i want to hand things over to chris. >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. welcome to primetime. federal prosecutors are now closing in on the president's inaugural committee. who made donations? how much were those donations and why were they made? daunting questions that will be asked more commonly now that the president is under democratic oversight. we have the latest on a string of new hearings planned just for this week. we're going to bring in a key member of the house intel committee plus we have the story about one of the biggest links to come out of the trump white house yet. have you heard about the schedules? the president's private schedule. it's not about making him vulnerable from a security standpoint but boy do we learn a lot from this leak and what is and is not in this schedule. and, it's pretty easy to find democrats that say virginia governor ralph northam has to re-sign but we have someone that has known him a long time since

they were kids. she makes the argument that he should go nowhere and she wants to convince you of the same. it's monday. what do you say? let's get after it. >> all right. it would seem the president has a lot more to worry about than just the russia probe. there's now 17 investigations swirling around his world. and those are just the ones we know about. would be one of them is looking into possible misuse of funds by his inaugural committee. tonight that committee is being ordered to turnover documents about donors, finances, activities to federal prosecutors in new york. the subpoena is pretty wide ranging. that's just a statement of allegations that they want discussed with the person they're sending it to but house democrats now have power to issue these subpoenas and make people come in and talk and they are going to launch a new fight for the president's tax returns as part of this. they're also calling his acting attorney general to capitol hill along with his former lawyer michael cohen.

it comes as the president addresses the impeachment. >> you can't impeach somebody for doing the best job of any president in the history of our country for the first two years. it's supposed to be high crimes and misdemeanors. there was no high crime. there was no misdemeanor. there was no problem whatsoever. >> all right. now, first, high crime and misdemeanor is not a legal standard, okay? here's a new phrase, if you want to start thinking about what may or may not happen. you know how i feel about this, we're a long way from any legal action against the president but abuse of office is a phrase that i think you're going to become more familiar with as we go forward. now we're very lucky tonight. we have a key member of one of the most powerful oversight committees in congress. republican chris stewart of utah. he sits on the house intel committee. good to have you. >> good to be with you.

thank you. >> this question about the inaugural committee. you never looked at this. how made the donations. were they in the right names, what were they doing? why not and do you have any concerns about these questions? >> the reason we didn't on the house intel committee is it wouldn't have been under our jurisdiction. we were focussing on russia and foreign influence, et cetera. i think you said there were 17 investigations. i wouldn't be surprised if we end up with 30 or 40 different investigations. as they move forward, the sayre thing to do and surely we learned this is okay if there's accusations and if they're credible then let the investigation go forward and let's see what it shows. but to be fair, many times these

investigations don't show and prove what many people think and some of them actually hope that they will. >> fair point. you have to look if it's reasonable and there should be scrutiny if it wasn't reasonable and if anything comes out of it that deserves attention, we should know. and discussion should go from there. understood. let me ask you about what did come out of your committee. i'm reading it in a different way that we learned more about this indictment in roger stone in comparing the two. i have language that i wanted to go over with you. from the outset, you were a big fan of getting that report out and it was criticized as being something that allowed the president to say there's no collusion. look at the nunez report. do you have the same level of confidence now that you did when this report came out? that we have seen nothing that speaks to coordination or collusion by those around the president with people they shouldn't have been dealing with. >> you mean the nunez memo. is that true? >> yeah. >> the nunez memo and anybody

can look at it. it's 2.5 pages long. it's very clear and there's not a word in that. there's not a sentence in that that i don't stand by and there's nothing in that that's had any doubt cast upon it. >> you don't believe there's any proof of coordination or collusion by those around the president by people that had involvement with russian interference. >> absolutely not. do you know who else has come to that collusion so far as we can tell? mr. mueller because in none of his indictments does he indicate any u.s. person has been involved with collusion and conspiracy with the russians. >> i would disagree. conspiracy, you got me. that's my point about this report. you're looking at crimes and i understand why, but that's not the full mandate of the special counsel as you know. in fact, the first item was to look for proof of contact and coordination by those that may have been involved with russian interference. collusion and i do not mean to speak out of school with you congressman, but collusion just for the audience is not a crime

