super bowl on sunday. that's about it for us. don't miss full circle we post those around noon. if you haven't seen it, watch us. it's a lot of fun. chris, the news continues. let's hand it over to him. >> thank you. i am chris cuomo and welcome to primetime. we know who the president's son was talking to with a blocked number before and after that meeting seeking dirt on hillary clinton from the russians and it wasn't his father. what this does and does not answer in a special cuomo's court. today robert mueller asking for more time from a judge because he has so much roger stone evidence to sort before trial. wait until you hear the scope of what mu what mueller's team got and what it tells us. the president met with his intel chiefs today and they came out and told reporters another

provable lie. jim clapper says it matters more than we know. what do you say? let's get after it. >> for a long time, many have wondered who don junior was talking to on blocked numbers while arranging the meeting with russians on trump tower. one of the calls happened three days before the meeting at 4:27 p.m.. i don't know why i'm giving you the specifics because it turns out to not be relevant. many have been waving these as proof that potus was on the other end of the phone. so did big shots on tv. especially when senators grilled junior about the calls september 2017. at that time, he told them he couldn't remember who he was talking to. well, now we know. three sources with knowledge of the matter exclusively told cnn that records provided to the

senate intel committee call the shows were between junior and two of his business associates. those people are not relevant to the probe i'm sure you're going to hear their names soon enough. what i care about more is that this new information doesn't change the fundamental concern about what the president knew. it just means he wasn't the blocked numbers. not that he didn't know about the meeting. remember, the president and people around him lied to us about drafting the statement about that meeting. why did they lie about that? let's bring cuomo's court into session. perfect for tonight. thank you guys for stepping into cuomo's court. so does the fact that the president was not the blocked number, does that end any curiosity for you on the meeting? >> i think until the mueller report comes out, we have to be very careful. those things can be considered

inculpatory or exculpatory. everybody needs to tap the breaks and be careful here because what happens here is we jump out ahead of these things. we see something that either makes our case or defeats our case and that's how we proceed. so i'm comfortable that the mueller team has that information. i think we'll find it out real soon. >> he can't be in trouble for talking to his son, but i have never sold anybody on the blocked numbers and the suggestion, i frustrate people because i go cold on the probe every once in awhile just in terms of the hunt for crimes. see the crimes. we'll see what he has in the report. but it doesn't end my curiosity. i want to know if the president knew about the meeting. i want to know what happened after the meeting if mueller has anything on that. and why they lied to us about the president's role in the statement. this new information doesn't

help me with any of that. >> no it doesn't. i think this is important. i'm going to bet that mueller had this information for a long time. that would be something that he would have. he'd have subpoena power being able to get it. what it tells me is that we didn't hear this information until the capitol hill, the senate intel committee was briefed and then the leaks started. now there's leaked information about it. don't worry about it. it doesn't mean anything. >> i'm glad at least. it's important. if you're going to front run the idea that this is probably the president -- i'm a reporter. i always like leaks. i get that you guys have a different feeling about that. if it leaks out and that should come out soon. my point remains the same, jimmy. it's the line. i'm going to make an argument later tonight that what matters to me today about the intel chiefs, i've never seen the president tell more of a whopper than he told today. it's the lying. these people, the president and

those around him keep lying about things that are russia related when the truth will suffice. does that peak your interest as well. >> you and i talked about this, about the fact that i have been a cautious skeptic on the whole trump, russia, kremlin collusion case. however, process crimes are still crimes. whether it's witness tampering, whether it's obstruction of justice or perjury. if there's nothing to hide, why the necessity and lying about it. it's a number of people. that's troubling. so somebody like me that wants to give the benefit of the doubt and say i haven't seen the there there yet, this is unsettling to me, the fact that so many folks have lied. >> with all due respect, your bar is criminality. and when we look at the mandate to the special counsel, mike, you both know this, you look for

