with him and his family and we wish him many, many more years of hosting the show. don't miss "full circle," daily interactive nepodcast an facebo. watch it weeknights at 6:25 p.m. eastern. facebook.com/andersoncooperfull circle. news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo primetime." >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. these are ashes on my head. i'm a catholic. this is part of a ritual that represents the cycle of life from dust you came, unto dust you will return, the priest tells you on this ash wednesday. i wish all of you observing this day a reflective lenten season. everybody, welcome to "primetime." congress now has the edits do michael cohen's false testimony. does it have the president's lawyers' fingerprints on it? we have new reporting tonight that takes us deeper inside the trump/moscow mystery. and the democrats have launched tha eed their oversighs

and president and his pals are finding ways to oppose. michael caputo doesn't want to give democrats the documents they're demanding from him. he says he doesn't have them and he says he's not the only one who's going to refuse. why, and who else? he'll tell you. and why was fox news shut out from. all 2020 democratic debates? an inappropriate relationship with president trump says the dnc. we have the party chair here. what do you say? let's get after it. so here's the question. did the president or his lawyers play a role in doctoring michael cohen's false testimony to congress? cohen was back on the hill, back with more proof, this time edits to his fraudulent testimony from 2017. here's the question. do they show coordination with the white house? yes. do they show attempts to change the timeline on the trump tower moscow project? the answer is, not really. cnn's learned from his attorney

that cohen was the one who authored the false line in his statement. he says the president's lawyers did sign off on it, but other sources have told cnn the trump legal team did not know it was a lie. like cohen, michael caputo says he's not going to cooperate. let's bring in the former trump adviser, find out why. welcome back to "peoprooimtime" sir. >> great to be here, chris. >> you got a much easier team with the priest than i did. >> you got tortured there. >> he got me. he got me. let me ask you, why not just comply? >> i had a bit of a disagreement with your opener there. >> please. >> my attorney responded within 24 hours and said not that we wouldn't give them documents, we had none of the documents that they asked for. they asked for actually a pretty specific, most specific request we've gotten from any of the committees or the mueller investigation. we had none of what they wanted, what they asked for. but what was really disconcerting to us is that when

my attorney was on the phone with a staff member, he said, we don't have any evidence, i need a letter about that. the staff member said, well, mr. caputo, will you allow mr. ka t caputo to appear before the committee in an interview? former attorney general of new york state, he's, like, why would you want him to appear? he's got nothing what you're looking for and that's when it started sounding to me like it's about something else, and i'm -- i'm not real happy about it, and i'm not -- >> let's engage your suspicions. first of all, just for the record, i have is your letter. i got it right here. i read it. they are asking for you documents you might have about the meeting in trump tower. you wreren't there. you were in ohio at the time. they say, come and talk to us. the lawyer said, i don't know why you want him, you can get all his testimony from the other places. >> right. >> you're making it hard on them, it seems because you're suspicious of motives.

what do you think might happen if you show up? >> first of all, i think -- i looked at all the document requests. i was, you know, been through about 80 of them, you know? and i was probably, if not the smallest, one of the smallest. only had a couple paragraphs. three paragraphs. some people went into four, five, six pages, like don junior and others, and from my perception, if they want me, who couldn't even give them the documents that they wanted, and a rather marginal person in their list of 81 people, they want me to interview, they're going to want every single one of us to interview. >> that's -- >> i'm sorry? >> that's why you're on the list. >> understood. >> go get it done. >> i get that, chris, but at the same time, i'm two years into this now. i testified before the house intelligence, the senate intelligence. >> and the o -- >> and the mueller investigation. this is where it starts looking like they're asking the same questions for a fourth time in a row, two years after the first time they asked it, and, you know, that's what we call a perjury trap. >> no, no, a perjury trap is when they bring you in with no

legitimate investigative reason, and they're trying to trip you up against somebody else's testimony just to get you on perceived perjury. >> okay. >> why -- >> what's the legitimate investigative reason for bringing me in? >> you want a criticism, let me help you out, my friend. >> okay. >> my criticism would be it's duplicative. go get it from the other people. do the homework. do the legwork. see what's in there then tell me what else you need. don't tell me now. >> listen, i tell you what, if they came back at me with more specificicificity what they wan this interview, i might consider it. at this time, i feel like they want to interview me just in case i say something that doesn't agree with something i said two years ago about something that happened two years before that -- >> right. >> -- and, or i disagree with somebody else who might disagree with me on a fact. >> right. >> and either way, one of us is going to get charged with perjury because if rn reality, think chairman nadler and the rest of the judiciary committee, in fact, the whole entire democratic congress, is trying to set the stage for

