a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! this monday i sit down with jada pennington smith with her cure and mother for their red table talk. it is important conversation about the challenges facing a gay men who happen to be african-american. and it gets personal. here's a sneak peek. >> the hardest thing was i could tell anybody else, but i couldn't tell my mother. >> why was it so difficult? >> you know that relationship you have, black women have with their sons. >> that's real talk. >> that's real talk. i want my mama to be proud of me. every day when i step into my -- when i step into that suit and i go on the set, i'm there for me,

god, but i'm there for my mom because i know, if nobody's watching. >> your mom is watching. >> she is. she's is it only person in the world i know that is always going to be there. >> to see our full conversation, make sure you tune in red table talk on facebook. watch this monday, 12:00, eastern. thanks for watching. our coverage continues. good evening. a very busy night including a new and serious allegation against one of the top three virginia democratic elected officials, all of whom are facing pressure to step down. also major new developments in the strange and sleazy case of alleged blackmail and extortion of jeff bezos, america's wealthiest man, by the publisher of "the national enquirer" a long-time ally of the president. we begin keeping them honest honest with the democrats first big televised hearing in what's expected to be a parade of them as they look into all corners of the trump presidency. acting attorney general matthew whitaker today going before the house judiciary committee. he confirmed he's been fully

briefed on the russia investigation. he denied ever talking to president trump about it or in any way interfering with the probe. that said, no one pretends that congressional hearings are even remotely about the witness letting it all hang out. they're adversarial encounters and revelations if any good grudgingly. today was no exception. the acting attorney general did his best to say as little as possible. lawmakers at times talked more than he did, which is almost always the case. you may call the effort today grandstanding, sincere pursuit of the truth or perhaps a little bit of both. here's a sampling. >> the time for this administration to postpone accountability is over. >> i do not intend today to talk about my private conversations with the president of the united states. >> this is a department of justice oversight hearing, supposedly, oops, i'm sorry, back to theatrics again. the curtain opened up and we found out what was really going on. no, we want to damage the president. >> i have not talked to the president of the united states about the special counsel's investigation. we have followed the special counsel's regulations to a t.

>> have you been asked to approve or disapprove a request or action to be taken by the special counsel? >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> i've asked the question. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> it is not in order -- >> we're not operating under the five-minute rule anymore then? >> mr. chairman, i see that your five minutes is up, and so i'm -- i am here voluntarily. we have agreed to a five-minute rounds. >> i don't know what kind of suicide wish you had or whatever, but it's good to see you. >> i'm confused. i really am. we're all trying to figure out who are you, where did you come from and how the heck did you become the head of the department of justice? would you say the special counsel's investigation is a witch hunt? are you overseeing a witch hunt? >> congressman, as i've mentioned previously, the special counsel's investigation

is an ongoing investigation, and so i think it would be inappropriate for me -- >> but you wouldn't oversee a witch hunt, would you? you'd stop a witch hunt, wouldn't you? >> do you know what's under the redactions, mr. whitaker? >> i do, sir. >> let me frame it this way. did rod rosenstein give the special counsel the authority to investigate specific americans? >> is mr. mueller honest? >> congressman, i have been on the record about my respect for bob mueller and his ability to conduct this investigation. >> do you believe he's honest, yes or no? >> i have no reason to believe he's not honest, so yes. >> did the president lash out at you? i'm not asking what he tweeted. i don't have a lot of confidence in the veracity of his tweets. i'm asking you under oath. >> congressman, that is based on an unsubstantiated -- >> sir, answer the question yes or no. did the president lash out to you about mr. cohen's guilty plea? >> no, he did not. >> that was rhode island democrat david cicilline. he joins us momentarily. there was another moment of note at the hearing today. two republicans, including

ranking member doug collins of georgia raised the issue of roger stone's arrest in florida, which cnn was there exclusively to cover, suggesting along with the acting attorney general that there was something nefarious about cnn's presence there. >> are you familiar with public reports or otherwise that a cnn reporter was camped out outside of stone's house when the fbi arrested him? this wouldn't be part of the investigation. >> i am aware of that. it was deeply concerning to me as to how cnn found out about that. >> well, i'm glad we're going down that road, mr. attorney general, because did somebody at the department of justice seemingly share a draft indictment with cnn prior to stone's arrest? or prior to a grand jury's finding of a true bill? >> this should be on our ridiculist. cnn has been upfront from the start how we came to be there early that morning. in fact we wrote a full piece on it the day of the arrest. congressman collins likely knows