information about coordination and contacts with anything to do with russian interference and of course the special counsel statute says that he's looking for crimes, but he's not looking just for crimes. he's looking for information. i've never looked at a felony as the bar of responsible behavior for a president. anything else is okay. the line has always bothered me most. i have not seen the criminality. i never felt that we needed it. i told people early on, collusion is not a crimement it's a behavior and it could exist without a conspiracy. therefore there won't be any charge but it could still be very wrong. that's why we need to see this report. it could tell an ugly tale of people knowing things, doing things they shouldn't have and lying about it. >> i agree with you, chris. here's the thing, everybody that's ensnared and has been charged with a crime it's always

been about lying with their relationships with the russians. now there's other crimes he was charged with that leads you to wonder but all of the folks that engaged in lying about their connections with the russians, the reason they went in the house and took all of that material is they did get electronic data they probably wouldn't have gotten. >> right. >> it looks dramatic but this is what it looks like when the case comes to your door. this was a search and an arrest. so let's put that, that intrigue is undeserved. go read his op-ed about it if you want more. but what i don't understand is the feds according to the indictment, they have what they need already to prove the misstatements. why were they so hot and heavy

and what do you make of the fact that they have case files and search warrants on the hard drive? >> the description from the special prosecutors office is complex and volumnious. they have a ton of things to sort through. i think the thing was megaterabyte. they're concerned about who talked to who and when. that is going to talk a long time for them to sort through and to get to the bottom of. so we have to give that time. that's not going to be finished next week or next month. they're cautioning everybody to tap the breaks again and be careful. this is going to take the time to go through all of these things. they didn't want anything to be destroyed. they didn't want anything to be deleted. that's the purpose of doing the raid the way that they did. >> of course we thought that was going to happen. jimmy and mike, i couldn't ask for people better at treating us straight, keeping us focused on what matters and keeping it going forward.

thank you for coming in tonight for me. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> just as we started with these two guys, a brand new interview from the president was published by the new york times. he's weighing in on roger stone, kamala harris, nancy pelosi and why his presidency is a big loser. maggie was one of the reporters that talked with him. he's going to join us, next. ♪ now audible members get free fitness and wellness programs to transform your mind and body. download the audible app and start listening today. ♪ ♪ and if you feel, like i feel baby then come on, ♪ ♪ oh come on

♪ let's get it on applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. give your eyes some love, honey! new age perfect hydra nutrition honey eye gel with manuka honey extract and a cooling rollerball wand to visibly de-puff and reduce bags. eyes look younger and refreshed. new age perfect hydra nutrition honey eye gel from l'oreal paris. hydra nutrition honey eye gel ♪ ♪ our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. (buzzer sound)

holiday inn express. be the readiest. not long ago, ronda started here. and then, more jobs began to appear. these techs in a lab. this builder in a hardhat...

...the welders and electricians who do all of that. the diner staffed up 'cause they all needed lunch. teachers... doctors... jobs grew a bunch. what started with one job spread all around. because each job in energy creates many more in this town. energy lives here. -jamie, this is your house? -i know, it's not much, but it's home. right, kids? -kids? -papa, papa! -[ laughs ] -you didn't tell me your friends were coming. -oh, yeah. -this one is tiny like a child. -yeah, she is. oh, but seriously, it's good to be surrounded by what matters most -- a home and auto bundle from progressive. -oh, sweetie, please, play for us. -oh, no, i couldn't. -please. -okay. [ singing in spanish ]

>> maggie is one of the two reporters that spoke to him in the oval office. you got me? >> i got you. >> so how did the president greet you? >> politely. he was, you know, i hate when we do too much mood music here, but he was in a very personable and good mood. i have to say, chris, and i have interviewed him several times over the last few years and a couple of times in the oval office. he was among the most conventional i have seen him.