impeachment. i think it's -- >> right, but they're not going to get you on anything unless you give it to them. if you give them false statements, you're asking for it. don't do that. haven't done it before. don't do it now. >> all right. let's just say, you've done nothing wrong, so submit yourself -- >> i've done plenty wrong. just not in this particular case. >> on ash wednesday, you've probably been a good boy, right? >> i'm trying. >> so let's say you've done nothing wrong. >> right. >> you go testify -- >> yes. >> -- before the mueller investigation which is hardcore, man. >> i understand. >> go testify before a leaky congress two times, then you, like, you give them all your documents. >> is right. >> all your e-mails and texts. then they use a fisa warrant to go through your telephone and go in there a fourth, a fifth time, across a four-year period, chris. it starts feeling a little bit like they're trying to set you up. >> i get it, but you got to look at the feelings on both sides. they've been fair to you also. you had the we'ird thing happen with the guy who approached with

the weird russia gear, had weird connections to the government and to russia, said he had all this great terrible information. you set up a meeting. stone went. the guy showed up looking like a fool. and when you were asked it sh. >> yaeshlgeah, the guy was wear trump hat and trump t-shirt. >> right. i'm saying it's so obvious. it's not foolish to wear those things. you know my point. trouble with recollection. they were forgiving of it. >> yeah, let me tell you something -- >> they could have hanged you on that if they wanted to. they could have chased you. >> there was no legal exposure, chris. >> they could have chased you, how do you not remember a crazy guy like this in a meeting you set up for stone? how can you not remember? >> i was on the phone for two minutes, chris. >> i'm saying if they wanted to come after you, you gave them a reason to. they didn't. >> let me finish here. >> please. >> some democrats from the house intelligence committee were quick to jump on me and have time and again said that i lied before congress and that they intended to refer me for prosecuti prosecution. the fact of the matter is when i spoke to the department of justice, to the special counsel, i brought it up to them.

>> good. >> i introduced them to the whole henry greenberg thing. and i know that i will not be prosecuted if the democrats who were accusing me of this falsely on live television, here on your show and others -- >> never. >> -- many different times. >> never. never. never. never. i have never allowed anyone to accuse you of anything on this show -- >> okay. >> -- that isn't -- >> i stand corrected. >> that is unsubstantiated. >> i'm going to take that back. on ash wednesday, i got to take that back. >> you know me better than that. i'll come at you but i'm going to do it directly. who else isn't going to comply? you hung that out there. who? >> i don't fknow who's not goin to comply. i talked to several people. i know a lot of those 81 people. we all agree that it feels like a perjury trap. we all agree it feels like they're trying to set the stage for an impeachment of the president. >> those are two very different things. >> no, it's not. >> it is. >> no, it's not. >> a perjury trap is an abuse of process. >> but the reason why you set perjury -- one of the reasons, right, you set a perjury trap, is to try to get somebody to say, you know, okay, look,

you're guilty of perjury now, with e newe need you to talk more about -- >> they can only do that if you lie to them. i don't think you should paint this as something that you don't have reason to believe it. is. you can say it's duplicative, overreaching, say it seems like politicized harassment. fine. those are all opinions. to set it up as something like that, you bloelieve this is an injusti injustice. you sound like the president. >> i believe the nadler investigation, house yjudiciary investigation is kind of redundant. >> redundant is different than a perjury trap. that's an abuse of the system. >> i understand that, chris. i believe i'm susceptible to this because i don't trust the people who are inviting me there. by the way, they haven't invitedmy yet. they may not. another thing i want to tell you. >> please. >> when i worked at the house radio tv gallery back in the late '80s, i was responsible for broadcast television coverage of seven of the permanent

committees of the house of representatives. i know what a bogus investigation look s like. one of the sure tells is that they don't send you the letter. they send it to the media and the media gives you the letter. i got the letter from a "reuters" reporter an my attorney, i had to give that letter to my attorney. >> right. >> it sounds like -- >> it's poor form. >> it's poor form. >> i'm ahead of you on that, but remember all this, michael, first of all, two things. one, then i'll let you go. one, i'm always going to be straight with you. if i don't have proof on you, i'm not coming at you and not letting anybody else do it, either. that serves no one. >> i agree. >> is twtwo, this wouldn't be g on if the president and people around him, not you as far as i know, didn't lie so much about things involved with russia. that's what planted the seed. we'll see where it goes. i'm going to police it as well. >> chris, can i say one thing, though? >> please. >> in the mueller investigation finds no collusion, do you think the house judiciary is going to do any better, by what appears to be in hindsight probably one

