on sunday. that's about it for us. don't miss full circle on facebook. watch the show 6:25 p.m. eastern on facebook.com. watch us. it's fun. chris the news continues. let's hand it over to him. >> i am chris cuomo. will be to "prime time." we now know who the president son don jr. was talking to with a blocked number before and after the meeting seeking dirt on hillary clinton from the russians. it wasn't his father. what this does and doesn't answer in a special cuomo's court. 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 and what it tells us. president met with his intel chiefs today. they came out and told reporters another ball faced provable lie. former director of national

intelligence jim clapper says it matters more than we know. what do you say? let's get after it. for a long time many of wondered who don jr. was talking to on blocked numbers while arranging a meeting with russians. one of the calls happened three days before the meeting. and that was june 6. another at 8:40 p.m. another call two hours later after the meeting. on june 9. i don't know why i'm giving you specifics. it's not relevant. democrats have been waving these as potential proof that potus was on the other end. and so did big shots on tv. especially senators on the judiciary committee. in september 017. at that time jr. told them he couldn't remember who he was talking to. now we know. three sources with knowledge of the matter have told us that records provided to the senate

intel committee show the calls were to two of his business associates. they are not relevant to the probe. i'm sure you'll hear their names soon enough. what i care about is this information doesn't change the concern about what the president knew. it means he wasn't the blocked numbers. not that he didn't know about the meeting. the president and people around him lied to us about drafting a statement about the meeting. why did they lie? let's bring cuomo's court in session. we have mike rogers and jim. 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 careful. those can be considered incul p

inculpatory. what happens is we jump out ahead of the things. with see something that makes the case or defeats the case. that's how we proceed. i'm comfortable that the mueller team has that information. like i said could this be exculpatory? we'll find it out soon. >> it wasn't the president. he can't be in trouble for not talking to his son. i have never sold anybody on the blocked number and the suggestion. i frustrate people because i go cold on the probe. just in terms of the hunt for crime. i don't see the crimes. we'll see what he has. it doesn't end my curiosity. i want to know if he knew about the meeting. i want to know what happened after. and i want to know why they lied to us about the president's role in the statement. this new information doesn't help me with that. >> no.

it doesn't. but to james point this is important. i'll bet mueller had this information for a long time. that would be something he would have. subpoena power to get it. we didn't hear this information until the capitol hill the senate intel committee was briefed and the leaks started. on this particular matter. there was leaked information about the blocked call. now information about don't worry about it it doesn't mean anything. >> i'm glad it leaked. it's important. if you front run the idea it's the president, i'm a reporter. i like leaks. you have a different feeling. if it leaks and is information that changes that, it doesn't make it look shady. that should come out too. it's the line. i'll make an argument later tonight that what matters to me today i have sneempb the president tell more of a whopper than today. it's the line. these people the president and those around him keep lying

about things that are russia related when the truth would suffice. >> we have talked about this. about the fact that i have been a cautious skeptic on the whole trump russia the kremlin collusion case. however, process crimes are crimes whether it's witness tampering. obstruction of justice or perjury. those are still federal crimes. they carry big weight. here's the thing. if there's nothing to hide, why the necessity in lying about it. if it's wup person or two maybe it's a coincidence. it's a number of people. that's troubling. i want to give the ben if the of the doubt and haven't seen the there there. this is unsettling. no many folks have lied. >> your bar is criminality. when we look at the mandate to the special counsel. you know this. the mandate says you look for

information about coordination and contacts with anything to do with russian interfeens. and of course the special counsel statute this detroodriv from says he's looking for crimes. he's looking for information. i never look at felony as the bar of responsible behavior for a president. the line has bothered me most. i have not seen the criminality. i have never felt we needed it. collusion is not a crime. it's a behavior. it can exist without a conspiracy. therefore there won't be any charge. it's still wrong. and that's why we need to see the report. it can tell an ugly tale of people knowing things and doing things they shouldn't have and lying about it. >> i agree. he's the thing. everybody that has ensnared in the investigation that has been charged with a crime, it's always been about to some degree about lying about their relationship with the russians.

