mueller is only going to create one work product. he may, but it may be multiple products. we have yet to see that. and i'm going to at least extend some hope that they'll keep their minds open enough with new evidence as it continues to mount, and we had two big bricks of evidence today, if not more. >> all right. well, i appreciate your time. i look forward to having you back on. i know you'll be questioning him tomorrow. thanks so much. and to all of you, our breaking news coverage continues now with "a.c. 360". >> a racist, a con man, a cheat. that's a description of the president of the united states from the man who was his attorney and fixer for a decade. good evening, thanks for joining us on a big day here in washington, d.c., where michael cohen testified publicly for the first time today about the president's alleged role in some of the crimes that are sending cohen to prison in a few months. there were a number of big takeaways from the day. the first, cohen says the president asked him to pay off the porn star, who says she had sex with trump and to lie to his wife, melania about it and sign checks, checks he showed the committee, to reimburse cohen

after donald trump became president. the second, cohen said candidate trump knew that roger stone was talking with julian assange about wikileaks releasing stolen dnc e-mails. roger stone denies that, setting up, as he said -- a he said/he said between two known liars, essentially, with another known liar in the middle. another. cohen said conversations about the trump tower project in moscow went into the summer of 2016 and that the president directed the negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. a fourth, he brought don junior much closer to wrongdoing in a number of ways, saying the president's son was briefed multiple times about that moscow deal and strongly implied the president's son told the president about the infamous trump tower meeting promising dirt on hillary clinton. he also said that don junior signed at least one of the hush money payment checks. cohen also hinted at other investigations or avenues of current investigations we don't know about, saying his last conversation with the president after his home and offices were raided were part of a southern district of new york investigation and that he's aware of more wrongdoing, but

can't talk about it, because of ongoing investigations. cohen also mentioned that the president said black people would never vote for him because, quote, they were too stupid, and that the president used money from his so-called charity to refund a fake bidder for a portrait of himself, all of which is pretty remarkable, if you stop and really think about it, but honestly, that's kind of a nightly thing these days. what makes today different and possibly significant is that what we heard today could spell big trouble for the president, because after the hearing, chairman elijah cummings says it appears the president may have committed a crime while in office. we begin with just a few of the many noteworthy moments from cohen's day of testimony. >> i am ashamed of my own failings and publicly accepted responsibility for them by pleading guilty in the southern district of new york. i am ashamed of my weakness and my misplaced loyalty, of the things i did for mr. trump in an effort to protect and promote

him. i am ashamed that i chose to take part in concealing mr. trump's illicit acts other than listening to my own conscience. i am ashamed, because i know what mr. trump is. he is a racist. he is a con man. and he is a cheat. >> you made some very demeaning comments about the president that miss patton doesn't agree with. in fact, it has to do with your claim of racism. she says that as a daughter of a man born in birmingham, alabama, that there is no way that she would work for an individual who was racist. how do you reconcile the two of those, mr. -- >> as neither should i, as the son of a holocaust survivor. >> if this statement back here doesn't say it all, cohen's consciousness of wrongdoing is fleeting, his remorse is minimal, his instinct is to blame others is strong.

there's only one thing wrong with that statement. his remorse is nonexistent! he just debated a member of congress saying, i really didn't do anything wrong with the false bank things that i'm guilty of and going for prison for. >> mr. jordan, that's not what i said and you know that's not what i said. >> will the gentlemen yield? >> i said i pled guilty and i take responsibility for my actions. >> the gentlemen's time has expird. >> shame on you, mr. jordan. that's not what i said. shame on you. >> mr. chairman -- >> that's not what i said. what i said is, i took responsibility and i take responsibility. what i was doing is explaining to the gentlemen that his facts are inaccurate. i still -- i take responsibility for my mistakes, all right? i am remorseful. and i am going to prison. i will be away from my wife and family for years. so before you turn around and cast more aspersions, please understand, there are people

watching you today that know me a whole lot better. i made mistakes. i own them and i didn't fight with the southern district of new york. i didn't put the system through an entire scenario. but what i did do is i pled guilty and i am going to be, again, going to prison. >> was mr. stone a free agent, reporting back to the president what he had done? or was he an agent of the campaign acting on behalf of the president and with his apparent authority? >> no, he was a free agent. >> a free agent that was reporting back to the president what he had done? >> correct. he frequently reached out to mr. trump and mr. trump was very happy to take his calls. it was free service. >> roger stone says he never spoke with mr. trump about wikileaks. how can we corroborate what you are saying? >> i don't know, but i suspect that the special counsel's office and other government

agencies have the information that you're seeking. >> so let's go back at this credibility. you want us to make sure that we think of you as a real philanthropic icon, that you're about justice, that you're the person that somebody would call at 3:00 in the morning. no, they wouldn't! not at all! you saw mr. comer dissect you. right in front of this committee, you conflicted your testimony, sir. you're a pathological liar! you don't know truth from truth -- from falsehood. >> sir, i'm sorry, are you referring to me or the president. >> hey, hey, this is my time! when i ask you a question, i'll ask for an answer. >> sure. >> did the president call you while you were having a meeting with a reporter? >> yes. >> did the president call you to coordinate on public messaging about the payments to miss cliffords in or around february 2018? >> yes. >> what did the president ask or suggest that you say about the payments or reimbursements? >> he was not knowledgeable of these reimbursements and he wasn't knowledgeable of my