of the best investigatory units we've ever assembled in modern times? >> i don't think that that is the only avenue of pursuit for them. also as we've said before, i don't believe in this standard of collusion as just a crime. i've never been into it for a criminal analysis. i want answers to who knew what and who did what. collusion is a behavior. what manafort did, stone did, maybe a few others, it's collusive behavior. is it a crime? i don't think so. >> a lot of the headlines are talking about obstruction, and by the way, i would have no idea because i left the campaign in the summer. i was never in the transition. never in the -- >> understood. >> -- administration. so what would i have to say about obstruction? that's why it smells fishy to me. >> sounds to me like a quick day and hopefully you should find some way to get them to pay your bills. >> costs 20,000 bucks no matter how long it takes. >> i understand that. that's onerous. i don't like it, either. >> i'm $250,000 in the red on this. thankfully, i've been able to raise money to cover it but i don't want to go in deeper in

red. my family deserves better than this. we've had our lives on pause for two years, chris. i want to press play. >> i understand, and it is unfair that you got caught up, but remember where it started. all right? congress didn't make this up. this was given to them by a president, people around him, who lied too much about things that they shouldn't have. >> it's time to end it. >> you be well. i'm not blaming you and i don't have proof. all right? >> thanks a lot. >> mike b l, be well. see you soon. >> best wishes, chris. so to many on the left, okay, this robust range of jo r oversight we were talking about is very promising. forget collusion. there are so many avenues of pursuit this president lays out there for you. however, this quickness to move on from mueller, oh, no, no, no, the real way that will get the president is through oversight. don't be so fast. one, don't forget everything that people on the left told you that might come from mueller. hold them to account. and doing this type of oversight, it carries risks. you should know them. i'm going to list them ahead. and democrats are taking a big stand against fox.

the party is all behind this. the head of the party is here to explain it. don't miss it. ♪ t-mobile is always happy to see you. 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.

♪ do you ♪ love me? ♪ ♪ i can really move ♪ ♪ do you love me? ♪ i'm in the groove ♪ now do you love me? ♪ do you love me now that i can dance? ♪ applebee's 3 course meal. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. it turns out, they want me to start next month. she can stay with you to finish her senior year. things will be tight but, we can make this work. ♪

now... grandpa, what about your dream car? this is my dream now. principal we can help you plan for that . ♪ when you have nausea, ♪ heartburn, ♪ indigestion, ♪ upset stomach, ♪ diarrhea... girl, pepto ultra coating will treat your stomach right. ♪nausea, heartburn, ♪ indigestion, upset stomach, ♪ diarrhea... try pepto with ultra coating. they work together doing important stuff. the hitch? like you, your cells get hungry. feed them... with centrum® micronutrients. restoring your awesome... daily. feed your cells with centrum® micronutrients today. feed your cells with i'with uncontrollederson who moderate-to-severe eczema, . or atopic dermatitis... ...you feel like you're itching all the time. and you never know how your skin will look.

because deep within your skin... ...an overly sensitive immune system... ...could be the cause. so help heal your skin from within. with dupixent. dupixent is not a steroid,... ...and it continuously treats your eczema... ...even when you can't see it. at 16 weeks, nearly four times more patients taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin compared to those not taking it. ...and patients saw a significant reduction in itch. do not use if you are allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, a severe reaction. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, including eye pain or changes in vision. if you are taking asthma medicines, do not change or stop your asthma medicine without talking to your doctor. help heal your skin from within. ask your eczema specialist about dupixent. so michael caputo may be the first one to say, listen, you don't need to talk to me. i know you're asking. he's not going to be the last.

not when the judiciary committee is trying to get documents from this many h people. and while this massive list may play into the perception of trump at center of a corrupt cabal, going this big, this fast, raises a lot of potential la landmines. not the left of which is this hammer that the president and his pals are going to use on the democrats. >> 81 people or organizations got letters. it's a disgrace. it's a disgrace to our country. they look at it. they just say, presidential harassment. >> well, he should also look at his past and his present and he'll see reasons why, but beyond the talking points, there are real issues when you cast this wide of a net. for example, the deepest dive may be for government documents so that means the fbi, doj, and the white house. the judiciary committee wants all documents relating to almost 30 different topics. the optics of that, sure, look like democrats stepping on mueller's turf. something they've said for two years was off limits. >> we will have to await bob

mueller's report. >> i don't think we're there yet. >> we have to wait to see how all of this fits into the larger context. >> let mueller finish his job. >> all right. then quick question, why didn't you wait until after mueller to launch all this oversight? also looks a little duplicative since the intel committees are digging into many of these same topics. finally, these are the three agencies with long and well-established reasons for keeping things secret. for example, it took the obama justice department two years and a court order to turn over the fast and furious documents. now, they didn't want to turn them over, either, but they can work the system. then there are those names like julian assange, wikileaks, cambridge analytica. they're all foreign entities, they're beyond congress' reach. there's a whole lot of current or former west wingers on the list who bring legitimate executive privilege protections, surrounding conversations with the president and it seems that's what they want. his inner circle at the trump org, you have cohen who gave a tantalizing peek into what may be there but the question's going to be, do you care? see, at this point, we know what

