the emmy-winning the marvelous mrs. maisel... tom clancy's jack ryan... and the man in the high castle. all in the same place as your live tv. its all included with your amazon prime membership. that's how xfinity makes tv... simple. easy. awesome. a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! good evening. we begin tonight with a major development in the russia investigation. now it came out of the blue and it's merely the most significant in a whole string of related developments all breaking late today. there's new word on when and where michael cohen will be testifying next as well as a new legal team he's got.

also roger stone, who once said he would never testify against the president now says he might, and we'll talk about that. as for the president himself, he's not ruling out a pardon of roger stone, which is big news by itself, but it was all overshadowed late today when the acting attorney general matt whitaker became the first official with direct knowledge to say publicly that the mueller probe is, and i'm quoting, close to being completed. he said that, and he said something else in addition to something else that's raising concerns among democrats including one senator, chris coons of delaware, who calls it, quote, chilling. so what exactly did the attorney general say? >> anderson, certainly stunning to hear him say those words, to come out and say that this investigation is winding down. it's near an end. and it was. it was the first time in the more than 1 1/2 years that this investigation has been ongoing that someone from the justice department commented publicly about the status of this investigation. the other thing certainly that

he commented about was how he had been fully briefed on this investigation, he then described how when he was a private citizen, he didn't have as much knowledge on this investigation, but now that he's been fully briefed, obviously he has a lot more knowledge of this investigation and the most significant part obviously coming at the end of his comments, and here's what he said. >> you know, i have been fully briefed on the investigation. and you know, i look forward to director mueller delivering the final report. i am comfortable that the decisions that were made are going to be reviewed, you know, either through the various means we have, but right now, you know, the investigation is, i think, close to being completed and i hope that we can get the report from director mueller as soon as possible. >> how significant is it that whittaker would comment publicly about this?

because, i mean, he was sort of rambling there. >> there was some rambling there. but certainly, the fact that he stood there, this was not expected. he was talking about something else. he was at a press conference that had nothing to do with russia. it was a completely different investigation. and it caught all of us by surprise that he would even comment in any aspect on this investigation. normally, when you have people who stand there, they'll tell you, no comment, no comment. but what is so significant, when you start saying that an investigation is starting to wrap up, it's coming to an end, it can signal that there won't by anymore significant law enforcement action. so, it could be that in this investigation, we see no more arrests, we see no more indictments, we see nothing new happening here, because if what he's saying is true, that means pretty much all of the significant law enforcement action has been wrapped up and that the big players, so to speak, have now all by charged, arrested, spoken to. so, it is certainly significant, and it is also significant, because the department of

justice just never comments on the status of any investigation. >> shimon, thank you very much. more now on how all this is being received at the white house. jim acosta is there for us tonight. has the white house responded to what whitaker said? >> reporter: the white house has not responded and the comment came after a lengthy briefing, a rare briefing in the white house briefing room conducted by sarah sanders, the white house press secretary, earlier today. it certainly caught us by surprise, as much as it caught shimon and his team by surprise. one thing you were noting, is the acting attorney general was sort of rambling a little bit in that answer. it seemed to me he didn't sound exactly sure of himself. perhaps he is exactly sure of what's going on, but he would not be the first person close to this white house to predict that the mueller investigation would be over soon. the former white house attorney ty cobb, who was advising the president on the mueller investigation, had that prediction back in 2017, that the probe would be over by the

end of 2017, and of course, here we are. >> the white house, sarah sanders was asked directly about roger stone's chance at a pardon, explain what she said? >> reporter: that's right. and there was some tap dancing going on around this question. take a listen to this as some of my colleagues in the briefing room pressed sarah sanders on whether or not roger stone could actually receive a presidential pardon from president trump. it sure sounded as though over the last few days roger stone is campaigning for one and here's how sarah sanders answered that question earlier today. >> you said, i'm not aware of that, when asked if the president had ruled out a pardon for roger stone. so, does that mean he hasn't ruled out a pardon? >> i'm not aware of any conversation regarding that or a need for it. >> sarah, just to follow up, can you guarantee that the president won't pardon roger stone? >> again, i'm not going to talk about hypotheticals that are just ridiculous of things that i haven't talked about. >> reporter: and anderson, so you saw there, sarah sanders was trying to turn to me for a question there in the briefing