he was calm. he answered, you know, a wide range of questions. >> good. good. it's just always interesting because he had been trash talking you so much. it never seems to amaze me when he can be nice to someone's face when he has been trashing them. >> i am aware of that. >> let's get to the content. roger stone, he says, about roger stone, you ask, you or peter baker asked him about whether or not he knew anything about what stone was doing with wikileaks and the democratic e-mails that were stolen or did he direct anyone? no, i didn't. i never did. he said of speaking with mr. stone on the subject. did he ever direct anyone to get in touch with mr. stone about wikileaks? never did. what was your takeaway? >> it was very specific and to the point. there was no ambiguity

whatsoever. this is a president that likes to leave himself wiggle room. he did not leave himself any here. we obviously can't read his mind and we can't read into the past. but he was emphatic that he was not the person that was being referred to in this mueller inindictmei indictment of roger stone. he took great pains to praise roger stone. called him a quote, unquote character. that he felt that the fbi raid on his home was excessive. he saw roger had praised him and said he would not bear false witness and he saw that people, quote, unquote, respect that. >> anything about a pardon? >> that did not come up, but he has said in the past that he isn't going to rule it out and i didn't anticipate it. >> hard to believe that his oldest was doing this on his

behalf to help his campaign and he knew nothing about it. it's hard to believe that someone as savvy as roger stone would be this brazen in the face of the feds if he didn't think he'd be rescued. what's your take on those two? >> my take on the indictment, to be clear, in terms of stone is, i mean, i have no idea what he said to congress specifically and i have no -- you know, i was not present for the five counts of making false statements. in terms of the randy credico piece, that relationship is so strange and has include sod many blow ups and reconciliations. when he says this is taken out of context, i tend to listen to that. in terms of the president, you know, and roger, the president took pains to remind us that roger was not officially with the campaign at that point. that is true. roger, as you know, quit the campaign around august or september of 2015 but he is the president's longest serving off and on political adviser. is it possible something was

going on? roger, again, of course denies it, just to be clear. but is it possible if something is going on that the president didn't know about it? it is. it's harder to see the president not asking anyone to inquire about what wikileaks might have. that is, you know, that is, i think, harder than i -- i could see a world where he didn't discuss it personally with roger, but it's harder to see a world -- it doesn't mean it didn't happen, but that's a more plausible scenario where he asks an aid to go check in with roger. >> as we learned today with what he said about the intel chiefs, you can never underestimate this president's ability to abuse the truth because it works for him, he thinks, in the moment. let me ask you about something else here. i'm reading the piece. written nice and tight. gets everything out there. thank you very much. i lost massive amounts of money doing this job, the president said. this is not the money. this is one of the great losers of all time. you know, fortunately i don't need money.

this is one of the great losers of all time but they'll say somebody from some country stayed in a hotel. yeah, but i lose. the numbers are incredible. what was he talking about? >> i think he was saying that, you know, yes it's true that there's a lot of people that stay at his hotel and he hears lots of numbers like that but he was also saying that overall, and i've heard several people affiliated with the trump organization say this, that this has not been good for business. whatever was the biggest loser of all time, it was a really stark thing to say about the presidency but he views these things in zero sum terms. >> it almost speaks to his regret that he's not making more money while in office and obviously the presidency should be the opposite of profitability. >> he seemed surprised at what he says that's true. >> let me ask you something else. he goes after nancy pelosi.

he teases you about national emergency. no mention about him shutting the government down again, which i thought was very interesting. and he also, the common refrain of, you know, rosenstein told my lawyers, i'm not a target. i'm not a subject. that doesn't mean he's not going to be implicated in the activities outlined in this report. the other thing is pretty flattering about kamala harris. he may not have said her name right but what did you take away from his pretty nice suggestions about the senator from california? >> i think a couple of things. i think that his aids are watching a generational challenge and she is one of them. i don't think she's more in excess of concern for them, but they're mindful that she appears to have some energy and she appears to know how to structurally put together a large crowd to impress at the