kind of business trump ran. i mean, you still believe he's a great businessman, then you're going to believe anything. what revelations would move the needle? because at the end of the day this is political, it's about consensus. how many people would care. the family, for many voters is goes from necessary oversight to getting personal and getting personal fast. you're left with this motley crue of people in the trump orbit, many of whom we've seen parade through the halls of congress. keep in mind for every person who held a position that matters, lewandowski, you have folks like jerome corsi, randy credico who makes cohen's credibility concerns seem like small potatoes. every time the white house claims privilege, or a witness refuses to testify, the process is going to drag out and you're going to wind up having less return on all of this investment. so at this point, look, it is not clear if there's enough there to warrant a move against the president. where will we go? we'll see.

remember, the more they try, the more they're going to have to get back. so the debatable question is this. is this harassment, as the president is telling you? or is it legitimate warranted oversight? great debate. let's have it, next. at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

because when you're with fidelity, was a success for lastchoicehotels.comign badda book. badda boom. this year, we're taking it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com

of non-drowsy claritin... and relief from symptoms caused by over... 200 outdoor and indoor allergens. like those from pollen, pets and dust. because new memories start with dusting off old ones. feel the clarity and live claritin clear.

all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome.

forget mueller. the democrats will get it done. you hear the enthusiasm in the ranks, and with that comes expectations and risk. so, we have a debatable question. is this oversight or overreach? that is the making of a great debate, ana navarro and scott jennings are here. [ speaking spanish ] to you and your husband, the best -- >> mucho gracias. >> it was beautiful. you were beautiful. sorry i wasn't there. it was my loss and i wish you the best. >> thank you. >> but no favoritism. so i start with you, scott jennings. the idea of this being not oversight, but overreach. what is the case at this early stage? >> well, i think that, first of

all, the democrats are trying to get to a place where they can impeach the president. number two, i think they are making a huge mistake by not waiting for robert mueller and what they are saying to the american people right now is that they are not going to believe mueller's report if it doesn't say what they want it to say. they want it to say collusion, say all these bad things and now there's less confidence it's going to say that, so they're trying to prep a separate track here so they can continue down this road of impeachment. at a minimum, all of these requests are designed to introduce investigatory paralysis into this administration. their base wants this administration ended. they want it ended via impeachment or an election or administrative investigatory paralysis and that's what this is all about. >> counter. >> you know, what goes around comes around, and we have seen very exhaustive investigations from the republicans of democrats of hillary clinton, namely. look, i think what you're seeing

as a result of two things. maybe more than two things. but certainly one is that for the last two years, republicans looked other way time and time again. they have been hypocritical. they have been behaved toward activities by donald trump and his administration in way that they would not have gotten away with if it was a democratic administration. do you think that if a democratic administration had had the daughter and the son-in-law, you know, pushing security clearances, it would have gone uninvestigated? no. so, look, what i think you're seeing is a reaction to two years of negligence and dereliction of their duty as a co-equal branch of government by the republicans when they were in charge -- >> okay. >> -- of these committees. >> ana, quick follow -- >> also you got, last week we heard michael cohen and there needs to be follow-up. there needs to be follow-up about some of the things that he

said. >> all right. quick follow-up for you. timing. why not wait until mueller came out? see what's there, see what's not there, pick your avenues, be surgical, use a scalpel, not a hammer. >> because there's too many questions that are up in the air right now, right? look, after michael cohen's testimony last week, we heard about allen weisselberg and so many different issues in which he was involved. we heard about things that go beyond the mueller investigation. >> absolutely. >> things like the, you know, things like manipulating values of properties and assets in order to avoid taxes or in order to get certain economic benefits from that. so, you know, i think democrats are looking into it. look, here's what, though, they have to be very careful of not turning this into what donald trump has been calling it for the last two years. a witch hunt. they have to be careful not to overcompensate. not to overkill. not to turn donald trump into a sympathetic figure who seems like he's being attacked and

victimized by a democratic congress. somehow, they have to find the balance between doing their job, and i absolutely believe congress has got a job and duty to provide oversight and to investigate things that must be investigated, but without it looking like it's just a show. >> the problem for your side, scott, is that i hear you about this being -- you could see it as being preemptive except for ana's point about, well, they've been waiting for years for this and the republicans didn't want do any oversight of one of their own. okay. they could have waited for mueller. i see the strategic difference on that. ana's point on that. the problem for you is there's a lot of smoke. this president has provided a lot of fodder for these kinds of questions, not by least of which is all the lies by him and the people around him about things that they're now looking at. i mean, don't you have to look at him for why they have so many questions? >> sure, look, there are legitimate areas for legitimate government oversight. policy areas, things going on in