room, but she never really ruled it out, and i think that basically indicates that this is a live option for the president. when i was able to ask sarah sanders a question, i asked her whether or not, you know, these aides, these associates of the president who are pleading guilty, who are being indicted in this russia investigation with this growing list of people in that category, are they concerned that the trump presidency is somehow threatened by the mueller investigation and sarah sanders, the white house press secretary, said nothing could be further from the truth. she sort of pushed back on that notion. she didn't really at this briefing today, anderson, deny whether or not somebody close to the president may have had some bo working knowledge as to what roger stone was up to in that summer of 2016, when he was talking to wikileaks and in discussions with intermediaries, potentially with wikileaks, and it was leaving a lot up in the air by the end of the briefing. >> jim acosta, thanks very much. because this all could be a legal and political deal, i want

to turn to a legal and big deal, jeffrey toobin, and cnn analyst gloria borger. the acting attorney general makes these comments, surprising shimon and other people, what do you make of it? >> when whe was appointed, a lo of people, including me, said he was clueless and unqualified, and i think he vindicated the prediction today. i didn't know what the heck he was talking about. first of all, the idea of saying that an investigation is almost over is something, as shimon said, the justice department never says. it is interesting news. he's not an outside observer. he is actually the supervisor of that investigation, so that's real news. now, i don't know what almost over means. does it mean one month, does it mean six months, that's not -- that's not clear. but the thing that was chilling and bizarre was, he says the decisions are going to be reviewed?

that's not his job. i mean, his job is to supervise the distribution of the report but reviewing decisions, i don't know if that was just a brain freeze on his part, and he was just sort of saying words. >> right. and that's certainly what some democrats at the very least found chilling, concerning. >> it is chilling. now, in his defense, he may not know what he's talking about. but i don't think that's, i think, the best you can say. >> that's always a great defense. >> it is -- ignorance of the law sometimes is an excuse. >> gloria, what's the sense in washington about what whitaker said? because, i know, some democrats senators are expressing real concern. does anybody really know, though, what is going to happen to that report? >> no, and no one really knows what he meant. he got out over his skis, but no one knows what he was trying to say. and when you listen to him, you have to think, look, is he trying to pressure mueller to end this quickly? was he sending a message to the president, don't worry, all of these decisions that mueller made are going to be, you know, reviewed? who knows. >> let's play what he said again

just because it is sort of odd. >> it is. >> to me, it wasn't necessarily that he was trying to send a message. it was just that maybe he wanted to just show that he is an acting attorney general and knew something. i don't know, let's take a look. >> you know, i have been fully briefed on the investigation, and, you know, i look forward to director mueller delivering the final report. i am comfortable that the decisions that were made are going to be reviewed, you know, either through the various means we have, but right now, you know, the investigation is i think close to being completed and i hope that we can get the report from director mueller as soon as possible. >> anderson, i am fluent in english. i have been speaking english since i, you know, practically learned to talk. i have no idea what those words mean. i mean -- i just, you know, gloria, you're smarter than i am. help yourself.

>> i'm also sort of good add english. but the question is, did he mean the decisions need to be reviewed? i'm confident they're going to be reviewed. well, what does that mean? does it mean that he disagreed with some of the decisions that were made? >> it felt like filler to me. i have words in my head and i can string them together and i'm going to do that now. and this is what i'm doing now. >> the first rule of holes, stop digging. and that's exactly what he was doing. i mean, if i'm sitting in bob mueller's office and i'm one of the attorneys who have kept my mouth shut for lo these many months, and i was listening to whitaker, i would be pretty upset and pretty angry. and feel pretty pressured at this point to wrap up an investigation that you're not ready to wrap up and by the way, what is whitaker have to do with anything? it's going to be the new attorney general, bill barr. >> which is good news, frankly, because whatever else you can say about bill barr, this is a competent, qualified person who understands the criminal justice

process, who has been in situations like this before, who demonstrates real understanding of both the political and legal environment, who knows if we're going to agree or disagree with the decisions he makes, but clearly he's someone who understands the stakes and the issues here. you certainly can't say that about whitaker. >> gloria, there is this bipartisan bill being proposed in the senate, which is cosponsored by richard blumenthal and charles grassley, that would essentially mandate that mueller's report be given to congress and made public, which would be remarkable. it's pretty significant that grassley, who's a staunch republican, the current senate pro tem and former judiciary committee chairman, would put his name on that. >> grassley has made the point in the past that you spent $25 million on this, you being the american public, and you deserve a right -- you have a right to know what's in the record, since you paid for it. so, he's kind of old fashioned that way. i don't know whether this thing is ever going to go anywhere, but it's clear that members of

