around. we have tens of thousands of flights. there are only a few dozen of these planes. stop fighting for these things, go ahead and park them until we know something else. >> tom foreman, appreciate it, thanks. news continues. i want to send it over to chris cuomo for "cuomo primetime." i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "primetime." is mueller making his last stand tomorrow with manafort or are more indictments coming or are we really now on report watch? the president's backers are preparing for war. that's why they're pushing democrats to make statements about impeachment. now one of the president's main warriors is here tonight. judiciary committee member matt gaetz. the congressman from florida. what he thinks happens next legally and politically. plus, celebrities among those indicted in a massive college admissions stink. this is not about tinseltown. it's about what may be going on in towns all across this country. and i still don't get why the u.s. isn't more aggressive with this boeing plane. they know there are issues with

the flight controls. it's not about panic. it's about practicality. why be so determined to leave them in the air? is it about money? what do you say? let's get after it. look, here's what we have coming up this week. manafort's sentencing tomorrow for that d.c. case about the witness tampering and what went on during his plea agreement where he lied to the feds. you've got michael flynn, roger stone, you've got rick gates all entangled in the wide web of the russian probe. all face court action over the next 72 hours. now, it could tie up a lot of threads for us on mueller's end game. it also could not do that. the sentencing tomorrow will be a big appeal, but it's not the biggest part of what mueller still has to explain. is there another round of action? that's a legitimate question. here's what we do know. both sides of the coming political storm are preparing for all-out war when this thing

comes out. i told you from the beginning this was going to be a political fight ultimately. we're about to have it. now you know which side congressman matt gaetz is on. he's all if for team trump. the judiciary committee member joins us now. welcome back to "primetime." >> thank you, though we're not preparing for a war, chris. my constituents actually go to war and fight wars. this is a political battle. >> look, i agree. i wish it were just a semantical thing. it will be so ugly, so intense, and so unfounded as it goes along. i use it as metaphor. you're right. we all honor our fighting men and women. they make the real sacrifices. i hope you guys remember that when the mueller report comes out in terms of how you conduct yourselves. to that point, let's get something out of the way. when cohen was coming before congress, you didn't like it, didn't believe in his credibility. you thought it was the wrong move for the committee but you said things that were ugly and obvious.

i want to put up the tweet to remind people. i also want to remind people you decided to own it. very rare these days that somebody admits they made a mistake. what was your mistake? >> well, chris, your viewers and my constituents know i find hard, sometimes too hard. this was one of those cases. i should not have mentioned michael cohen's family if that tweet. i apologized. took it down. i'll try to do better. >> and just to be clear, there's nothing coming that you have or anybody else that you know about has about any of these suggestions you made in the tweet. >> i'm not going to discuss that because to do so would be to invoke someone's family and it's not a line i'm going to cross. my challenges with mr. cohen deal with his credibility, not his family and that's why i'm not going to go into that stuff. >> good for you, keep it clean. if you can't win the argument on the facts, you're not going to win it at all. >> i will thank you, though, chris. >> yes. >> the other cnn personalities were calling for me be arrested and imprisoned. you made the point i wasn't threatening michael cohen, i was trying to cast him in a bad light. i did so unartfully in a way i shouldn't have. i appreciate you for drawing out that distinction as don lemon was breathing in or out of a paper bag, whatever he was doing. >> listen, d. lemon can defend himself. he has his own feelings.

this is my show. i do it my way. let's get after it now on what matters. do you believe that this is about the end or do you think there's a chance we see more indictments? >> i don't know. i do think that judge ellis and judge jackson have a very different view on the genesis of this entire russia investigation. judge ellis clearly viewed the prosecution of manafort not as a sincere one, to punish someone for their wrongdoing but as a mechanism to try to get to president trump. judge jackson -- >> hold on a second. hold on a second. i understand what you're pointing to in the rhetoric of the judge. >> yeah. >> the judge did allow the case to go forward. >> yeah -- >> the prosecution and the verdict. >> he gave manafort functionally a -- >> but if the judge thought that it was a political move, he would have thrown it out. that's what a judge does. that's not what happened. >> he said it was a political move. the point is, judge ellis is done. now we're on to judge jackson. >> right. >> the point i would make there

is judge jackson seems to have a very different view. she was very harsh with manafort when she -- when she made factual findings that she believed -- he violated his plea deal. >> right. >> here's the important context for the country. this stuff that manafort is accused of doing wrong has nothing to do with his service in the trump campaign. manafort did some ugly stuff before he was ever working for trump. he did ugly stuff after he was working for trump. during the time he was working for the president, his work for the campaign never has resulted in a criminal charge. and i think it's important to remember why paul manafort was even working for donald trump. you and others have said, why does donald trump have these seedy characters around him like cohen, like manafort, and with manafort, it was very simple. donald trump kept winning states in the primary but local state parties kept installing ted cruz delegates, faithless delegates to the convention. when you look around, there's not a whole hell of a lot of people who are, like, zeroed in on the intricacies of managing a convention -- >> right. >> -- battle.