the agencies. i think these are all linegitime areas. i think when they get out of hand, you start targeting the president's children -- >> you work with the government. i'm with you on don junior and eric and obviously tiffany. she doesn't have anything to do with any of this. but you put ivanka in charge of all the whatever the hell she does, you have jared running around the world as some kind of diplomat or whatever he does, you've put them in positions and they have questions. now he exposed them. >> and i think the policy questions are legitimate. that's legitimate oversight. however, there is longstanding precedent by the department of justice, most recently reaffirmed by the obama drktsojt immediate advisers to the president are immune -- >> they're going to have -- >> i don't think we'll ever see ivanka and jared in a witness chair -- >> that's fine. >> -- because it would violate this immunity and separation of powers. >> the immunity is selective, what they spoke to the president about. they could have questions for those two about their own situations. why do legit intel officials believe neither of you should have gotten clearances? you know, so we'll see what they

want to ask. the privilege isn't 100% on everything that they do anywhere. it's about them with the president. all right. so then you have, ana, where this leads. the democrats get, you know, real hesitant real fast yoin ta when you talk about impeachment. i don't understand it. i get why they don't want to jump on impeachment. the american people are not dying for impeachment right now, so where does it go? >> look, it could lead to legislation. right? i don't know about other americans, but i'd certainly like to see a tightening of nepotism laws and i'd like to see a tightening of national security clearance laws. just imagine for half a second what the reaction from republicans would be right now if it was being reported that chelsea clinton had gotten a security clearance pushed by her daddy or her mommy. we would be setting our hair on fire. >> true. >> just imagine what the reaction would be if it was being reported that chelsea clinton's husband was on a what'sapp message with the rulers of saudi arabia who just

killed khashoggi. no, that's why i want there to be a tightening of legislation. i want there to be a tightening of these rules. that's why it might lead to legislation. there might need to be legislation on nepotism because one day -- today it might be your team. one day, it might be a different team. that's what people have got to remember. they're not always going to be in the majority. they're not always going to be in the white house. and these things could happen again and now there's this kind of precedent. so i hope that if nothing else, some of this turns into legislation so that these things, these blurry lines regarding emoluments clause, these blurry lines regarding security clearances, these blurry lines regarding nepotism and who can and cannot be there, are no longer blurry. >> and, look, animus aside, this president presents certain issues that we haven't seen before. we haven't had a president with this kind of background before, but to ana's last point, we're out of time here, and i thank bo both of you for making the case. i tell you what's a big test of

what goes around comes around, this vote on national emergency. if conservatives go to this national emergency, it's going to come back to haunt. it's going to be a really interesting vote. >> i got to tell you something. >> yes. >> my national emergency i'm having now -- my national emergency is i got to go find a church that's open in philadelphia because i just saw your ashes. i got to go before my mother sees me on tv without them. >> i think you have the marital dispensation. i think you're good. i think you're good this time around. congratulations again. >> we missed you, chris. >> you look beautiful. i wish i lad been there. all the best to you both. >> it you left a lot of broken hearts. there were a lot waiting for chris cuomo to show up, see if you could, in fact, dance salsa. >> don't kid yourself. that will be your gift for the wedding. this all works. take care of yourself. thank you, both. all right. so, r. kelly news for you tonight. he's back in jail. no, not for the stunt he pulled in this cbs interview, though it was worthy of punishment. i'm going to fill you in on his

new mess. but first, you've heard me call it the mother ship. we all know fox, especially their primetime lineup, is overtly supportive of this president. and they overtly attack democ t democrats and the media who don't go along with their views. democrats say they've had enough. the head of the party is here to explain a controversial move. he's got to be ready to be tested. next. severe psoriasis,

little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.

ready to treat differently with a pill? dad: oh, hey guys! mom (on speakerphone): hi! son (on speakerphone): dad, i scored two goals today! dad: oh, that's great! vo: getting to a comfortable retirement doesn't have to be an uncomfortable thought. see how lincoln can help you retire on your terms at lincolnfinancial.com that there's a lobster i in our hot tub?t. lobster: oh, you guys. there's a jet! oh...i needed this. no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on our car insurance with geico. we could have been doing this a long time ago. so, you guys staying at the hotel? yeah, we just got married. oh ho-ho! congratulations! thank you. yeah, i'm afraid of commitment... and being boiled alive. oh, shoot. believe it. geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance. that guy's the worst.

the healthcare provider-patient it's like nothing else. the trump-pence administration just issued a gag rule which would block providers across the country from giving full information to women about their reproductive healthcare, a move the american medical association said would "dangerously interfere with the patient-physician relationship." they trust that i will be providing them with complete information. with the gag rule, the consequences would be devastating for women in my community and across the country.