actions. >> he asked you to say that? >> yes, ma'am. >> well, with me now is the lawmaker you just saw from today's hearing, congresswoman katie hill, democrat of california, a member of the oversight committee. thanks so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> i want to get to your question in just a moment, but after the hearing, chairman cummings said that he thinks that the president may have committed a crime while in office related to hush money. do you agree? >> i mean, that's certainly what it sounds like. and there are checks that would indicate that. i think that the next steps are finding corroborating evidence and seeing where it takes us from there. >> to find that corroborating evidence, who do you want to talk to most? was it like allen weisselberg, the ceo of the trump organization? >> that's certainly one that's on my list. >> because it seems like he knows -- i mean, michael cohen was there for ten years. allen weisselberg was there this entire time, goes back to the dad. >> yeah, i think that allen weisselberg is absolutely someone that we need to talk to. and i think donald trump jr. is someone that it's looking more and more like is someone that we need to talk to. weapon need to go through all of the testimony that happened

today, the lines of questioning, digest it and strategize from here. it was a lot to take in. >> but you want to call don junior and allen weisselberg? >> i would like to. you know, i don't get to make that call, ultimately, but i think that that's certainly where my head is at right now. >> just in terms of what stood out to you today, i mean, obviously, your vantage point is different than the viewers at home, what did you think were the most important takeaways? >> i guess it depends on what you're looking for. i mean, one of the -- one of the big takeaways for me was is that it really does look like a sitting president committed a crime, very serious crime, while he was in the oval office. and you know, all of the other pieces -- >> and that crime is, is going through the with the hush payments, reimbursing michael cohen. >> correct, and directing somebody to lie to cover that up. >> although he was directing him to lie to the press and the american public, which is not a crime. >> right, but to me, that still is kind of showing the intention to mislead the american public,

specifically around the fact that he made these payments. so i think all of that is incredibly relevant and the fact that it happened and it was continuing to happen while he was in office is really, really problematic. and we have to investigate that fully. that's our job. that's the oath we took. >> obviously, the republicans today, it was all about, you know, attacking michael cohen's credibility, which is obviously easy to attack, because he has lied repeatedly. it was interesting to me, you really didn't hear, maybe one republican, but very few republicans actually asking any questions about -- either defending the president or asking any questions about any potential illegalties or even the idea of the president paying hush money. >> i think that's something we should read into on a couple of different fronts. the first that they weren't explicitly defending the president's actions, which is pretty interesting. the second is, i have a really hard time with this, because as i mentioned in my statement, i come from a very long line of

service members. the oath that they take to the commander in chief is one that every single one of them has told me about, has talked about the importance and significance of it. and the republicans, my dad's a republican, i come from half-republican family, they're supposed to be the party of patriotism and of loyalty to the constitution. and you see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seem to be completely willing to brush that aside and make excuses and draw attention away from probably one of the most serious crimes that could be committed from the most powerful person in our country. >> talk to me a little bit -- i mean, i think a lot of viewers at home and certainly even me watching, you know, online and on tv, get frustrated at, you know, some of the congresspeople making a statement, not actually really asking, even on the -- i'm talking about on the democratic side, not really even asking questions. one of the things that stood out about you, and which is why i want to talk to you tonight, you actually zeroed in, in a very --

not in an attorney, but in a very lawyer-like away and got some interesting answers. alexandria ocasio-cortez did the same thing in terms of actually getting answer, and others did as well, but there were a lot of just statements and repetition. it's frustrating. isn't stuff worked out in advance in terms of who's going to talk about what or focus -- or like ask, you take the trump tower meeting, you take -- that doesn't happen? >> we do. we certainly try. i do think that sometimes, especially because there was a change in scope after we got his prepared testimony -- or his written testimony the night before, so suddenly more was on the table than it was previously. and i saw a lot of my colleagues, including myself, there's an initial temptation, oh, i want to talk about russia now that russia is back on the table, but because of that, there was a lot of, oh, how can i fit that into my questioning and i think people were sort of stepping on each other's toes around that. but i decided that i wanted to stick to what is the potential crime that was committed in office and what evidence do we

have around that? so, you know, i think it's hard when there's so many people to wrangle. the committee staff does as great as a job as could possibly be done in terms of making sure that all of the different questioning lines are hit, but each member has their priorities. and there's so much kind of moral outrage around a lot of the things that have been done and they wanted to get that out in the open, as well. >> well, you got some answers, which a lot of people didn't. >> thank you. >> congressman katie hill, thank you very much. >> thank you. plenty to talk about tonight. with me are david gergen, jeffrey toobin, carrie cordero, kristin powers, rick santorum, and gloria borger. gloria, let me start with you. i guess i'll run through with everybody, what are the headlines? >> well, the headline, it comes from the congresswoman's questions, obviously. you know, what michael cohen described today was an oval office crime. and with cohen saying that the president called him and said, look, i want to make sure that you say that i wasn't

knowledgeable about these payoffs. then we saw the incontrovertible evidence, signed by donald trump, $30,000. that check is very meaningful. and there are a lot of things that strike me. you know, the roger stone apparently calling to talk about wikileaks. but one other thing that we also ought to keep in mind is that cohen kept referring to southern district of new york investigations. and he couldn't answer some questions about the president because they're being investigated by the southern district. that would cause chills to me. >> abby, roger stone calling the president saying, oh, i talked to julian assange. he may very well could have said that, it doesn't mean he actually spoke to julian assange. we all know that roger stone has an inventive imagination. >> and roger stone uses that as part of his defense, that he's a person that sometimes makes things up or exaggerates situations.