manafort was brought in for that discreet purpose. >> right. >> he was then out. i have yet to see any evidence his work associated with the campaign had anything to do with any of these charges. >> allow me to enlighten you, congressman. first of all, it is a legitimate question of what the president knew about what manafort was doing because the suggestion that manafort was a new commodity for the president is poppycock. he's known him for many, many decades. he's known him through many iterations of his life. >> fine -- >> first of all, as you well know, i don't believe the standard for acceptable behavior in our government, let alone our presidency, is if it's not a felony, you're fine. i don't see criminality as some kind of litmus test as you being okay in public office. >> we're talking about a criminal sentencing. >> no, no, you're making a larger point. i'm responding to it with some different context. one, we need to know what the president knew about manafort. everybody knew what he was about overseas and made money in ways you might not want to know.

the surprise factor very low for the president, in my estimation. secondly, paul manafort colluded with people connected to russian interference. >> this is a polling argument? >> it's not a polling argument. >> the polling, you made that argument -- >> you took internal data, you gave it to somebody that the government believes is connected to russian intelligence and then the russian trolls started targeting the same places and faces the campaign did. >> you're really making the argument the polling information paul manafort may or may not have shared with russians -- >> not may or may not. he did. no, here's the problem -- >> the polling was right. every poll in america on the 2016 presidential election -- >> it's not about its accuracy. it's about its -- >> he was sharing, like, some shoddy polling information? >> this is what collusion is. collusion is a behavior. you're saying if it's not a crime, it doesn't count. and he wasn't charged with a crime that has to do with this

behavior. you are correct. you are correct. but i don't see a felony as the standard. collusion is a behavior. conspiracy, or a felony in furtherance of that action, would be a crime. i'm not saying manafort committed a crime, but i'm saying he gave -- >> what's your evidentiary burden, chris? i get all that. right? you're saying there are bad things people can do that fall short of crimes that are bad things. >> that he did do. >> i'll grant that. >> that he did do that. roger stone did do that trump junior, jared, and manafort did do. they all did things that was wrong. >> chris, what is a way as a country we vet out the truth or falsity of the claims? typically the forum we use for truth or falsity is a court of law. >> we know the truth of -- >> hold on. let me -- >> please, please. >> -- finish the argument. if robert mueller had evidence there was conspiracy with russia -- >> yes. >> -- on the part of paul manafort, he would have charged

him for doing that. >> you're right. >> he never brought those charges. >> that's true. >> for you and others to just, like, castigate the president over these issues is very unfair -- >> no, it is not. >> the evidentiary standard hasn't been -- >> the standard is not, unless it's a felony, it's fine. >> it's not about the conduct. it's not the severity of the conduct. >> it has been proven. he gave the polling data to a bad guy connected to russian intelligence, the trolls wound up targeting the same places and faces. >> that was proven in court and if that was a crime -- >> it's not a crime. >> would be charged as such. >> it's not a crime. >> conspiracy with a foreign government? >> it's not a conspiracy. >> look, this is one of the reasons david cicilline and i are introducing bipartisan legislation to tighten down on the foreign agent activity that occurs in the united states. paul manafort -- >> hold on a second. >> -- as you well know is not the only dude -- >> matt, congressman, pick your poison. either, if it's not a crime, you don't want to talk about it and leave the president alone, or you want to change the rules to tighten the screws down more on exactly what your guys did. >> look --

>> which is -- >> regardless of how you feel about the president or paul manafort or any of the characters in this particular saga, it is a problem in washington that people represent foreign governments, and they don't register and then the enforcement mechanisms to find those people and hold them accountable are toothless. republicans and democrats agree on this and actually there's legislation -- >> good. >> -- moving in the congress to deal with it. >> good. >> that's a positive. when you try to then say, well, manafort shared this polling information so clearly that's evidence of collusive behavior -- >> it is. >> -- no one has proven that in a court of law. >> that's exactly what mueller says. >> oh, so because mueller's -- so mueller who along with a team of people who've donated to the clinton campaign -- >> here we go. >> -- donated to the -- >> bob mueller is more republican than you've been on your best day. >> listen, it's not just mueller. he doesn't get to be the judge, jury and executioner. >> of course not. >> he's in charge of the office of special could be but merely the fact he has made an allegation in court does not mean it is true. the reason we have --

