proudest? >> when i grow up i would like to be like michelle obama. ♪ to you mrs. robinson >> reporter: jeanne moose,, cnn new york. >> and anderson starts now. good evening. we begin with breaking news. a federal judge late today ruling paul manafort, president trump's former campaign chairman, lied to the fbi lied to a grand jury, lied to robert mueller's investigators, lied, intentionally, on multiple occasions, lied about contact with russians. he's supposed to be a cooperating witness. as you might imagine, as we so often find ourselves saying, this is a big development. cnn's evan perez joins us with the latest. walk us through exactly what was and what was not in this ruling. >> reporter: anderson, prosecutors from the special counsel's office accused manafort of lying on five different occasions, five different topics, during the

time he was supposed to be cooperating. he had pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate as part of the investigation. he had met with prosecutors over many, many hours of what they call proffer sessions and during that time he was lying according to the prosecutors. in the judge's ruling today she said there was enough evidence to show he lied in at least three of those occasions. one had to do with a payment that he had received to help pay for some of his legal bills, and two of them had to do with constantine, a name we've heard a lot, somebody who is going to figure, i think, very importantly in the investigation. >> there's been a lot of reporting about a dinner meeting wi . >> reporter: this is one of the key lies according to prosecutors and according to the judge now. the judge said he was lying about some of his contacts with

constantine. prosecutors during a closed door hearing said something occurred during the meet that go really is important and goes to the heart of this investigation and one of those meetings was in august of 2016 at the havana club, a cigar bar in new york. according to prosecutors this is where there was an exchange of information, perhaps where manafort provided this internal trump polling data they say figures largely in the investigation. it's important to note that manafort's attorneys say he didn't actually lie, that he misremembered certain facts. they hinted in the court hearing that calimnik is not what reporters are making him out to be. that he was essentially a spy for the russians. so that perhaps he might have been a double agent.

there's more information we are yet to see perhaps on february 22nd when the two sides will be final are filing sentencing memos, anderson. put that on your calendar, an important date. >> evan perez, appreciate it. co-sponsored legislation to require robert mueller to provide his report in full to congress. does it make any sense to you? what does it tell you? >> well, what it tells me is that the lies were about connections between the trump campaign and the russians or between manafort and kilimnik and the russians which were not involved in the initial charges. in other words, he was charged

initially with money laundering, tax evasion, false statements. now there is apparently proof of the connections between him and kilimnik and the so-called ukraine peace plan, which was attractive to the russians and possibly offered to the trump campaign. there are other connections between the trump twain and man a forth and possibly trump himself. why did he lie about it? was it because he was involved in a cover-up that potentially was encouraged by others involved, whether it was roger stone or others who are trump associates. >> i still don't understand, if there was nothing untoward about the contacts between russia and all of these people around the president, why does -- why are so many of them lying about their interactions if everything is on the up and up? why not just tell the truth?

>> well, that is sort of the question of the moment. after every one of these meetings or contacts there was deception about them. take for example, the trump tower meeting involving manafort and kushner and the others involved in the trump campaign, trump junior. the meeting was then followed by a comment framed by the president himself. the havana cigar meeting was then followed by a deceptive comment. all are instigated, misleading, or untruthful comments giving rise to the clear impression they lied because they thought maybe they were breaking the law. that's why people lie about things. >> senator blumenthal, i want to come back to you in the next segment. there's an important piece of business in front of your committee regarding the mueller investigation and whether the report will see the light of day. if you could just stand by for

that. i want to quickly go to our chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin, former prosecutor and white house lawyer jim schultz. it's not a full win, jeff, for the prosecutor's office. the judge said there were two points which they did not prove. >> yes, but we can talk about the political implications. i saw paul manafort in court the other day. this is a man who looks like he's dying. he is walking with a cane. he looks disoriented. he has declined so precipitously in prison that when you realize he has now lost his cooperation agreement and the chance for a lesser sentence and is facing a separate sentence in the virginia case, a 70-year-old man is looking like he may die in prison, and it is just a profound thing to think about -- >> we're showing video but that's probably older video. >> this is how we remember him.