there's not only that but other examples. ore crimes cohen was charged with that leads you to wonder. all of those folks who have engaged in lying about the connection with the russians. the stone thing was so important. the reason they went in the house and took all that material. they got electronic day ta that wouldn't have gotten if it was a soft meet me in a couple weeks in court. >> there was a search. >> a good op-ed about the case. it looks dramatic. this is what it looks like when the feds come to your door. we saw it with cohen and manafort. this was a search and arrest. let's put that intrigue is undeserved. read the op-ed about it. what i don't understand the feds according to the indictment they have what they need already to prove the misstatements. why were they so hot and heavy. the fact they found fbi case

files and search warrants on his hard drive. >> the description from the special prosecution is complex and voluminous. they have a ton of things to sort through. the term was megater bite. concerned about communication. who talked to who and when. that will take a long time for them to sort through. and get to the bottom of it. we have to give that time. that's not finished next week or month. they're cautioning everybody to tap their brakes. this will take time. that's why they executed a search warrant. they didn't want anything to be destroyed or deleted. that was the purpose in the raid. >> we thought it was going to happen. when they got weaners laptop and it was done a day later. i couldn't ask for better people keeping us straight and keeping us going forward.

thank you for coming in. >> just as we started. 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 haberman talked with him. she'll 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. ♪

"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.

remember when we all used to go to the cafeteria and just chow down midday? -you mean, like, lunch? -come on. voted "most likely to help people save $668 when they switch." -at this school? -didn't you get caught in the laminating machine? -ha. [ sighs ] -"box, have a great summer. danielle." ooh. danielle, control yourself. i'd like to slow it down here with a special discount for a special girl. danielle, this one's for you. we have breaking newsment president trump calling talks about the border wall a waste of time. in a new interview with the "new york times." he talked about roger stone, kamala harris and why the presidency is a financial loser for him. maggie haberman spoke to him in the oval office. joinings now by phone. you got me? >> i got you.

>> great. how did the president greet you? >> politely. he was i hate when we do too much mood music. he was in a very personal able and good mood. i have interviewed him zseveral times and he was among the most conventional that i have seen him in quite sometime. he was calm. he was answering questions directly. there was relatively little for him to go off the record. and he answered a wide range of questions. >> good. it's always interesting because he's trash talking you so much. it never ceases to amaze me how he's nice to somebody's face after trashing them. >> i'm aware of that. >> roger stone. he says about roger stone, you

asked -- you or baker asked about whether or not he knew anything about what stone was doing with wikileaks and the democratic e-mails stolen. or did he direct anyone? no i didn't i never did. did he ever direct anyone to get in touch with mr. stone about wikileaks. never did. what was your take away about the level of confidence in the answer. >> he didn't leave himself any wiggle room. we can't read his mind and can't read into the past. but he was emp fattic he was not the person being referred to. in the mueller indictment of roger stone. he took a great pains to praise stone. he liked him and called him a character. said that he felt the fbi raid on his home was excessive.

he thinks he saw roger praised him. and said he wouldn't bear false witness and felt people respect that. >> anything about pardon? >> that didn't come up. he has said in the past he won't rule it out. i didn't expect anything different today. >> hard to believe his oldest adviser was doing this stuff on his behalf and to help the campaign and he knew nothing about it. hard to believe that someone as savvy as stone would be this brazen in the face of the feds if he didn't think he would be rescued. >> my take over all, again without my tyke on the indictment to be clear in terms of stone. i have no idea what he said to congress. specifically. and i have no i was not present for the five counts of making false statements. in terms of the randy cred

copiece is so strange. and so many blow ups and reconciliation. when he says it's out of the context. i listen to that. in terms of the president and roger the president took reminding us roger wasn't officially with the campaign. that's true. roger quit the campaign around august or september. he is the president's longest serving off and on political adviser. is it possible something was going on that roger denies this, is it possible if something was going on 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 i think harder than -- i could see a world where he doesn't discuss this personally with roger. it's harder to see a world -- where he asks an aid to which she can in with roger.