>> paul manafort's lawyers never denied it. >> go and test those things. >> paul manafort never denied it. it's not about a felony or you're fine. you can do bad things that are not a crime and for you to be disinterested in that is silly. you care about things all the time -- >> i'm not saying we don't care about things that aren't crimes. >> he didn't even deny it. he didn't even deny giving it to him. >> that's because he was making a plea deal. as you -- >> which he then lied about. if he was going to lie about other things, why not lie about this? >> you have evidence on the record that the mueller team was trying to get people into those plea agreements and force them to lie about trump. >> oh, now, now -- >> hold on, chris. >> what proof do you have that mueller tried to get people to lie about the president? >> corsi's testimony, saying publicly that the reason his plea deal got shattered was because he was unwilling to lie. >> that's what he says. you don't have any proof that that's what happened, mr. what's your evidentiary standard? jerome corsi, not somebody i think you would hang your hat on as a credibility contest. now you want to take his word. i can't take mueller's word.

you want to take corsi word. >> all these things should be tested. >> that's what we're doing right now. >> i certainly -- >> not the only forum, matt. >> if what the democrats got is manafort shared polling information with people that were loosely affiliated with russians, i think that clearly that is not going to result in impeachment. >> what would satisfy you? unless you had a picture of donald junior with putin on your lap. he wouldn't go under oath. >> that's not true. >> doctored up by his lawyers to make sure he wasn't exposed to anything. >> that would be a bar violation you're alleging. >> come on, matt, if you have -- >> well, there are sworn responses under oath, chris. >> i know. carefully lawyered. >> what would raise to the level of impeachment? >> carefully lawyered. carefully lawyered. so what, a president has the highest duty in this nation to be honest.

he has the highest duty in this nation to be straight. >> you haven't proved that he hasn't been. >> he wouldn't go under oath. he promised us he would, matt. >> adam schiff went on television and said we have the goods on trump, we have demonstrable evidence of collusion and have come up with zero. right now the big problems that the democrats have, you have one group of people who run the institution of power and pelosi and schiff and eliot engel, that crowd. you got a whole other group of people who actually run the energy of the party, aoc, pressley, tlaib, that crowd. i think that, you know, this schism is going to be interesting to watch play out because you even saw ocasio-cortez say today she does not agree with pelosi that you take impeachment off the table. i think that is the real -- >> so did nadler. nadler said that as well. look, i get the gamesmanship of what's going on politically trying to push democrats to have a -- >> wait, wait, we didn't push them. nancy pelosi came out and said to the -- >> she said i don't think he's worth it, but in truth, she's

always been shy on impeachment. even before the midterms she was saying if you can't get removal in the senate, i mean, you know, you're not seeing a lot of buy-in from republicans about this or anything that goes against -- >> that's because there's no basis for it. >> that's not the basis for your guys being supplicants. >> it's not about supplicants. >> absolutely. >> we believe in the president building an economy that works for the men and women, renegotiating trade deals, ending wars and giving americans a sense of optimism. >> a sense of optimism? >> absolutely. >> a sense of optimism. >> consumer confidence, business confidence. if you look at the way manufacturards are investing in capital investment, that shows tangible evidence of an optimism that raises wages. we have wages growing at the fastest rate in a decade. >> you have wages in certain pockets that are doing well and that matters. >> democrats want to talk about the crimes paul manafort committed prior to 2016. >> please, you guys derailed a presidency -- >> that's a freaking joke.

>> you guys derailed a presidency over sex in an oval office. >> you guys -- >> let me tell you, brother gates, if you had been here at that time, we would have had the exact discussion. you would have been part of the morality police like mike pence was back in the day. mike pence used to write essays about how we must conform to a moral standard, we're elected officials. where'd that go? >> you invite guests on your show to tell them what you would have believed ten years ago? >> i'm saying i would have liked to have seen you then. i invite you on the show to do what you're doing, make your argument to my audience. you're always welcome to do exactly that. >> thank you, chris, i appreciate it, man. >> congressman matt gaetz, truly, i appreciate it, be well. all right. look, you think that's something hot? it's nothing about what is going to come because matt gaetz is right about this, when you remove it from the court, all you have is opinion. what is the evidentiary basis, for whom? for me? or for you? it's going to be subjective and politicians are going to be

fighting this out and they're going to be spreading it in all different kinds of directions. that's when it's going to be really important for us to do our job. that's a taste of your future for good or bad. another good or bad situation. if you have kids, what's your big dream? let them be healthy, happy, and god let me have the money to send them to a good college and i hope they get in. but what would you do? would you break the rules? would you break the law? a story everyone is talking about and i don't think we've heard the half. these big-shot celebrities are suspects. it's meaningless to me. it's not about tinseltown. i think it's about what could be going on in every town in this country that we're just finding out about. my case for my suspicion, next. ♪

now audible members get free fitness and wellness programs to transform your mind and body. download the audible app and start listening today. ♪ ♪