this is how he became a public figure during the investigation. >> right. >> he is almost unrecognizable today. >> really? >> from this video. almost unrecognizable. he has gout. he's walking with a cane. apparently he's using a wheelchair a lot of the time. prison is rough for anybody. yes, he did wrong and he did wrong over and over again, but, i mean, this man is really, really in danger of losing his life. >> since the special counsel is no longer bound by its obligations under the plea agreement, what could that mean for manafort's sentencing? >> his sentencing could get worse. in particular the question of the acceptance of responsibility now is up for grabs. the judge might still give him credit for that because he still has pled guilty. but that's what the concern is with the false statements which were actually done under a higher standard than the good faith standards for the plea agreement. that's where it's going to hurt him. it's a reminder, as jeff is pointing out, the way he's

suffering now, apparently physically, it's a reminder of just how much power a cooperator gives to the prosecution. they need only prove the initial breach by good faith. it's in their sole discretion. we wonder what would cause a man his age in declining health to take that kind of risk to put himself atries whk they have so much power. why does he have to do that? what is it he wants to hide? that's the intriguing part. the question is, is it the sanctions discussion that went on? what could be worth it to take this kind of risk? >> jim, to that point, it's the same question i asked senator blumenthal. why would he lie, and why would all thee people lie after having these kind of meetings? >> in manafort's case, we don't know the answer to that. in manafort's case it's been alleged he had ties to russians, that he's worked with russian operatives in the past and that he may have owed some of those folks money and that he may have been trying to save his own skin at the end of the day. and why he lied, why he engaged

in the conduct they alleged he engaged in turning over polling data, my sense it has little to do with politics and a lot to do with him saving his own skin. >> that is a possibility. this incredibly cinematic meeting with kilimnik in this semiseedy cigar bar which is on the top of 666 fifth avenue, rudy giuliani is a regular there, it's like this crazy new york place. this is the place they decide to meet. and the question is, is manafort meeting with kilimnik to regenerate his own personal business in the ukraine where he made so much money where the $15,000 ostrich jacket came from, or is he meeting with kilimnik to try to get the russians to help donald trump win the election? and that is obviously the most legally significant, but it may

simply be manafort's greed. >> senator blumenthal, do you buy that, that it could just be greed? >> it could be greed. it could be just the habit of self-enrichment. it could also be that at the end of the day manafort wants a pardon. and there is obviously a reluctance to talk about it, but behind many of these lies on the part of whether it's roger stone or others, ultimately the motive may be to win favor with trump as part of a cover-up and get a pardon. now if you were to pick anyone to try to foist a cover-up on, the last person in the world would be bob mueller. >> shan, what do you make about that, the possibility of a pardon is what is in the back of manafort's mind? >> i think that's always been in the back of his mind, but i find what's really interesting here is the question of the special

counsel's interest in the sanctions. that seems to have become clearer recently and those discussions could have been about that. there's also one other point in the judge's order which is that he lied about an unnamed other justice department criminal investigation. so those two things to me point in the direction that he may have been lying about something that goes to the heart of what they're looking at now which is the discussion of sanctions, and that might be worth lying about to him. i think if he was trying to protect something, someone, that's worth protecting, keeping that information out. that would help him get a pardon if it's known that he was trying to protect that. going the pardon route as a hail mary pass at anytime and particularly with this president though he by-passes the normal process, you just don't know what he's going to do. that's not much of a strategy but is something always lurking in the back ground for him. >> senator blumenthal, do you have a thought on that? >> just one last thought, anderson, on this topic.