>> as we learned today with the intel chiefs. you can never under estimate this president's ability to abuse the truth. because it works for him he thinks in the moment. something else here i'm reading a piece. written nice and tight. really gets everything out there well. 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. fortunately i don't need money. this is great loser of all time. somebody from some country stayed at a hotel. but i lose. the numbers are incredible. what is he talks about? >> he was saying it's true there are people who stay at his hotel. and he hears numbers like that. he was saying that over all, i have heard several people say this with the organization. it's not good for business. whatever it is it was the biggest loser of all time.

it was stark to say about the presidency. he views these things in zero some terms. >> very interesting take for him. it speaks to his regret he's not making more money while in office. obviously the presidency should be the opposite of profitability. >> he seems surprised at what he said has been a loss. that's true. >> right. so let me ask you, he goes after nancy pelosi. he's teasing you about national emergency. no mention of him shutting the government down again. which i thought was interesting. and he also the common refrain of rosenstein told lawyers i'm not a target i'm not a subject. that doesn't mean he's not implicated in the report. the other thing that will get interesting pick up is pretty flattering about kamala harris. he didn't say her name right. but what it you take away from

the nice suggestions about the senator from california. >> a couple things. his aids are are watching a generational challenge and she's one of them. she's not more in excess concern than o'rourke. she has energy and appears to know how to structurally put together a large crowd to impress at the out set. they're aware of that. he, warren is going to be a specific obsession for him. and he talked about her. that he's clearly aware that there's activity around kamala harris. he's trying not to be disrespectful. he didn't deploy any usual -- >> not yet. he succeeded in being respectful. he has such distaste for warren.

complimenting harris is a way to put her down indirectly. what a well timed interview for you. and peter bark. thank you so much for hopping on the phone. hot off the press. >> thanks for having me. >> maggie haberman. this will be interesting. remember when asked directly by two "new york times" reporters whether or not he knew was stone was doing and talked to him about it. whether he had anything to do about directing it. no, no, no. those respect answers from the president of the united states. directly to the "new york times." all right: 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 the negotiation, is there any good argument for another shut down? it is being dangled. our great debate, next. when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage.

and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com. give dry skin the elbow. new age perfect hydra nutrition moisturizer from l'oreal. an ultra-nourishing cream enriched with manuka honey extract. age perfect relieves dry skin and leaves it hydrated, toned and more elastic. new hydra nutrition moisturizer from l'oreal.

new hydra nutrition moisturizer ♪ ♪ this simple banana peel represents a bold idea: a way to create energy from household trash. it not only saves about 80% in carbon emissions... it helps reduce landfill waste. that's why bp is partnering with a california company: fulcrum bioenergy. to turn garbage into jet fuel. because we can't let any good ideas go to waste.

at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing.

amazon prime video so when you say words like... show me best of prime video into this... you'll see awesome stuff like this. discover prime originals like the emmy-winning the marvelous mrs. maisel... tom clancy's jack ryan... and the man in the high castle. all in the same place as your live tv. its all included with your amazon prime membership. that's how xfinity makes tv... simple. easy. awesome. all right. you heard the breaking news from president trump new oval office interview. to hear it from him and speaker. border negotiations are in as bad a place as ever.

>> there's no wall money in the legislation. >> the problem is if they don't give us wall it doesn't work. without a wall it doesn't work. >> all right. if there is no deal by february 15 that's the three week continuing resolution. what happens? starting point for the great debate. let's bring in niger innis. and -- >> i think the president ought to use that weapon. in his tool box. in the negotiation. the fact is you have the fundamental difference of opinion kp philosophy securing our border. the democratic party that is largely controlled or motivated by far, far left progressives that believe ice agents are a bigger threat no national security than illegal immigration. a bigger threat to national security than mopd what happened when agents captured some ms 13

gang bangers. when you have that difference of opinion, you have nancy pelosi saying walls are immoral. >> why does that make punishing workers okay? >> if i may. >> silence was deafening, niger. >> the question was to me. >> why would that make punishing workers okay? >> it doesn't. i won't engage in that sensationalistic. the rant whent on. the president of the united states shouldn't use 800,000 people who work extremely hard. many border patrol agents and coast guard. every day the u.s. attorneys. who work hard to enforce the laws as pawns. it's misguided. it hurt him the first time. it's devastating again. and will seal his fate in 2020. democrats are taking a stand on what immigration problems we

