time of anti-semitic tropes. it reached a flash point when she said, i want to talk about the political influence that says it's okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country, meaning israel. prior to that, responding to a tweet from the journalist about defending israel. he says the cost of free speech in this country, omar replied with a tweet of her own. it is all about the benjamins' she since apologized but also tried on change the subject saying at the same time i reaffirm the problematic rule of lobbyists, whether it is apac, the fossil fuel industry. it has gone on too long and we must be willing to address it. yesterday the house passed a resolution broadly condemning hate and intolerance including anti-semitism and anti-muslim. they go taking heat on a number of fronts. particularly that it is so broad

it's almost meaningless and democrats are on the defensive because it is not a specific condemnation of anything. again, we'll be going into that side of it. but keeping them honest, all of this has allowed president trump to take a stand which has surprised many to allow him to weigh in on the controversy. here's what he said about the vote this morning. >> i thought yesterday's vote by the house was disgraceful. it has become, the democrats have become an anti-israel party. they've become an anti-jewish party and i thought that was a disgrace and so does everyone else if you get an honest answer. if you get an honest answer from politicians, they thought it was a disgrace. the democrats have become an anti-israel party. they've become an anti-jewish party. that's too bad. >> he also retweeted this. i am quoting. it is shameful the house democrats won't take stronger

stand against anti-semitism. it has fueled atrocities throughout history and it is inconceivable they will not act to condemn it. there's plenty to criticize. keeping them honest, it is more than a little rich to their president criticize anyone for not condemning anti-semitism when he had such a hard time condemning this. white nationalists and neo-nazis in public marching in charlottesville, chanting that and other nazi-era slogans. jews will not replace us. and it ended with an anti-semiist killing a young woman. >> you had people that were very

fine people, on both sides. you had people. in group, excuse me. excuse me. i saw the same pictures as you did. >> very fine people on both sides which could mean he needs glasses. the other means anti-semitism doesn't really move the needle for him unless he's attacking political points. over the years, he has condemned anti-semitism and those closer to home. he said nothing about steve king when he defended white nationalism in the aftermath of that, he didn't say the republican party is the pro white supremacist party which would be the exact equivalent of what he just said today about the democratic party being anti-jewish. but he didn't say that. just like he didn't say anything condemning grand wizard kkk david duke because he traffics in anti-jewish conspiracies. when pressed on it, he falsely denied even knowing the man. >> just so you understand, i don't know anything about david

duke. okay? i don't know what you're even talking about white supremacy or white supremacists. so i don't know. i don't know. did he endorse me? or what's going on? because i know nothing about david duke. i know nothing about white supremacists. >> in fact, he knew who duke was and had even condemned him in the past. in addition, certain aspects of his twitter feed and even his full campaign material appeared to document in some people's opinions, anti-semitic tropes. most corrupt candidate ever. an image that had been posted to an anti-semitic white supremacist post ten days earlier. the social media director called the star of david looking shape, and i'm quoting, the sheriff's badge, which he said fit with the theme of corrupt hillary which must be why the anti-semitic posted it as well.

right. as unlikely as that sounds, it does provide at least the veneer of deniability which is how dog whistles work. associated a six pointed star with money or using images of money and powerful americans such as janet yellen as they talk about sinister forces controlling american lives. >> for those who control the levers of power in washington, for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don't have your good in mind. the political establishment -- >> this is by the way, this is a trump campaign commercial. it was the final ad of the campaign. the closing argument. and it could certainly be read in two ways which may or may not be intentional. but it didn't end there. the president continued on attack george soros connecting him to migrant care vandals in mexico suggesting he is using his global billions for a foreign invasion of this country which certainly has a certain ring to it.