one of the lies that apparently he told to the special counsel related to, in fact, his giving polling data from the trump campaign to kilimnik and, thereby, very likely to the russians. now that polling data was the life blood of potential social media outreach, and the kind of meddling that the russians did. so that coordination potentially is very important. >> jim, i saw you shaking your head earlier. >> i think that's right except for why did he do it? i think that's what we come back to, did it have something to do with helping the campaign or was it that he was trying to repay a debt that he owed. and i think that's what we're all waiting to see with mueller's report. >> essentially giving off polling data as a way of buying favor. >> currying favor. was he acting in the scope of a chairman or trying to protect

paul manafort? >> jim is raising a legitimate question. think about how far this investigation has come. here you have the campaign chairman, not a flunky, the coffee boy, giving someone who is close to russian intelligence information that is the gold, the most expensively produced product of the trump campaign, private polling. which they can use in social media. that is closing the circle potentially between the trump campaign and russian interests which is collusion. >> let's talk about bowling down, polling data gets released to reporters all the time. granted not to the russians. no question about that. let's not talk about it as something so intrinsic to a campaign that it never makes it

in the public campaign. if it's good for the candidate, it makes its way in the public doma domain. >> thank you very much. we have more breaking news ahead. the man on track to be the next attorney general, william barr, is having discussion on how to handle final reporting if and how it's released. we'll talk to senator blumenthal about that. the deal president trump fasa fasanoing another government shutdown. before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, marie could only imagine enjoying freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? in't easy. for all-day, all-night protection. 12 hours? 20 dogs? where's your belly rubs? after a day of chasing dogs you shouldn't have to chase down payments. (vo) send invoices and accept payments

to get paid twice as fast. (danny) it's time to get yours! (vo) quickbooks. backing you. i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take

including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret. i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. also, in a great-tasting chewable. touch shows how we really feel. but does psoriasis ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz... the first and only treatment of its kind offering people

with moderate to severe psoriasis a chance at 100% clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of people quickly saw a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. 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. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz.

back pain can't win. thankfully there's aleve back and muscle pain. aleve targets tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve back & muscle. all day strong. all day long. there's more breaking news tonight. exclusive new information on william barr, the president's pick for attorney general, who will start overseeing the russia probe. we've learned barr is consulting with top justice department officials on outlines, on plans how to handle the final mueller report. that is according to people familiar with the discussions.

the most pressing question barr will face is how much information should be included in a report to congress and the public, as we mentioned before the break senator richard blumenthal co-sponsored legislation to ensure the mueller report be available to both congress and the public. we want to thank senator blumenthal for sticking with us to discuss these developments. nothing short of barr releasing the full report is acceptable to you, is that right? >> that is absolutely right, nor should it be acceptable to the american people. in fact, a recent poll, a couple polls show more than 80% of the american people think the mueller report should be released in full by barr. and, in fact, 79% of republicans. so there should be complete, full disclosure, a public right to know, of the entire findings and evidence. not just the conclusions but all of the evidence and findings from the mueller report.

and the american people deserve to see it because they paid for it. >> isn't the counter argument that unless there's an indictment usually you don't hear from authorities detailing every stone that's been overturned. it's either, yes, there's going to be somebody charged or, no, there's not. >> you're absolutely right. and i was united states attorney, the chief federal prosecutor in connecticut. i never did a report. i never commented in substance on people's background or character, and the only comments we made generally were in cases of criminal charges. so the normal rule is either you indict or you shut up, but this is different because what we have here is a special counsel who is appointed only in the very rare and significant instances of abuse of trust, of public trust.

the public really has a right to know. and we all can speculate and comment and predict, but what really counts is the findings and evidence and they bear on at that betrayal of public trust. there's the distinct possibility, anderson, that there will be no indictment here because william barr has concluded a sitting president cannot be indicted. so if there's no indictment and no findings in evidence, what we have, in effect, is a cover-up which the american people should not accept. >> the fact that barr has not been confirmed as attorney general and is consulting with top justice officials, is that standard operating procedure for a nominee? >> never standard operating procedure for a nominee to talk about a pending investigation. so i'm a bit surprised that he is talking about the outlines and plans as the cnn report

suggested. there's a lot about the special counsel investigation that has been treated as special. i'm just hoping that he backs this legislation and supports the concept of full transparency. this legislation is bipartisan and senator grassley and i have long been advocates of open and full transparency and disclosure, and i'm hopeful that we will have the backing of more of our colleagues. already there's growing acceptance. >> senator blumenthal, again, appreciate your time. thank you. cnn's legal analyst jeff toobin, shan wu, and schultz. they don't have to show anything. >> the regulation does not give the attorney general a lot of guidance one way or another. but i think there's a point that senator blumenthal made that deserves to be emphasized.