the real story be we can probably had a shadow conspiracy because it tux into the idea that the mainstream media is in cahoots with the special counsel. as i said we can only guess because we invited the congressman on the program and, shocker, he declined. the truth is we got the scoop through plain ole shoe leather reporting and a little luck. a cnn producer and photojournalist were there because our ongoing reporting at the courthouse where the grand jury meets led us to suspect an arrest might be imminent. armed with that, our team was just staking out stone's house. they arrived about an hour before fbi agents went in. no tipoff, just hard work. that's what it looked like on the hill today. the view from the other end of pennsylvania avenue, i want to go to jim acosta at the white house. what's the reaction been from the white house on the hearing today? >> reporter: well, anderson, so far no reaction from the president yet. we did hear from him yesterday saying that he thought whitaker would do a good job. my understanding from talking to sources over here, i talked to one white house official earlier

this evening who said that they thought that the hearing for matt whitaker went about as expected. and the one item that they were really listening for was that exchange over whether or not matt whitaker had briefed the president on the mueller investigation. when whitaker denied that, they felt that pretty much matched up with what the president has said in the past and according to this white house official, who i spoke with earlier this evening, the president and matt whitaker have not had a discussion about the mueller investigation and that's their story over here and they're sticking to it. keep in mind, anderson, matt whitaker, you might say his five minutes are almost up here in washington. he's really just holding down the fort over at the justice department. what really matters is what the incoming attorney general, that we expect to be the incoming attorney general, william barr, what he does with the mueller investigation. he gave a lot of tea leaves during his confirmation process and really both sides took away some comfort that he may be a straight shooter in all of this. but, anderson, make no mistake, matt whitaker is going to go down as somebody who pretty much

said what the president wanted to hear, and that is partly why he had this job. he was not going to recuse himself in this investigation. while he did not interfere with the mueller probe, he certainly made his feelings known about it before he got this job. there were lawmakers who tried to poke and prod and, i guess, throw him off his talking points today, but when the white house, anderson, is telling us this evening that they felt like it went about as expected, their feeling over here, anderson, is that matt whitaker escaped from this process pretty much unscathed. for the white house, which has been in desperate search of a win lately, i think they got one with matt whitaker's testimony, despite all those fireworks that we saw today. >> jim acosta, thanks very much. a moment ago you heard a portion of the questioning from congressman david cicilline. he's a democrat from rhode island. he joins us now. congressman, thanks for being with us. i apologize for my cough and my cold. today while under oath acting attorney general whitaker said he had not talked to the president about the mueller investigation, that he hasn't

interfered in the investigation in any way or blocked the funding. did those answers give you comfort that he's handled the mueller investigation properly? >> no, not at all. in fact the real question is how did matthew whitaker become the acting attorney general. it was clear from his public statements, from the things he wrote, that he was auditioning for a job in the trump administration and was a critic of robert mueller, critic of the investigation, said all kinds of things which suggested that he had made decisions about whether or not this investigation should even go forward. he's then plucked out of the attorney general's office, he was the attorney general's chief of staff. the president ignored a statute that says here's the succession of senate confirmed people who should replace the attorney general in a vacancy. the president ignored that process. you have to wonder why. why did he pick mr. whitaker? the hearing today makes it very clear the reason he picked mr. whitaker is because he already had views that he was going to protect the president. although he says he didn't talk to the president, he couldn't remember whether other people that he had shared the information that he received

from the special counsel with, other members of his staff, he couldn't answer the question whether or not they shared that information with officials at the white house or the president. so he was very evasive. he was clearly contempuous of congress, didn't believe he should be participating in an oversight hearing. i think it was very clear he should have recused himself. we're not done with him. he didn't answer many questions and we intend to bring him back in a deposition so we can get those answers. >> it is surprising the acting attorney general would not a categorically that the mueller investigation is not a witch hunt. >> it was shocking. here it is he says he respects mr. mueller, he's an honest man, he respects the men and women of the department, but he would not -- he was fearful because he had an audience of one. he knew the president was watching him and he could not say anything that would draw the anger of the president because my guess is he wants to continue to work in the trump administration. it was an audition for the president. he didn't answer questions that the committee asked. he was really contempuous. every time we got to what was

shared in terms of the information he received, he danced around and really recessed to answer the questions. >> you referenced this, there were those tweets in commentary whitaker made before he was named the acting attorney general that were critical of the investigation. is there any real evidence, though, that you know of that's indicated that he acted improperly in any way while being the acting attorney general? >> we just don't know because he would not answer today about conversations that he had with the president. he would not answer or could not answer whether the information he learned from the briefing from mr. mueller was communicated to the white house or the president's legal counsel by others. so we have many more questions that he hasn't answered. what we do know is that the ethics officials at the white house recommended that he recuse himself because of his prior statements. he refused to follow their advice. he also said, you know, i don't have any idea what the president thought about jeff sessions' recusal. now, he was chief of staff to jeff sessions.