>> are you concerned that the house hasn't sufficiently repudiated congresswoman omar? it gives the opportunity for the president to claim the democrats anti-semitic. >> first, anderson, thank you for tackling this very important issue and a very sensitive one. the president's comments are plainly ludicrous. they are deeply wrong and regrettable. and what he's doing is trying to divide us. seeking to distract from his own problems, resorting to demagoguery about a resolution that was overwhelmingly supported by a bipartisan majority and the majority of republicans supporting it along with every democratic member of the united states house of representatives. and what it expressed was

american values. denouncing anti-semitism, anti-islam bigotry, racism. what we ought to be doing at this moment in our history is trying to overcome the rising incidents of hate crimes rather than resorting to this absolutely deeply wrong and regrettable demagoguery. >> the back story on the resolution was that it would be directed toward the comments that the congresswoman had made, congresswoman omar. and then other democrats didn't want that. you can argue they didn't want to criticize other democrats in a resolution. so they made it broader. they added in other groups. in this particular instance, the argument is that it essentially made it so broad it was not

really a rebuke of the comments made by congresswoman omar. >> what the house leadership chose to do was make it broader. and a condemnation of racism and anti-semitism and islamophobia. in general rather than finger pointing. and based on political implications. and here's the important part in my view as a supporter of israel. we need to avoid politicizing support for israel. that support is always been bipartisan. i've helped to lead military support for israel through the armed services committee. the votes there have been, the last time it was done by unanimous consent. that is a powerfully necessary condition of our support for israel, bipartisan unity. and what is happening here unfortunately is the president is trying to politicize and

weaponize this issue on a very partisan basis. >> in fairness, republicans in house, pulled steve king's assignments because of his nationalist rhetoric. he's been spouting it for years. they finally did punish it. do you think what congresswoman omar said was anti-semitic? >> i think we can always be critical of our friends and sometimes our criticism is meant as very constructive. sometimes those kinds of remarks are unfortunate. words have consequences. the effort here was to stop hate crimes. stop the rising trend of, the use of the kind of terms that the president has done in saying that there are good people on

both sides when he's referring to swastika-carrying neo-nazis. using an ad that is blatant anti-semitic, as you pointed out. i would call that very risky. >> i have to follow up. plenty of people watching will say it's very easy to blame the president when you're a democrat. harder for a democrat to blame another democrat, perhaps. but again, do you think what she said was anti-semitic? or using anti-semitic tropes. >> if the house leadership had begun blaming individuals, donald trump might well have been on that list. and the effort to broaden it, to make it about american values, i think, is very, very important to do. rather than in effect, breaking that bipartisan support for israel and for the denunciation of anti-semitism in whatever form it may arise. >> thank you very much. i want to bring in two other voices. michael caputo. and cnn commentator, bacarri.

it does seem like democrats are more than willing to criticize president trump and it's understandable why. but if they're going to do that, shouldn't they also hold, you know, somebody else who is a democrat just as accountable? >> yes. in fact i disagree wholeheartedly with senator blumenthal. i love him and respect him for everything he's done for this country but i disagree. this is a chance for democrats to show some moral clarity. it is a chance to stand up and say that anti-semitism is wrong in this country. we don't support it full stop. there's no trying to straddle the fence. today, or when this happened, democrats said they were against anti-semitism, bigotry, meatloaf, the dodgers, the cowboys, everything they threw in one bucket and it lost any value. the fact is we have to be a party who is willing to stand up and say, we are against anti-semitism and anti-semitic tropes. i wish this was handled in more of a closed door fashion.

i wish that congresswoman omar and chairman engle were able to go into a back room or maybe at the democratic club and have a conversation about why words matter and language is important. so that did not happen. what we got was, we lost some ground and we didn't show the country that we can lead with moral clarity on this issue and that's unfortunate. this was a missed opportunity. >> how damaging do you think this is for democrats? the fact is, the president clearly is now using this line,

the democratic party is anti-israel and anti-semitic and that's, you can say it's outrageous or effective but did the democrats by their own action hand him that opportunity? >> i think so. i think i agree with him wholeheartedly. i was shaking my head when even senator blumenthal who should be able to identify this stuff couldn't call her out. i thought the resolution that was passed today was gutless. the house representatives is rarely profile in courage. whether it is the republicans in charge or the democrats. the one thing here, i have to disagree with my friends on the republican side, if we did a resolution on this regard, we