congress who are responsive to their constituents are interested in letting their constituents know what mueller thinks and what mueller thought, and, again, we don't know what kind of report mueller is going to deliver. cl it will be full of things that you can claim executive privilege or not, but i think in the end, barr has made it pretty clear that he thinks the american public has a right to know, too. >> and roger stone, i mean, the fact that the white house wouldn't rule out pardoning stone, not a surprise? >> not a surprise. and if you look at how roger stone is behaving, i think this is a pardon play. he has not said a bad word about the president. i think if you look at the people who are in this investigation and, you know, george papadopoulos, michael flynn, roger stone, i think all of them are angling for pardons. i think manafort would like a

pardon, but i think given the fact that he made so much money, he's in a somewhat separate category, but the others who are just, and i use that word advisedly, just accused of false statements, i think they all think that the president is going to cut them loose at some point. >> gloria, what are you hearing? >> well, look, the worst thing that could possibly happen to roger stone is if the judge imposed some kind of gag order on him, because he wants to talk about this case. he wants to talk about how he has been maligned and how he will defend the president until the very end, and it's very clear that he does want a pardon, although he says he'll clear himself, but roger stone has never met bad publicity. he says that himself. he's raising money off of his trial. today, it popped into my inbox, you know, fund-raising gimmick

for roger stone to help him pay better not put a gag order on him or that's all going to have to stop. >> he gave you a rock, jeff, with his name. >> i'm sorry, we didn't plan this out. tomorrow i'll bring it. one of the ways he's raising money is he has these polished rock stones which he autographs roger, so they are roger stones. >> can i get one? i want one. >> he's going to have to sell a lot of these. >> i only have one. >> is he early morning walking the beach in ft. lauderdale and picking up stones? >> he actually bought boxes of prepared rocks. i was in his house a couple of weeks ago. so, it was quite striking for me to see the fbi agents come in. they came in with a little more fanfare than i did. >> do you think each of the fbi agents got a signed stone? >> there are probably still some left. >> jeffrey, get me one next time. >> okay. >> jeff toobin, gloria borger, thank you. coming up, how willing the president may be to do it all over again. we're keeping them honest. and california senator kamala harris, the newest 2020 presidential candidate, we'll talk about it with the man

who helped make barack obama president, john kasich, and expectations and perhaps echoes of obama. ♪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™ walking a dog can add thousands walking this many?day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move.

peroni italia. ♪ and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve.

i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. we've done it! hah! great work old chap. we'll be rich and famous. well i'll be rich, you'll be famous... at least amongst your digging friends. here's a thought, ever consider investing? e*trade has easy to use tools that help you get started. you like playing with tools don't you? 'course you do. ♪ don't get mad. start investing with e*trade. moving? that's harder now because of psoriatic arthritis. but you're still moved by moments like this. don't let psoriatic arthritis take them away. taltz reduces joint pain and stiffness and helps stop the progression of joint damage. for people with moderate to severe psoriasis, 90% saw significant improvement. taltz even gives you a chance at completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz.

before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. for all the things that move you. ask your doctor about taltz. hundreds of thousands of federal workers are back on the job. many won't be getting paid until thursz or even friday, which is five weeks without money coming in and possibly just about two weeks from the next shutdown, and yet more financial pain. so, what's the administration's advice? well, don't ask them, because they seem to believe the buck stops pretty much everywhere.

>> my advice would be to call your democrat members of congress and ask them to fix the problem, so that we don't have to continue having this process and so that we actually secure the border and protect american citizens. >> actually, not everywhere, it sounds like where them the buck stops elsewhere. keeping them honest, whether or not you agree on the need for the kind of border wall the president says he wants, it's not even clear what he wants, the shutdown shows that it comes at a cost above and beyond the billions of dollars the president now wants congress, not mexico, to pay. there's also the billions of dollars in lost or deferred wages and the ripple effects from that. today the nonpartisan congressional budget office put that price tag at, get this, $11 billion in lost economic output, 3 billion of which will never be recovered. and their estimate may be on the low side, because the cbo did not take a variety of indirect factors into account that could also slow the economy. just to underscore, the congressional budget office is