he said under oath today i have no idea how the president viewed that. we all know just from what's in the public domain how the president viewed it. so there are real questions why he's there, why he didn't recuse himself. so as a consequence, we really don't know what actions he's taken in his capacity as acting attorney general. he refused to answer many questions and suggested somehow that although he wasn't invoking executive privilege, he had decided not to answer them pursuant to some doj policy. so we're committed to getting those questions answered because the american people have a right to know that he didn't do anything improper, interfering in any way or sharing with the president and his legal team any of the information he received from the special counsel. >> it is, you know, it defies belief to say that you don't know what the president thinks of jeff sessions recusing himself. that's probably the one thing the president has been crystal clear on and not changed his opinion of from the get-go. >> exactly. >> in the hearing today, you repeatedly asked whitaker if the president had lashed out at him

over michael cohen's guilty plea and he denied that the president ever did that. do you believe him? >> well, i mean it has been publicly reported from credible sources that in fact the president did lash out. the way he answered that question is very interesting. he sort of paused in a very, very long period of time. you know, i think he was not being forthright with the committee. and i asked him again whether the president or others had expressed their displeasure and he was very cagey in his answer. look, i believe the public reporting. >> congressman cicilline, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> hope you feel better. >> i want to bring in the lawyers, kerry cordero and former federal prosecutor, jennifer rogers, carl bernstein who fair to say he's seen a few of these, especially during the watergate scandal. carrie, whitaker did say he hasn't discussed the mueller investigation with the president hasn't sbeeinterfered in the

investigation. so does that put to bed that he could have impeded the mueller investigation? >> i think it goes a long way. if we have to take him at his word, he was under oath, that he says he didn't do those things. then i think we have to give that its due. on the other hand, he does not come across as credible as a person filling the position of acting attorney general. and we can go back just a couple weeks when he gave a press conference and he said something along the lines of the investigation, the special counsel's investigation was wrapping up. when he was asked under oath today, his response indicated that that wasn't true at all. and so i think the difficulty with his testimony today is that because there were times when he was evasive and combative and disrespectful to a co-equal branch of government, that it harms his credibility. and so even though he testified for several hours, we still have these lingering questions as to whether or not he was really fully truthful. >> carl, i mean there were plenty of fireworks in the hearing. now that it's all over, though, what do you actually take away

from what you saw today? >> that we watched mr. whitaker be houdini-like in his escape from being straightforward. that he was equivocating throughout, that he was not giving straight forthright answers to many of the questions. yes, he said somewhat forthrightly that the president and he had not directly discussed the mueller investigation. then when it got to the question of the southern district, it started to go south a little bit. and throughout the questioning it was very clear not just his contempt and disdain for the committee and for the congress of the united states, but that he too sees this hearing as part of the battle in the cold civil war that's going on in this country, and he wants to appeal to the president's base rather than answer the questions. you know, you always have to go back to the same as donald trump, why won't donald trump speak truthfully and fully?

well, why won't mr. whitaker speak fully? they were easy questions to answer. rather, he chose throughout to equivocate and go off on a side road throughout the proceedings. so he was not very credible. >> jennifer, he refused to answer a lot of the questions that he was asked today by the democrats, including whether he thought the mueller investigation was a witch hunt. >> yeah. that was very strange. that was an easy one for him to answer. i mean people who have managed to remain on the president's good side or at least decent side, like bill barr managed to say that. so it's unclear why he did that. look, the question asked for an opinion. it's not something that's ever going to be the subject of a perjury count or anything like that, which makes it all the more puzzling as to why he couldn't just give that one up and at least try to rake back a tiny bit of this credibility that we've been talking about him losing throughout the course of the hearing. >> carrie, whitaker acknowledged he had been advised by top career officials at the doj that he

should recuse himself over the investigation but he chose not to follow that advice. if what he said today was truthful, do you think his decision to not recuse is appropriate? >> well, it's a really hard call. he had made many statements expressing an opinion about the investigation. it's within the authority of the attorney general to make that decision himself. so he did have the authority to make the decision himself. would i have recommended it to him? no. because this investigation is so important to the public's understandsing of what happened. it's the most important national security investigation in a generation, and it affects the presidency. so why if you're going to assume the role of attorney general would you want any kind of cloud over your tenure in terms of making decisions. it might not have been the required thing for him to do to recuse, but it probably would have been the right thing to do. >> you can make the argument, though, carl, if he had recused himself that the president would

have been just as angry at him as if -- as he was at jeff sessions. >> not only can you make the argument, i think you would be right. but one more question that occurs is why in the course of this hearing, if he really wanted to be straightforward, did he not say at some point it is really important that the department of justice find out what happened in the election of 2016 and what the russians did. at no point was there any assertion that it mattered to him. the subject of the investigation. he was mightily disconcerned about anything having to do with this horrible act that all of our intelligence community agrees to. the reason we have this investigation. and he just ignored it. >> yeah. i mean it's -- it's interesting, jennifer, one thing that whitaker did reiterate with the justice department's current position is that a sitting president cannot be indicted. william barr has said the same thing.