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. but i'm more than a number. when i'm not sharing ideas with my colleagues i'm defending my kingdom. my essilor lenses offer more than vision correction with three innovative technologies for my ultimate in vision clarity and protection together in a single lens: the essilor ultimate lens package.

so, i can do more of what i love! buy two pairs of essilor's best lenses and get a $100 back instantly. see more. do more. essilor money influencing college admissions. no shock there, let's be honest. but the divide between the haves and have nots has never been exposed like we just saw.

a systematic fraud worthy of a rico bust that affects every level of admissions. and to elite universities. what was it powered by? millions in fake donations by the well to do. and not just to the universities. that's not what i'm talking about. this was different. we've anyone seen anything this sophisticated and entrenched, and my concern is we only scratched the surface. 50 people were charged. 33 parents. nine college coaches. prosecutors call it a $25 million criminal enterprise. listen. >> the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted by the department of justice. >> now, the parents are like big shots in the world of hollywood, fashion, business, names you know like actress felicity huffman and lori loughlin and fashion designer mossimo giannulli. in other words -- >> these parents are a catalog of wealth and privilege. >> we believe all of them,

parents, coaches and facilitators lied, cheated and covered up their crimes at the expense of hardworking students and taxpayers everywhere. >> see, that's the problem. it's not about the bold-faced names. it's about the bold lawlessness. how do the feds know so much? the man at the center gave up everyone when he was caught. this guy. william rick singer. he pleaded guilty to running a bogus college counseling business and charity. so the question of whether or not it was legit or not is answered. he answered it. okay? as he told one parent, what we do is we help the wealthiest families in the u.s. get their kids into school." he did that in one of two ways. one was by paying a guy to take tests for the kids or go in and fix the answers on their tests. the other was by outright bribing college coaches and administrators to get the kids recruited as athletes because admissions standards for athletes tend to be lower. never mind that some of the kids never played the sports they

were recruited for. sometimes they were photoshopped into stock photos and were expected to quit the team the moment they got to school. but he wasn't the only one in on the fraud, singer says. they all knew. everyone involved. proof? plenty, say prosecutors. including taped conversations and electronic communications. like where felicity huffman is caught worrying if her daughter's s.a.t. score went up too much. meanwhile, loughlin's daughter wasn't even sure she wanted to go to college. >> i don't know how much of school i'm going to attend. i do want the experience of, like, game days, partying. i don't really care about school. >> it's not helpful to the cause. participants not only paid singer off, they got to write it off of their taxes as well. as part of his fake charity scam. now, that kind of double dipping and fraud is going to spark a

prosecutor's interest. especially with rico laws. that's what they're designed for. that's what prosecutors are using here. now you know about rico with the mob, right? set up in 1970 to take them down when you couldn't prove the big crimes but could show how they moved the money in furtherance of criminality. the bigger story is dual reality, one set of rules for those with money who are willing to break the law and for those without. it runs counter to the meritocracy that education is supposed to foster. something our laws are supposed to safeguard. prosecutors got this guy and these families. here's the dark suspicion. in this guy -- i'm going to tell you more about him later and in the coming days as we learn more. this guy's no genius. if he was able to create something like this, who else? how many singers are there? shady administrators. how many top schools are infected with this kind of avarice in the world of academics? my concern is we don't even know the half.

so, how much time would fit the crimes? let's take this up in cuomo's court, next. i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions,

and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret.

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store.

it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. telling you, i've seen a lot of these situations with money and academia and i don't think we know exactly how deep this college bribery scandal goes. i'm not talking about just with this guy, singer, but it just doesn't make sense that he's the only one. we've heard about pockets before, but if this guy could worm his way into so many different levels of the process, who else is doing it right now? the impact of money on our

education system colliding with the role of wealth and our legal system. let's take it up with laura coates and christopher hunt, in cuomo's court. now, hunt is going to be a good addition because he knows the world of trying to get into college and what is acceptable and what is not and he has his own suspicions so we're going to fold that into our analysis. thank you for being with us, mr. hunt. laura coates, criminality. we understand the ethical violation. we understand it's wrong. we understand it would piss off the universities assuming they didn't know. when does it become a crime? >> well, it becomes a crime, frankly, when you try to use money laundering tactics and charitable organizations as a front to have criminal activity. this is a case, you're right, talk about the mob in the sense of using the mail services. the reason the mail service is a part of this is because when you're actually submitting your application, you essentially are doing, throwing a penny into the wishing well. it's supposed to be a penny that's well earned based on your academic success, your academic rigor, if there are other