have. i think that niger and republicans have to understand the most illegal drugs come through legal ports of entry. we have to give a shout out to the border patrol agents for a huge fentanyl bust at the port of entry. it could have affected 57 million americans. at a port of entry. >> the vehicles through x-ray. >> they want the x-ray and tech so much. >> you went to the border. many people are examining this issue. make sure we have 21st century immigration policy. >> i'm with you on that. one quick thing. democrats have always funded physical barriers at the border. the proof is happening probably right now. they're building new fencing down there now. repairing other stuff. that's money. democrats had a hand in giving them money. why say no money for the wall?

it makes it seem tit for tat. >> it's always been a part of a larger program. a larger deal. democrats have always pushed for immigration reform. the fact is this. republicans and donald trump thought they were slick and got the card pulled by nancy pelosi. they took away the protection for dreamers and tps. they took away the protection and say i'll give it back to you on a temporary fashion. if you give me $5 billion. rob me and give me back what you took from me? and i should apologize. that doesn't fly anywhere. democrats are staying hard and fast. do not shut the government down. make sure we have 21st immigration policy and make sure the individuals who know the country to be their home get to stay here. and get a right to citizen ship. >> help me understand this. i'm not seeing it the way you

are. usually i'm good at seeing where you're coming from. i get the problem. i get the frustration. i get the need. i believe the men and women who keep us safe on the border need more physical barriers. i don't think they see it as a pa panacea. put that to the side. this is what do you do if there's app impasse. i can't believe you want to take another hit after what you saw happen in the shut down. it had to hurt the president with the base. >> well, actually it didn't hurt the president. >> we saw it in poll numbers. >> well. it depends on which poll. a poll showed the approval rating in the mid-40s. which is essentially kind of where it's been. it's been static. >> hard to believe. >> false choice. it's either border security from a steel slat or. >> fencing. no reason to call it anything

else. >> innovation. it's both. it is all of the above. >> it's how much of each. >> a comprehensive approach. >> the president doesn't say that. you're saying it is reasonable. >> all of the above. >> hold on. let's be clear. what started all this mess. during lt campaign he came up with a simple solution to a complex problem. i'm building a wall. he pretended with a farce there was nothing on the southern border. it was a farce. he never pushed the technology or x-ray. the staff. the judges. the accommodations. the rules. the way he does the wall. be fair. he is the one who made it a single point issue. not the democrats. >> let me jump in. democrats have also stated just recently last year we stated we

would give him $1.6 billion for the wall. as well as other proposals to make sure we have immigration reform. donald trump doesn't want anything else. he wants $5 billion for a wall. period. and the problem that i have is not only do you want to shut down government and affect real americans working hard every day to enforce policies. but also you are not focusing on the real issue. we actually have real infrastructure problems in the country. not drinking clean water. why are we spending money that he said mexico was paying for in the first place. if anyone else can flat out admit the president of the united states lied. we'll be able to move the ball down the field. everybody wants to contort themselves into pretzels making an excuse for somebody who lied about a problem. that we need to come together on. >> the democratic party has an element. that wrote a letter to nancy pelosi. she's taking it seriously.

there needs to be ice reform. you have presidential candidates that compare ice to the kkk. >> what are you talking about? >> senator kamala harris. >> she compared it had to the kkk. nancy pelosi and her so called border security of wants to freeze the number of ice agents on the southern border. giving money to migrants coming into the country. which of course can be incentive for more illegal migration. >> the president -- >> you're con flating border patrol and ice agents. that argument was absurd. we need to reform ice to the original mission. customs and enforcement. and a just way. and people have due process.

the other thing to get to the point of the original conversation. and the border. we had issues down there. we have immigration issues that are not as simple as a wall. if i gi you $5 billion today and you build a wall and sign the trump name on it. and make it out of gold. we'll have a problem in the country. we'll have drugs coming in. we'll have an asylum problem. and not to mention the caravan that never showed up since the election. we're going to have issues to still deal with and an immigration problem. some real and some as fake at the caravan. >> it's not either or. it's both and all of the above. >> i have to leave at that. this is a big problem with lots of different facets. if you focus on one the way we have with the physical barrier issue we'll never get anywhere. and we haven't.

thank you. now when i hear the president disrespect his hand picked intel chiefs and lie about it later, i see another mistake the president is going to be judged by. when a former intelligence chief sees such flag rant action he's a different concern. you'll want to hear. former intel chief jim clapper. next. -we're doing karaoke later, and you're gonna sing.