nonpartisan and the report is in line with other private sector studies but here's what the president's top economist said at a joint appearance with treasury secretary steve mnuchin. >> look, the hardships for individuals was always the key problem here, in my judgment. and as steve mnuchin said and others, i'm glad we're back to work. i'm glad all the federal employees, i'm glad all the people furloughed, tsa, go right down the line, i think those individual hardships were the biggest issue. and i think everybody's glad we can reopen and put folks back to work. >> so there's that. on the other hand, he also continued doing what the administration has been doing for weeks now, downplaying the impact. >> we frequently disagree with cbo, with all respect, they're doing the best job they can, i get that. no, i won't acknowledge any of that right now, and you know, in

a $20 trillion economy, it's awfully hard to make even the best guesstimates of those kinds of small fractions of numbers. that's what you're looking at here. >> small fractions of numbers. keeping them honest, he's not saying, as commerce secretary wilbur ross said the other day that 800,000 americans are a rounding error, he does seem to be saying their contribution to the economy is a rounding error. so, it remains an open question. does president trump truly understand the sacrifices he's imposed to get what he wants, and that question is by no means the only one. now, remember, the president is again threatening to declare a national emergency if congress doesn't give him what he wants, he puts the chances at less than 50/50. he doesn't explain how it can be an emergency two thursdays from now, when it's not an emergency now and wasn't an emergency five weeks ago before all the workers began paying the price. here's how white house press secretary sarah sanders, here's how she tried to square that circle.

>> it's either an emergency or not an emergency. you can't have half an emergency. so which is it? >> you're missing the point. it is not just an emergency. it's a crisis at the border, but the national security and a humanitarian crisis. but there's a process in which the president wants to exhaust all options, primarily doing what we feel is the best one, which is a legislative fix. but if congress doesn't do their job, then the president will be forced to make up for all of their shortcomings. >> well, keeping them honest, the white house has yet to offer credible evidence that what's happening at the border is an emergency let alone a very special kind of emergency, the kind with no urgency, that somehow demands no immediate action, none, perhaps beyond threatening the livelihood of people who bore the brunt of it the last time around again. more now on the congressional panel that president trump is depending on to get him out of this mess but that he's also threatening to bypass if negotiations don't reach an agreement that he likes. i spoke with a democrat whose job revolves around knowing

where his members stand, house majority whip james clyburn. >> do you agree with those 50/50 odds? >> i think they're much better than that. i think we have two sides who raels that this is something that must get -- realize that this is something that must get done. we have to secure or border. we cannot do it with homeland security not being funded. we have to restore the faith and trust of the american people in the governmental process, and so we're going to work on doing that over the next three weeks and i hope the chances of getting the deal done are much better than 50/50. >> what role would you see any new wall or fencing playing in a deal? >> i think it depends on how you define a wall. i have said that i'm all for a smart wall, a wall using

technology, using drones and scanners and x-ray equipment that will make the wall too high to get over, too wide to get around, too deep to burrow under. that is a smart wall. i was glad to see the president on friday use that term when he talked about a wall. so, it says to me that we can reach common ground. the language is already getting a bit common. and so, i think that we can get to where we need to be. >> even if the bipartisan panel does reach a deal, there is no guarantee it will be something the president will support, should negotiators focus on a deal that the president will sign, rather than something that could simply pass both clahambe? >> well, i think that we ought to settle on what we can do in both chambers. we are a separate and equal branch of government, and i don't think that we are subservient in any way to the

executive branch. we are coequal partners, so, let's come together here, house and senate, democrats and republicans, and decide on what we think will work best. hopefully, as they deliberate over numbers, that is on finances, they will consult with experts as to how best to spend that money. and i would hope that they will have the benefit of all of that in their deliberations and maybe then in sitting down with representatives of the president, they can convince them of why it is they should sign on to whatever the agreement is between these two bodies. >> you know, the house minority leader kevin mccarthy says democrats have funded border barriers in the past and refusing this time because president trump is asking for it. what about that? because democrats have, in fact, funded border barriers in the

past. what's different about it this time? isn't it possible that there are some areas that could use fencing or some kind of barrier? >> well, that may be, and that's why we want to consult with experts. i think that what the democrats got turned off is the president saying we're going to build a wall from sea to shining sea. we're going to have a big beautiful 30-foot high wall. that's the kind of stuff of which the berlin wall was made. we know that does not work. walls, historically, have not worked for what they are intended to work. we believe that using technology that's available to us now can build a secure wall of technology, scanners, drones and, as i said, x-ray equipment, that will allow us to check every car coming through the ports of entry. now, you know, the drugs that the president keeps talking