complementary notions of how you could be an asset of the diverse marketplace of ideas, so be it. you throw it into the well. what they've done is deprive people to the honest access of the honest mail services saying -- an opportunity to actually have your merits evaluated fairly. that ties into very much why the supreme court has talked about affirmative action, chris. at one point they said it shouldn't be necessary in the future because of a level playing field and talk mainly about race talking about affirmative action or gender. in reality, it's all about intergenerational wealth and ability to have access to power and how the notion that some people are expected to have a merit-based application, while others can simply pay for the privilege of access to power. until we have a level playing field, we certainly can't do away with affirmative action-type tactics and we also have to have and rely on federal prosecutors to use this case as

a deterrent to, as you spoke of, the hundreds of thousands, perhaps, of other people. singer's book, alone, says he's been doing this for 25 years and has helped a quarter of a million students, we're talking about probably a vast enterprise that goes far beyond the headline celebrities here. >> all right, so, mr. hunt, my suspicion that we don't know the half, not so much about singer but if he was able to get this kind of access and corrupt these types of level of the administration of the process, that others may be doing the same thing. what is your experience in terms of what you know and what you don't in watching this process as closely as you have? >> i have no way to know for sure whether someone else is trying this. like you, i would find it difficult to imagine that there are not other outliers but i do think it's important that you should view this as an outlier case where the more common practice is for parents to seek other ways to influence the

process with money and influence, but they do it indirectly. >> and now what we're seeing, too, one of the offshoots of laura's point about diversity, that is creating pressure two ways. one, it creates this odd notion of what is merit based for them, and what evens the playing field? but on the part of these types of people, assuming that these people were largely white, the people who were involved in this case were, but that they feel pressure from that as well and it is fueling a desperation that a guy like this can take advantage of. is that also true? >> it's true that there are, say, three groups who are given an advantage in the admission process to elite colleges. those would be legacies, children of alumni, athletes, and first in your family to go to college. that last group, there is increasing emphasis on the part

of college, basically to have socioeconomic change by admitting more of them. but as they take up more places, i think you're right that there are fewer places which might create anxiety amongst the rich and famous who may be largely white. >> i mean, i think that's going to wind up being part of this story, laura. you know, why did they feel they needed to do this? you know, was it because their kid just couldn't cut it or was it because they had the money and the lack of scruples, the lack of ethics, that told them, hey, any way to get an advantage, this process is getting harder all the time, i'm going to take it. if that latter is what it was, there are a lot of people who are susceptible to that. >> well, there is. maybe it's a combination of both. frankly, first of all, if your child lacks the merit to attend a college or university, then they should not be there, and the notion that these practices

somehow is feeding off of the insecurity that too many spots are being taken by those who are also, and, perhaps, unlike the people who have failed to get in, are qualified to be there, really just belies the actual history of america and the notion that we're talking about the percentage of people who have have been accepted into colleges and impact of legacy and intergenerational wealth and, of course, the fallacy if you were to take, if you were to provide spots to people who are meritoriously required to be there or should be there based on their own comeuppance and their own bootstraps and being able to do so, that somehow it is a problem to those who were not qualified to be there, it's one of the arguments people make really in favor of doing away with practices like affirmative action. in reality, that's just a fallacy. if you're qualified to be there, you should be there. but a lot of these schools we're talking about here have an admission rate of less than 10%. >> right. >> there are a whole host of

people who are qualified to be there and don't make the cut. >> that's right. >> for a variety of reasons. so if your child is one of them, well so be it. this is one of those most abhorrent practices and why everyone has a visceral reaction to this, chris, because it smacks of a brazen attempt to exploit privilege. they thought that they should be there based on the fact that they were rich and had access. that's not a meritocracy. that's money. >> and i think we're going to hear a lot more about it. christopher hunt, as we learn more facts of the situation, i want to figure out how it fits into your experience. laura, as always, when we figure out how deep the prosecutors want to go, i'll need you back. thank you, both. this is just the beginning of this story. it has to be because this dynamic is so repeatable in so many places all over the country. how could this guy be the only one? it just doesn't stand to reason. much of the world talk about what reasonable and what isn't. most of the world is grounding the boeing jet that just went down in ethiopia. not america. is it because we know better?

or is it because we're not doing something we should? two aviation bigwigs are here to debate whether or not this is being handled the right way. let's hear them out. also, did you hear the president's response to the boeing crash? he thinks he knows how to make our planes great again. true story. next. whew, 7 more weeks til the baby comes. and we still need to renovate the nursery... and patch that mystery hole. this is why we sofi. with sofi's no-fee personal loan, borrow up to $100k for home projects. but i'm more than a number. when i'm not teaching, i'm taking steep grades and tight corners. my essilor lenses offer more than vision correction with three innovative technologies for my ultimate in vision clarity and protection together in a single lens: the essilor ultimate lens package. so, i can do more of what i love! buy two pairs of essilor's best lenses