wouldn't make it broad like that. we would also not call out the member by name. we never do that. they don't do that in the house of representatives. i served there. i know. the president has identified what is a rift in the democratic party. they have real problem with this freshman class. representative omar is not the only one who makes wild comments. nancy pelosi is really trying to get a handle on. this her answer was something like, she has a different experience in the use of words. this woman is 39 1/2 years old, representative omar. she's been in the united states for 25 years. the one thing i want to point out before i hand it back off to you. yesterday, david duke was giving high fives to representative omar and talking about how she was brave in calling out the zionist government. the tropes are those david duke uses. during the campaign everybody that, president trump must disavow david duke. i'll take on it faith that representative omar is not in favor of david duke but this goes both ways. >> one of the things that i think president trump, one of his great skills is honing in on something that's in front of everybody but it doesn't necessarily have a name. low energy jeb or whatever. you can say this is outrageous. the way he is saying the democratic party is anti-semitic. but would the president have more credibility if he had

condemned congressman steve king's rhetoric? or kevin mccarthy who stood up to king and the president didn't. >> i understand that. i have the same feeling about that as do i being screamed at. you must disavow and she must disavow david duke. we know she doesn't like david duke and continuing president doesn't like white nationalism. i know the president isn't fond of what king said. here's the same thing i want to say. i'll just recognize the reality here. the republicans have been trying to get support among the jewish community for many, many years. and we failed at doing that. i think the president sees an opportunity here. while speaker pelosi is having an issue, trying on control her

freshman class, i think the president and probably others in the leadership of the republican party see a way to peel some of that back. >> do you think congresswoman omar should keep her assignments and a double standard won't go away? >> should she keep her committee assignments? first we need to have a conversation. i think the conversation needs to be had behind closed doors and we need to make sure and caution how words truly matter and how words are important. and i know that my colleague, mr. caputo said she needs to discern that. i think nancy pelosi will make the right decision about whether or not she keeps her committee assignment. if we were stripping individuals of committee assignments based on rhetoric, then i'm not sure any republican up there, or the vast majority, would have committee assignments in the first place but i think that's missing the point. you can be critical of israel. you can criticize netanyahu. you can criticize that you have instances of police brutality against immigrants and jews

being killed in israel. but you can't delve into anti-semitic tropes because you make nuanced conversations difficult to have. and whether or not she keeps her committee assignment or not, that is beyond the point for me. i want democrats to show that we are against anti-semitism full stop. the president doesn't have any high ground because he believes in both sides when it depends on him. i wish democrats seized this moment and we missed the ball this time. >> bravo. >> a good discussion. coming up next, why the president's latest chief of communications is leaving. it could just be that no one can really do the job. maybe the president doesn't want someone doing the job. later this actor accused of perpetrating a hoax learned the

charges against him today. jussie smollett. his attorney, mark geragos joins us ahead. ok look, if you're not the lead dog, the scenery never changes. that's why this is the view for every other full-size pickup. and this year, it's déjà vu all over again 'cuz only the ford f-150 with its high strength, military-grade aluminum alloy body gives you best-in-class torque, best-in-class payload... and you got it, baby... best-in-class towing. still leading the pack. this is the big dog! this is the ford f-150. it doesn't just raise the bar, pal. it is the bar.

uh, well, this will be the kitchen. and we'd like to put a fire pit out there, and a dock with a boat, maybe. why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot. but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪ (burke) at fso we know how ton almost evercover almost anything. even rooftop parking. strange forces at work?