big announcement from the dnc today. they say they're not going to allow fox to host any democratic debates through 2020, citing a report on the network's ties to the president. trump is now pushing back with a tweet saying, "good, then i think i'll do the same with the fake news networks and the radical left democrats and the general election debates." so who better to respond to the president than dnc chair tom perez? welcome back to "primetime." what's with this move? >> chris, well, chris, this is all about two things. we've been preparing for these d debates. we have unprecedented opportunities in these debates and i had two major goals. very simple.

number one, we wanted to maximize the number of people who see our candidates because i think what we're fighting for commands the respect and support of the majority of the american people. >> okay. >> fighting for health care. fighting for all those really important issues that every american wants to make sure is part of their life. and so i reached out to all the networks to make sure that we can maximize eyeballs, including fox news. our second goal, though, is to make sure that every debate that takes place that i have 100% assurance that everybody is treated fairly. and, you know, i have respect for a number of folks on the news side over at fox news. i was just on chris wallace a couple weeks ago. >> he's the real deal. raised me at abc. he's the real deal. >> he's very respected. and i have nothing but respect for him. at the same time, though, chris wallace isn't my concern. you see that at the highest levels of fox news, they have infiltrated the news side. now, it's a dog-bites-man story

that sean hannity and some of the high ups at fox news are colluding and collaborating all the time. this isn't about the other side, the lou dobbs, the sean hannity side. this is about -- and this "new yorker" report was about interference at the highest levels of fox news. >> we read it. we read the report. the question is how are you making it better by doing this? you knew the president was going to respond this way. tit for tat. you say you want a big tent. why cut off the potential audience? >> well, well, listen, i'm sure the president cleared that tweet with fox news. and, you know what, i have to have -- i want to have 100% confidence that our debates -- and the debates are the most important thing -- some of the most important things we can do, chris. i'm not going to cut off my contact with fox news. i've been on again as recently as a week or so ago, and we'll continue to go back. but these debates are special. >> i get it. i just don't know how it helps. >> i want to make sure the d

debates are focused on the -- >> assurance, you want that from everybody. i get it. i've been part of those negotiations. i understand. but i don't understand the play here. it seems like you're just asking for more division in a campaign season that's supposed to be about trying to find ways to have less division. >> well, i think -- i see it differently, chris. >> okay. >> i see my role as making sure that we are -- everything we do is ensuring that our candidates are treated fairly. that's why we have this unprecedented format for the first two debates. i'm excited about the fact that we'll be partnering with cnn on one of those debates, and we're going to it two nights in a row. we're going to have random selection. we're giving a number of different ways for people to get on the debate stage. we've done all this reform to our processes including diminishing the role of superdelegates so we can return power to the grassroots. at every turn, chris, i want to

make sure that our candidates have a fair shake and the grassroots can be heard. and i don't -- i just don't have confidence, chris. i need to have 100% confidence before we sign up in a debate. i have 100% confidence, which is why we've signed up with you, that our candidates are going to be at the center of the stage, and that there's going to be no interference from the highest levels of your news organization. >> i understand. >> i don't have that confidence anymore in fox. >> i understand the argument. i'm just saying i would always err on the side of inclusion, but that's why i test your idea. i appreciate you for answering the can es. let me ask you one more thing while i have you. you heard me tochnight. i have concerns about the timing of this oversight push and the breadth of it for two reasons. one, it just seems a little bit preemptive to me. we don't even know what mueller has yet. i thought they were going to be more surgical, use a scalpel on these things. find avenues of opportunity, not cast this wide a net. and the second thing is expectations, tom. you know, you have lists of 81 people, you go down all these different roads.

you know, the rank and file, let alone the middle of the country, are going to have expectations of outcome. >> well, i -- i know the committee chairs very, very well and i have great respect for them. they have -- i think they understand, and they -- especially, i've talked to people like adam schiff, you know, former federal prosecutor. they understand that the number-one issue here is the mueller investigation. and that's why they've taken such great pains. you saw chairman cummings last week when there were -- when mr. cohen was in front of the committee, they were very clear not to go into areas where they had been instructed not to. but, you know, there's a lot of work to do. the culture of corruption that has engulfed this administration is -- is breathtaking. you know, a scandal in the obama white house was when the president wore a tan suit. i mean, you look around this administration, all the cabinet

secretaries, they're not even focused on that at the moment because there's so much corruption engulfing this administration. and so i have a lot of confidence, chris, that moving forward, they understand that they have to give the requisite space to the mueller investigation, but we can't sit by and simply do nothing. i mean, how many investigations of benghazi were there? i think ana correctly pointed that out in a prior segment. i forgot -- i lost count, quite frankly. >> yeah, i thought that was an abuse of process. i'm always very careful to make sure that one party doesn't repeat the same mistakes of the other one in a tit for tat. that's why i bring it up. i appreciate your perspective, tom perez. you're always welcome here to talk about what matters to your party and to the country. >> thank you. all right. got a brand-new mugshot of r. kelly. he's back behind bars tonight but only after offering this dramatic defense on national tv in the face of serious sexual abuse charges. there are lots of questions surrounding his case. we've got answers to the three big ones, next.