there's no indication mueller will deviate from that. do you believe it's essentially a mute point at this point? >> it's starting to sound like. we don't know what the mueller report will look like or what we'll even see from the mueller report, but i think the consensus at this point from what we know, which is a small fraction of what mueller knows, is that he will not try to indict the president because of that standing policy. it seems highly unlikely given bill barr's views even if mueller wanted to try to seek an indictment that barr would allow him to do so, because mueller has to run these charging decisions up the chain. i think that's probably right. that was just a little dig on whitaker's part to kind of get that in there, that at the end there will be no indictment of this president so in his view what are we doing here. >> carrie, subpoenaing whitaker is still a possibility. if a subpoena were to be issued, would that compel him to answer the questions he refused to answer today? would that make a difference? >> he might challenge it. we might get into litigation

between the branches and he could exert different authorities in terms of not wanting to reveal internal executive branch information, so it's possible he could challenge it or they could delay it. i have to wonder to what end is this really helping the judiciary committee. he's going to be out of the position very soon. the senate needs to confirm the attorney general nominee so that we have a credible, professional, experienced individual in that position that people have confidence in his decision-making. and so the committee could continue to do this, but i expect that he might challenge it and it wouldn't be a smooth road. >> carl, what did we learn about the democrats' power in what are going to be upcoming investigations from what we saw today, or the lack of power? >> i think we learned that they have to find a way to be more effective. that there was grandstanding

going on, on both sides here today. their frustration was evident. their right to this information seems to me is genuine and is there, but they have got to find a way to appeal to all americans, not just those so engaged in this cold civil war, but people in the middle as well to come around to their point of view that we need to know what happened here, because this is a matter of grave national security. i do not think that that was necessarily conveyed. it became a real contest of combatants without conveying the seriousness. and one last point. i think that it's going to take some really good journalism and it's going to probably happen in books and in recapitulations done by news organizations a few months down the line of what mr. whitaker's conduct in this investigation and in this administration has really been.

i think we're going to find out the truth, and i don't think it's going to be very pretty. >> carrie, jennifer, appreciate it. carl will stick around, come back shortly on another subject. coming up next, the breaking news out of virginia. the new allegation against lieutenant governor justin fairfax. growing calls for him to step down. later, more new developments in the alleged blackmail scheme targeting jeff bezos. the feds are now investigating american media and long-time trump ally david pecker. also the possible saudi connection. tom freedman takes on a possible intersection of politics, oil money and sleaze. our big idaho potato truck is out there somewhere and we're going to find it. awe man. always look for the grown in idaho seal.

(male announcer) we know these memories will last longer than the wrapping paper. we know there's some things you just can't put a bow on. we know the best gift of all is still out there. we know the great outdoors. we love the great outdoors. bass pro shops and cabela's-- where incredible selection, great people, and an experience like no other all come together.

(ala♪m goes off) wake up sweetie. ♪ doctor dave. see ya. ♪ here's your order. ♪

hey. applebee's to go. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. a second woman has come forward accusing the lieutenant governor, justin fairfax, of prior sexual assault. fairfax is first in line to the governor's seat. it was thought he might assume the seat after ralph northam was caught up in his own controversy involving a racist photo in his yearbook. governor northam is still in office. lieutenant governor fairfax

finds himself facing more assault allegations. ryan nobles joins us now with the latest. so what are we learning about this new accusation? >> reporter: anderson, no doubt this new accusation by a separate woman is very serious. her name is meredith watson. she alleges that back in 2000 when both she and justin fairfax were students at duke university, that justin fairfax raped her. she says in a separate statement that she believes that fairfax specifically targeted her because she was a prior rape victim and that she wouldn't go to the authorities or tell anyone about it because she hadn't done it the first time that she had been raped. furthermore her attorneys provided the media with a series of e-mails that show that she was talking to people about this incident and that it had bothered her for some time. in fact, we'll show you one of those e-mails. this came from a solicitation from duke alumni hoping to raise money on behalf of justin fairfax's political campaign. this is how watson responded. she said, quote, justin raped me in college and i don't want to