so that's one of the difficulties that michael cohen talked about in his testimony today. but i also think that some of the ambiguities about what michael cohen discussed in terms of how donald trump speaks and when trump tells someone who works for him that he wants them to do something, what does that actually mean? did the president actually direct you to do "x" or did he just repeat something and then you repeated it back to him? i think that's a really important thing, because as we go into the political aspect of this, it's going to be difficult for democrats to pin trump down on that. i think trump allies recognize that this is how the president bav behaves. he doesn't necessarily direct people to do things in an explicit manner. and it's going to be very difficult to make a case that trump knew about certain things or that he told someone to act on his behalf because of the way that he speaks. and michael cohen made that very clear in his testimony. >> jeff toobin, from a legal standpoint? >> the evidence about his involvement with michael cohen's crimes is really strong.

it's really strong. and most importantly, as gloria said, it's corroborated. it's not just corroborated with one check, the one donald trump signed, it's with the other check that is signed by donald trump jr. and allen weisselberg. what did they think they were signing for? and, you know, the fact that it was multiple checks, instead of being paid back all at once, suggests that they knew, as cohen said they knew, that this was wrong. and they divided up the money so that it would not look as obvious a payback. and all of this leaves the democrats with a dilemma, which is, how far to go with this. because there are lots more areas to investigate if they want to go forward. if they want to see, does federal express have records of the checks going back and forth? do they want to call allen weisselberg? if the weisselberg and donald trump jr. take the fifth, do they want to give them immunity? i mean, and doing an investigation is hard and

tedious and could take a long time. and you know, elijah cummings and the leadership is going to have to make these decisions. but, there's clearly a grounds for a much more extensive investigation. >> carrie, just from a legal standpoint, what do you do? >> well, one of the things that i'm most interested from a legal and a national security standpoint is the interaction with wikileaks. and michael cohen said today that he believed that donald trump had advanced knowledge, regarding the release of hacked information, so it relates to the crime of hacking the dnc and unauthorized access into hillary clinton and her campaign's e-mails. cohen says trump knew in advance. and what's happening is that there is a two-week timeline in july of 2016 that is now becoming more clear when we connect information that is in the special counsel indictments of the russian agents, combined with now other information that was revealed, including this new

data point from cohen today, that indicates that there really may have been back and forth communication between julian assange of wikileaks, roger stone, and multiple officials on the trump campaign, including trump himself. >> senator santorum, you're the only one shaking your head "no," so i don't want to -- >> first off, just to make a comment. there used to be a day, looking at david gergen, when a president was in a summit, talking about nuclear arms, that we wouldn't do anything to undermine the president here at home. this is as -- i can't think of a worse undermining at a president, at a time when he's sitting with a foreign leader who has nuclear weapons. and no one seems to care about this. the idea that they couldn't put michael cohen's testimony off a few days, so he gets back into the country, is reprehensible. period. stop. full stop. it's reprehensible. now, to the points that were made. number one, the idea that we're

going to get an impeachment on a campaign violation reporting requirement, that even if it was true, the controlling precedent was that these types of payoffs were not campaign finance violations. take the john edwards case. so i don't know how you have intent to do something if the only case on the matter shows that there is no campaign finance violation in doing so. so i don't think there's a crime -- there can't be a crime -- >> well, trump org could be accused of a crime for cooking their books, for example. >> well, they can be accused of a crime for cooking books and doing things, but they can't be accused of a crime, of violating a campaign finance law, when the only precedent out there at the time was that you're not -- it's not a violation of the campaign finance law, and one of the conditions of breaking the law is the knowledge you're breaking the law. so you can't really have -- >> kirsten, what do you -- >> well, i feel this is the legal thing, actually. >> so just to pick up on that point, so -- so i think rick is correct in that there is not a

wide body of settled law that the particular payments in question are campaign finance violations. the justice department is clearly taking the position that it is, because they charged and michael cohen pled guilty to that. >> but the edwards case had different facts. >> is it the right thing to do? >> david gergen? >> let me first come in on the international point. i have been surprised, frankly, that the white house hasn't provided counterprogramming. i mean, the whole point of this trip was to get big headlines for the president, so i think there was some foundation for the congress moving ahead on its side of things at the same time. but why hasn't the white house had some announcement from there? they've been there and they had one full day -- >> well, frankly, does the white house know what the president and kim jong-un are talking about? we still don't know -- it's not clear they know what he talked about with putin, it's not clear, you know, he's meeting with kim jong-un alone for a