in the usual circumstance it is put up or shut up. indict or say nothing at all. here you have a situation where the president can't be indicted under justice department policy. so that's not a risk. also, you have the watergate precedent where jaworski, the special prosecutor, turned over a famous bulging briefcase of evidence to congress of relevant evidence for possible impeachment. the public does have an interest here independent of the criminal justice system. and it really is inconceivable to me that the public and certainly the congress wouldn't be allowed to see what mueller had spent all this time. >> should it be made public? >> i think barr said as much as possible should be made public and commented on memos and where people are indicted and that evidence doesn't make its way -- when a prosecutor declines to prosecute someone.

and there's internal evidence, that evidence doesn't become public. i think it's a little far stretched to say because the public paid for this work that it should be made public. there could be other confidential and intelligence information in that report. >> there would be redactions. >> certainly i think barr's testimony lended towards transparency on this issue, no question. >> shan, if barr did decide to keep the report secret from not only congress but the public, it would certainly face legal challenges, wouldn't it? >> it would. i unquestionably think he will seek to exercise his ability lawfully to censor that report. barr is far more sophisticated. former legal counsel at the justice department, former jag. he can control the message. that's what he's going to do. he's going to protect the president if there's anything

negative in there by controlling the message. it should be transparent. the more that's disclosed, the better. to the senator's point of letting the american public see what is found, letting them make their decisions, i would remind us all in thinking about this that there's a role for congress and there's a role for prosecutors. and he's going to focus on individual wrong doings. he's going to follow justice department guidelines as much as he can. mueller will be loathe to say anything bad about people not indicted. barr can use that as a shield to censor the report. congress has a different duty. >> but congress can only do its job if it has the evidence mueller collected. that's the thing and why it's so important congress get it. >> a number of senators have said, look, if this is held back, we will subpoena mueller. >> that's right. and i don't know how that would play out legally.

i think barr has a lot of discretion here and the courts generally defer to the attorney general when it comes to what's an investigatory measure, what's grand jury material, all of that could give barr permission to withhold a lot of this testimony. so i think it's really going to fall a lot on him. i don't think a court is really going to order him to release stuff that he doesn't want to release. he has his own reputation to worry about. he is someone unlike whitaker who is utterly unqualified to be attorney general and is just a political stooge in there. barr is a distinguished public servant, and i doubt he wants his legacy to be the guy who kept this under wraps, but we'll see. i don't know. >> jeff toobin, shan wu, james schultz. scramble to explain the latest effort which is shaping up to be anything but a masterpiece. we're keeping him honest.

to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪

as of this moment president trump is still expected to sign the deal to prevent another government shutdown. once the house and senate turn into full-blown legislation. white house sources tell us there's no guarantee he will. he's not happy with it and it's not hard to see why. the compromise contains less money for border construction than the $5.7 billion that he originally wanted and less money than he might have gotten back this december before he shut down the government. in short, whatever you might think about the border, the wall, the fencing, the shutdown or the president himself, he seems to have failed to do the one thing he says he does better than anyone else, he failed as a

deal maker in the case. that's not us saying it. here is what chris stewart told cnn's jim sciutto today. he said, and i'm quoting, the deal we ended up with now is worse than before the shutdown. point in fact, the president's record in the private sector is littered with ill-fated deals. when we asked biographer dantonio how the latest episode compares, he said, and i'm quoting, the president may have just found a new way to lose, which may explain why he was scrambling to put the best possible face on it first by pointing to another bigger, better number than the one we've all been focused on. >> and we have a lot of options and a lot of things are happening, very positive things. you know, the numbers are almost $23 billion, which you don't report too often. it's about an 8% increase over last year. so if you look at the total funding, it's over -- almost up to $23 billion, 8% higher. >> that's not just for a wall t.