hear anything about him. please, please, please remove me from any future e-mails about him, please. thank you. and of course, anderson, we should point out tonight that the lieutenant governor vehemently denies this accusation and the prior accusation from dr. vanessa tyson. he says he has done nothing wrong and that as of tonight, anderson, he has no plans to resign. >> i know you're speaking to local delegates in virginia. what have they been saying? >> reporter: well, anderson, in the beginning there was a real kind of a wait-and-see attitude being taken by many of the elected officials here in virginia. they did not initially call for the lieutenant governor to resign after dr. tyson's claims against him. they wanted an investigation. they wanted this to be looked into. the mood has changed quite a bit here in richmond after the second accuser has come forward. in fact, the entire virginia house democratic caucus has called on the lieutenant governor to step down. taking it a step further, we know that delegate patrick hope of arlington plans to file impeachment proceedings against

the lieutenant governor on monday morning if he doesn't resign before then. we should put this into context. it's not easy to impeach a governor here in virginia. it would be a lengthy process an it would require cooperation from the republican speaker of the house, but it just shows the level of pressure that is on the back of this lieutenant governor right now because of this scandal. >> and just nationally, what sort of reaction has this been getting? >> reporter: again, we saw very quickly after the photo that appeared in the governor's medical school yearbook, ralph northam, that racist photo. we saw 2020 presidential candidates quickly weighing in, calling on the governor to step down. they were not as quick to call for the lieutenant governor to step down, but that's changed in a big way as well. we've seen a number of candidates for president in 2020, including cory booker, elizabeth warren, kirsten gillibrand, julian castro, john hickenlooper and terry mcauliffe, he was among the

first to call for fairfax to step down. the pressure from the national scene is immense as well and it is all directed at lieutenant governor fairfax. >> obviously there's political calculations for politicians in the state. what happens if the lieutenant governor resigns or is impeached from office, who would take his place? >> reporter: well, you know, anderson, that is not exactly clear. you have to keep in mind that this has never happened in virginia's history going all the way back to the civil war. but most experts that i've talked to believe that were the lieutenant governor to step down, that it would be the governor that would have the opportunity to immediately replace him. you appoint someone that would immediately take office. now, we believe that person would be forced to run in a special election this fall, but what would be interesting about this drama and all the scandals that have engulfed richmond over the past week, it would be the current governor, ralph northam, who would have the responsibility of replacing justin fairfax if he were to step down in the next few days.

>> ryan, just one note. i think you said that the new accuser didn't go to officials but in the statement provided by her attorney, she said she did go to the dean. i just want to make sure we get that right. >> reporter: you're right. thank you, anderson. >> okay, cool. >> reporter: yeah. she didn't talk to law enforcement officials, but she did talk to the dean of the school and officials at duke university. you are correct, yes. >> cool, thanks for the clarification. ryan, thank you. today the president had his second physical since he's been in office. you may remember last year's report was mostly glowing with the caveat that his diet needed some tweaking and he should get some exercise. it's a new year, new doctor who reports that the results are still being finalized but i am happy to announce that the president of the united states is in very good health. i anticipate he will remain so for the duration of his presidency and beyond. our chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta joins us tonight. sanjay, does anything particular jump out at you from this statement? >> well, i think it's pretty much what we expected. the last line, the president

being in very good health, anticipate he will remain so for the duration of his presidency and beyond, so, you know, it's very optimistic, very similar in some ways to the tone that we saw last year. one thing they made a point of is that the exam took four hours, there were 11 different specialists involved, so pretty involved exam. but also that the president did not have any procedures requiring sedation or anesthesia. they put that line in there i think on purpose. you may remember back in 2007 actually, president george w. bush had a colonoscopy requiring sedation, had to invoke the 25th amendment at that point, so that's always something that comes up here. that was not the case with president trump's physical exam today. >> and when you get the full results, what kind of stuff do you look for? >> well, there were all sorts of data that were presented last year, very basic things in terms of his height and weight, 6'3", 239 pounds. cholesterol, that's something that a lot of people pay attention to. 223, a little bit high there.