unless we're talking securities law, it's a behavior. manafort and stone, just to use the two most recent examples, they were trying to coordinate. they were trying to collude with people who they thought may be involved with russian interference. isn't that fair? >> chris, i don't know how you can come to that conclusion at all. there's no indication of that at all in these indictments with roger stone. he's indicted for seven things. five counts of lying to my committee, which, by the way, i take very seriously. and all of this breaks down, if we can't presume that you can hold a hearing or that you can have a court hearing without people lying to you. >> you didn't know he was lying to you at the time? >> of course not. we couldn't have known that. >> really? >> that's something that comes out after you're able to provide evidence. >> but if you just subpoenaed the records, some of them that were publicly available, you would have known that roger stone is telling two different

stories. which is true is up for you guys to figure out. >> over a period of time, you can figure that out. when he's in there for hour after hour after hour and you don't have contrary evidence before you which in this case we dig digit, we didn't know that. i think this is so important because you're saying that there's evidence of collusion here. >> not a crime. collusion is a behavior. it's not a crime. i'm not saying there's criminal conduct. >> whether you define it as behavior or a crime, i don't care. i don't think there's evidence of either one. >> you know who they say he is, right? we have the direct messages from stone. you could have had them the same way. you know about credico and corsi and you didn't call them. i'm not hanging this on you, chris. to be honest, you are willing to come on and answer hard questions and i always tell my audience you deserve a pat on the back for that and i know you weren't calling the shots, but i'm saying, you didn't call

credico or corsi, the committee, not nunez. you could have. if you were curious about this you would have found the same things evident in the indictment. >> i reject your assumption that we weren't curious about that. of course we were. we called hundreds of witnesses. we had 330,000 pages plus of documents provided to us. you could name dozens of people on this that we didn't call because at the time we had no reason to call them because there was no indication that there was collusion or that there was other nepharious activity taking place. i want to make this point because i have been trying to for a little bit now. that is roger stone, five counts of lying to our committee, five counts of witness tampering, one count of witness tampering, one count of impeding the investigation, nothing, nothing from mr. mueller that indicates anything of collusion or working with russians. >> i don't understand that interpretation. you know where i'm coming from on this.

i'm not accusing you of hiding or anything like that. if you read this indictment plain text. not looking at it with any level of sophistication, the special counsel is clearly making the case that stone was trying to coordinate with people that he thought had the goods on hillary clinton ill gotten goods from wikileaks or whatever. that's coordination. that's a sign of coordination. that he was directed to find more of those things if he could. that would be coordination. not crimes. except if you lie about it which he did. i'm just saying, it seems that your report was much more generous than the special

counsels. >> it's the reason for the application and the deficiencies with the fbi and department of justice and it doesn't mention roger stone -- >> it sounds like an oliver stone movie. we agree about that. continue congressman. >> if you want to open this up to behavior and not actual conspiracy or criminal activity, then, chris, to be fair, you have to talk about some of the things that the clinton campaign did as well, which is, as we know, working with foreign agents who then worked with russian agents to gather dirt on their opponent. >> the difference between working intel sources -- >> these weren't intel courses. >> he was not an intel source. he's a private citizen. he hadn't been in russia in years. he was not an intel source. >> but that's why they used him at gps because he was a former guide that the had ability to talk to people on the russia side. >> he made all sorts of things

but he wasn't an intel course. he hated and admitted he didn't want him to be elected and then used russian agents to collect this information. >> you have to. we can say this standards is all we want. but it's not a legal standard. what makes you guys upset enough to vote against him. i know that i can depend on you to give an answer for the audience. i appreciate it. thank you for doing so. >> thank you, sir. >> you are always welcome here. congressman stewart from utah. appreciate it. do you wonder why the president seems to have so much time on his hands to tweet and watch fox? do you know why? because he has a lot of time on his hands. there was a leak of his schedule and remember, general kelly came