covers all aspects like personnel, technology, infrastructure, maintenance, repairs at ports of entry and barrier construction. as we showed you at the top of that $23 billion there's just $1.375 billion in funding for barriers on the southern border covering some 55 miles of new construction which is less than the $1.6 billion for 65 miles of fencing the president turned down in december. far less, of course, than the $5.7 billion he was demanding for more than 200 miles of barrier. the president isn't talking about that number anymore. he's repeating what is a familiar refrain, the claim the wall is already going up. if you listen carefully, he mixes up his tenses so much it's hard to tell what he's trying to say. >> the border area is happening. it's going to happen at a really rapid pace. we're giving out contracts right now. we're going to have a great wall. it's going to be a great, powerful wall.

the wall is very, very on its way. it's happening. as we speak. we're building as we speak in the most desperately needed areas. and it's a big wall. it's a strong wall. it's a wall people aren't going through very easy. they're going to have to be in extremely good shape to get over this one. they would be able to climb mt. everest a lot easier, i think. >> keeping him honest, it's not happening yet. it's not being built as we speak, not as the president would have you believe. it's nothing like the kind of wall the president campaigned on or the prototypes shown off a year and a half ago. the president is said to be angry, to be upset, has complained publicly about where things have ended up. the reality is he could have had a better deal than this one. whatever the lessons he preached in the art of the deal, they did not work out for him this time this may not be the legacy he wanted, but it's hard to deny it's the legacy he's earned in this case.

joining us is congressman jeffires. he has options most people don't understand to get more money for the border wall. how do you interpret that? what options don't most people understand? >> it's not clear what does seem to be the case is this is more bluster and misdirection from the president of the united states of america. he apparently is concerned that despite his promise we were going to get sick of the winning, all he does is lose, lose, lose no matter what. if you take a look, anderson, at the trajectory of this whole issue around his medieval vanity inspired border wall, first he indicated that he was going to build a wall from sea to shining sea, and mexico was going to pay for it. they refused. second, over the last two years, republicans controlled the house, the senate, and the presidency, and he still couldn't get anything done. in fact, he walked away from a

$25 billion border wall deal in exchange for daca. then he shuts down the government for 35 days in a reckless fashion and then says uncle at the end and engages in an unconditional surrender when he could have gotten at least $1.6 billion, as you pointed out, without shutting down the government and now has gotten much less than that. >> so do you believe the president could take this deal and then declare a national emergency anyway? >> it's possible that the president will in all likelihood take the deal because he can't go down the path of recklessly shutting down the government again. that was a disaster for him. it was a disaster for republicans in the house and the senate and clearly mitch mcconnell and his team over on the other side of the capitol want no part of that any further. now the president may try to declare a national emergency but here's the thing. if it was a national emergency,

why didn't he declare that to be the case on day one of his presidency going all the way back to january 20th of 2017? all we've seen is rhetoric around this situation but to real evidence there's a national emergency in part because apprehensions are down at the border not up. >> congressman, a lot of republicans will say, look, yes, maybe it's not the greatest thing for the president. it's not exactly what the president wanted. at the same time it's not what nancy pelosi said not one dollar for the wall and here they are with a deal for $1.5 billion or so. >> well, what we've said from the very beginning is that the president would not get a dime for a medieval border wall in the midst of a reckless government shutdown while he was holding 800,000 plus federal employees and their families and the american economy hostage. we maintained from the very beginning that when the government was reopened we would