they wanted to bring some of these numbers down. obviously check some of these things again. but a lot of focus i think specifically on his heart. he had an echocardiogram last year to look at the function of his heart. there was a lot of discussion about the impact of his lifestyle overall on his health. in fact listen to a couple of the exchanges from last year. >> can you explain to me how a guy that eats mcdonald's and all those diet cokes and never exercises is in as good a shape as you say he's in? >> it's called genetics. i don't know. some people have just great genes. i told the president if he had a healthier indict turnover next 20 years, he might live to be 200 years old. >> he does have heart disease? >> he does not. >> there was a scan before that showed calcium in his coronary blood vessels. >> he does. he did. he had a -- so i think technically he has nonclinical atherosclerotic coronary

atherosclerosis. >> some of this what i semantics. you've heard these terms before, people use them interchangeably. i think the test has shown that he does have a mild form, common form of heart disease. let me show you quickly the test that we are talking about, i think this is important, people may have heard of this test, the coronary calcium score. president trump's score 133. you can see how it's gone up. the concern is when you get certainly over 100 that it could increase your chances of having a heart attack in the future, which is why there's such a focus by the doctors on evaluating his heart and his cholesterol. >> is that the test that looks for calcium inside the walls of the arteries? >> that's exactly right. it looks for calcium. it's an indication of plaque. if i remember correctly, i think you've had it done. i've had it done in the past. you do it to basically sort of predict your chance of having a

heart problem in the future. >> sanjay, thanks very much. >> you got it, thank you. still ahead tonight, a letter threatening to reveal embarrassing private photos jeff bezos was meant to quiet the amazon billionaire and had the opposite effect. now federal investigators are looking into any possible wrongdoing by the david pecker-controlled "national enquirer." was a crime committed? was it blackmail or an extortion attempt? we'll talk to former federal prosecutor shannon wu and carl bernstein. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. we're the tenney's and we're usaa members for life. call usaa to start saving on insurance today. chicken! that's right,a membechicken?!fe. candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken! moving? that's harder now because of psoriatic arthritis.

but you're still moved by moments like this. don't let psoriatic arthritis take them away. taltz reduces joint pain and stiffness and helps stop the progression of joint damage. for people with moderate to severe psoriasis, 90% saw significant improvement. taltz even gives you a chance at completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. for all the things that move you. ask your doctor about taltz. when i went on to ancestry, i just put in the name yes, we are twins.

of my parents and my grandparents. i was getting all these leaves and i was going back generation after generation. you start to see documents and you see signatures of people that you've never met. i mean, you don't know these people, but you feel like you do. you get connected to them. i wish that i could get into a time machine and go back 100 years, 200 years and just meet these people. being on ancestry just made me feel like i belonged somewhere. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com.

a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! another shoe dropped in a

another shoe dropped in a story that may have more footwear in it than your local payless store. we learned that federal prosecutors in the southern district of new york are reviewing "the national enquirer." handling of the reporting on amazon founder and "washington post" owner jeff bezos. bezos is accusing the parent company, american media and publisher david pecker of blackmail and extortion, threatening to publish embarrassing private photos of him if he doesn't drop his investigation of how "the enquirer" came to have them. of american media reached a nonprosecution agreement with the southern district in which the company admitted to paying $150,000 to help then candidate donald trump hush up his alleged affair with karen mcdougal. part of that involved ami keeping its legal nose clean. they put out a statement today saying that the company believes fervently that it acted lawfully in the reporting of a story of

mr. bezos. joining us is shanlon wu. the southern district is reviewing their actions. based on what you've seen do you think it amounts to extortion or blackmail? >> i do actually. i think it fits the elements for it. oftentimes we associate extortion only with the idea of i'm going to hurt you if you don't pay me cash, but it can be broader than that. here the hurt, the harm, would be the damage to the reputation, the impairment, and the benefit rather than being cash is the tremendous value actually of bezos' media voice. that's what they apparently wanted him to weigh in on their behalf for that. so i think that does fit what can be an extortion. there's interstate communications going on. there could also be state or local charges with regard to what we commonly think of as blackmail. >> also, shan, the fact that this was written out obviously helps their case. >> oh, yes, very much so. it was quite explicit actually.

and certainly a defense lawyer would argue, well, they're just trying to make sure that false stories don't get printed or they're maybe trying to dissuade "the washington post." typically that kind of conversation does not involve the threat of releasing dirty pictures about the journalist so i think that's not much of an argument for them. >> carl, whether it's criminal or not, what do you think "the enquirer's" actions say about the importance of investigative journalism, the importance of not backing down in this type of behavior? >> i think jeff bezos has acted heroically in terms of establishing that neither he nor "the washington post" will be intimidated. the extortionist demand, and you have to call it that, the extortionate demand by "the national enquirer" and its lawyers was that "the washington post" cease reporting honestly about matters that bezos has

raised in his letter. and in response, what bezos has done here is exactly what katharine graham, the great owner of "the washington post" during watergate did. when faced with the nixon administration's threat to take away the television licenses of "the washington post" company, which were the economic lifeblood of the paper, because of the watergate reporting that we were doing at "the washington post," katharine graham refused to back down, backed her reporters, and did not cave in to such extortionate demands. there's a tradition of this. but the really amazing thing that's happened here is that "the national enquirer" has now opened itself up not just to an examination by the southern district, but rather the subpoena power of that office of the u.s. attorney in the southern district to look into every aspect of its behavior in this incident and get to the bottom, as i suspect they will,