and get a $100 back instantly. see more. do more. essilor

this is an odd disconnect. this country is usually really quick on the side of safety, but right now, we're in a bizarre situation. the world, literally much of the world, has banned this boeing jetliner that's involved in the ethiopian airlines crash. and there was another one five months ago. the united states remains one of the few operators allowing it to fly. the faa says there's, "no basis to order the grounding of

boeing's 737 max 8." but just last night, boeing announced it would install a new software upgrade to those very same airlines and its flight control systems after the crash of another max 8 in october. so if there's truly no issue, why the software patch? software that goes to navigation, operational control, of the aircraft? why isn't that enough? let's discuss with people who know better than certainly i do. jeff guzzetti, former faa director of accident investigation. i told you i'd need you back. and ray lahood, former transportation secretary under president obama. i've leaned on you for perspective before. thank you to you both. now, mr. guzzetti, this is a recidivist audience. they watch the show, they know who's on it. they heard you last night saying you're not there at that point of concern yet to put the plane on the ground.

ray lahood, you feel differently, why? >> chris, i feel differently because we went through the same situation while i was secretary of transportation with the boeing dreamliner when batteries were exploding and catching fire in those planes and we ordered the planes brought down. we ordered them inspected by faa safety inspectors and boeing in collaboration together, and that worked very well. and it's well within the right of the secretary of transportation to bring those planes down, to have them inspected, and to really give the idea that safety is the number-one priority to the flying public. no doubt about it, these planes are 100% safe because they've been inspected by faa safety inspectors and also by boeing safety inspectors. until that's done, there's going to be a doubt in people's minds about should i get on this plane? will it be safe?

>> right. >> and that's -- the number-one responsibility of d.o.t. is to make sure transportation is safe. in all modes of transportation. cars, buses, trains, and airplanes. >> right. >> and i just -- this is, to me, is very simple. >> right. >> and the d.o.t. and faa should do what needs to be done here and inspect these planes. >> the airlines could do it, too, by the way. >> the airlines could do it, but look it, chris, the federal government has a major responsibility to provide the safest transportation in all modes of transportation in america. >> i get it. >> they're the one agency that has that responsibility. >> i get it. the question is why they're not doing it so let's get to that part of this. it's going to be debatable. jeff, my analysis, is it off? the idea of the patchwork on the software that came out of the october crash, the last one, goes to how pilots have to

correct for the system in controlling of the plane. if they knew that they needed that patch, and if it turns out whatever they get from the black box, that that had something to do with what happened here, if that's true, and i guess that's an open issue at this point as far as we know, is that enough? >> it might be enough. again, it's -- in my mind, it's just way too early to make that call. you know, when you slip the surly bonds of earth, you take a risk. and the faa is all about managing risk and i served with secretary lahood. i think he was a fabulous secretary. he was all about safety. i'm honored to be on the same television screen with him. the -- and he cited the battery fire. well, there, you had some very clear evidence of what happened. you had scorched batteries. you had many reports -- >> you knew what it was. you knew what it was and here you don't have a clear answer. here's what i don't get. you guys err are on the side of

safety all the time. i can't tell you how many times i've investigated things. you talk about putting the doubt in people's minds about safety. here's another doubt that's going to be in people's minds, money, jeff. they're going to think if you're not taking these planes out of the air it's because of money because you've had two guy down in five months, you have all these other countries and carriers who are taking it down. why not you? >> i think the incentive of how much it would cost if faa or boeing knew that they had a hazard but didn't say anything or do anything -- >> true. >> -- about it and had a third accident, that would be catastrophic financially and reputation wise. my point is there simply isn't enough evidence and, yes, you're correct about the software change to the flight control computer. that was discovered as a result, so far, of the lion air investigation. but that in and of itself, there's no proof to indicate that that had a big role to play in the accident. that investigation isn't finished. >> right. that's what we need to know. i hear you on that. that gives me a little bit of

pause in being overzealous on this. ray, the head of the twu, the workers union, he says that american airlines says that they're doing a whole new set of checks on this plane because of what happened. he says they're not happening. that that's not true. now, we have to assess whether or not he's telling the truth, whether or not his information is accurate. but where is your level of confidence that what's being done needs to be done in light of the fact that the united states is standing almost alone in terms of the big players in how to treat this situation? >> well, chris, i go back to what i said before. the number-one responsibility of d.o.t. is to make sure that all modes of transportation are safe. that's the obligation of the department. whether it's trains, planes, automobiles, buses, trucks, whatever it is. and there have been two major accidents and there have been lives lost.

why risk that again? >> right. >> when you can simply have the faa and the boeing safety inspectors working together -- >> right. >> -- to inspect these planes and give an assurance to the flying public these planes are safe and if they're not, do the fix. >> if the issue is what if it's not just the plane? what if this software thing goes to the human component as well and that foreign pilots don't get the same kind of training on this software and what is, i've been told by people who are in the flight game, that you have to know some specific things about this particular aircraft. >> look, chris -- >> the 737 that they extended it and that it has a different type of dynamic that pilots need to know. so if the pilots aren't trained, that could be part of it also. maybe you got to look at the pilot issue. >> chris, there's an international organization that can provide the kind of training that's needed if that really is the flaw. we're not going to know if that's the flaw unless we go in and really find out that there are no other technological or mechanical issues that --