only if you're referring to gravity-and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ your digestive system has billions of bacteria, but life can throw them off balance. re-align yourself, with align probiotic. and try align gummies, with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health heyi'm craving somethingkin! we're missing. the ceramides in cerave. they help restore my natural barrier,

so i can lock in moisture... and keep us protected. we've got to have each other's backs... and fronts. cerave. what your skin craves. some people talk about trump time. the warping of the space time could not continuum that makes it hard to know if something happened last year or last tuesday. it explains why in addition to learning that bill shine leaving his job as chief of staff, we've been staggered to learn that he's been on the job for eight months. it feels like last tuesday that we were saying hello to this guy. >> i'll meet with him. i don't want to waste his time and sit in the oval office unnecessarily. >> he lasted a week and a half. by comparison, bill shine lasted an eternal. our report is that he's leaving for a job in the campaign because the president was upset

at the headlines lately. also in the wake of that new yorker story with the ties with fox news and the white house. the president seemed to be concerned about the perceptions that it appears too cozy. keeping them honest, thinking about that first objection. the president blaming bill shine for his bad headlines. he considered himself his own best publicist. he called the new york tabloids pretending to literally be his own publicist. some of the names he used to plan stories about himself. it is somewhat harder now and obviously if you want to get good headlines, you need to do good things. it is pretty simple. to the extent the president, can he gets the credit. to the extent on the other hand that bits former associates on trial or testifying on congress

or a summit going poorly, the headlines will be bad and they have been. as for the reported concern about perceptions of the white house being too cozy with fox, it is time for bill shine to do anything about that when the boss tweets just this morning, thank you, fox and friends. great show. jim acosta joins us now. what are you hearing about why exactly shine left? >> you know, the headlines write themselves over here at the white house. bill shine or no bill shine. in terms of why he left, what we're hearing is that the president simply felt like he was not getting good press coverage out of his communications director. that he had been sort of questioning bill shine's judgment over the last few months. whether it be how they handled the communications on the government shutdown or the mid

terms. a lot of that as you were mentioning, that responsibility lies with the president so it is a head scratcher as to how he can place blame on bill shinl for all of this but they have to place the blame on somebody which is why they've gone through so many communications directors. i will say though, i talked on a source close to the white house. this source said that the fox news concern is real. that that new yorker article that came out earlier this week really detailing and delving into this cozy relationship between the white house and fox news, that that is starting to make people nervous over here inside the white house. whether or not it makes the president very nervous, that remain to be seen. he just tweeted about fox and friends this morning. but anderson, bill shine really changed the way the white house delivers information to the american people. the white house press briefings have all been shut down. we've only had one press briefing in the last 79 or 80 days instead of those press briefings, the officials will come out and we have to catch them going back in. that's been the shine effect and

it has been helpful to fox news about it has not generated better press for this president. >> it is remarkable. when you think about the lack of white house briefings. how can it be that just now, people in the white house are waking up to the fact that there is this symbolic relationship with fox news and a lot of hires from fox news to the white house. not just in communications positions. in staffing positions. >> you know, i think they've gotten so used the this simbiotic relationship. they can feel like everything is going swimmingly. when there are officials who look outside the window and you know, look at the real world, they understand that things have not been going well. when the president's personal stoern up on capitol hill testifying, accusing the president of committing crime. the jobs numbers come out today and showing only 20,000 jobs created in the last month. you look at various data points

and it is obvious to people in the white house, even though reality is a challenge sometime over here, that it isn't going in the right direction. when that happens, people end to lose their jobs. the question is, the person who is really the communications director, the president of the united states, will ultimately see that and there are doubts in the white house and among people close to him wonder if he'll ever grasp that reality. thanks very much. >> now more from the president's thinking from someone who covers it more than most. white house sxornlt cnm political analyst, maggie haberman. >> what is your understanding of why bill shine is actually leaving? >> when he announced he was leaving, knowing that it was about to be made public.