outset and they're very aware of that. i mean, look, warren is going to be a specific obsession for him. and he talked about her. but he's clearly aware that there's activity around kamala harris. he's trying not to be disrespectful. he did not deploy any of his usual nicknames or anything like that. >> not yet. he has such distaste for warren, that complimenting harris is kind of a way to put her down indirectly. what a well tiemed interview fo you and peter baker. thank you for hopping on the phone with us and giving it to us hot off the presses. >> thanks for having me. >> all right. this is going to be very interesting. remember, when asked directly by two new york times reporters whether or not he knew what stone was doing, whether he talked to him about it, whether he had anything to do with directing him on it, no, no, no. those are the answers from the president of the united states

directly to the new york times. all right. so, from mueller and the battle that's going on with him to the battle over how much wall to build on the border. no matter what happens with this negotiation, is there any good argument for another shutdown? because it is being dangled. our great debate on that, next. , you should meet our newest team member, tecky. i'm tecky. i can do it all. go ahead, ask it a question. tecky, can you offer low costs and award-winning full service with a satisfaction guarantee, like schwab? sorry. tecky can't do that. schwabbb! calling schwab. we don't have a satisfaction guarantee, but we do have tecky! i'm tecky. i ca... are you getting low costs and award-winning full service? if not, talk to schwab.

unstopand it's strengthenedting place, the by xfi pods,gateway. which plug in to extend the wifi even farther, past anything that stands in its way. ...well almost anything. leave no room behind with xfi pods. simple. easy. awesome. click or visit a retail store today.

>> there's not going to be any wall money in the legislation. >> the problem is if they don't give us a wall, it doesn't work. without a wall, it doesn't work. >> all right. so if there is no deal by february 15th, that's this three week continuing resolution that they had, what happens? starting point for the great debate. can you make a case that it would be okay to shutdown the government again? after what we just lived through? >> i think the president ought to use that weapon in his tool box in the negotiations. the fact is that you have a fundamental difference of opinion and philosophy when it comes to securing our border. you have a democratic party that's largely controlled or motivated by far, far left

progressives that believe that ice agents are a bigger threat to national security than illegal immigration. a bigger threat to national security than monday what happened when border agents captured some ms-13 gang bangers and when you had that fundamental difference of opinion you have nancy pelosi saying walls are immorale. >> why does that make punishing workers okay? >> chris, if i may -- >> go, ahead. your silence is deafening. >> why does that make -- >> i'll come back to you -- why would is that make punishing workers okay -- >> it doesn't. and i'm not going to engage him in that rant he went on but i will say that the president of the united states should not use 800,000 people who work extremely hard, many of them border patrol agents, coast guards every single day.

that's misguided and it hurt him the first time. it's devastating the second time if he does it and that helps seal his defeat in 2020, but more importantly, i think democrats are taking a stand on what immigration problems we really have. i think he and other republicans have to understand the most illegal drugs in this country come through legal ports of entry. that's why we have to give a shout out to our border patrol agents. >> that's why they want the x-ray. >> and that's why we -- and exactly. you went to the border and many people have been examining this issue. that's why we need to make sure that we have 21st century -- 21st century immigration policies. i'm with you on that. but one quick thing, democrats

have always funded physical barriers at the border. it's happening probably right now. they're building new fencing down there right now, repairing other stuff, that's money that democrats had a hand in giving them money. why say no money for the wall, it's just about how much. >> it's always been apart of a larger program. a larger deal. >> democrats have always pushed for comprehensive immigration reform. >> the fact is this. republicans and donald trump thought they were slick. they took away the protections for dreamers, daca recipients and tps. they took away the protection and then say i'll give it back to you on a temporary fashion. so you're going to rob me and then give me back what you took for me and say i should apologize to you. that doesn't fly anywhere.