-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 ] ♪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™ before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, marie could only imagine enjoying freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?

mountain of mendacity. the president really out did himself today. just a day after the president disrespected his intel chiefs adds passive and naive. he met with two today. cia and director of national intelligence. see the picture. when the president came out of it, i want you to hear how he explained away the public contradiction we heard from them earlier this week. >> they said that they were totally misquoted and they were totally it was taken out of context. i suggest you call them. they said it was fake news. >> fake news. that's what the president claims they said.

their testimonies were televised. written assessments were public. i mean, come on. that was only hours after saying that time would prove him right and them wrong. and then he says they're in agreement. it's mind bending mendacity. also dangerous says jim clapper. former national intelligence director. good to have you with u me. first the easy question. percent chance that coats and haspel say what they were quoted as saying is fake news. >> about zero. >> right? why would they say that when it's from live testimony. >> they wouldn't say it. for the reason you cite. they were on television for all to see. what they said and did. and by the way the unclassified written assessment that was submitted to the committee. >> what bothers you about this?

it's not new for us to have to expose the president of the united states for lying. i don't think he's told a bigger whopper than this. it's so obviously untrue. and it compromises the two people who really need to have integrity in tact. because of the nature of their work. your concern is? >> a number of levels. first, let me make a comment here. policy makers to include policy maker number one the president. always have the prerogative of accepting, jekting or ignoring intelligence. they can do that. they do it repetitively over time for multiple issues. they imperil the nation and the presidency in this case. that's concern number one. god loves baby, and the united states of america. we have blessed that we haven't had a major international confrontation. and in the last few years

particularly the last two. during the administration. i mean something of a magnitude god for bid of a 9/11. or a nuclear confrontation with the likes of russia or china. the situation like that the president is going to need his intelligence community. and his gut will not be sufficient. to sort out what's fact and what isn't. so you need trust in a situation like that. that trust has to go both ways. so what's been compromised here in my view is first in the eyes of the public. the trust that the public has in the intelligence community. the trust in what this has done to the employees the rank and file across the intelligence community. when they see three leaders like this particularly dan coats. and insulted as they were. dan maybe that was perhaps one of the finest hours. he forthrightly and honestly and straightforwardly told the committee and the public what

the facts were. about intelligence threats around the world. and of course you have to wonder about what are foreign partners think. particularly those who share intelligence with us. and i worry about the leaders themselves who are could easily reach the point where i don't need this aggravation and i'm out of here. which would be a huge loss in all three of the kats cases. this is very disturbing. of course most people wait years to do revision history. president trump does it the next day. this is a manifestation of his no fact zone reality bubble to himself. >> i'll make an argument at the end of the show. about how i am really impressed by his lie today. and i believe it is a window into his future. in terms of what the mueller probe is going it reveal. not about crime. it's about credibility. the blocked numbers.

i'm happy it leaked. the suggestion was the block number was the president. people your using it as a potential smoking gun. it was on tv all the time. they were wrong. @wasn't the president. however, now we expect don jr. to jump up and down. for people to say that ends that. it doesn't end it for me. does it end it for you? >> it doesn't. frankly, for me this hyper ventilating about the phone call is a little over wrought in my opinion. it wasn't to the president, or the candidate at the time. i don't think it has that much bearing on the -- >> it wasn't him. doesn't mean he didn't know. >> was the president aware of the meeting whether he heard about it by the phone call or not. what is his complicity here. that is the much bigger issue.

and who the other communicate was in the phone call is lesser importance. >> i could have done more digging and given names tonight. i don't want to do that. they don't have anything to do with the probe. why put anymore peoples lives in the mix on this. to be judged on something not relevant to the probe. you are always relevant, thank you so much for making us smarter tonight. >> thanks, chris, for having me. >> always. the hat. the maga hat. so much more than hat for people on both side. that division reaches a new level in a restaurant. the conflict will take away your appetite. next. ok, here's the deal.