he said there were two reasons. one was that he was leading a life of solitude in washington. he missed his family. he ate alone every night. he spent most of his time alone. i think that's. true he complained about that for a while of he also said that he had become a distraction for the president and he would continue being a distraction. it is not clear what he was talking about there were headlines around his tenure at fox news or future stories coming out. but my understanding is this has been coming for several days. very small group of people who knew about it. the president didn't seemed particularly worked up about it. i don't think they ever had a great deal of chemistry. ironically, bill shine lasted the longest in this job with any of the six people that have had it. >> it's incredible when you see six people have had this job. it says a lot about -- well, i don't know what it says a lot about but it says something about the president and the job itself. >> i think it says a lot about the job itself for this president. this as president who does not

believe in a cohesive messaging strategy the way we've come to think of it with other presidents. he likes to run his own message. he likes to serve as his own spokesman. we say it a lot but it is really true. if you think about it, there are no more press briefings in the briefing room. there are these gaggles that some of his aides do outside the west swing and then these stops, the interviews he does. there's only one person pushing these interviews or designing it and it is the president. it is a very reactive one. there's not a lot bill shine or anyone else can do with that. >> did president trump know bill shine well before he was offered the job? i would assume he didn't if once he's there he realizes he doesn't really have much feeling for him one way or the other. >> in fairness to shine, i think the president has grand ideas of what people can do to challenge his media coverage. and it can't come to pass. some of these are not great facts sets. they didn't have a huge relationship before hand. bill shine is very close with

handy. the president believed he would be in donald trump's words, a killer. someone who would be able to really strongly impact the media coverage around the president. and it became pretty cheer for a couple months, nothing much was changing. bill shine was very much liked by his colleagues but over time, many would say the same thing over and over again. that he didn't really have grand ideas. what he was willing to do was absorb a lot of the heat from the president that often just floated down hill by the staff. it meant a lot. at a certain point that stops being useful to donald trump. >> obviously, they have a close relationship with fox news. who else but an executive would be equipped to do that? and to fill this role. the president is the communication director and seems more than happy to be that. >> if anything, i don't know how

much of a value add you need with fox news. the president has his own relationships with a lot of anchors there. he has his own relationship with rupert murdoch. he has a fair number of other relationships. i think bill shine was helpful. a number of officials have said with discreetly helping out in certain situations, or not so discreetly, receiving out to producers of certain shows, trying to get certain interviews with people who the white house did not want on killed. or trying to push for a chiron change or something like that. and that in the president's mind has a value add. it is not typically with a a communications director does. and it isn't any different than what the president already has himself. >> do you think the president will fill job again?

>> i do. but i don't know if it will be the way it was. will shine's title was deputy chief of staff or something or other. there are a lot of people who have some communications title. i suspect there will be someone else who gets that title or a title of that nature. i think he is in a bit of a wait and see mode. >> the interesting they know about this white house. it would be possible that his title was deputy chief of something or other. can you imagine how amazing that would be? you're the deputy chief of something or other. >> this just in in the next two years. we'll see. ahead, paul manafort awaits another sentencing as you probably know. the court of opinion is probably wrestling with this surprisingly light one he got yesterday. is there equal justice for all in this country? that's what the debate you heard a lot about. one of the leading 2020 contenders sounds off ahead. plus, more breaking news. jussie smollett's legal problems multipled tonight. brand new developments on his alleged hoax coming up. wi-fi and more.

so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done.

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

this is moving day with the best win-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

robert mueller wanted a judge to throw book at a central figure of his investigation. last night a virginia judge threw a, well, what some considered a giant pass to paul manafort. less than four years in prison with credit for time served. it is igniting some outrage, particularly from those who spent time fighting for equal justice in this country like kamala harris. >> we are looking at further evidence in america's judicial

system of absolute unfairness where white collar versus other kinds, this is what i say. people commit white collar crimes. they should be prepared to bring their toothbrush and spend as much time behind bars as anybody else. >> i want to bring in the former attorney general, the former obama adviser van jones. do you agree with senator harris? are white collar crimes not taken as seriously as other crimes? >> quite obviously. you've seen people like mill, the guy served more time and been on probation for years and years. he actually got a two-year return to prison sentence for popping a wheelie. literally for lifting his motorcycle wheels off the ground. when you've got that stuff going on in communities across america, it is very, very difficult for us who are used to seeing big, big sentences coming down for pretty small stuff. the other thing, usually if you wind up lying to the feds, if you wind up playing silly game with the feds, you get a house dropped on you. forget it.