up with executive time which was a nice way of describing doing whatever he wants. wait until you see, next. at&t provides edge-to-edge intelligence, covering virtually every part of your manufacturing business. & so this won't happen. because you've made sure this sensor and this machine are integrated. & she can talk to him, & yes... atta, boy. some people assign genders to machines. and you can be sure you won't have any problems. except for the daily theft of your danish. not cool! at&t provides edge to edge intelligence. it can do so much for your business, the list goes on and on. that's the power of &. & this shipment will be delivered... [cellwhere are you? well the squirrels are back in the attic. mom?

your dad won't call an exterminator... can i call you back, mom? he says it's personal this time.. if you're a mom, you call at the worst possible time. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. where are you? it's very loud there. are you taking a zumba class?

you know what, his schedule gives you guys some basis for your complaints. there's another leak from the white house that gives us another insight. according to three months of leaked white house schedules, about 60% of president trump's time is so-called executive time. a phrase that covers time for tweeting, phoning friends, and watching tv. understandably, sarah sanders says this is just the president being creative. that he's simply a different kind of president. nobody is going to argue with that. the president has like the hardest job in the world and

certainly hear that from those that have done it. take a listen. it's a hard job. it's difficult. >> you know, nothing truly prepares you for the demands of the oval office. you can read about it. you can study it. but until you sat at that desk, you don't know what it's like to manage a global crisis. >> i can't imagine. that's why these men either prepare like crazy or have people around them that are as prepared as they possibly can be. so as this current president prepares to address you tomorrow night about promises kept, i would remind you that he promised you more and better. >> i promise you that i will work so hard. we're going to get it turned around. >> i just want to stay in the

white house. >> i'm going to be working for you. >> he doubled down when he suggested that he would never go golfing the way obama did. and remember what he said about hillary clinton and stamina. they were bs arguments when he made them. they worked at the time. but now that we see his schedule, it seems that the residence l resolute desk, it's more of a prop for photo-ops than anything else. 60% executive time goes to what has become a disturbing trend with this president. an apparent unwillingness for the difficulties of the job he was elected to do. when you hear him about wandering out of a key policy meeting with the speaker of the house, seeing his own intel chiefs say publicly that he's misinformed on global threats.

you have to ask, who is doing the job of the president. often times we know the answer. remember when the military decided to drop the mother of all bombs in afghanistan. who made the decision? not people that were elected to do it. so it's good that someone leaked this because you deserve to know how much of the president's time is about you versus him. when you see giant holes in his schedule and executive time. is no log of who is coming and going. no reports in his conversations with foreign leaders, you know to know what the president does. it will give you insight into why he does what he does. remember the president works for you. speaking of that and what work is getting done, we're 11 days away from another shutdown. would the president really do

that again with all we learned about the pain and the reach just to get a wall? two questions for a great debate. next. on tour, every second counts. i need great without the wait. new elvive rapid reviver deep conditioners work fast with no leave in time. 2x easier detangling 2x less breakage than with a leading conditioner. new elvive rapid revivers. start reviving. welcome to fowler, indiana. one of the windiest places in america. and home to three bp wind farms. in the off-chance the wind ever stops blowing here... the lights can keep on shining. thanks to our natural gas. a smart partner to renewable energy. it's always ready when needed. or... not. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing. ♪ ♪

our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. (buzzer sound) holiday inn express. be the readiest. let's see, aleve is than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. is that for me? mhm aaaah! nooooo... nooooo... nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand.