time. >> well, but you would think he would come out of this and instead of turning on television to watch this cohen, that he would sit down and they would have some plan. in fact, they would have had a plan going into the meeting on what they wanted to come out. so i have to tell you, i think they didn't serve the president well. >> i don't disagree with that. that doesn't put aside the fact that they did this hearing at a time -- >> you've got so many issues concerning trump, you could spend almost any day you pick out, there might be some reason why you don't want to do it. >> you know, the whole spectacle today, that i think is very determinative, and that is for the first time, we get a feeling and get to see a massive presidential cover-up unraveling in front of us. in new york, with the southern district, in today's testimony, in what mueller knows, and all of these strands are starting to pull this ball of yarn. and we're going to learn an awful lot. there are three road maps, at

least. one in the southern district, one in the congress of the united states, one in the mueller investigation. there's also the intelligence committee meeting tomorrow. >> but can you really say that? we don't really know the details of the southern district. and certainly, we don't know much on mueller. >> we don't know exactly what it is that trump has been lying about all these months, except that always he lies about russia, as do those around him, asking about russia. but what has been clear is that there's a cover-up going on. >> where does he tell the truth? >> i ask you that. >> he lies about russia, so where does he tell the truth? in your mind, he doesn't tell the truth about anything ever, so why is that inconsistent? >> well, that's really significant. that goes to the other thing about today's hearing, which it goes to questions about his fitness in terms of his character. >> all right, we've got to take a quick break. we're going to continue, a lot more ahead, obviously. we're going to check in half a world away where the president is meeting with north korea's dictator. it's sure to have at least one eye on his former fixer's

testimony. jim acosta is in vietnam. he joins us next. also, today was not the last of cohen's testimony on the hill. tomorrow, he appears before the house intelligence committee. we'll hear from two members of that committee, republican and democrat, about what they want to know. biopharmaceutical researchers. driven each day to pursue life-changing cures... in a country built on fostering innovation. here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... and a new therapy that gives the blind a working gene so they can see again. because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

♪ ♪ t-mobile will do the math for you. right now, when you join t-mobile, you get two lines of unlimited with two of the latest phones included for just one hundred bucks a month.

coaching means making tough choices. jim! you're in! but when you have high blood pressure and need cold medicine that works fast, the choice is simple. coricidin hbp is the #1 brand that gives powerful cold symptom relief without raising your blood pressure. coricidin hbp. - ever get to your hotel only to realize the photo you saw online didn't tell the whole story? with tripadvisor, you can read the latest reviews and explore 360 hotel photos so you can trust what you see is what you get, and with our price comparison tool that searches deals from over 200 booking sites, you can also trust that you're getting a great price, so the only surprises you'll find in your room are the pleasant ones. ♪ - hoo! - [owl] read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do, tripadvisor. (alarm beeping) welcome to our busy world. where we all want more energy. but with less carbon footprint. that's why, at bp, we're working to make energy that's cleaner and better. we're producing cleaner-burning natural gas. and solar and wind power.

and wherever your day takes you... we have advanced fuels for a better commute. and we're developing ultra-fast-charging technology for evs.. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. so we can all keep advancing. 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

so the president claimed back in april that he didn't know about the $130,000 payment to porn star stormy daniels to keep her quiet about the sexual encounter she said she had with the president, then citizen trump, husband trump, father of a newborn trump. the president, of course, did know about the president. he's on record discussing it with michael cohen and according to evidence presented by cohen today, the president wrote a check reimbursing him for the hush money after he took office. >> and i'm giving the committee today a copy of the $130,000 wire transfer from me to miss clifford's attorney during the closing days of the presidential campaign that was demanded by

miss clifford to maintain her silence about her affair with mr. trump. and this is exhibit 4 to my testimon testimony. mr. trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a home equity line of credit to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact his campaign. i am providing a copy of a $35,000 check that president trump personally signed from his personal bank account on august 1st of 2017. when he was president of the united states, pursuant to the cover-up, which was the basis of my guilty plea, to reimburse me. the word used by mr. trump's tv lawyer, for the illegal hush money i paid on his behalf. this $35,000 check was one of 11

check installments that was paid throughout the year while he was president. >> the president is in vietnam, meeting with north korea's dictator. cnn's jim acosta is there in hanoi and joins us now. so has the president responded to all of this, at all? >> reporter: anderson, surprisingly, no. if they have a war room for dealing with michael cohen's testimony, we haven't seen any signs of it. it's been more like a bunker in that the president hasn't really responded to michael cohen's testimony. we haven't gotten any kind of response from the white house. the president's legal team, his outside legal team, has weighed in on parts of this, but not really in whole in terms of what michael cohen had to say and that damaging testimony, that explosive testimony that he delivered up on capitol hill. anderson, it is interesting, because just before michael cohen testified, the president put out a tweet saying that these things that michael cohen is in trouble for, bad things, unrelated to trump, well, then michael cohen testified in front of congress that this has to do with bad things very much related to donald trump.