nobody is going to come to your aid and your rescue. the idea that not only do you do all these underlying crimes but not being honest with the feds. hopefully next week there will be some adjustments here. you're looking at it. anybody who knows how justice is meeted out especially if poor communities in this country is shocked by this sentence. >> what about that? the moral of the story is, if you're a it white man with money you can afford a great defense attorney. you can get off the w a far lighter sentence. >> i think it may be anyone with money. the o.j. simpson trial was run while i was in law school. and if the glove don't fit, you must acquit kind of thing and it worked. but that was interesting. one of my law professors pointed out why that case was interesting. it wasn't because owning simpson was black. it was because the defense could match the prosecution's resources. and that almost never happens. i can tell you as a former attorney general, that almost

never happens. so people with money can afford to do things that people without money can't afford to do. having said that, i do not think that a politically charged case like this is a good day to point for the broader discussion about fairness and criminal sentencing. van and i worked together on the same side in that criminal justice reform that passed last year. i think we have many similar feelings about the system in total. but when it comes to taking a case like this and drawing broader generalizations, i think that's a big mistake. to advantage's point about people who lie to the feds get house dropped on them. that's next week's case. none of that was really involved in the sentencing this week. all of those issues arise next week. >> is it just a question of

money getting better lawyers and -- >> whoa, don't overstate it. i just think that's the biggest factor. >> okay. you said that's the biggest factor. >> the statistics don't lie here and it is really unfortunate. at every stage. our criminal justice system, if you are a person of color, you get worse treatment. even when you control for income, even when you control for neighborhood, even when you control for educational attainment. african-americans and white americans use drugs, illegal drugs in exactly the same rate. study after study shows that. and yet african-americans are six times more likely to go to prison for illegal drug useful now you can come up with a lot of explanations. if it's 50% more or 20% more, 100% more. six times more? that shows a systemic bias. while this case is unusual, as he said because of the political nature of it, it is all too

often the case that people who have all kinds of privilege, whether it is money, race, education, back ground, they wind up getting a better break. brian stevenson, this has become almost like the martin luther king of our time working on these issues says it is actually better to be poor. it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. that's how badly we've gotten off with this system. and i think it is fair to talk about it. the other thing i want to say. i know for sure that next week, i hope, we'll see some more justice. but i don't understand why this judge went above and beyond just giving the insulting sentence to praise the guy, to say he is blameless. i don't think even paul manafort has as high an opinion as of himself as the judge did. so it is a bizarre case.

and i think it does send the message of a double standard. >> do you think this judge kind of went beyond? >> i think judge ellis, as we were talking about it last night, kind of projected his view of how the case was being conducted and i think we may never know for sure. i think that clearly played a role in him giving a sentence well below what the prosecutors were asking for here. and, but i think he projected it. in the same way, judge jackson who will sentence this coming week has also projected her displeasure with the three of the five alleged incidents of lying with the special counsel after entering a plea deal. she found three of them to be legitimate claims by the special

prosecutor. so we have a very different perspective shown earlier in the case by that judge. and the odds are, you're going to see that reflected in the sentence. >> thanks very much. don't miss the van jones show saturday night. 7:00 p.m. eastern. one-on-one with a new generation of congressional democrats making waves in washington. it will be fascinating. new trouble for jussie smollett. the sweeping grand jury indictment that could send him to prison. we'll be back to talk about it. i can't believe it. that we just hit the motherlode of soft-serve ice cream? i got cones, anybody wants one! oh, yeah! get ya some! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ed! ed! we struck sprinkles! [cheers] believe it. geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. geico could save you fifteen percent ♪

pardon the interruption but this is big! now with t-mobile get the samsung galaxy s10e included with unlimited data for just $40 a month. (indistthat was awful.tering) why are you so good at this?