about, i understand that 78% of that comes through the ports of entry. they don't come over fences. and so, how do we know? you can't do that by building a wall. you got to have the technology that will allow you to detect that stuff if it's in an automobile or in some other kind of motorized vehicle. >> the republican senator lamar alexander said that any final bill to fund the department of homeland security should include a provision to end government shutdowns for good, to automatically renew funding if congress and the white house can't come to a deal. is that something you would support? >> absolutely. we are the only government i know anywhere that this shut down the government over policy arguments. that, to me, is a bit sophomore, if not ancient. we just really need to get that out of our system. sure, we can disagree over policy. but we ought not put families at

the risk because of policy disagreements. a lot of these families, we have already read that over $3 billion will never come back into this economy that was lost during this shutdown. we ought not do that to families. what do we know about the health of people who were not able to get their medications because they did not have income to purchase them? this kind of stuff we ought not allow. what has happened to people's credit, who are now at risk, because they were not able to pay their mortgages and other household bills on time? >> yeah. >> that kind of stuff cannot be recouped. so, the government ought not be doing that, and i would think that the president would have much more compassion going forward than he demonstrated in the pass. >> congressman clyburn, i appreciate your time. thank you, sir. >> thank you so much for having me. >> the congressman is known as a dealmaker, as are many of the democrats and republicans on the panel, which is drawn exclusively from house and senate committees responsible

for apro rating money. joining us steve cortez and democratic strategist, paul begala. democrats have funded border barriers in the past, so what's different this time around? is it only the president is asking for the funding? >> no, i thought what mr. clyburn said was entirely reasonable. if i were in the trump white house, i would be very happy with mr. clyburn said, because it was reasonable. they have voted for it in the past, they might vote for some of it in the future. buff you can't solve the problem with concrete alone. that's what democrats are saying. by the way, back then when they voted for it, there was a crisis of immigration coming from mexico, and guess what? those actions that president obama took worked. there are a million fewer illegal immigrants, undocumented folks from mexico, today than there were in 2007. so, what we did worked. so, there's no crisis now. the crisis now is actually folks seeking asylum, people coming to the ports of entry and

surrendering legally under our laws and asking to be protected from narco terrorists back at home. >> steve, for the president or his base, is there any deal that works without the word wall included it in somewhere, somehow? >> well, you know, look, i don't want to get lost in the semantics, i don't care if they use the word wall. the point is, we need barriers. i call barriers a wall. is there a deal without barriers, without significant barriers that works for the base? no. there is not. look, this was the foundational promise of donald trump's 2016 campaign. we know that a wall is a very necessary tool. it's not the panacea, of course not. and a lot of democrats are trying to set up a strawman argument, they say, the wall won't solve anything, so it's not worth doing anything. that's ludicrous logic. there's no reason to reinforce our front door because somebody might break in the back door. we should do all of the above. a wall is a critical tool, it's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of law enforcement, customs and border protection,

the people on the ground protecting america, so -- >> do you have a number in mind of how much, you know, how many miles of wall would be acceptable, an a acceptable compromise? >> i think we need hundreds of miles and billions of dollars. this can't be lip service. you know, this can't be token. any real deal, any real compromise has to include a lot of reforms, but included in those reforms, is the wall for america. i'm afraid quite honestly that the democrats aren't serious. congressman clyburn is clearly, but the leadership, speaker pelosi is not serious at all. she said not a dollar for the wall, not $1 for the wall. so, they're not serious. they're not going to negotiate, which is why i believe the president is going to be forced to do this without the congress. >> all right. we're going to take a quick break. i want to hear from paul when we come back. later, five police officers shot in houston. they've been serving warrants, according to law enforcement source. we'll have the latest on what we now know coming up.

♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it starts acting in my body from the first dose and continues to work when i need it, 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction,

a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i choose once-weekly trulicity to activate my within. if you need help lowering your a1c, ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.

and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work. at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible, by being on time everytime.