[son loudly clears throat] sigh [mom and dad laugh] bounty, the quicker picker upper.

listen. i hate that we even have a clock for something like this. these continuing resolutions, there has to be a better way but here we are, 11 days until brinksmanship and the president digging in. >> would you shutdown the government again? >> we'll have to see what happens on february 15th. i don't like to take things off the table.

it's that alternative. it's national emergency. it's other things and there have been plenty of national emergencies called. >> it's not even the question would you. we know he would. the question is how could you given what just happened and that would have lead the segway into national emergency. it's about the reality. it's seen as the easy way forward for him but now senior republicans are saying it ain't so easy, but with no deal in sight and the president so prepossessed with this perception that he won, he won, what's going to happen? is a intra party fight our future? let's debate. the idea of a national emergency in 11 days. what's your take? >> well, i mean, we're hearing you use the term that donald trump was digging in but let's be honest the person digging in is nancy pelosi and the

democrats saying not a penny for the wall. that's not how you negotiate when you want to get to a compromise. the president has been the one willing to compromise. nancy is doing this, this is all politics. what nancy has figured out is that this issue of going it alone divides republicans. this is a bonanza for nancy. she can stand and satisfy her base and then lead trump with no alternative but to divide his. it's all political calculus but it's not in the interest interest of the country and it's not what she pledged she would do if the president reopened the government. >> this is what the presidenten pledged he would do, wall, wall, wall, everything solved by a wall and now he has mitch mcconnell in the corner. give me the wall or else. >> is it worth a shutdown? it is worth a national emergency? >> i don't like to correct you per se but he promised wall, wall, wall and he also promised

mexico was going to pay for it and not the american taxpayers. >> true. >> so we're here trying to clean up his lie and i just have to push back on what rick said. the fact is is that this is not a wall, it's not good public policy. >> you want to tear down all the other walls? >> we can repair those. we can upgrade those. >> why? if they're not necessary? >> we can modernize our immigration system? >> if they're not necessary, why? >> we can actually make sure that we have a 21st century immigration system and not just some edifice to donald trump. >> tear them down? >> we have the trial of the century going on right now. 11 weeks of testimony with pablo escobar. none of which would be stopped by a wall. >> el chapo. >> so tear them down. >> just to want to build a wall because something donald trump

wants is not good policy. and the fact is this isn't a national emergency and it's nancy actually having or speaker pelosi. i would want to show her the due respect, speaker pelosi having public policy on her side and do you know what else she has on her side? the american people. that's why she's polling higher. >> what public policy are you talking about? because every border control agent, everybody who is down there on the front line is saying that walls are effective. >> they say walls -- >> walls are effective. >> be careful. >> let's just be careful, gentlemen, especially on this show, one, everybody knows and they come after me for it, i believe the men and the women who are in charge of keeping us safe that physical barriers are helpful to them. none has ever told me it is their top priority. the president made it his and he's handcuffed them to that priority. >> but that's not the point you're making. >> the point i'm making -- >> that doesn't mean it's not

necessary. >> i don't think the president is saying that. the president is willing to do other things. >> no, he only talks about the wall. >> that's not what he's willing to do. >> he has put lots of things on the table. >> the irony of this rick -- >> he's not getting any cooperation. >> the irony in this is this is all the president is talking about when it comes to immigration reform. and the complete irony of this is he is willing to shutdown the government over the wall, and guess who will not get paid? border patrol agents. >> rick you're not being fair to the argument. >> that's fake news. >> don't say that on this show. >> the president has put forward a detailed plan. has offered to compromise in a lot of areas. talked about additional funding in a variety of different areas. >> why are you shutting the government down over $5.6 billion for a wall. >> it's on paper. it never comes out of his mouth. >> that's not true. >> he puts all the main priorities that matter more than physical borders last or not at all. we'll hear it again tomorrow

night where he will make up things about human trafficking. he'll make up things about drug trafficking because he wants to justify a physical barrier that doesn't address the fake problems he's bringing it up and he handed it to nancy pelosi. he handed it to her by being so narrow. he made it easy for her to say we will not prioritize the physical over everything else. he gave it to her, rick. you wouldn't have done it this way, but he did and he has to pay the price. >> can i please correct rick, because he was not honest when he gave his last answer. i want to say that the democrats actually offered $1.6 billion. >> which is what they asked for in the last budget. >> we offered $1.6 billion plus we were going to actually modernize our immigration system. but what democrats also want when we talk about a comprehensive immigration reform is a pathway to citizenship for daca. a pathway to citizenship for those under temporary protective