and then when reporters tried to ask the president a question about all of this, before he had dinner with the north korean dictator, kim jong-un, the president did not answer those questions and then those reporters were punished for asking those questions. some of those reporters who were in that pool spray with the president when they tried to ask that question were blocked from the next pool spray. so the white house clearly was trying to punish those reporters for asking that question. and that all sets up the events of the day. the president is going to be meeting with kim jong-un shortly for their second summit here in vietnam, to follow up on what they tried to hammer out in singapore a year ago. it's not clear at all as to what the president is going to accomplish here on the nuclear arsenal front, when it comes to the north koreans, but no question about it, anderson, he is going to be asked these questions about michael cohen's testimony and my guess is he's not going to be able to clam up like he did last night. >> all right, jim, thanks. we're going to keep our eyes on the arrival of president trump and kim jong-un. we'll bring that to you shortly. back now with our team. i want to pick up on a conversation that senator santorum and carl bernstein were

having before the break, questioning why people in the trump orbit continue to lie about russia. i mean, does it -- is there an explanation for you in this? just the number of lies related to russia, senator? >> well, i guess the point i was trying to make to carl is, the president doesn't tell the truth about a lot of things fairly consistently. and so the fact that he's not telling the truth about russia fairly consistently, at least in the eyes of people around here, why is that any different? i mean, it's not like he's doing something out of character with the russia investigation that he's not doing in any other areas. so that's -- so you make the point, oh, he lies about russia all time. well, according to what i hear on this roundtable and the network, i lies about everything all the time. >> is that really -- is that really the best defense you can come up with? >> no, but -- >> well, he lies about everything, your honor! >> no, wait, stop. >> what? >> what he's saying is and the argument is, is that he's acting

differently here than he is otherwise. i'm not saying any of it's good, but the point is, he's not acting dempbact ing differently. >> there's a real specificity to his lying about russia. there's a specificity about him drafting that statement on the plane. there's a specificity to almost all of the lies that try to contradict whatever that day's breaking news is, very specifically. he's on point. it's a very careful denial when it comes to russia. there is a difference. >> i have a somewhat different view from carl. he and i don't usually agree on a lot of this. and that is, i don't think that there was any knockout blow today, which is what the anti-trump forces hoped. >> regard to russia, in fact, you know, it was a disappointment to the anti-trump forces, because what cohen said, everybody thought, well, maybe cohen can implicate him and make him tie him to this. and so cohen says, i have no

direct knowledge, i have suspicions. well, that doesn't add much weight to the russian thing. and begin to think, who does know and where is the mueller investigation? i think what cohen did was very helpful to the democrats was, he put a lot more fuel in their tank to do further investigations. because, the democrats had not advanced a coherent portrait of trump and why they ought to have multiple investigations if the mueller thing doesn't -- if it winds down. and now, i think he's painting a credible portrait of trump as a con man. >> kirsten, do you think he did himself a favor today by saying, yeah, actually, i don't know anything on the russia stuff. i have suspicion, but i don't know any facts. and even on the whole elevator tape question, he says, look, i don't think mr. trump would do that. >> well, i think it undermined the idea that he's just there to say whatever the democrats want to hear. that he somehow has had this -- that he's decided that somehow it's going to be helpful to him to come and tell these stories

about donald trump, that they say are not true. if that was the case, well, what would the democrats want to hear more than anything else? they would have wanted to hear something relating to collusion and russia. so i think to me, it seems more genuine, frankly, that he has, that he has actually had sort of a moment of awakening and realizing, looking back, at his life, and there's a lot of things that he's, you know, ashamed of. and at the same time, he's -- but he's not going to make up things. >> although, the flip side of that is, he did say he didn't want to work at the white house, and based on numerous reporters and reporting and in the trump kids tweeting, he did. >> he did. he did want to work at the white house. and look, he would have liked to have been white house chief of staff, he would have liked to work in the white house counsel's office. trump had a conversation with him saying, i would like you to come over, but trump knew that was not going to occur because the children were not in favor of it and i don't even think donald trump was in favor of it.

but to your point, kirsten, i think he balanced out the way he was so partisan at the beginning of his testimony where he said, trump's a con man, he's a cheat, he's a racist, and then at the end of his testimony, in his prepared comments, he also took on trump in a personal way. i don't think that helped cohen. i think if cohen had just stuck to the facts and what he knew and what he didn't know and then said, you know, donald trump would never hit melania, that was honest. that was honest. the beginning of it left me a little cold, because i felt like he just had to get his digs in there and i think for the general audience, it may have been, oh, he's just part of the resistance. and that shouldn't be the case. >> he did open up some interesting lines of questioning that might seem smaller in the context of the russia investigation, which is so big and so all-encompassing. but issues related to the charity, issues related to his businesses' tax returns, the insurance fraud issue. there were all of these little crumbs that were being dropped,

that frankly the questioning could explored deeper and never did that raise a lot of questions about the business practices of president trump as a businessman going back, and while that may not be the purview of congress over the next two years, it is approaching that red line that the president said is a bright line for him in terms of his businesses and his tax returns. and for congress, for the democrats, it does give them some reason to say, well, maybe we do need to look at these tax returns. maybe we need to go down further on some of these roads. >> i do want to play a line of questioning from a republican congressman, justin amash, let's listen. >> you've suggested that the president sometimes communicates his wishes indirectly. for example, you said, quote, mr. trump did not directly tell me to lie to congress. that's not how he operates, end quote. can you explain how he does this? and it's your impression that others who work for him understand the code, as well.

what is the truth that you know that president trump fears most? >> out of the 17 republicans today, it seemed like he was the only one who actually expressed some concern about the president's actions. >> he's kind of an outlier congressman, to a certain extent. he's somewhat libertarianish, somewhat principled, and not a trump supporter, either. he comes from a district that's kind of half and half. half democratic, half republican. so i think -- but that's an important point, just, i think to say about the other congresspeople that none of the republicans seemed particularly interested in anything but discrediting michael cohen. which it kind of works both ways. if you're going to discredit michael cohen as being this absolute retrobate, he was the president's closest confidant and lawyer for ten years. >> he picks the best people.