and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! as we reported, the shutdown countdown clock is ticking again. another deadline looming in less than three weeks, and no sign of the president budging on his demand for a wall. now, the president and house speaker nancy pelosi did meet today, but she told reporters the wall didn't come up. she says they spoke about inf infrastructure, so, you can make of that what you will, in terms of where things may stand in

negotiations. back with steve cortez and paul begal lach gagal begala. paul, the amount of push-back the president is getting from conservative commentators, we know that criticism influenced his decision on to renege on the deal in december. that's going to effect what he does going forward. >> he doesn't need to be, if anybody has a terrific appeal to his base, it is donald j. trump. he doesn't have to worry about ann coulter and rush limbaugh. this is my honest assessment. he is wise to move to infrastructure. he should sit down with nancy pelosi. he made a great many promises, the wall being the biggest and mexico was going to pay for it. mexico is not going to pay for it. he's not going to get it. move to your other promises, mr. president, infrastructure, which you campaigned on democrats support. prescription drug reform. child care. he could do this. you know, after reagan lost the midterms in '82, he came back, and you know what he did? he signed the mlk holiday. he raised taxes to help pay down

the deficit he helped to create. he worked to reform social security and save social security with the democrats. there is a path for the president. he just seems like he can't do it. it's a one hit wonder. disco inferno is the only song in his jukebox. >> ann coulter called trump a wimp for agreeing to fund the government without wall money. how much sway do you think she and rush limbaugh actually have over the president? >> look, you know, i don't know about specific commentators, but i think donald trump is incredibly loyal and pays terrific attention to his supporters. and for very good reason, by the way, because, you know, we pulled off the greatest electoral upset in u.s. political history. and so, we deserved and earned that kind of respect from the president and i would hope from the congress. paul begala mentioned tip o'neill. i wish we had that on the democratic side, we have a speaker and democratic leader focused on one thing, resistance, the entirety of the agenda is resistance to this

president rather than what makes sense for america, what enhances the security and prosperity of this country. i implore the president, i believe he will hold the line. he has to hold the line on this. again, this is a foundational promise. nothing can come before the security of the american people. all of the people on the border tell us that there is a crisis there. all of the law enforcement folks who are involved, the sheriffs, customs, border protection, so i think it's honestly arrogant for people to sit in tv studios and washington and in new york and say there's no crisis when the people who have to deal with it tell us emphatically there is. >> i just got back from south texas. there's not a crisis. there's a real problem with refugees, with asylum seekers, steve. they're not going to be stopped by a wall. they're coming to the ports of entry. the president is putting those kids in cages, that's the crisis. >> the asylum issue is a crisis. it is absolutely a crisis, and you're exactly right. >> and cages won't get us out of it. >> the complexion of illegal crossers has changed entirely, it used to be primarily young men. now it's largely families coming from central america. that's the definition of a

crisis. >> to seek asylum legally. they're not crossing where there's no fence or border. they're crossing at the port of entry presenting themselves. >> no, many of them -- that's not true. >> they're asylum seekers. >> that's not true. many of them are crossing illegally. >> they are not waiting at the port of entry. they are crossing illegally. we have seen it many times, and sometimes trying to cross violently illegally, throwing rocks and storming barricades that do exist, thankfully, in certain parts of the border. there is a crisis on the border. when we are arresting, internally in the united states, tens of thousands of dangerous illegal immigrants and at the border, hundreds of thousands, even the numbers are down, it's still in the hundreds of thousands every single year. that's the definition of a crisis. you know, sheriff napier, they asked him, is there a crisis at the border, he says, there's been a crisis the 31 years i have been in law enforcement. previous presidents and congresses chose to ignore the crisis for a lot of selfish reasons and this president has

the guts to stand up and say i will no longer ignore the long-term crisis that has festered our southern border. >> paul, isn't part of, i mean, if there is a crisis, isn't part of the crisis that there's not enough immigration judges to hear asylum cases and the fact that this administration has changed the rules on what makes you eligible for asylum, that if you're just, you know, if you're being beaten by your husband, if you're being extorted by a gang and your life threatened by a gang, that's not good enough. >> that's the real problem. it has changed, steve is right, it's no longer the predominance of the crisis no longer young men seeking work, which it was years ago. it is this. and we have to do something about this. but they're not a threat to america. they're escaping or trying to escape persecution at home. that's why we have the asylum laws. i think it's tragic that the president stands for us to put children in cages and to scream some of this racist stuff that he screams about folks who are doing exactly what steve, you or

i would do, if our children were being threatened. >> i wouldn't march them across mexico. i would take asylum, paul, in mexico, to take children on this journey across mexico, tells me it's not about asylum. they're economic migrants. >> for trump, it's about beginning up his right wing base so he can survive muller. that's what this thing is about. >> steve, would you want your kids living in juarez in mexico? >> i'm saying, if it were about asyl asylum, if they were fleeing for their lives, when they got to mexico and offered very generous asylum terms and work permits, yes, they would take it there. the fact that they then cross the entirety of mexico to come to the u.s. border tells me it's about economic migration. they're not -- and look, the numbers prove this out. 90% of them who apply for asylum are determined to be ineligible who come from latin america. so they are gaming our system. they know that asylum is a way to game the u.s. system.