status. we want to make sure that we have these things in place. >> and as you know, as you know -- >> if you want to argue about making sure that we fully fund our border patrol agents or give them more resources, that's one thing. but so simply say, and the last point that i want to make to you rick -- >> you have made enough points -- it's two against one and you're taking three minutes of the time. >> this is where, rick, let me just finish this point. this is where republicans get this wrong. the majority of drugs in this country come through ports of entry. >> he knows that. >> but he acts like he doesn't. i know he knows that. but he acts like he doesn't so i have to say it on national tv. >> because the president is lying about it all the time. >> let's clarify that right now. >> you know there's no big truck driving through holes in the fence. i know you know that, make your point. >> well, thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to get a couple of seconds in here.

so let me just say this. i will agree with you that the president's fixation in his rhetoric on talking about the wall and all of the aspects of the wall and what the wall can do to help is his priority and he reflects that in his rhetoric. but the reality is, what the president has said when he put forth his proposal a few weeks ago and as he has said so at negotiations and is willing to put daca on the table and put the temporary folks on the table, to put additional funding on the table and nancy pelosi said even if you give me all of this stuff i'm not giving you a penny. you talk about $1.6 billion, that's not on the table right now. she has said no. so don't talk about there's money on the table. it's not. nancy pelosi is playing a hard ball game right now and she's banking on the fact that he will -- divide the party. >> can we point out the

intellectual dishonesty of rick's last point. this is where it falters. the fact is donald trump offered for a pathway to citizenship for daca and those with tps after he took it away. it's unconstitutional and he was the one that took away their protections. >> that's not the bottom line. >> do not take away their protections and then give it back to us and say that is a deal. that's not a deal. that's not compromise. >> >> here's the reality that we'll see tomorrow night. he's going to have to pick a road to borrow from a much better mind. he has two ways to go tomorrow night and we'll pick it up after the speech. one is, listen let me be very clear about my priorities again because you're all caught up in the wall and he's going to make the case that rick is making here tonight but i never heard the president put the true priorities for the border folks keeping us safe in the order they put them or he's going to say i'm going national emergency. when he makes that choice, we're

going to have a lot to talk about. i think that second choice is way worse than some people in your party think. your party is starting to move toward a more rational understanding of what a national emergency would mean if he calls it. let's see what road he takes tomorrow night. he has to pick. you're always welcome to make your arguments. i don't care how much heat i have for having you on to make the case. >> you do. >> thank you for being here. i appreciate it. another big story and look, you got to chew on these things. you have to. it's a little frustrating, but it's better than the alternative. silence in a vacuum, look where that gets you. so should the governor of virginia leave? very easy to get people to say, yeah, he's got to go. i have somebody for you, knew him in high school, even earlier campaigned to help get him elected, is african american and very proud and knows why these pictures are so offensive. her case to you, next.

>> why? because of the picture on your screen right now. the ugly, bigoted photo which now he denies he is in and he doesn't know how it got in his yearbook. my next guest is his childhood friend that campaigned for him when he ran for governor. she has a case for him and what she thinks should happen. listen. >> thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> i just heard one of my colleagues use the term on slot about governor northam. there's too much. it keeps piling up. there's another picture. an ugly nickname.