>> so you take everything that michael cohen said, with respect to what used to be the four walls of this investigation, there's nothing of concern to me in anything he said. even, well, that roger stone said he talked to julian assange. well, assange said he didn't talk to stone, stone said he didn't talk to assange, trump said he didn't hear from him, and then you have cohen. maybe there's some information -- even if he knew it, how many times did a presidential candidate -- did someone come up to me and say, hey, i've got this really juicy bit and you need to go it. the reality is you get this all the time. so i just don't believe that this is a problem. >> there were a lot of democrats today with bags of popcorn expecting to see the crumbling of the trump presidency. that -- >> it didn't happen. and you know, there was not a lot of progress made on the russia investigation. i mean, the conversation with roger stone, if it took place, was somewhat ambiguous and roger -- and you know, as far as

i can tell you and i've talked to roger stone about this, i actually believe they did have a conversation, but i don't believe that stone spoke to assange. both of them deny it. assange is not someone you can just like call on the phone easily. his conversation, he talked about with donald trump jr., where he said overheard a conversation behind the desk, as he acknowledged, it was very vague. he thought it might have been about the trump tower meeting. but, he -- it was not something that i think you could say was incriminating. you know, it's all well and good to say, well, it was just, it was just the campaign finance violation. "a," that's a crime. "b," it's a crime that the southern district has already said is a crime. and "c," it may have tipped the election in the final days. >> the only reason the southern district got that conviction, they could have gotten him to plead guilty to far worse things than a campaign finance reporting violation, but the

only reason they got him to do that is so they could bring in trump. let's just be honest about this. that's the only reason they wanted to do this. >> not because he was guilty of a crime. >> because can i tell you, every campaign finance violation that i've ever heard of, and i've been awar e of a lot of them, yu get fines. you don't get indicted for a campaign finance violation. you get a little fine. z >> but isn't this a kind of a special kind of campaign finance violation. >> well, they're making it a special kind of campaign finance. >> but how many times is it a candidate paying off a porn star to be president of the united states? >> well, at least one other -- well, not a porn star, but somebody else. >> and it takes place several days before the election, the most crucial period. >> and that's very important, why? because according to campaign finance laws, they would not have had to disclose that payment until after the campaign. that's the time frame they had to disclose it. so it would not have had any impact, even if they did file -- >> we've got to take a break. michael cohen is not finished on

capitol hill. heaps scheduled to appear tomorrow before a closed-door session of the house intelligence committee. coming up, we'll talk to two members of the member. and today, in a heated moment, where one member accused another of using a guest in the room as a racial prop. it did not end there. we'll see you what happens. ab from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.

with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. so even when she grows up, she'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only with expedia.

michael cohen isn't finished on capitol hill, not quite yet. he's set to appear tomorrow behind closed doors before the house intelligence committee, which now has a democratic majority. joining me tonight is matt quigley and chris stewart, both members of those committees. will have a busy day tomorrow. thanks so much for being with

us. congressman quigley, you heard -- i assume you watched today's testimony. is it going to influence your approach tomorrow? >> i don't think so. i think what you'll see is a lot more detail, a lot more corroboration. >> unfortunately, we don't see it, you'll hear it. >> well, eventually you'll see it and a lot more discussion, i think about russia and trump tower moscow. >> that's going to be the focus, you think? russia, trump tower moscow? >> i think there will be a lot more focus on those things than what you saw today. there'll be other things. a lot of what you saw today, but the details of it following up with documentation. >> congressman, when -- first of all, what are you hapoping to g out of tomorrow? >> well, i didn't watch it today and i chose not to watch it and turns out i had a busy day anyway. i wanted to go into this and make my own observations to be able to see him face to face and not have it filtered through other people. there are certain things that i certainly want to ask of him. the first and most obvious is, can you share with us any

observations between collusion. which is the genesis of this investigation and the thing that intel is focused on. i want to know, did he travel to prague, can he verify any information which is the accusations made in this steele dossier, for example. i would like to ask this, and i think this is critical, and all of us would agree with that, and that is, are you telling us anything different or anything new that you haven't told mr. mueller, because i'm relying regularly on the mueller investigation. he can do things, he has resources, he has capabilities and time that we haven't had. and last thing, if i could, and this is a personal thing. the one thing i did hear him say is how he described president trump as being this hateful, bigoted person. and i would ask him, why did you keep working for him if that's the way he was and why are you telling anyone. >> some of those things he answered today. i assume you'll, you know, you will be briefed on or will follow up in advance and he said he wasn't in prague, he said he