>> right. >> -- need to be dealt with. once those are off the board and once they're convinced that it's not that problem, then the international community can come together and provide the proper training to pilots. >> i hear you. and look, jeff guzzetti, you've said the same thing, so this is to be continued. once we learn more, let's re-establish the dialogue and figure out at what point we're no longer being -- we're no longer erring on the side of caution enough. and that's the concern. nobody wants false panic. >> absolutely, we do need to learn more. i just think that it would besmirch the reputation of the faa and the ntsb if a capricious decision is made to ground a jet -- >> right. >> -- with no real reason why other than two accidents involving a similar aircraft. >> well, right, but, you know, again, you got the human cost. >> chris, look it, the ntsb will not render a decision on their investigation for at least a year. a minimum -- >> they can make an urgent safety recommendation. >> chris, we can't wait that long. >> i hear you. >> we need to take action now

and give the flying public the assurance that these planes are safe. >> that's something -- we can't wait a year, you have to know things as soon as possible. is that what's being done? we're going to dig into that and come back and get the benefit of your experience. jeff guzzetti, ray lahood, thank you. the man who flies around in one of the most high-tech jets on the planet thinks less tech will keep us safer in the sky. and in fact, he thinks technology is a problem for a lot of different devices in our lives. i'll let president trump explain his own logic on that one, next. my son forest, he was born while my husband was deployed. i video chatted the entire birth. i had great connectivity. his entire platoon was standing next to him. they kept telling me, "you gotta push! you gotta push!" they all got to meet forest, all together. about 50 of them. and they all started crying. it was the sweetest thing i have ever seen. (vo) there for you when it matters most. unlimited on the best network

now comes with apple music on us. get a free galaxy s10e when you buy the new galaxy s10. only on verizon. i think i found my dream car. it turns out they want me to start next month. she can stay with you to finish her senior year? of course she can! [ laughter ] [ groaning ] hey! want to drive? really? [ engine revs ] do you think we can do this, rob? things will be tight, but we can make this work. that's great. ♪ [ laughing ] okay... here we go. now... [ gasps ] wait... grandpa, what about your dream car? this is my dream now.

[ laughs ] ♪ principle. we can help you plan for that. i can worry about it, or doe. something about it. garlique helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally, and it's odor-free, and pharmacist recommended. garlique the president for some reason is weighing on boeing's

newest jet, tweeting this, airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. pilots are no longer needed but rather computer scientists from m. i. t., split second decisions are needed and the complexity creates danger. all of this have very great cost. very little gain. i don't know about you, but i don't want albert einstein to be my pilot. i want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane. now, for a president who loves to tap into the bygone days of america, should we really be surprised? d. lemon, how do you see this? >> hold your horses, fred

flintstone. come on. honestly, it's silly. >> there's a term for guys like this. >> what? >> luddite. people who fear technology. and fear what it's doing. >> there's another term -- there are a couple more terms but i can't say it on television. listen, the idea that the advancement of technology is a bad thing is just ludicrous and ridiculous. do we want to stay in the stone ages? do we want to stay in the olden times, and again, i go back to fred flintstone, and i know that was a cartoon, but do we really want to do that, where people used to crank their cars up from the front, remember that, when you first got in? or we can go back to horse and buggies. what do you want to do? we all have to get in the sardine can, so we may as well be as technically advanced as possible to keep us safe. and by the way, you pointed it out, with all of these advances, we've had the safest years ever in air travel. >> it's never been safer.

technology, certainly, helps. but i'm telling you, he knows what he's doing once again. he is tapping into this fear of the new, because people feel they're being left behind. coal is great! let's bring coal back. never going to happen! >> not unless you start making these, which are advanced, right? you don't get much more technically advanced than this. not much more technically advanced than this. and unless you start making cell phones out of coal. >> got the color right, but other than that, forget it. that's the point, he's tapping into something that's very real. i think this is a little bit of a stretch, to be honest. i think i would have to put this in the same category of, your body only has a certain amount of energy in it, don't exercise too much, because you're basically killing yourself. i put it in the same category as that. what about this, him flying around -- and i don't want anything to happen to him or his family or anyone with him. >> god forbid. >> but just think, okay, go back to a plane from the 1960s or '50s or wherever he was born and

try flying on that now and see how that suits you. >> look, i think that it's not about the facts, it's about the feeling that he's trying to evoke. things used to be better before and then fill in the blank. technology, again, i think he's on weak footing on that. but, you know, before these newfangled industries, before this multi-culturalism, before this everything is okay and everyone is equal, before, let's make ourselves great again. i say to people all the time, when were we ever greater than we are today? more free, more inclusive. ♪ songs that made the hit parade ♪ ♪ guys like us, we had it made ♪ those were the days >> this is my favorite part. ♪ ♪ guys were guys ♪ men were men >> oh, my gosh. ♪ we could use a man like herbert hoover again ♪