and make sure that those individuals that know their country to be their home get this here. >> i'm not seeing it the way you are. usually i'm pretty good at seeing where you guys come from on this stuff. i get the problem. i get the frustration. i also get the need. i believe the men and women that keep us safe on the border that they need more physical barrier. i don't think they think it's of paramount importance. i think they see other things as more critical to our safety. but that to the side. this is what do you do if there's an impasse. it had to hurt the president. >> it depends on which poll. i saw a poll that saw the president's approval rating in the mid 40s which is essentially

where it's been. it's been stagnant. >> it's this false choice that it's either border security, steel slats. >> it's ballard fencing. no reason to call it anything else. that's what it is. >> it's not either all. it's both. it is all of the above. >> yeah, but it's how much of each. >> the president doesn't say that. the president doesn't say that. >> let's just be clear what started all of this to begin with. during the campaign you came up with a simple solution to a complex problem. i'm going to build a wall. he pretended that there was nothing on the southern border and he was going to build this new thing and mexico was going to pay for it. it was a farce. he never pushed the technology, the x-ray, the staff, the judges, the accommodations, the

rules, the way he does the wall. be fair, he is the one that made it a single point issue, not the democra democrats. >> democrats have also stated, $1.6 billion for this wall as well as other proposals to make sure. donald trump wants $5.6 billion for a wall, period. and the problem that i have is not only do you want to shutdown government and effect real americans that are working hard every day to enforce the policies, but you also are not focussing on the real issues and we actually have real infrastructure problems in this country right now. so why are we going to spend money that he said mexico was going to pay for in the first

place. but everybody wants to make an excuse for someone that lied about a problem we need to be coming together on. >> those four fresh mmen that wrote a letter, that there needs to be i.c.e. reform. >> her name is kamala. >> i'm sorry, kamala harris, but she compared it to the kkk. you have nancy pelosi in her so-called comprehensive border security wants to freeze the number of ice agents that we would put on the southern border while giving more money to migrants coming into the country which of course could be an incentive for more illegal migration to take place within our country. >> the president doesn't make any of these arguments, just so you know.

>> you're also con flflating bor patrol and i.c.e. agents. we need to reform i.c.e. to get back to its original mission to make sure that we have customs and enforcement and do it in a just way and make sure that people have due process. that's one thing, but to get back to the point of the original conversation and make sure that we get back to the border, we have issues down there. we have immigration issues that are not as simple as a wall. if i give you $5.6 billion today and you get to go build your wall and sign donald trump's name on it and make it out of gold plates or slats or whatever we're still going to have an illegal immigration problem in this country and we're still going to have drugs coming in through ports of entry and an asylum problem and the caravan that ain't never showed up since the election. we're going to have issues to still deal with an immigration problem. some real and some fake as the caravan that you all created. so i'm saying -- >> it's both and all of the above. >> i don't disagree.

you're just not hearing that from the president. >> you're not. >> we agree on one thing. this is a big problem with lots of different facets. if you just focus on one, you're never going to get anywhere and we haven't. >> amen. >> but thank you for arguing the points. appreciate it. but when i hear the president disrespect his hand picked intel chiefs and then lie about it later, i see another mistake that the president is going to be judged by. but when a former intelligence chief sees such actions he has a very different concern that you'll want to hear. former intel chief jim clapper, next. (engaging uptempo music) - with tripadvisor finding the right hotel at the lowest price is as easy as dates, deals, done. going on a work trip? dates, deals, done. destination wedding? dates, deals, done. because with tripadvisor all you have to do is enter the dates of your stay and we'll take care of the rest: searching over 200 booking sites to find you the best deal it's as easy dates, deals, you know the rest.