be more than willing to have a mature conversation about border security and do what was necessary in terms of what the evidence directed. in that regard, we indicated that we would be willing to support some modest barriers where justified and that is the case here, but this bill will be 21st century border security, invest in the type of infrastructure we think is necessary around the legal ports of entry. it will invest in technology. it will provide money for humanitarian assistance to make sure that migrant families are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve in terms of food and shelter, transportation, and medicine and clothing. >> leader mark meadows told reporters today that if the president accepts the bill and does nothing else that it would be, quote, political suicide. does the president need to do something else to save face here? >> in my view this is a victory

for the american people because we have finally put to bed the notion that shutdowns are legitimate negotiating tactic when there's a dispute between two co-equal branches of government. i think what we need to do is move beyond this situation. hopefully the bill will get to the president's desk. he'll sign it into law by friday and then work with us as house democrats on our for the people agenda where we're focused on lowering health care costs, protecting people with pre-existing conditions, driving down the high cost of prescription drugs and enacting a real infrastructure plan. that's what the president talked about in part when he came before us at the state of the union address. hopefully once we end this sordid episode, we can work on issues of real importance to the american people. >> all right, congressman jeffries, appreciate your time. thank you. joining me former rnc chief of staff steele and charlie dent. mike, would it be suicide, political suicide, for the

president if he didn't do something else after this deal? >> i don't know about suicide, but i believe he will continue to do something. the word republicans are using is a down payment. it is their policy to build -- to have stronger border security and build a barrier. there are other things they can do to put money towards this. there will be an election in 2020. it will be on the ballot. i think the base is with the president. they've seen he's willing to go to an extreme length to fight for something he believes in. we're not talking about health care. we're not talking about student loans, climate change, things nancy pelosi and the democrats in congress want to be talking about. we're having a national debate on border security which is where he wants it to be. >> congressman dent, do you think the president will actually sign the bill and then, to mike's point, sort of use it as a jumping off point? >> yes, he will sign it but not until he complains about it first. he will complain about it. he'll whine about it. then he'll sign it. then i do suspect the president

will take some executive action, possibly declare an emergency, which i think would set off a bit of a political crisis. i think he's moving in that direction. he cannot move these funds around that congress has appropriated without some kind of congressional approval from the appropriations committee. he may try, but that would really set off the crisis. he's going to sign it. he has no choice. it's better than a shutdown. it's better than a continuing resolution. >> if the president signs the bill, which is what cnn has been told he intends to do, does he deserve credit for compromising? democrats have been trying to take a victory lap saying he's caved, he's caved. the other word is compromise. >> i said this before that i think originally when he had struck a deal and it was being portrayed as he had rolled and caved. no, he just made a deal. i think that he would have been -- it would have been better for him if he had taken earlier deals that were on the table. i don't know that it was the best deal for him. i think that, yes, he should get

credit for doing what is the right thing which is avoiding another government shutdown, realizing that he's not going to be able to get the funding that he wanted, and in standing up against the base to the extent that he needs to stand up to the base. another thing i have felt for a long time is he had caved before because he got all this backlash -- i mean, caved to his base because he got all this backlash from rush limbaugh and ann coulter. i think if he stood his ground then, he would have been fine. his base is firmly behind him. i think he's done so many things they can point to that they are happy about. in particular probably what is really their most important issue among republicans and not just the base is the court. i don't think he would have been in any peril, frankly. now he's done this and we'll see. we'll see if there is a backlash for him giving in. >> mike, how worried do you think the president should be politically about legal challenges in court?

>> in terms of -- >> if he declares a national emergency, tries to, you know, get funds from other sources. >> it appears there's two sides to that argument, and i think they're still sorting through that. i think there are other things. ted cruz has a bill to use the old el chapo money to build the wall. i think the point is, yeah, he didn't get everything he wanted. he set the terms of the debate. we're talking about border security. there's a way to win the war, maybe losing the battle. i've mentioned that before when i worked for newt. the government shut down but bill clinton wound up signing a balanced budget. as long as it looks like he's continuing to find ways to do this and he's not finished doing it. >> do you think they'll see this as a win? >> you know, i think the president really needs to lead his base. instead of ledding ann coulter and sean hannity and others get them whipped up into a frenzy, the president has to declare victory. look, i have additional money for border security.