of whether or not there are people in the orbit of donald trump who are somehow involved in this. that's the subtext that mr. bezos seems to be suggesting in the so-called crumbs that he's leaving for witnesses to pick up and take a look at. and the southern district is going to do it. we're going to find out what happened here. >> shan, could this also constitute a violation of a deal that federal prosecutors made late last year with the parent company ami? it granted them freedom from criminal prosecution essentially if they kept their nose clean while at the same time providing substantial important assistance to the government. >> it very much could jeopardize that, anderson. as you say, they have to keep their nose clean. being charged with another crime would be tremendously problematic. if that happens, i think that deal is off. so they're really in a very bad situation here. i mean if that deal is off, they have already admitted to their complicity in those crimes there

with the campaign finance crimes cohen was charged with, so they're right back facing those. they have no defense to that. on top of that, you've got the possibility of new investigations going on with regard to the extortion. and then perhaps the most intriguing aspect is why is mr. pecker so upset about the saudi connection. as they dig into that, it's possible if you find a money trail back to the saudis, we know that ami has been interested in getting saudi funding and there could be issues there in terms of foreign money influencing the election. >> shan, this claim made by bezos' security chief, who's very well known in the security realm that he believes it's possible that a government entity may have gotten ahold of bezos' text messages, the most obvious question is which government entity or could it also mean a foreign government? >> exactly. and if it's a foreign government, it goes right back to this idea of foreign influence in the elections. and that can also, if they had resources monetary helping with this, that could also be another

campaign finance violation. and there's also the intriguing aspect of if ami was getting resources from the saudis or some other government that they're also acting as an agent for that foreign government, and we saw that go on with the skmarc manafort and gates situation. that's an area that the justice department has become much more rigorous about enforcing. >> carl bernstein, thank you very much. shan wu as well. obviously we'll be keeping a close eye on this story. appreciate it. much more ahead. "the new york times" columnist thomas freedman. joins us and whether he thinks bezos should win a pulitzer prize for public service. i'll talk about that and the notion saudi arabia may play into the drama, next. smile dad. i take medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol. but they might not be enough to protect my heart. adding bayer aspirin can further reduce the risk of another heart attack. because my second chance matters. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

(vo) only verizon was ranked #1 by rootmetrics. #1 in 3 opensignal mobile experience awards. #1 in video streaming according to nielsen. and #1 in network quality according to jd power. and that's why the only network to win in all four major awards is the one more people rely on. experience america's most reliable network on the best device: iphone. get iphone xr on us when you buy another, and apple music on us, too. (ala♪m goes off) wake up sweetie. ♪ doctor dave. see ya. ♪ here's your order. ♪ hey. 9 in the neighborhood.

on car insurance? did the little piggy cry wee wee wee all the way home? weeeeeeeee! we we weeeee! weeeeeeee! weeeeeeee! weeeeeeee! max. maxwell! yeah? you're home. oh, cool. thanks mrs. a. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

your favorite restaurants now it doesn't matter dash. where you are. ♪ it doesn't matter what you're hungry for. it doesn't even matter how many you are. ♪ restaurants come to you. delicious at your door. download doordash. first order, no delivery fee.

founder jeff bezos accusing the parent company of "the national enquirer" of extortion and blackmail are getting reaction not just from federal prosecutors examining the conduct of ami but from pretty much all corners of the country. not just because the alleged blackmail involving potentially embarrassing and very personal photos of bezos. in his post, bezos mentions that david pecker and his company have also been investigated for actions they have taken on behalf of saudi arabia. the saudi government. separately today, the white house refused to meet a legal mandate to tell congress whether the white house thinks that saudi crown prince mohammed bin salman is responsible for the

murder of journalist jamal khashoggi. here with us is tom freedman. also the author of thank you for being late, an optimist's guide. tom, i want to the to the saudi angle in a moment, but first just explain why you think that bezos has -- what he's done is so significant, because i saw you tweeted that you've nominating him for the pulitzer prize for public service. >> anderson, wee living through a time in our public life where all of these elites in politics, we see the entire leadership of the state of virginia in media, caught up in me too and other ethical misbehavior. business elites. you know, it's been a long time since you saw a high level public figure, in the case of jeff bezos, the wealthiest man in america and one of our most innovative entrepreneurs stand up and do something purely on ethics.