there's a description of one of the people that helped make the medical school yearbook that you had to submit the pictures for your personal page. there's no other explanation. do you agree with that idea that it's an on slot. it's too much for him to carry. he must go. >> ralph is a strong person but no he must not go and only he knows what is too much. you've had so many people to say that they have not seen a racist bone in his body and i can atest to that from 1972. i agree with the honor in ralph that says if i quit now, i'm a racist for life and i think it's that same kind of commitment that made him come out to apologize. >> i hear you about that. >> medical school is different, you know, unfortunately, you now have different things to deal with. you have a picture of him at vmi where he was undergrad where we

had this ugly nickname, blank man. no reason for us to say it. but it speaks to someone that doesn't like blacks and you're saying completely inaccurate. that's not who he is. >> completely inaccurate. >> then you have the picture in medical school where he is either in black face or wearing the kkk hood. we still don't have straight talk. now that's his problem, carla. his past aside, do you think he's handled this the right way? i still don't know if he is in that picture, which one he is, and why it exists at all. i know he can moon dance -- listen to how old i am. i know he can moon walk. i know that he loves michael jackson. i know what he thinks about shoe polish. i know he was going to moon walk unless his wife told him not to. he hasn't handled this in a way that seems to reinforce the points that you're making now. is that part of the problem here? >> i would say it is part of the problem. but i would say this.

he was so horrified in seeing that picture, this is my take on it, that he felt compelled to apologize for whatever actions he may have had as a child, and we know that 25 is not 18. but anybody that's 45 and has a mortgage knows that 25 is not grown. >> i hear you. but you have to own it. you have to own it. that's the problem with an apology. i put the picture on the yearbook. he created mystery around it. >> right. no he did not -- i don't think he said he put the picture on the yearbook. i don't think that's what he said. >> i know, but how is that not the case? that's how it works. you give them the pictures you want on your yearbook page. they put it on. he didn't say this isn't who i am. i'm who carla says i am. i've known her most of my adult life. long before that actually and i put that picture there, it was stupid. this is the person i am in the picture. here's what was going on at the time. it's not who i am now. that's how you own it.

>> chris, there are 607 people listed in the doctoral program currently at evms. how many could there have been in '84? how credible is a student run newspaper that nobody in the faculty knew was being published? that wasn't supervised? how many copies could there have been at that time? i'm just saying, the credibility of the or the accuracy of that news source, you want to talk about a fake yearbook, or the accuracy of that news source, the fact that he didn't purchase one. we don't know how many people have been mislabeled in a yearbook. you think about that. >> i give you that and a right wing blog brought this up that was evidently motivated by what the governor had said about certain reproductive laws that are coming out, abortion laws. they didn't like it. arguably started looking for things. fine. but if that's the case, then

isn't the natural reaction, i don't know what that picture is? i don't know how it got on that page? i don't even know if that's the real page? i don't even have my yearbook but i've never been in a picture like that before so i don't know what is going on here. that would be owning it too. the governor didn't say that either. >> what the governor did was took ownership of a picture that had his name as a prominent heading. he took ownership of -- as the governor, he felt compelled to address that. this is a gentleman that was a member of the honor societies of one of our military institutions. he felt compelled to speak to the citizens of virginia to that image. but looking at that for the first time, i can't imagine how gobsmacked he must have been just as i was. disgusted, thinking it was photoshopped is what i thought and who knows what he thought seeing it the first time. who knows what went through his mind. i don't. >> you don't think he saw that picture before?

>> but the person i know -- if ralph says he didn't see it before, he didn't see it before. >> i understand what you're saying that people that know him support him, but can he stay in office if the elected around him in his state and on the national level don't want him there? >> well, let's put it this way, how many politicians have polarized factions of their constituents? how many people are still serving and opinions are polarized about them at the highest levels of government? and they are still effective. how long is this news cycle going to go? the good that i know my friend is capable of doing. the good that he has done for the commonwealth to date is going to win itself out, if he's allowed to continue as governor. >> i get the reference.

i understand the illusion that you're making. i get it. but they're not calling for him to step down the way they are with the governor. let me ask you this because you made a very zelous defense. to african american people, whether they're electeds or not and they're saying i'm not having this. the people in office can't be stained by this type of behavior, what do you say to them? >> i would distance myself if i had future aspirations in politics i would distance myself from this as well. that is what african americans -- not that i can speak for all african americans -- that's what anybody should do with an image like this presented to them. i would distance myself from this as well. ralph northam is not the person depicted in the photograph on his page. if ralph tells me he's not in that picture, i believe him. >> thank you very much, carla.