i'm not done. down payment. come back and fight another day. and i think his base will probably follow him more than they would those talk radio hosts. he, for some reason, the president is so gun-shy when it comes to certain sh ril voices. he feels he has to pander to them. he really doesn't need to. >> it is wise the president is pointing to the larger number, the $23 billion overall and it's a rise over what was spent last year. >> right. it also kind of goes against the conservative talking point that the democrats don't care about border security, right? the president is right, there is quite a bit of money in this for border security. and so i think the democrats were interested in striking a deal where they felt the money was going to be well spent where the problems actually are, and the problems actually aren't going to be solved by a wall. that's the problem. the problems are more at the ports of entry and so i think that's where the money is

rightly being focused and he's been given some money for not a huge big, beautiful wall but for some fencing. and i think that's reasonable. he can go out and say whatever he wants. the fact of the matter is he had much better deals that he walked away from. he can say he got victory, or i think probably more likely he's going to try to find a way to get this done, as charlie pointed out, a way that might be highly problematic. >> charlie dent, appreciate it. thanks very much. up next, who leaked the details of jeff bezos' relationship to "the national enquirer"? now we know. details coming up.

♪ ♪ ♪ and everywhere i go ♪ there's always something to remind me ♪ ♪ of another place and time ♪ ♪ and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin ♪ of another place and time ♪ by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear.

an athletic director, a football coach, geography teacher and high school students with big dreams, they're the 17 people killed at marjory stoneman douglas high school in parkland, florida, one year ago tomorrow. 17 lives lost on valentine's day, lives taken away. 17 lives changed forever by the actions of a lone gunman. several students from the school have pushed for gun control, called on politicians to enact new laws, and distanced themselves from powerful lobbying groups like the national rifle association. you may recall this moment from a cnn town hall days after the shooting. this is a student pressing senator marco rubio.

>> senator rubio, can you tell me right now that you will not accept a single donation from the nra? >> so, number one, the positions i hold on these issues are the second amendment i've held since the day i entered office as an elected official. number two -- no, the answer to the question is people buy into my agenda and i do support the second amendment and i support the right of view to go to school and be safe. and i do support any law that would keep guns out of the hands of a deranged killer. and that's why i support the things that i have stood for. >> in the name of 17 people, you cannot ask the nra to keep their money out of your campaign? >> i think in the name of 17 people, i can pledge to you that i will support any law that will prevent a killer like this from getting a gun. >> joining me now is that student. cameron, thank you for being with us. i'm wondering what's gone through your mind as the first

anniversary of what kind in parkland approaches tomorrow. >> it's been such a surreal time for us. recently i was thinking about how people think about parkland, and i was thinking about kind of the public image of the city. it's really nice to know parkland is looked at as a city where people, even in the face stem people stood up and stood up for something larger than themselves. we took what was the worst thing in the world for us and instead of hiding away, we stood up and showed that parkland as a city and this community and these fap liz who lost their children and siblings were stronger than anyone that could try to hurt us. bh while the shooter tried to ruin the world and knock everybody down, everybody was really able to come together and show that we're better than that. >> i mean obviously you've been a voluntary strong advocate for tougher gun control legislation. on balance, do you believe progress has been made? >> i mean just moments ago hra

passed which is a bipartisan background check bill and that's the first gun violence prevention bill passed from house judiciary in decades. today governor desantos announced there is a grand jury in the investigating school board in broward county which i know was stuchuch a great victo for the parents. so while ago, we're coming up oun the one year anniversary of such a horrible horrific thing that took 17 of our best people, we're seeing a lot of reason to look to the future and see hope. >> you're a senior now. what is it like at the school? >> i know that a lot of the families of the victims, despite having gone through such a horrible thing, i see these people so often. they're so grateful for all the help they get. they're so supportive. i mean patrick petty is a student at douglas right now who lost his sister. every time i talk to him, i say how are you doing? i try to check in.