doesn't know much about the collusion stuff. what's interesting, though, about your questions is, you actually have specific questions for him today, own of the really stark things was, democrats had, you know, statements to make and also then questions. the republicans really were just going after his credibility, trying to knock that down. not actually really asking a lot of questions. so i think, is that the -- i mean, it seems like, when it's behind closed doors and the cameras aren't present, it's a different kind of hearing. >> this is a very different kind of hearing. and i didn't mean to jump -- you can answer this, as well, but "a," this is very different. which is one of the reasons many of us love the work we do on the interior committee. the format is different. we take it in one-hour block, one hour, 30 minutes, one hour, 30 minutes. anyone can ask a question, you can take as much time as you want. >> it seems like today, what was frustrating for a lot of viewers is oftentimes on the democratic side, somebody would make a statement for -- >> five minutes. >> five minutes, almost, of

their five minutes, it seemed like. and you couldn't help but feel some of that is just for the cameras or for local news become home or something. >> some of it, really? you think? >> well, i'm trying to be polite. >> i think he did reference two points to deal with collusion and conspiracy, when he talked about roger stone having discussed a conversation with julian assange and here come -- we're going to get this information that's going to nail hillary clinton. >> but that's roger stone saying he discussed -- i mean, roger stone says a lot of things, doesn't mean it's true. >> but it's cohen -- oh, but let's add the fact that roger stone said those things, too, publicly, right? mr. podesta is next in the barrel. he bragged publicly in florida about his relationship with julian assange. so i don't think you take one element of this investigation and believe it. and he also referenced the discussions about the son referencing -- >> right, don junior. >> -- the meeting in trump tower, that that meeting is

going to happen. he also said something that is absolutely critical that steve bannon referenced, that there is absolutely no way that things happened of this magnitude through the trump organization then and now the trump presidency without him knowing about it. steve bannon said, there's no way that trump tower meeting takes place without the son going straight to the dad afterwards. that's the thing i believed the most in his testimony today. >> there's one thing i want to know that wasn't asked today. and i'm wondering if you're going to ask it or if you're going to ask it, are you going to ask whether michael cohen was offered a pardon? >> i would be happy to answer that. >> go ahead and tell us. >> pretty sure i can speculate on the answer on that. you have to evaluate the entirety of the evidence. the fact that mr. cohen said it today does not make it true. surely you know that. surely you know the fact he said it today does not make it true. given his past history and wuf to evaluate that against what we

do know is true, what other witnesses have said, the other evidence we have against that. and we have a much better opportunity, because we can do it in one-hour blocks and compare transcripts before, et cetera, et cetera, that you just couldn't do it today. >> congressman, do you have reason to believe that michael cohen knows more about those two incidents? for example, the conversations with roger stone about wikileaks and the trump tower meeting? i mean, do you have reason to believe that he actually has more concrete information about these things than he shared today? >> well, we're going to find out. there's documentation that he's going to be sharing, communications that he had. so i anticipate that will be along those lines. i just want to add, i think the testimony today accentuates and fits very well with what we have learned so far. if you took everything that we have seen and heard for over two years now in this investigation, the testimony today was even more believable, because it fit in time and sequence. what happened just shortly after

that discussion that he referenced today when he was on the phone with roger stone. seven days later, he makes the pronouncement, russians, if you're listening, let's go after those 30,000 e-mails. and you put it in concert with all the other testimony and witnesses we've had, it's starting to make sense. the puzzle is starting to fit. and it's one of collusion and conspiracy. >> you both have been steeped in this investigation for some time. this is not the first witness you're going to hear. do you think donald trump was a russian asset? >> i believe that the president of the united states had one of two things taking place. either he was compromised, and i believe it will be financially, or he was using -- and this may be what's more scary. he was using his candidacy and the notion that he could become president to personally profit and the greatest questions tomorrow in that mind will be about trump tower moscow. because what was taking place? we now know that that deal was on -- was out there through the

campaign. so while he's questioning the credibility of nato, using putin's talking points, and while he's seeking relief of sanctions for the russians, he is pursuing a deal that required the relief from those sanctions that would profit him millions and millions of dollars. i think that's the question. >> cousdoes that explain -- >> congressman? >> look, mr. quigley is a friend of mine. i respectfully disagree. i think if you think and are supposing, based especially on testimony today, that mr. trump was a russian asset, i think you frankly have lost entire perspective on this. and i think the best evidence of that is once again, i go to mr. mueller, who i have always supported, who i think is doing a professional job on this, and i ask you, what accusations has he made against any u.s. citizen and russian collusion or russian conspiracy? and the answer is zero. and i think anyone who would make that accusation is saying, this president is a russian asset, in a serious way, has

been so corrupted by their dislike for this president. and, if i could, i have to come back to this point. mr. mueller has not made any accusations regarding this. and you can say, well, perhaps he was running to enrich himself. well, "a," it may not be a good idea, it's not a crime. and "b," dozens of people have done it. how many people have run for president knowing that they would not win, but they wanted to increase their own credibility, their own public perception -- >> but this is a lot more direct. >> there's also a difference between increasing your potential speaking fees on a lecture circuit by running for president than there is by potentially profiting hundreds of millions of dollars -- >> well, how does he profit -- >> the special counsel has nete this up for you. he has referenced in court filings as other districts have the manafort direct contacts with a russian where he's giving him polling data and he's talking about a ukrainian peace deal that would benefit the russians. >> okay, i've got to answer this --