(owl hoots) read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do, tripadvisor. hey, darryl! hey, thomas. if you were choosing a network, would you want the one the experts at rootmetrics say is number one in the nation? sure, they probably know what they're talking about. or the one that j.d. power says is highest in network quality by people who use it every day? this is a tough one. well, not really, because verizon won both. so you don't even have to choose. why didn't you just lead with that? it's like a fun thing. (vo) chosen by experts. chosen by you. and now get apple music included, on us. it's the unlimited plan you need on the network you deserve. switch now and get $300 off our best phones.

the one with the designer dog collar.(sashimi) psst. hey, you! wondering how i upgraded to this sweet pad? a 1,200-square-foot bathroom, and my very own spa. all i had to do was give my human "the look". with wells fargo's 3% down payment on a fixed-rate loan and a simpler online application, getting into my dream home was easier than ever. get your human to visit wellsfargo.com/woof. what would she do without me?

>> he met with two of them today. see the picture. when the president came out of it, i want you to hear how he explained away the contradictions that we heard from them earlier. >> they said they were totally misquoted and it was taken out of context and what i do is i'd suggest that you call them. they said it was fake news. >> their testimonies were televised. their written assessments were public. i mean, come on. that was only hours after saying that time would prove him right and then wrong and then suddenly

they're all in groeagreement. >> percent chance. >> they wouldn't say it for the very reason you cite because they were on television for all to see what they said and did the unwritten classified statement was submitted to the committee. >> i don't think he's ever told a bigger whopper than this one because it's so obviously untrue and it compromises these people that need to have their integrity intact because of the nature of their work. so your concern is? >> first, let me make an overarching comment here. the president always has the

prerogative of accepting, or ignoring intelligence. if they do it repetitively over time for multiple issues, they imperil the nation and the presidency in this case. so that's concerns number one. we have been blessed in that we haven't had a major international confrontation in the last few years, particularly in the last two during this administration. and something of the magnitude of a 9/11 attack or nuclear confrontation with the likes of russia or china. a situation like that, the president is going to need his intelligence community and his gut will not be sufficient to sort out what is fact and what isn't. so you need trust in a situation like that, and that trust has to go both ways.

so what has been compromised in my view is first in the eyes of the public, the trust that the public has in the intelligence community. the trust and what this has done to the employees, the rank and file across the intelligence community, when they see three leaders like this, particularly dan coates insulted as they were. and that was perhaps one of his finest hours because he honestly and straightforwardly told the committee and the public what the facts were about intelligence threats around the world. and then of course you have to wonder what do our foreign partners think? particularly those that share intelligence with us and then i worry about the leaders themselves that could easily reach the point where i don't need this aggrevation. so on a number of levels this is very disturbing and of course most people wait years to do

revisionist history. president trump, you know, does it the next day and this is a man f manifestation of him living in that bubble all to himself. >> i'm going to make an argument at the end of the show as i do every night about how i'm really impressed by his lie today and i believe it's a window into his future in terms of what the mueller probe is going to reveal. it's not about crimes. it's about credibility. let me ask you something, the blocked numbers, i'm happy it leaked. i'm happy it came out. the suggestion was the blocked numbers were the president. people were using it as a potential smoking gun. it was on tv all the time with pun da pundants ready to cash in on it. it's not the president. now we expect don jr. to jump up and down but for people to say that ends that, that doesn't end it for me. does it end it for you? >> it doesn't.

hyperventilating about that phone call was a little overwrought in my opinion in the fact that it apparently wasn't to the president or the candidate at the time, you know, i don't think it has that much pairing on -- >> just because it wasn't him doesn't mean he didn't know. >> was the president aware whether we heard about it via the phone call or not and what is his complicity here? and mixed on this and something that's not relevant to the probe overall. jim clapper, you are always relevant. thank you so much for making us smarter on these issues tonight. thank you, sir. >> thank you for having me. >> always. all right. the hat, the maga hat, it's become so much more than a hat

for people on both sides. now that vision reaches a new level in a restaurant and the conflict will take away your appetite. next. feel like this? your skin deserves better. garnier micellar cleansing water with micelles that work like a magnet. it's a pure way to remove stubborn makeup without harsh rubbing. cleansing, reinvented. micellar water. by garnier, naturally! ♪ ♪ our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. (buzzer sound) holiday inn express. be the readiest.