i appreciate it. >> you're welcome. >> got to have different perspectives to feed what's going on. we'll have to see what the governor does now. now tomorrow night, very big night for the president. delivering the state of the union. we're just learning now about some of the special guests invited by the first family. those guests are always statements. why one of them is already making some news. next. this is not a bed. it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during the ultimate sleep number event. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to hit the ground running. only at a sleep number store. save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 24-month financing on all smart beds. only for a limited time. sleep number. proven, quality sleep.

i had a few good tricks to help hide my bladder leak pad. like the old "tunic tug". but always discreet is less bulky.

and it really protects. 'cause it turns liquid to gel. so i have nothing to hide. always discreet. big night tomorrow night. the guests that will sit with the first lady include a 6th grader from delaware that has been bullied. we all know about the scourge of bullying. trump's own health and human services identifies being gay or disabled as those most at risk. the first lady, though has made bullying a cause as you know. so the person she is inviting is joshua trump, 6th grader, being bullied at school because of his last name, trump. no relation. let's bring in d.lemon. i hate bullies, you hate bullies. you have to feel for this kid. my concern, though, about tomorrow night is that he's going to be used as a political

pawn. that of all the different kinds of bullying that goes on, they're highlighting somebody giving trump a hard time. >> well, the first lady invited him. i think it's a good thing that she invited him. i think you'll agree with that and, listen my last name is lemon, chris. come on. i got it in elementary school, junior high school, high school, and then i just kind of made it work for me. i still get it now, you know? so i understand it. no one likes to be bullied and i say good on the first lady for inviting him but i also see the political pawn thing, you know, i don't know. i hope that they're not using it for political expediency. >> no i'm just worried about the kid because he's got enough trouble, you know? >> that's where i was going. >> his family is letting him go out there to hopefully empower him and give him confidence in himself and now if he becomes representative of the president you don't want to put that on somebody, let alone this kid. >> that's where i was going. if they really don't want to draw attention to his last name

and keep him from being bullied, maybe it's not the best thing for him to go to the state of the union and get all of this press. the parents can decide that. but . i think it's a good thing that the first lady invited him and let's hope it all works out for good for this kid. he's a sixth grader, right? >> look, she's in a jam. she wants to address something that needs to be addressed. the problem is she's married to one. i mean he is bullied in this office the way we've never seen. bully pulpit is one thing. teddy roosevelt never meant it the way -- >> if there's a lesson in this for anyone, it's beyond the kid. it's for this president. maybe this president has something to learn from a 12-year-old sixth grader. >> yeah, and look -- >> and maybe he'll see the error of his ways, and he'll stop calling people names and making fun of them because this kid knows how it feels firsthand to be bullied, and maybe the president can learn from that. >> true. i think the more reasonable hope

is the kid who's are giving this kid a hard time now recognize that, boy, this is amazing that he got recognized, and he got to go there, and let's give him a break and worry about ourselves and be better to others. >> i hope so. the internet is a terrible place. sometimes can be really, really cruel. as you know, you have three young ones, three of them. i do have to say, we're talking about kids and being in school. this is much later in school. you know the whole yearbook thing with northam. we'll talk about that at the top of the hour. i just saw his friend on. i'm going to have a member of the congressional black caucus on. she has a very interesting take on what she thinks should happen to governor northam. >> key interview. >> i also have two white house insiders for both republican and democratic administrations. we're going to talk about this executive time. they have some insight on that. >> beautiful. d. lemon, see you in a few. >> see you. okay. tomorrow night, big night. i have a prediction for you. it's not even a hunch. i'll put money on this with you. i know that there is something

that is central to the president's message, okay? and he is not going to mention a word about it tomorrow night. what is it? why won't he? next. happy birthday! let's blow out the candles together! ok, let's huff and puff. like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. so my doctor said... symbicort can help you breathe better-starting within 5 minutes. it doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement

of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. it may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! ask your doctor if symbicort is right for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. heyi'm craving somethingkin! we're missing. the ceramides in cerave.

they help restore my natural barrier, so i can lock in moisture... and keep us protected. we've got to have each other's backs... and fronts. cerave. what your skin craves.