>> we've got to go, but very quickly, i want you to move on. >> tell me a policy, not a statement, a policy this president has done that favors russia? because he's far harder on russia than this president has been. >> he's slow balled the sanction, the rollout of sanctions. >> he's increased funding for nato. sending weapons to the ukraine. >> what happened in helsinki? >> energy policy. all of those are meaningful things that hurt russia. >> appreciate both of you and i know you have a busy day tomorrow, so thank you. let's check in with chris and see what he's working on. >> good for you, anderson, having quigley and stewart there. let me tell you, that showed aty of commitment to dialogue that we did not see at all in the hearing today. and in fact, i think it belies the road ahead. what we're going to do tonight is take a forensic look at the challenge for each side. the challenge for the democrats is, they obviously have theories they want to proceed on. where is the proof? how will it come? when would it come?

for the republicans, they're all about credibility, but you couldn't hear any of them today defending what this president has said and done. and they're going to have problems going forward, but the opposition is clear. so we're going to break down what the future holds. all right. about seven minutes from now, chris, i'll see you then. right now, i want to show you live pictures from hanoi, vietnam. president trump and north korean dictator kim jong-un have arrived at a hotel for another meeting. there will be translators from both countries in the room for the bilateral meeting. earlier, the president praised the dictator as a great leader whose country has tremendous economic potential. when asked if he planned to declare an official end to the war, the president said, we'll see. next, the heated exchange between a republican and democrat on the house oversight committee today and accusations of racism. after walking six miles at an amusement park...

bill's back needed a vacation from his vacation. so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. you should meet our newest team schwab, bmember, tecky.do that, i'm tecky. i can do it all. go ahead, ask it a question. tecky, can you offer low costs and award-winning full service with a satisfaction guarantee, like schwab? sorry. tecky can't do that. schwabbb! calling schwab. we don't have a satisfaction guarantee, but we do have tecky! i'm tecky. i ca... are you getting low costs and award-winning full service? if not, talk to schwab.

the accusation from michael cohen today that the president is racist led to some heated moments and one person's appearance in the committee room was connected to t drama, longtime trump organization employee, lynn patton, who now works at the department of housing and urban development was a guest of mark meadows. meadows is one of the president's allies in congress, a republican. at one point, meadows went after cohen by using miss patton. take a look. >> you made some very demeaning comments about the president that miss patton doesn't agree with. in fact, it has to do with your claim of racism.

she says that as a daughter of a man born in birmingham, alabama, that there is no way that she would work for an individual who was racist. >> well, hours later, a democrat who was on the committee took issue with that moment. here's congresswoman rashida tlaib when it was her time to talk. >> the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman, in this chamber, in this committ committee, is alone racist in itself. donald trump is setting -- >> mr. chairman, i ask that her words be taken down. >> i reclaim my time. >> mr. chairman, i ask that her words, when she's referring to an individual member of this body, be taken down and stricken from the record. i'm sure she didn't intend to do this. but if anyone knows my record as it relates, it should be you, mr. chairman.

>> the democratic committee chairman, elijah cummings stepped in and asked the congresswoman if she wanted to rephrase what she said, she insisted that it was the action of meadows that she found racist, not that meadows himself was racist. and meadows had his own repult. >> i do not call meadows a racist. i am trying as a person of color, mr. chairman, just to express myself and how i felt at that moment. so just for the record, that's what was my intention. >> all right. is that all right? mr. meadows? >> mr. chairman, there's nothing more personal to me than my relationship -- my nieces and nephews are people of color. >> well, tonight the controversy isn't over. video and audio from years ago is now being seen in a new light, something congressman meadows said about another president. sunlen serfaty joins us from capitol hill about that. so it seems like this was settled during the meeting. what are you learning now? >> reporter: yeah, anderson,

certainly some new scrutiny over things that mark meadows has said in the past. this is first and foremost something that he said seven years ago, back in 2012, about then president barack obama. it was something at the time that was quite controversial and it was reported on by many outlets, but certainly given that very emotional back and forth and high-profile back and forth at the cohen hearing today, it certainly is getting a fresh look today. here's first what mark meadows said back in 2012. >> what we're going to do is take back our country. 2012 is the time that we're going to send mr. obama home to kenya or wherever it is. we're going to do it! >> reporter: now, in the aftermath of that comment, he was asked about this at the time, and he attempted, it seems, to walk it back. he told "roll call" in an interview in 2012, of those comments, it was a poor choice of words on my part, more than anything else. i believe he's an american citizen, that, of course, in

reference no barack obama. and today we did reach out to mark meadows' office, in light of this additional scrutiny on those past comments. first, just getting more of an explanation, also, hearing what they think about this old video now going viral. they have not responded, anderson. of course, we'll keep asking them and let you know when we get a response. >> should also point out that congressman meadows and congressman cummings both expressed their close friendship today. we'll continue to follow it. >> i am chris cuomo, welcome to prime-time. we have some breaking news. we're getting some first look at the leader of north korea, kim jong-un, and the president of the united states. they've been giving comments and we're going to give them to you. of course, we have big breaking news about michael cohen. we've assembled an amazing team of guests to go through it, legally and investigate i haivet we do want to take this live news for you, get these first