"green book" is now nominated for five academy awards. including... [ cheering ] it's also the winner of... you're unbelievable. oh, that was a good time. ♪ ♪ our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest.

(buzzer sound) holiday inn express. be the readiest. 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.

it's a hat with four words

on it. they can mean lot to people. the president hat. now we hear of oo chef in san matt california. saying you wear that into my place you're not getting service. tweeting this. saying they're like white hoods except stupider. you can see who's wearing them. he's taken down some tweets and reports the chef is getting threats. what's right here, what's wrong. what matters. how do you see it? >> a cold again. 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 what's honest mistakes. i do say when you're clothing tells a story. and if you put certain symbols and in your home or in front o your home.

things tell stories. you should be aware of the entire story. i don't like the idea of banning someone for wearing a hat. that hat as we have said is no secret. i told you about how i feel and people perceive many people perceive that hat. >> so, you have the legality. and then -- >> it's legal. you're the attorney. >> you can refuse service. no shirt, no shoe, no service. you have a first amendment argument. it's a private place. how is it different than the baker with a cake. that was refusing service to people who are a protected class. unless trump supporters are a protected class. you don't have an argument with that. let's say it's not whether he has the right. whether or not it is right. here's my problem on this issue, ordinarily i go down the line. be bigger than that. but, i don't want to fall into

the trap of under selling the significance of the trigger of the expression to people. the more appropriate analogy is fe people are wearing shirts that said i hate black people. would he be okay with that's how people like him see the maga hat. so does that make it okay, i think that's the right question. >> should you? just because you -- yes, that, but just because you have the right does it mean you should? again, your clothing tells a story about who you are, what you think about and what you represent. >> right. >> 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 out to it beginning of the campaign, maybe that hat means the central park 5 to people,

birtherism to people, maybe it means mexicans are racist to people. so you cannot erase those things from the story of that and say 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 are symbols and things in society that you have to take as a whole. i don't like it. i don't think it should be banned but i understand why. i know you have to go. but the same reason why they stopped putting cable news on some gyms in some cases because too many people were fighting. >> we're way too focused on the divisions. >> more of maggie haberman's interview coming up. >> good for you. i'll be watching as always. by now we all know, unfortunately, this president will lie to you. but today i argue we reached a new level.

and that what we saw today is a window into our collective future and certainly the 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.

♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™

this is it guys. you ready? to have epix? absolutely. woooo! you'd laugh. oh, ow. [ chuckles ] you'd cry. look, look, look, look, look, look, look,. maybe even laugh while crying. what the fertilizer? sounds pretty great, right? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! just say, "add epix" and it can all be yours. it's easy to upgrade.

and you don't want to miss out on everything epix. the president has rarely lied to your face worse than he did today when he spun this b.s. about what his intel chiefs said to him. listen to this. >> they said they were totally misquoted and it was taken out of context. so what i'd do is i suggested you 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 assessed 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 reporter. so a lobbyist again on iran -- >> we cannot prevent an iranian nuclear bombing 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? cludi including iran and its nuclear capability. the rick is figuring out why the president has this lying habit. this insistence, this compilation 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 blocked numbers he spoke to before and after the trump tower meeting were with his father. they were not, we're told. trump folks jump up and say, well that ends that. no, it doesn't because of it 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 pay outs to the women? he said no. he lied. we know why there. he said no that he didn't do any business with russia. he lied. 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 isn't over yet i'm okay with their assumption. i've always been.

because i've never needed to sell you the blocked 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 responsible 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 show today is what i argue could bring this president to his knees. lying about these things, if shown, would be really wrong. concealing 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 investigates 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 or should have known they should not do with people connected to russian bad guys. and a president who may have known about the same, may be encouraged, enabled, maybe hindered 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. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. in a new interview with "the new york times" president trump says he's all but given up with negotiations with congress over his wall calling his talks, this is quote, a waste of time. and suggesting he's going to take action on his own. we've got a lot to say about -- 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, let's bring in maggie haberman with "the new york times." joins us by phone.