it's unfair to americans and by the way, a lot of americans live in terrible circumstances in this country. i'm a lot more focused on trying to raise their standard of living before we raise the stand of living of hondurans and guatemalans. >> all right, steve cortez, paul begala, thank you. coming up, with one eye on what the current president does, we're starting to look toward the next presidential election. the countdown to november 2020 has already started. we'll look at where it stands now. and a warning from democrats about one potential candidate in particular. also shortly, a cnn town hall with kamala harris and jake tapper at 10:00. "eastbound and down" ♪eastbound and down. loaded up and truckin'♪ ♪we gonna do what they say can't be done♪ ♪we've got a long way to go ♪and a short time to get there.♪ ♪i'm eastbound, just watch ole bandit run♪ whatever party you've got going in the back, we've got the business up front.

♪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™ peroni italia. transitions™ presents four n♪ colors

later tonight, our jake tapper moderates the democratic presidential town hall with senator kamala harris who launched her campaign yesterday with a speech in oakland, california. her speech never once mentioned the name donald trump, but obviously his presence loomed large over the race and separately, there's already grmabling about a phone ten shl spoiler for the democrats, former starbucks ceo howard schultz, saying he's considering running as an independent, potentially splitting the anti-trump vote. joining, two cnn political commentators, former ohio governor, john kasich and former obama senior adviser david axelrod. how formidable of a candidate do you think kamala harris is right now, what do you say her strengths and weaknesses are, and what do you think she needs

to accomplish tonight at a town hall? >> i think, first of all, she had a terrific turnout in oakland. i mean, the crowds were huge and so it was a success. the real question, anderson, is she able to articulate a message that does not take her over really on the left where, because the country is basically center right, conservative, maybe a little bit left, depends on who you're talking to, but basically center, and if she's out here with medicare for all and, you know, the kind of $5,000 for every family and all of these things, i don't think that gets her to be closer and closer to the center. now, she has to win a nomination, but i think that's really a challenge. so i think tonight what she has to do is to kind of capture people's imagination. that's what's really important with the candidate. david's on with us tonight, he can tell you what it was like to watch obama capture people's imagination, and then the policies kind of fit in, i believe, kind of below that. so, tonight, she has to be likable, intelligent, which i'm

sure she's going to be, and the fact that she will be able to communicate something that kind of stirs people's hearts. >> david, you've got this fascinating op-ed on cnn.com i read about kamala harris, you point out some of the hurdles she faces, you also write she quote brings enormous assets to the race that make her an instant top tier candidate. who in the primary field poses the biggest challenge to senator harris do you think at this point? >> well, look, i mean, there are lanes in these contests. she is in a progressive lane, and there are a number of candidates who fill that lane. there are several women in the race, senator warren, senator gillibrand, perhaps soon senator klobuchar, to divide the advantage that she might have there. there's another candidate of color who's likely to get in the race, cory booker, and we haven't even gotten to vice

president biden, who, if he gets in, would be an immediate front-runner in the race. i would put her in the -- and beto o'rourke, who is still mulling it over. i would put her in the top tier for sure. she's got many strengths as a candidate. she can raise money. she's got a great personal presence. she comes from california, and the californians have moved their primary, i think, to advantage her in this race. and she is a woman of color and if she gets past the first few primaries and caucuses, you come to states like south carolina where that's a tremendous advantage, so she's got a lot going for her, but i do think the divided base, the fact that she does have to get through those early contests and that's not going to be easy to do, so, you know, and i think she's a bit cautious. we'll see how she performs tonight, and i thought she was terrific in her rollout, but the message itself was a very familiar list of sort of liberal, progressive democratic

issues, and so, what is the story she's telling, as the governor says, and what are the underpinnings of it? >> you know, the other interesting thing, david, i would be interested in david's view on this. she was kind of viewed as a tough prosecutor, and i'm picking up this fact that she may want to kind of run away from that. and i personally think that would be a mistake. >> yeah. i agree with you. i think actually, she got -- go ahead governor, i'm sorry. >> i was saying that is appealing and moves her out of that one lane being defined as a progressive. it makes her -- moves her a little bit closer to the center. do you know what i'm saying? >> i couldn't agree with you more. >> david, you respond. >> i was going to say when joe biden gets -- >> i know. >> go, david. >> we're going to work this out, governor. >> yeah, we are. my -- she was asked about this.