>> that's what he's tapping into. ♪ gee, our old lasalle ran great ♪ >> that's exactly what this is! ♪ those were the days >> that's what we're going back to? >> i love norman leer. brilliant. >> brilliant show. but what was it supposed to do! it was a parody. it was a parody in the form of archie bunker. >> you know what i'm hearing right now? wrap! did you hear frank bruni's column today. >> i did. >> he is right on. he said listen, i know all these people are caught up in this college scam, but what's new? happened to a lot of people. maybe even in someone's family that we talk about. >> ruh-roh,. >> not the illegal part, but spending money to get people into college who don't necessarily deserve it. >> yep. we're seeing an aspect of privilege that i think we're only seeing the first part of it. i think worst to come. >> i'll check with you in a second. >> see ya.

>> all right. that was the theme song to "all in the family," by the way. some of you are probably too young. you may youtube it. all right, hollywood and the justice department, what d. lemon were just talking about right there, they collided in this admissions bust, but you have to see it as way more than just a matter of law. it should be. but it is a window into something else that is even way more dangerous than the criminality. the argument, next. . 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.

this is moving day with the best in-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. listen, we know colleges can play favorites. donations, favors, people with great wealth often get great access. but what we learned about today is worse than we knew. and the feds agree. >> we're not talking about donating a building so that a school is more likely to take your son or daughter. we're talking about deception and fraud. >> man at the center, william singer, wrote a book about getting into college in which he says, the key is to develop a personal brand that allows a student to stand out. that's true. talent, passion, sense of purpose. you know, the things parents kill themselves emotionally and financially to nurture. those things can and should set you apart.

but as the pressures rise and the acceptance rates drop, for some, brand is not enough. they want an edge and that's the chapter in the book that he left out. the desperation to be among the privileged few, especially among the privileged. those with expectations of achieving a certain social standing, now that can be money-making motivation more those without ethics. and this guy, singer, smelled that desperation. and he knew the weaknesses in the system, because he'd been in it and those coaches were a weakness in the system. a lack of ethics, the surplus of those willing to cheat the system on all levels to give an edge to families who often already have every edge. he put it this way. there's a front door, which means you get in on your own. the back door is through institutional advancement. it's like a nice way of talking about what? diversity? which is ten times as much money. and i've created this side door

in. institutional advancement, he's talking about like buying buildings. still, very rich people. it so takes me to the truly frightening aspect of this. the shock of the scale and scope of the sting by the feds. 50 people, including parents, coaches, examine administrators. image what we don't know, because what makes this guy special? singer's no genius. he worked in sales and marketing. he ran a call center before finding his way into this world of educational advantage. if this guy was able to game the system, what else is going on? we don't police this. we depend on the universities. and we know what they're going to do. they're going to protect the institution. how did these families, these well-to-do types know to go to this guy? how did he manage to keep it quiet for so long? how many others are running scams on tests and other facets of admissions on individual schools or on the outside like him. this isn't something that gets a

lot of attention from law enforcement. and like i said, man, schools are willing, sometimes too willing, to keep transgressions quiet. a couple of schools involved put out statements about implicated staff who are no longer there. why aren't they already there? did they know before now? college isn't everything, okay? many people who go into the trades do very well. live very happy lives without the piece of parchment. and in the new tech economy, some are self-starters and america has always been a place where an idea and ambition could get you places. but let's be honest. but studies say men with bachelor's degree earn $900,000 more in a lifetime than high school grad. for women, it's $636,000 more. that's another problem. we'll deal with that another time. wed we need to make sure advancement is as fair as it can. it's not just being nice or even being fair. it's a safeguard of the american dream. think about it this way. right now, all across this

country, parents are working their asses off saving for college and to give their kids a chance to get there. kids all over the country are working their asses off as well. one better be doing that in my house right now. we can't let any of those people think they're boxed out before the game begins. it's definitional to our promise as a people and a nation. this guy can't be the only one. we must shine a light and make an example, this time and every time. trust me, stay tuned. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. >> don't you think there are a lot of parents out there going, ohh, a little nervous right now? >> i think that there are lots of parents feeling lots of things, like, why am i even trying? i'll never be able to do that. i knew it was rigged. and kids who believe they're boxed out because of social standing. and you know, a lot of people with means and legacy and ambitions who are going to be pissed off as well, because