for huge savings. like cabela's multi-tools in six colors - two for $10.

and the bass pro 6 1/2 quart aluminum fish fryer for under $30. your adventure starts here. hey. i heard you're moving into 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.

for a nasty cold, take new dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. [a capella] whoa! and vaporize it with an intense rush of vicks vapors. [a capella] ahhhhhhhhhh! new dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. it's a hat with four words on it and they can mean a lot to people. talking about the president's maga hat. now we hear a chef saying you wear that hat into my place you're not getting service. he tweeted stuff like this saying maga hats are like white

hoods except stupider because you can see exactly who is wearing them. now he is taking down some of the tweets and there's reports the chef is getting threats. what's right here? what's wrong? what matters. let's bring in d.lemon. how do you see it? >> okay. so here's how i see it. i think people should be able to wear whatever they want, right? i don't like banning. i don't like boycotting. i don't like people getting fired for making just what's honest mistakes. but your clothing tells a story and if you put certain symbols in your home or in front of your house, whatever, things tell stories and you should be aware of the entire story that they tell, not just the little part of it that you want to be told. but i don't like the idea of banning someone for wearing a hat but that hat, as we have said, it's no secret, i told you about how i feel and people

perceive that hat. >> it's legal. you're the attorney. >> you can refuse service. now you have a first amendment argument. how is this any different than the baker with the cake. that was about refusing service to a group of people that should be a protected class and unless you can argue trump supporters should be a protected class. i don't think you have much of an argument on that. let's say this isn't so much about whether he has the right, it's about whether or not it is right. here's my problem on this issue. ordinarily, i go down the line, look, be bigger than that. but i don't want to fall into the trap of underselling the significance of the trigger of the expression to people. i think the more appropriate anlage is if people were wearing shirts that i say hate black people, would he be okay to say

don't come into my place like that. that's how people like him see the maga hat. does that make it okay? that's the right question? >> should you. just because yes, that, but just because you have the right, does it mean that you should? >> no. absolutely not. >> again, your clothing tells a story about who you are, what you think about, and what you represent. and also, life is not in a vacuum. that hat means a lot of things. if you're going to wear that hat, that hat means everything from, i would say the beginning of the campaign, maybe before. maybe that hat means the birtherism to people. maybe it means mexicans are rapists to people. so you cannot erase those things from the story of that hat and say well, i'm just wearing it because i want stronger immigration. well a lot of people want stronger immigration. it just can't be about what you want it to be about.

there's symbols and things in society that you have to take as a whole. >> all right. >> so i don't like it. i don't think it should be banned, but i understand why. and also the same reason -- i know you have to go, but the same reason they go, but the same reason why they stopped putting cable news on in some gyms. >> my thing is, we're way too focused on the divisions and not what brings people together. >> more on maggie haberman's interview coming up. we're going to dig into it. >> good for you. we need that. i'll be watching, as always. all right, by now, we all know, unfortunately, this president will lie to you. but today win argue we reached a new level. and that what we saw today is a window into our collective future and certainly future for the president. he's going to be haunted by today. and no lie will get him out of where he is headed. the argument, next.

your digestive system has billions of bacteria, but life can throw them off balance. re-align yourself, with align probiotic.

and try align gummies, with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health "green book" is now nominated for five academy awards. ok, here's the deal. including... [ cheering ] it's also the winner of... you're unbelievable. oh, that was a good time. with advil liqui-gels, what stiff joints? what bad back? advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil liqui-gels. ron! soh really? going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms...again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this?

if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management. not long ago, ronda started here. and then, more jobs began to appear. these techs in a lab. this builder in a hardhat... ...the welders and electricians who do all of that. the diner staffed up 'cause they all needed lunch. teachers... doctors... jobs grew a bunch. what started with one job spread all around. because each job in energy creates many more in this town. energy lives here.