each day justin chooses to walk. at work... and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. ♪ ♪ 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. of credit card payments? it's time to get a personal loan from sofi. borrow up to $100k, and pay us back with one monthly payment... and no fees. ♪

♪ one plus one equals too little too late ♪ ♪ a sock-a-bam-boom ♪ who's in the room? ♪ love is dangerous ♪ but driving safe means you pay less ♪ ♪ switch and save ♪ yes, ma'am excuse me, miss. ♪ does this heart belong to you? ♪ ♪ would you like it anyway? [ scatting ] ♪ now i'm wondering if yourool i loves still strong. ♪tayed too long. ♪ ♪ ooo baby, here i am, signed, sealed, delivered, i'm yours ♪ applebee's 3 course meal now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

let's blow out the candles together! ok, let's huff and puff. like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. so my doctor said... symbicort can help you breathe better- starting within 5 minutes. it doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. it may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! ask your doctor if symbicort is right for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. singer r. kelly is back in jail tonight not for any of the mountain of allegations from women, but for failing to pay child support. he's also back in the hotseat

for antics in an interview. take a little look at this. >> i didn't do this stuff. this is not me. i'm fighting for my [ bleep ] life. you're all killing me with this. i gave up 30 years of [ bleep ] -- >> robert. >> 30 years of my career. you're all trying to kill me. you're killing me, man. >> all right. you see it for yourself. there's no reason for me to characterize it. he's in the face of ten counts of aggravated sexual abuse. that's what he's up against. so three questions that we should be thinking about right now in this moment. got joey jackson here with some answers. one, as a lawyer who's been in situations like this, who makes the call to put him in that position? >> i think ultimately, chris, it is his call. it's the client's call. >> sure. >> it's done with the advice and counsel, obviously, of your attorney. and i have to tell you this, which would be surprising, is i would have put him in that position. i think that he's -- >> if you knew he was going to do that? >> no. no. that's a separate issue.

i think you have to stay on message. what i don't like are a couple of things. obviously the demeanor and exho comportment that's shown there there is not appropriate. disavow yourself of others. what do i mean? i think there's a distinction between being a bad guy who has treated women inappropriately, not right, perhaps too controlling. perhaps a jerk. and being a criminal. and i think if you're going to put your client out there to level the playing field, to sort of condition the jury pool, he'll be facing a jury soon, let's be clear, and so you have to fight back from a public r s relations perspective. i could see the room now where his attorneys are saying don't do it, don't do it. public relations specialist saying you got to get out there to even the playing field. when you disown everything and you start calling everyone a liar and you make yourself the victim, it has a backfiring effect. if you're going to let your client out there, you want to control their demeanor. you want to control their comportment. you want them to be contrite. you want them to own, perhaps, being a bad person and treating women inappropriately, but saying i am no minor rapist, so

to speak, i don't rape little girls. that would have to be >> so that's the kwe second question, whether it helped or hurt. just to game it out, it's clear why it hurt. i mean comportment, he couldn't have come across worse in the face of allegations. >> yeah. >> the person with nothing to hide has a very different demeanor than what we saw there. what possible upside could there be assuming -- i'm a skeptic -- he's a performer. if there was some part of him like if he's not emotionally disturbed and he was thinking about this and he made a decision that this is where i'm going to go, what's the upside? outrage? >> look, i think people are mad as heck and they're not going to take it anymore. we are in a different climate, so let's address that first. we're in a climate where me too, time's up. we're in a climate where women have had enough of being objectifi objectified, of mistreatment et cetera. >> assault. >> absolutely.

that's the core issue, right? so the reality is that you have to be very sensitive to that. and to the extent that you're not sensitive to that and you're making yourself the victim, you have people, if you saw the r. kelly documentary, not crediting everything everyone said. he's presumed innocent until proven guilty. but they had real concerns, and they had very emotional concerns, and it was hard to disconnect from them when they stated their piece in terms of who he was. so if you're going to go out there and you're going to go in front of the cameras and you're going to condition a jury that you're going to be before, you got to do it in the right way. and i just think that this missed the mark. >> sure. >> and i think that perhaps he could have controlled himself. i'm obviously understating the case. he should have controlled himself a lot better. i think he should have owned up to a lot of misconduct perhaps he engaged in, not the criminality, but the fact that could everyone saying he's a control freak be wrong. and i think you have to own that, but you have to make clear that "i did not break the laws." so the upside, you know, little with the exception of maybe a backlash that, hey, you guys are