he just talks about all the things in the world that are good. he talks about how one day he'll be able to see his sister again. so many people in douglas whether they were connected to someone lost or whether they had just gone through such trauma, they're able to look to the future with hope and it's something that is so nice to see. the whole community in parkland really just shown so much courage. it's remarkable. >> what would you hope that tomorrow people think about or do or remember about parkland and the 17 people who were murdered? >> tomorrow i hope a lot of people take the bitterly partisan politics of this whole situation and put it aside for a day. i understand there is a lot that needs to be advocated for and so many fights we need to end. tomorrow is about thinking about your loved ones, treating everybody with kindness and compassion and realizing this tragedy, they still happen on a

daily basis. you see so many people being killed. there are so many steps we need to take. it's really important to treat the people around you with kindness and compassion. >> cameron, i appreciate talking to you, thank you very much. >> thanks for having me again. >> all right. i want to check in with chris and see what he is working on. chris? >> it is amazing how those mass shootings dominate a moment and then disappear. i was wrong about parkland. when it happened, i was like oh, god, another one of these tragedies and we're going to go through the cycle and all the people made promises that something will change and then it doesn't. you have to watch the har breeak b but these kid are a catalyst. they went all over the country, the kid. my sister maria does documentaries. she is following them around. one of the documentaries is about the efforts. it will be interesting to see what lasting impact there is. what this year anniversary

means. >> it's also interesting that cameron is applying to colleges now. others have gone to college. they continue the push. they continue the work that they're doing while at the same time being kids and going to college and doing the stuff that everybody else does at that age. >> yeah. an extraordinary thing to survive and leave an impression on their lives. they're trying to make something of it. that is always best way to survive. as you and i have both seen many times and many it ragss around the world. we'll see what comes. to we're still nowhere on that from a cultural issue. his advice is great. just not going to be taken. the idea of putting politics aside with, very yet to see that when comes to that issue. tonight we're going to take on what just came out of that judge's ruling in the manafort case and what meanit means. i don't see the mueller probe ending the presidency. i could be wrong. but why did they lie if they had

nothing to hide? is a question that applies in a way i have never seen before. it is the big question. we'll take it on. >> it's not just one person lying, it's multiple lie after lie after lie. chris, we'll see you in a few minutes, five minutes from now. more breaking news on who tipped off "national enquirer" about the relation shep between jeff ba bezos and the woman with whom he had a relationship. of we'll have details about that head. feeling unsure? what if you had some help? introducing the new 2019 ford edge with the confidence of ford co-pilot360™ technology. the most available driver assist techonology in its class. the new 2019 ford edge wit looks like george having are busy day.?

♪ the beat goes on george has entresto, a heart failure medicine that helps his heart... so he can keep on doing what he loves. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. it helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪ the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. that was great! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪ the beat goes on

ed gets copays as lowlily go to as zero dollars on medicare part d prescriptions. ed gets labels clear as day. and, lily.... lily gets anything she wants. ed knows he could just have us deliver his prescriptions. but what's the fun in that? switch to cvs pharmacy. there's breaking news about the identity of the person who tipped off the "national enquirer" about the relationship that amazon founder jeff bezos had a television personality. two people with knowledge of the matter confirmed that michael sanchez was the person behind the leak. contacted by cnn, michael sanchez declined to provide an

on the roar comment. bezos launched an investigation into the league. he suggested that president trump or the kingdom of saudi arabia played parity in the story. they're now providing the evidence to support the claims. i news continues now. i want to hand it over to chris. >> thank you. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." new tonight, a judge ruled that paul manafort lied about his meeting with a russian operative repeatedly mueller, to the fbi, and a grand jury b matters that are considered close to the heart of the russia investigation. we now know the central question mueller needs answer and we're going to take it up in cuomo's court. then do the democrats have a problem? are the party of the progressives? we have one of each here to take on competing notions of the green new deal. and the gop, they have their