to say to the national enquirer, you may have salacious pictures of me. go ahead and present print them. i feel bad about it but if the price of not doing that is giving into what appears to the reader as extortion, that he would not pursue an investigation into how they got those pictures, i stand up and applaud. i stand up and applaud any time now when i see public figures in business and media or government standing on principle. partly because he's utterly -- we have a president who is utterly without shame and backed by a party that's utterly without spine and embraced by a network utterly without integrity and that's dominating our public life right now. >> it's interesting because some legal scholars have said they're not sure if it's a clear cut case of blackmail or extortion. i'm not a lawyer but

it certainly seems to be as -- i mean, coming pretty close. to get a letter saying we have these photographs of you, i'm going to explain them in detail to your attorney and oh, if you don't go ahead and if you publish what we want you to say, you know, we won't show these photos. >> it does not fit into the exact legal definition of extortion but to the casual reader, if your neighbor did that to you, you'd call the police. and say my neighbor is trying to extort something from me. >> the saudi angle on this is also a big part of it. jeff bezos is quoting the new york times when they reported, and i'm quoting, after mr. trump became president he rewarded his loyalty with a white house dinner to which the media executive brought a guest with important ties to the royals in saudi arabia. at the time mr. pecker was pursuing business there while also hunting for financing for acquisitions. it's hard to imagine a more complicated saudi connection.

>> what's been reported and ami which owns the national enquirer. was looking for investors. policy take out on the saudi crowned prison. and some kind of trade off. who knows. but, yeah, it's all, you know, the saudis need to step back and ask, on the one hand, why are we in all of the stories and at the same time, i want to be fair to them. there is no proof here, bezos may have been putting that out as a lure to get people to look into it more. both the saudis and trump were -- had a grievance with the "washington post" because it was doing its job. in the saudi case falling out as well as it could on the crowned

prince's role in the murder of jamal khashoggi that was a saudi columnist and reporting honestly and fairly on the trump administration. and anybody that knows anything about journalism, anderson, knows that jeff bezos is not writing headlines or dictating editorials or assigning stories for the washington post. as he said, any more than randall stevenson of at&t is dictating who you should have on your show. and trump at some level probably knows that but he's trying to intimidate them. the national enquirer is to journalism what the world wrestling federation is to olympic wrestling. their words are printed on paper and in that sense they're involved in journalism just as wrestlers all wrestle on a mat, but they were clearly on two businesses. one was the catch and kill business and we don't know enough about that because god knows what stories they have caught and killed to protect this president and by the way, what leverage they have over

him. they were in that business and they were in the business of printing headlines about flying saucers that landed in hillary clinton's backyard to get you to buy their newspapers at the stand at the grocery store. so they're two businesses. and boy, i'd sure like to learn a lot more about the first one. and what they have on file about president trump. the relationship goes back a long time. thank you very much. >> always a pleasure. >> efforts to head off another government shutdown. new word on where the negotiations now stand. it might surprise you.

lobsterfest is on at red lobster. with the most lobster dishes of the year, what'll you choose? how 'bout lobster lover's dream? more like a lobster dream come true. a butter-poached maine tail, roasted rock tail and creamy lobster linguine. or try new lobster in paradise. it's a crispy coconutty, vacation on a plate. new ultimate lobsterfest surf & turf is here, too. 'cause what's better than steak and lobster? steak and lots of lobster. so hurry in and see how you're going to lobsterfest. chicken! that's right, chicken?! candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken! (coughing) need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites

and filters by cabin class, wi-fi and more. so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done.

your favorite restaurants now it doesn't matter dash. where you are. ♪ it doesn't matter what you're hungry for. it doesn't even matter how many you are. ♪ restaurants come to you. delicious at your door. download doordash. first order, no delivery fee.

the unsung story was all about quite compromise behind closed doors to head off another government shutdown. republican and democratic negotiators are exchanging border security proposals that contain far less funding for a border wall than president trump demanded. they put it around 2 billion according to two people familiar with the talks. that's far less than the 5.7 billion the president wants. both sides are expected to work through the weekend as the deadline approaches a week from now. a reminder, don't miss full circle.

on facebook. you get to vote on the stories we cover. watch it at 6:25 p.m. eastern. i apologize for my voice tonight. i have a little bit of a cold. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris cuomo for primetime. >> i am chris cuomo, welcome to "prime time". we have new information on a major story and we have one of the players on that ugly show down with the acting ag today before congress. do they believe what matthew whitaker told them? if not, what's next. we're going to ask a key democrat that got snapped at while questioning whitaker today. then new twists, did the president's favorite tabloid try to blackmail the richest man in the world and did the saudis have anything to do with it? our court will deliberate. and the president tells us they're criminals, rapists, and we have to keep them out, but he has no problem putting the same people on his payroll.