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. i know they say the president's address tomorrow night is going to be about unity and working together, but i suspect immigration will be discussed in ways that are

inaccurate and divisive and intentionally so. specifically the talk of the brown menace. that's my derisive description of the president's insistence on selling you a false image of those seeking entry. his arguments about drugs and trafficking and gang bangers, we're not a wall away from stopping any of that. and those who keep us safe know it, and so does the president. overwhelming majority of people who come illegally are looking for work, and they find it. yet you hear very little in terms of outrage from the president when it comes to those doing the hiring. but he knows this to be the reality. why? three reasons. first, big money wins with this president too. he doesn't attack the rich, the businessmen. but he knows they're hiring, driving the demand for migrant labor. two, doing that would distract from the xenophobia and the anger that potus depends on to sell his message. his base won't be as angry at

the mostly white employers hiring cheap labor. and then third, and this is the biggest reason. this is my argument. our president is part of the problem. you know how his supporters insist the president is not a politician? they are right essentially. our president is not a politician. he's a businessman. and in that role, up to this very minute, he has hired undocumented workers, lots of them. we told you about it on this show not too long ago. you remember the allegations from attorney annabelle romero, who represents trump golf club workers who are not only undocumented, but who say trump's club helped them find and get fake papers? one met the president. he tipped her, talked to her. now, given the scrutiny, five of the president's golf clubs are trying to get rid of those workers. 18 from the clubs in new york and new jersey have been let go in the last two months. coincidentally, that's when the reporting started coming out.

i wonder how many work at hotels and buildings he has any control over. but for all the fury and statements about the brown menace, i predict you will not hear a single word about those creating the demand for these folks, those doing the hiring. and they're hiring because they need the labor, and they like the price point, and the economy needs them as well. and everyone involved knows it, and yet the president savages a reality that he, himself, benefits from. will he mention his clubs and his illegal hiring and the actions of those who work for him in allegedly covering up for the same people he villainizes? of course not. i'm not saying my prediction is as savvy as a bet saying the rams will only get three points in the super bowl. who knows? maybe the president catches the show as he sometimes does. maybe it's his staff. maybe they will add something about hiring. but i doubt they will address his own. it would be great if he did.

but just in case, i'll give you a second prediction. when asked about this -- and at some point he will be -- he will likely deny that he knew anything about it, just like in the mueller probe. and it will be just as difficult to believe. he'll probably say, well, they lie, these workers. they lie. that's what they do. brown menace. but that won't be what the reporting shows. so when you're listening to him rail against the migrants and not those hiring, remember this and chalk it up to hypocrisy. and as far as that quality goes for politicians, saying one thing and doing another, well, this president is certainly a master of that when it comes to his lust for selling you on the brown menace. but just remember this. the same people this president wants you to hate, he hires. see you tomorrow night. we're going to be on tomorrow night at midnight eastern for special coverage after the state of the union. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon will pick it up right now. >> okay. a couple things, okay? so let's talk about this. you talk about the brown menace,

right? and how he demonizes immigrants. >> mm-hmm. >> i've been harping on this. we are not talking about the real -- the fundamentals and the actual facts that are happening when it comes to a barrier on the border and how previous administrations had already put into place new barriers, fixing up the old barriers, putting barriers in places where they haven't been before. what he wants in large part is already happening and was earmarked and put into place by previous administrations, both democratic and republican. >> yeah, it's true. it's a little bit of play with this. we'll give you money to repair what's there and all this, but no new wall. listen, the men and women i talk to who are in the business of keeping us safe, whom i trust, need more. there are