going after r. kelly a little too hard. >> feelings now to fact. how strong is the case? >> i think to the merits of the actual case, i think the case is problematic for him. now, let me just say this quickly, chris. i don't agree with him being put in jail for the child support issue. that's number one. >> why? >> first of all, it's about making sure the children get their money. and judges have a number of remedies. number one, attach my assets if i have any. number two, you have a bank account, get it. property, get it. tax returns, get it. there are things you can do to ensure that those children get their money. it's not about r. kelly at that point. it's about his children. and if a guy comes into my courtroom and they have $50,000, sir, pay the $50,000. get back out there. earn enough to pay again. this is a guy who could potentially go to jail, right, coming back to the core of your question, which is the strength of the case. and he won't have any money then. so if i'm a judge, i want to make sure the children are protected by giving it to them now. why do i think the case is hurtful to him? you have in this instance four

victims who are coming forward. that in and of itself is very powerful. the initial case that everyone talks about, which was the acquittal, you had one single victim, a video. the victim did not come forward. there were questions as to whether it was him on the video. you have four people here who are going to say, that guy did this to me. that's going to have an effect upon the jury. in addition to that, what about other prior bad acts that he committed? if the judge allows those in, it's a troubling, problematic thing. >> this would have been worse for him if gayle king, cbs, didn't handle it the way she did. full closure, gayle is a friend of mine, but let me tell you. she is so rock solid, such a strong individual, the way she was talking to him. if she had been the way many people, maybe i way i would haven about, scared and apprehensive, he could have come off as a monster. >> she was a cool cucumber. >> joey jackson. a tv icon is on a lot of people's minds tonight. forget about r. kelly.

i'm talking about somebody that this country has always needed. alex trebek, longtime host of "jeopardy," is battling cancer. now, the promise he's making is just as important, and it's one that you should see, next. (male announcer) get great deals on great gear at bass pro shops and cabela's.

like cabela's catch all gear bags for under $13 each. and save 40% on under armour men's and ladies' micro g assert 7 running shoes. your adventure starts here.

want more from your entejust say teach me more. into your xfinice remote to discover all sorts of tips and tricks in x1. can i find my wifi password? just ask. [ ding ] show me my wifi password. hey now! [ ding ] you can even troubleshoot, learn new voice commands and much more. clean my daughter's room. [ ding ] oh, it won't do that. welp, someone should. just say "teach me more" into your voice remote and see how you can have an even better x1 experience. simple. easy. awesome. in a time that is all about what is keeping us apart, we got tough news today about someone

who has always brought america together, literally for decades. i don't care what your race, color, creed, gender, bank account level. you've watched "jeopardy." since 1984, alex trebek has been the smartest guy in our living rooms, teaching us, more importantly bringing us together. today he gave us the toughest answer we've ever gotten from him. >> just like 50,000 other people in the united states each year, this week i was diagnosed with stage four pancreatic cancer. now, normally the prognosis for this is not very encouraging, but i'm going to fight this, and i'm going to keep working. and with the love and support of my family and friends and with the help of your prayers also, i plan to beat the low survival rate statistics for this disease. truth told, i have to because under the terms of my contract, i have to host "jeopardy" for three more years.

so help me keep the faith, and we'll win. we'll get it done. >> that's signature insouciance. he's always so even, even now. trebek, 78 years young. he went public because he wants to raise awareness in part. so let's do that. i will tell you the american cancer society estimates that for 2019, about 57,000 people in the united states will be diagnosed. pancreatic cancer accounts for about 3% of all cancers in the u.s., about 7% of all cancer deaths. it's a bad one. you know, stage four is what it sounds like. part of the awareness is not just the numbers but the urgency. we should be getting regular checkups. you should stay close to your medical care. be proactive. pancreatic cancer is hard to find early. the pancreas as an organ is deep inside the body. early tumors are tough to see, tough to feel for doctors during routine physicals. people usually don't have symptoms until the cancer has already spread.

you've got to be proactive, and you've got to be lucky frankly. trebek is a major asset to our culture, not just to the game show. in a time of shallow beliefs and rampant truth abuse in our politics and beyond, every night he makes facts first. we need him now more than ever. so, mr. trebek, fight as you have never fought before. do everything you can, and please know you are respected for all the right reasons by all of us. we are with you, and we wish you well. all right. it's time now for a bonus hour of "prime time." michael cohen returned to the hill today with backup to prove that some of the claims he made to congress last week should be believed. did he establish that the president's lawyers altered the testimony that is sending him off to prison in part? we have new reporting. and also a member of the house intel committee he met with today. what can she reveal? how much will she take of m