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

the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. has rarely lied to your face worse than he did today when he spun this bs about what his intel chief said to him. listen to this. >> they said that they were totally misquoted and they were totally -- it was taken out of context, so what i do is, i suggest that you'd call them. they said it was fake news. >> you know this could not have happened, right? the hearing was on tv. for example, on north korea. >> he wants to denuclearize. >> we currently assess that north korea will seek to retain its wmd capabilities. >> this president has taken the word of the russian leader about election interference and the north korean leader about his

intentions over the reckoning of his own intelligence agencies. formula, trump quote, intel chief quote, our reporting. it's all obvious. again, on iran. >> we cannot prevent an iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement. >> we do not believe iran is currently undertaking activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device. >> the people who gather all the knowledge that our government uses gave assessments that are different than what the president says are threats to this country, including iran and its nuclear capability. all right? so, exposing potus' ploy here is easy. the trick is figuring out why the president has this lying habit. this insistence, this compulsion to deny reality in an attempt to make himself look good or right or competent.

let's take the big news today about junior. many on the left suggested the block numbers he spoke to before and after the trump tower meeting were with his father. they are not, we are told. trump folk jump up and say, well, that ends up that. no, it doesn't. because of the lies. did the president know about that meeting? he says no. but he also said he didn't draft that statement about the meeting. and he did! he lied. why? why lie if there was nothing wrong, as the statement said? again, did he know about cohen's crimes with the payouts to the woman? he said, "no," he lied. we know why there. he said, "no," that he didn't do any business with russia. again, why? there's no crime in doing business with russia when he was. why lie? now, trump supporters will say, hey, none of that's a crime. and while the investigation is not over yet, i'm okay with their assumption. i've always been. because i've never needed to sell you that the block calls or anything would be a smoking gun,

because i don't need one. what i need is the same thing you need. the truth about what people in his campaign did with and for anyone connected to russian interference. and most of all, if the president knew and whether he lied to you about the same. only if he lied to mueller, by the way, that would be a crime. but a felony is not my bar for responsibility conduct by a president, nor is it the bar for removing one. remember, as president gerald ford said, an impeachable offense is what congress says it is. so, what we showed today is what i argue could bring this president to his knees. lying about these things, if shown, would be really wrong. concealing or enabeling or firing in circumstances to cover for efforts to get stolen e-mails from america's enemy just to help his campaign or to meet to see if the enemy could

help him or to hinder investigations into these same activities, if a president lied about any or all of that, he should have a really big problem with congress, and frankly, with you. so for me, it has always been about the lying. just like today. this president will lie when the truth would suffice. when the truth is obvious. when the truth is necessary to fulfill his duty to the american people. and if we look to the future, i've said and i maintain, i do not see a legal crisis for the presidency because of the mueller probe. of course i could be wrong. it happens every day. but i expect a story of sneaky, shady moves, doing things they knew and should have known they should not do with people connected to russian bad guys. and a president who may have known about the same, maybe encouraged, enabled, maybe hinders investigations into the

same, abusing his power. that phrase, the root of it all, will be what we saw today and almost every day. the lying. and if so, remember this. this president will have no one to blame for the scrutiny but himself. thank you for watching "cnn tonight" with don lemon, they've got breaking news and it starts right now. >> chris, thank you. i will see you soon. we are going to get to that breaking news. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. in a new interview with the "new york times," trump says he's all but given up with negotiations with congress over his wall, calling the talks, this is a quote, a waste of time, and suggesting he's going to take action on his own. he's got a lot to say about the russia investigation, roger stone, and about intelligence, his intelligence chiefs. he claims that they told him their testimony was mischaracterized. okay, so let's bring in now maggie haberman with the "new york times," joins us by phone. she just did that interview. maggie, thank you so much for joining us