had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum- just to help you improve your skills. boom! mad skills. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade.

breaking news in the jussie smollett case. he faces 16 felony counts of making false statements to investigators after claiming to be the victim of racial and homophobic attack. we'll be joined by his attorney. he is out on bail after a single count of disorderly conduct. he claims attacker laws to a chemical at him, put a noose around his neck and said this is maga country. but police and prosecutors believe he paid two brothers to help stage the whole thing. law enforcement sources say the brothers bought rope at a hardware store and the surveillance video appears to show them buying a ski mask and a red hat among other items.

how did he go from one count to facing 16? >> what it appears prosecutors are doing here, every crime that jussie smollett claimed he was a victim of, that is now one count against him. because they're saying that is one lie that he told to authorities. they say that he in fact told his story twice. first to a police officer. then to a detective. so that doubles it up. that takes it up to 16 counts. listen, even if he is found guilty of all 16 counts, the sentencing guidelines are two and a half years in prison or one to three years probation. as you just said, he claimed that he was attacked in the early morning hours of janel

29th in chicago by two men who put a noose around his neck, shouted racist and homophobic epithets at him and he says he fought them off. two men were arrested and apparently they will police and they told the grand jury that in fact, jussie smollett had cut them a check for $3,500. that he had orchestrated the entire thing and they were going along with his plan. now smollett is out on bond. the summit of chicago police, he said that he believes he jussie smollett did this because he wasn't getting enough attention. enough money to appear on the empire tv show and that's why he did it. he's been suspended from the show. interestingly, the superintendent claimed that he thinks smollett sent a letter, hate mail to himself and there is no mention of. letter anywhere in the 16 counts. basically what they're saying is that jussie smollett lied to police and he knew that he was lying when he was telling them that story. anderson? >> and he's still saying he is completely innocent. >> absolutely. he has maintained his innocence throughout and i believe we'll hear from one of his lawyers shortly. his lawyers have said that they

believe that the investigation was flawed. and they point to a number of leaks. they say both true and false that came out of investigation. interestingly enough, the chicago police did tell us yesterday that they have prosecutorial overkill. and that jusse adamantly maintains his innocence. >> nic, appreciate it very much. let's talk to his defense attorney, mark geragos. thank you for being with us. what's your response to the 16 felony counts he's now facing? is this right that it's basically one count for each alleged lie that he told? >> you know, anderson, even if he were supposedly the one who orchestrated this, this is an outrage. the fact that he maintains his innocence makes it more outrageous. 16 counts? i defy anybody to find any

indictment anywhere where somebody has brought 16 counts for being a victim of a -- of a hate crime, basically. the problem with this case, and it started with i think -- >> but they're not bringing -- >> hold on for one second, anderson. they're bringing 16 counts. they're bringing 16 counts -- they parsed out two statements. he was not suspended. they have not talked to one person at fox who has said he was dissatisfied with his money. they have not interviewed one person connected with the show "empire" who says he was dissatisfied with his money. they have the ones who started the internal investigation about the leaks because all of the information that was being leaked was false, and i wasn't at northwestern hospital, northwestern hospital supposedly, if you believe the reporting, let go of 50 people because 50 people have illegally

accessed his records. what is happening here is frankly a media gang bang of this guy of unprecedented proportions and that's the reason i got into this. i've never seen a media pendulum swing more quickly and more viciously and rob somebody of their presumption of innocence like this case. it's startling the way people assume that he's guilty. he hasn't been given one stitch of discovery. not one. there isn't one police report. your package just said he paid $3500. i've got the texts. those texts and they conceded that the check and the texts were for training. it wasn't to pay anything. so i don't understand where any of this comes from. he's supposed -- >> so -- >> he's the one who supposedly was dissatisfied? there is no evidence of that? >> so you're saying the police, no one from the superintendent talked about this hertheory he wanted more money. you say they haven't talked to