she is under attack from the left for some of the stuff that she did as a prosecutor. she did not apologize for it when asked about it as her first week as a candidate. she recognizes this is something she shouldn't run away from and it could wind up being a real strength for her should she emerge as a nominee. >> i want to play as howard schultz is promoting his book talk about a possible white house run. >> i'm seriously considering running for president as a independent. i want to clarify independent. >> don't help elect trump, you egotistical billionaire [ bleep ]. >> not exactly the reaction you want. but essentially they're saying a third party challenge would just help president trump get reelected.

do you agree with that? >> i don't. i'll tell you why. everything is yet to be kind of, you know, brought out into the open as to who is running and what their message is going to be but here's the sense i have. if the democrats pick somebody, david calls it progressive but it's really on the left, and not anywhere near the center and you have trump out here on the right, you could have a lot of disaffected voters in the middle. a lot of people say they're independent, but they're really not independent, they're like weak republicans or weak democrats. the question is, are people in either of those places willing to then vote for somebody who is not aligned with a political party? that's the question. people say, well, it could never happen. there's a lot of things happening today that we never thought would happen and i think politics is not immune from the enormous change. so to determine how he's going to do, there's a lot of factors that have to unfold before we can decide.

but if it's really polarized left and polarized right, i believe there's a space in the middle and it could be historic. >> david, what do you think? >> absolute gift to donald trump. this would reduce the ceiling. he can't get above 45% of the vote. he may not be able to get there. this would reduce the ceiling he would need to win. he's pro choice. he's pro climate action. he has essentially the same profile as mike bloomberg that urged him today not to run and bloomberg said, i have researched this to a fair thee well and i must tell you that you cannot win but you can elect donald trump. i believe that's what would happen. >> governor kasich. appreciate it. i want to check in with you chris and see what he's working on for cuomo primetime at the top of the hour. >> we're going to try to get deep on this new information from the acting ag. who would have thunk it. his wife was right.

the mueller probe is winding up. he's been fully briefed. what does that mean? >> he was sort of rambling when he said it too. >> he was. but it raises questions of veracity and relevance. it's this nagging question of why did they go so hard and heavy of the searches with roger stone. they say well we think he's a flight risk and they were saying we were worried he may destroy things. what would they be looking for with an indictment that's so water tight in terms of proving the false statements? we'll take you there tonight. >> also, if somebody has been in the bulls eye for quite awhile, you would think somebody, if they had documents that they wanted to destroy, they would have destroyed them by now, but i guess you never know. >> you're dealing with a different kind of bird here. if it is true that during the congressional testimony when they were asking him if he was speaking to credico he was

saying no and texting credico at the same time, this is a ballsy fellow. >> the stones on him. breaking news on the shooting of multiple police officers in houston. we'll have the latest on these horrific shootings. we'll let you know what we know when we come back. 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.

>> breaking news tonight. four houston police officers shot. the chief ot police spoke at a news conference. two of the officers were shot in the neck and are in surgery right now. both in critical but stable condition. the other two are in stable condition. a fifth officer was injured and is not shot but is expected to be released from the hospital soon. the chief of police said this all started when a narcotics unit tried to serve a warrant at a home. two suspects inside the home were killed in an exchange of gunfire. also a reminder, in one hour, jake tapper moderates a democratic presidential town hall with senator kamala harris, live from des moines, iowa. first the news continues. we hand it over to chris for cuomo "prime time." i am chris cuomo, welcome to

"prime time". we have new information on the status of the russia probe. the president's acting attorney general offers up an estimate of when it should end. his words has a key member of the senate calling them chilling. the investigative minds are seated for cuomo's court to take on the relevance here. $11 billion of loss later, the government is back open but for how long? how could the president even threaten to shutdown the government again. will congress be able to stop him? we'll ask the only democrat to vote for the president's wall last week, senator joe mansion and we're just minutes away from the first big event of the 20 20 election cycle right here on cnn. you get to join us on the road to the white house. what do you say? let's get after it. >> so 2.5 years and 70,000 news cycles later, we have gotten the first word ever from the statement of justice on when the russia probe could end. he