obviously. >> right. >> i think part -- part of this is you have two different systems at work here. you have a system on the trump side that doesn't take issues of truth and lying seriously and you have another system in the mainstream media when we get things wrong, we try to figure out why we got it wrong, we excavate these things, we talk

about it in public, we have shows like yours to talk about these things. and so i would attach myself to the comments of carl bernstein. in the long run it is the press that has been accurate about the unique qualities of this presidency. also there is a record of buzzfeed getting these things right. on the particular of the stories i don't want to comment because we don't know about the sourcing, i don't understand enough about the construction of the story. these are incredible reporters, though, and i think it's important to say that. >> back to your impeach cover, the march issue, you alsos wrote ought big new feature called unthinkable because today is the two-year anniversary of the trump presidency. you had 50 writers write about the unthink about about stories and scandals. what's your favorite? or your least favorite. what's your pick? >> the story we made number one -- let me be careful to

point this out. we tried to make this nonpartisan in the following sense. we only picked incidents in the first two years we couldn't imagine a republican or democratic president would have done in office, things they would not have done in office. number one on our list is the family separation policy and the more baroque aspects of the family separation policy. and then there is the number two, the charlottesville, the reaction to charolettesville and neo-nazia mar march. it's a great exercise. everything goes by so fast these days that you forget what's been said, what's been tweeted, what's been denied, what's been done. and so we have -- it ranges from mow m -- >> you're focused on the big stuff. do you think the small stuff matters, too? trump misspelling hamburgers, trump tweeting he's flying to nashville, not new orleans,

trump suggesting there's a border wall in san antonio. i worry about that but is that too small to concern you? >> no. a, as an editor, i care about spelling. let me make that clear. i believe in grammar. and, no, i don't think so because they all add up. each one signifies something deeper about commitment to truth and principles and norms that have governed the way presidents may have. we make number 50, the magic orb with the -- >> i did forget about that. >> just for the sheer weirdness of it. no, these tweets in which he behaves as no other president would behave, i do think they add up to something. the list is 50 but that's because you run out of time. the list could have been 300. it's remarkable the amount of improbable things that have happened in the first two years of his presidency.

>> happy two-year anniversary. quick break here and then to the shutdown. i want you to meet a white house reporter who's not getting paid because of the shutdown. that's coming up right after this. nasty nightime heartburn? try alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief, plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. oh, what a relief it is!

bipolar i disorder can make you feel like you have no limits. but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on... shaky ground. help take control by asking your healthcare provider about vraylar. vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar i disorder. vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms, and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia, due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death; decreased white blood cells,

which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgement; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. you're more than just your bipolar i. ask about vraylar. -we're in a small room. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this? -[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you. -that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending!

hey, batter, batter, is [ crowd cheers ]ere.

like everyone, i lead a busy life. but i know the importance of having time to do what you love. at comcast we know our customers' time is valuable. that's why we have 2-hour appointment windows, including nights and weekends. so you can do more of what you love. my name is tito, and i'm a tech-house manager at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. we're back now on "reliable sources." a lot more to get to since the government has been shut down for 30 days and counting. let's bring in baltimore sun media critic and voice of america's white house bureau chief steve berman. you were at the white house covering the president's story.

but you're working unpaid. many white house staffers are have been furloughed or working unpaid because you're funded by the american government. i have to ask you what it's like as a reporter to be affected by the shutdown. i know you're not speaking for anybody else at voa but what is it like to be a victim of the shutdown while covering the shutdown? >> it's a bit unusual to cover a topic that so personally affects you but just like any other topic i would be covering, you but that aside, you go ahead, do your job and it's not affecting the way i do my job actually except for the days that i'm furloughed. other days i'm unpaid at the white house, swapping out with one of my colleagues. >> is this the first time that you've kind of personally experienced or lived through a story and felt the effects? >> most certainty to this degree. but i was at the federal credit union the other day where i'm a

member and the banker there is she's had grown men in that seat where i was sitting crying. i'm a little more fortunate than, perhaps, many other of the hundreds of thousands of federal workers affected. >> i know journalists don't want to make the story about themselves. none of you at voa have mentioned you're furloughed. it hasn't come up once. let me turn to the shutdown more brideth bro broadly. do you think president trump will have some sort of speech? today he tweeted and said nancy pelosi, i'll have more for you soon. >> right. i wasn't quite sure how to interpret that tweet, as is often the case with the president's tweets. i'm sure this will play out as some protracted drama, as is the case with the president. the state of the union speech was postponed for a week under

reagan after the "challenger" disaster. i'm sure he wants to see how much he thinks we're in a state of chaos or disaster or giving this speech it would appear he has some part of government under control. i think the white house will be looking at this strictly from an optics that he would want to appear that he's caving to pelosi and the democrats in any way. but the shutdown is extremely unpopular as you know. cnn had a great piece yesterday summing up six recent polls from various credible polling institutions across the board it's unpopular. and across the board the president is blamed for it. so he may try and use this speech as an opportunity to try and rewrite the narrative. >> we only have a minute left, unfortunately, but i want to ask you about the caravan the sequel. because fox news is talking about a brand new caravan, again raising fears of immigration. your reaction? >> change the narrative. it's change the narrative time.

they started that after rudy giuliani's interview with chris cuomo, the incredible mess he made of what he was trying to say in that, and they were on their heels. and then came the buzzfeed story. they were on their heels. it's a way for them not to have to report the stories everyone else is reporting that are negative about the president and have a different story to tell. it's shameless the way they whipped this story and they play to fear and loathing about immigrants to this country. but that's exactly what was going on, and you can look at the timing and see it. >> you mean as soon as the news got even worse for trump fox pivoted. >> exactly. that's the well. that's where they go to. same place trump does. >> it is effective in the short-term. i think in the long-term it does their viewers a disservice. i want to take a quick break here and then tell you about a really important program. it's like ameri corp for

journalism. we'll have that right after this. tion. with big flavors, not artificial ones. enjoy 100% clean soup today. panera. food as it should be.

(toots) but you know it's you. so know this. the activated charcoal in charco caps adsorbs gas for fast gas relief without passing the gas. charco caps: put less boom in the room.

you might or joints.hing witfor your heart...gas. but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. and i don't add trup the years.s. but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life.

in the united states we have teach for america, amerry corp, the peace corp, and now there's also report for america. it is stepping in to help with the crisis of local news. where ad revenue is being lost philanthropy, nonprofits, foundations are filling in some of the gaps. charles simmons and steve walden are the cofounders of report for america. now they're trying to scaleup to 60 and in a few years they want to get up to 1,000. >> we begin in aplatcha, in west virginia and eastern kentucky, so two news papers. and that's exactly what we want to do, be in these places where people haven't felt heard. and it's not just the elite media on the coast that hasn't heard them, in some cases it's

the lexington herald. and we're seeing that, we're seeing even within states that are in the middle of the country are not part of those postal elites, those communities themselves are not listening to themselves either. and there's a need to sort of think about local journalism as a binding agent for our communities or as will wright has done excellent work on water. so the access to clean water is a huge issue in appalachia and kentucky. >> and a month later the person who's in charge of the water district gets forced out and a month after that the state legislator mysteriously finds $5 million to help fix the problem. what's constructive to us about that is this was not a six month long investigative project. this was a second week on the job. >> he showed up at the

commissioners -- >> well, to give him a little more credit than that, he showed up, went to people's houses and had them turn on. >> and asked for the glass of water and the water was dirty. >> exactly. really good local reporting, but it was not a yearlong investigative project. and it unfortunately it shows these gaps are so severe that if you put even a young reporter in an area you can really have a big impact. >> the business model of the area is essentially philanthropy. >> look, there's a new era of journalism where non-profit is playing a bigger and bigger rule. >> should journalists be skeptical of that, more importantly should the public be skeptical? >> i think we should be as skeptical as we are as big corporations who have given corporate advertising. and we need to be attentive in the way corporate comes in through advertising. similarly with the foundations.

the difference i think with the foundations is we have really good standards how to create these walls. like pbs does this very, very well and they are very caring about how they do it. >> what about the facebook money and the google money, too? google last year announced $300 million over three years for journalism. this week facebook announced $300 million a year for journalism. some of us look at this and say they're just throwing crumbs at newsrooms because they've done so much damage to the news industry. they've sucked up advertising revenue and now they're just throwing crumbs. what's your reaction to that? >> i think the idea they've hurt the landscape of journalism in our country is true. >> right, they weren't trying to hurt. >> it was inadvertent, but i think when they offer an

opportunity to find new ways to create new models of journalism, i don't think we should rule that out. you can always recognize you did a lot to damage it, and we hope they'll do a lot more. i agree with you, they can do more and we think they will do more and we want to be part of that. >> if you want to be a part of this program log on at report for america.org. the deadline to apply is coming up on february 8th. i'll see you right back here this time next week. speaking out. in a rare statement, special counsel robert mueller's office disputes an allegation about president trump. >> i appreciate the special counsel coming out. >> but there remain many questions to be answered. we'll discuss the latest details with president trump's attorney rudy giuliani, next. plus, all in. new contenders in the 2020 democratic field laying out their goals for the next election. >> not only flip the senate, hold the house and defeat trump. >> a lot of challenges facing the