anybody associated with their production at all. >> right. >> so, but, i mean, does it make sense -- >> wouldn't you expect if a police chief -- hold on, anderson. if a police chief is going to come out and say and give a press conference and is going to say he was dissatisfied and is going to basically taint the jury pool, wouldn't you expect that there would be some basis upon which you would do that? wouldn't you expect one person would have been interviewed who actually knew something about this was negotiating his salary, his agent, somebody on the set, his producer, anybody? >> so why did -- i mean, if your version of events, if your client is sticking by your version of events, why would these two brothers who i guess smollett knows and paying for training services or using as a trainer and there is at least a check between them, why did they

attack jussie smollett using trump language and a noose and all these things, which there is -- and a liquid? why are you alleging that they did that? >> i haven't interviewed them but i will ask you this, why is it that if they did this and if they were in cahoots and went in front of a grand jury, why weren't they indicted? number one. number two, the police chief is the one who says that they waited until the 47th hour before all of a sudden, they were visited and changed their story and haven't been given immunity. why is that? by the way, if these two witnesses were, if they believe these two witnesses, why didn't they go through with the preliminary hearing and put the witnesses on and let them tell their story there are media requests pending. as soon as the media requested to be able to do the preliminary hearing yesterday, they ran in

yesterday and did a grand jury indictment. as soon as i sent him back to answer questions on an airplane, they didn't do the grand jury anymore, and they filed a criminal complaint. anybody who is in the criminal justice system, i defy you to find one commentator who hasn't been caught up in this kind of, this media lynching, find one legal commentator who tries cases and says i'm familiar with a prosecutor who comes out and gives a closing argument at the bond hearing. >> doesn't it just seem weird to you that you get allegedly attacked by two people who you know and you don't seem to recognize them, even though you claimed you fought back and they ran away, and that they -- i believe, initially there was -- i believe mr. smollett said one of them is wait or ohite.

isn't it weird you get two people you know on "empire" that you worked out with and you don't recognize them? >> yes. guess what? i don't know whether he made that statement or -- but what i do know is that when he was told that they had evidence against these two, he refused to sign the complaint because he could not believe it. if he thought they were in on it, would he have signed the complaint? he didn't believe it. now if you're asking me what their motivation is, i suppose i can speculate but motivation of jussie is not an element of the crime. their motivation, i got my theories on it but i haven't seen one piece of evidence and they don't have one piece of evidence that they have turned over that links jussie to this. what they do have is a whale of a case, if you believe what the police chief is saying, they have a great case against the two brothers.

they got lyft receipts and atm receipts and a surveillance video. take a look and tell me if there is anything that looks peculiar to you. i'll leave that to the investigative journalist. this is my question, what do they have that corroborating the story? do they have besides their word that says he was in on this? >> i don't know the answer to that question. it does seem odd, i mean, it just seems weird that, you know, a letter is allegedly sent with, you know, pieces cut out from a magazine, which frankly, i mean, someone who gets hate mail and threatening letters, i, you know, i've only seen that in movies. it seems like something from, you know, hollywood would think -- >> anderson. >> -- and then is attacked two weeks later? the whole thing doesn't make much sense, does it? >> anderson, you're in los

angeles today, right? come down to my office. i have taped up on my wall some of my hate mail where they cut outleters from m e letters from. my haters use that method. >> all right. >> number one, they are taped in my office. >> number two, by the way, this idea that somehow he had something to do with this and it wasn't mentioned, the reason for that is remember, the chief came out, he said that they had something to do with or either those two or jussie had something to do with the letter. that's a federal investigation and i would ask your reporter to go back and look because the fbi or the feds because i think it's postal inspector push back on that idea and said they don't have any evidence of that and i will tell you he has cooperated with that investigation, as well. >> all right. mark geragos, aproepreciate it. the white house lock in a struggle with democrats over their demands for documents but what will democrats do if the

paper chase becomes a goose chase. two key lawmakers give us a sense how far they are willing to go next. i was thinking... could there be another around the corner? or could it turn out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures.

what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected.