up, though. i wish you great writing and continued success in all you do. truthfully, i've been dreading this day for years because i always knew that one day you would decide to use your remarkable talents in other ways and now we should all have to muddle along without you because if i've learned anything over the years, is that you got to have faith in life, and on "the ridiculist." thank you, faith. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo primetime." >> she may have given you the words but nobody could come up with that laugh, coop. >> yeah -- >> that's all you. >> a 12-year-old girl, maybe. >> no, no. >> would come up with that laugh. >> very manly. very manly. my dad used to laugh the same way. thank you, coop. thank you, faith. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "primetime." did the president try to obstruct the michael cohen case, did he try to float a pardon? we have two new sources of concern rl concern, one are e-mails obtained by cnn showing an odd back channel between cohen and the president and what was said. the other comes from what was

not said by matthew whitaker regarding control of the cohen case. does this mean anything for the president legally or politically? we have the head of the gop here. does she want to defend or is this something that will be dismissed? and what does it mean for 2020? plus, the boeing jets deemed unsafe to fly overseas, finally grounded here at home. key word is "finally." did this take too long? was this motivated by facts or money? we're going to dig much deeper tonight. what do you say? let's get after it. what a dizzying day. lot me help you try to put it in focus, all right? put the lens on some substantial news that could be damaging for the president. do you remember this? >> at no time has the white house asked for, nor have i provided promises or commitments concerning the special counsel's investigation or any other investigation. >> all right. now, look, the word,

"commitments," tweaked some of the democratic lawmakers. well, does that mean you didn't talk about it at all or you didn't promise anything? so when the president's former acting attorney general testified, wasn't satisfying enough, shoefs hao he was hauleo the hill to clarify today what happened. we're not going to know what large part because it was closed but the head of the judiciary committee says that whitaker did not deny talking about control of the cohen case with this president. listen. >> unlike in the hearing room, mr. whitaker did not deny that the president called him to discuss michael cohen -- the michael cohen case, and the personnel decisions in the southern district. >> all right. so he didn't deny it. all right? now, what does that mean? we don't really know. it's not as clean as saying it absolutely didn't happen, does it suggest it did happen? like everything else right now, this may be processed through

the lens of your partisan perspective but, look, it's important because once again it raises whether or not the president was trying to obstruct the cohen case. what does this mean? what does it mean for 2020? who better to discuss than the chairwoman of the rnc, ronna mcdaniel. great to you on "primetime." >> thanks for having me. >> thanks so much. i'm not going to lawyer you up on this. >> i'm not a lawyer. >> yes. here's my more general political question. >> sure. >> what level of wrongdoing would concern you politically? like, what is it that you could see come out of this situation where you're like, now that's a problem for us? >> well, i will just tell you i have not seen any level of wrongdoing that has concerned me and i will tell you the voters around the country aren't talking about this. they're talking about the fact that their wages are up for the first time in a decade. they're talking about jobs coming back. they feel better about the economy. that's what they're talking about. they think this is a d.c. story, this is a beltway story and not something that affects their

day-to-day lives. they're looking for politicians to come into their states like my state of gn begmichigan and what are you going to do to make my life better? michael cohen doesn't factor if. they want to see the mueller report finished. the democrats, if they use these next two years to just investigate and continue to go after this president and not focus on how do i make lives better for the people i represent, i think it's a mistake. >> worked for you guys. it got you the 2016 election. >> not donald trump. donald trump came to michigan when no other republican -- >> no question. >> -- had and said your wages have been stagnant, you have not had a champion in washington, you do not have lobbyists, you don't have people representing you, you don't have the special interests. it did work, he wasn't the average politician. >> that's for sure. others said it, they just didn't believe him the way they believed donald trump, that's why he wound up dismissing the field. as a general political tactic, i agree with you, it shouldn't be done but it was done in epic fashion by the republicans. they didn't get punished even

though trump you could argue wasn't the typical standard bearer. he is now and the whole party capitulated to his identity. i'll talk to you in a second. >> sure. >> here's what i don't get about the wrongdoing thing. i feel like you guys talk about wrongdoing on the republican side only from the lens of criminality. poll after poll shows, you know this, people care about this, they want to know who did what. it matters. do they want impeachment? no. i've never seen a poll where you have the majority of the country saying it. we also don't know what we're talking about either. we get to see this report, if we ever get do see it, have to see what the oversight yields, if yields anything. that will matter to the american people. they're not fools. they care about this. i think that the question is going to be this, is a felony the only thing that isn't fine? if it's not a felony, because we know right now there was collusion with people on the campaign. not a crime, but what manafort did -- >> i would disagree with that, yeah. >> here's my take on it. i'm not saying it was criminal. there have been no charges on that. it's just been for lying, essentially, and other start

with manafort. you gave polling data that wound up placing the same places and faces as the campaign. >> the rnc and the president -- >> not you. >> -- did not do that. >> the president's campaign did in the form of his chairman. >> i'm not going to totally go along with that. >> you don't have to. it's a fact. >> the president didn't collude, the president didn't force hillary clinton to avoid michigan, the president didn't say and the russians didn't do that, either. >> true. >> i think people want to see a resolution to this investigation. they want to see it stop. >> why can't you have both? >> they don't want endless investigations in search of a crime. one thing to say here's a crime that was committed and we're going to investigate the steps that led up to this wrongdoing, but it's different to say let's have this open-ended without scope investigation looking for a crime. and i think that's the difference. >> but this was a special counsel that was called for by the person that the president and sessions had put in to the a.g.'s office. it's lasted less than benghazi.

it's about to wrap up. it's produced a tremendous amount of convictions and people put under indictment. >> related to nothing having -- i mean, paul manafort, what happened to him today, it's about money laundering, about tax evasion, it's about his personal business. michael cohen, about his personal business dealings with his tax fraud, with lying. >> is paying off people for the president. >> lying to congress. he was put in jail. >> flynn is about lying about contacts. >> lying about his financial status on bank documents. >> hush money payments, you know this, that matters, too. >> he's going to jail for many things he was doing in his personal life. none of it has to do with collusion. do i think people want to see this investigation end. >> the charges don't have to to with collusion. i accept that. i don't see criminality as a bar for wrongdoing. because over the years, republicans have made character huge. you've never been felony but fine. you weren't that with any other democratic politician nor should you be. mike pence wrote a very eloquent essay about bill clinton saying, you know what, we have to judge

him as a neighbor. not just as some burglar. just because he didn't trip the line that makes it a felony. he said it. now, if it's not a felony, it's fine. paul manafort gives polling data that the russians use arguably to target places for their interfeerninte interdpeerinte interferen interference. flynn reaches out to people who knew he shouldn't have. you have roger stone who reached out to people who knew they shouldn't have. everybody lies about it because they knew it was wrong and it don't bo doesn't bother you. >> it had no substantial effect on the president. >> i don't know about that. >> why don't we wait until the mueller report comes out? when it comes out and says there's no collusion, are the democrats going to say, okay, there was, we trust mueller, it's done. here's the reality, chris -- >> how can they say there's no collusion when they're the -- >> this is a president who's delivering day in and day out. that's what i always go back to. >> please. >> i do polling every day. i'm in the states. i'm all across the country. voters are saying what is the president doing to make my life better? k when i think that's 100% -- >> what are the results when

african-american is the lunempls the lowest. they see jobs coming back. i was in a state that was decimated. we were decimated after 2008. home prices were gone. wages were stagnant. i had friends lose their homes. had to file for bankruptcy. president trump provided a line for a state like mine that nobody was paying attention to. >> we know factually that's not true. 2008 you were put in the hole under a republican presidency. you then -- >> that continued. >> no. >> it was an anemic recovery. >> you had a turnaround but it wasn't enough. an anemic recovery is a blittle bit of on oxymoron. >> wages growing for the first time in a decade. >> in some spaces. i don't think it's fair to argue -- >> there's a lot positive. >> why exclude one part of the analysis in favor of the other? why can't it be both? can i don't think voters -- >> every poll shows that the they care. it's like two out of three voters. >> it's not the top. it's not the top of what they care about. they care about the economy, care about job bs, care about how's my family doing, can my kids get a job when they

graduate from college? >> of course, of course. >> that's what they care about. >> they care about this, too. i get the political -- >> i'm not saying they don't care. i'm saying let the investigation take place. >> you did say they don't care. guys say it all the time on this show, people don't care about this. >> why shouldn't the investigation take place, why are we jumping to conclusions? there's too much jumping to conclusions. >> i agree there's some jumping to conclusions. i'd challenge you to tell me what conclusion i'm jumping to. >> i'm not saying you, just across the spectrum. >> what i'm saying, should it matter to the american people if the president and people around him lied about things that they did that were wrong? no crimes. let's assume none was a crime but they knew they did things they shouldn't have done and lied to us hoping we couldn't find out. >> i think it matters -- >> and they messed the probe that was digging into the sail things because they didn't like the questions -- >> i think the american people, actually, a lot of people i talk to are more concerned about what was nelly orr doing working for gps and giving information to her husband?

why was the democrat national committee paying for the fusion gps report -- >> you think people care more about -- >> this is the difference. my voters are saying why isn't that being investigated? >> so maybe that's the distinction. i talk about americans. not one party. because i believe that the party system is falling away. and i believe that that's a good transition for us to 2020. >> sure, let's go into that. >> because i don't know what's going on with the two parties anymore. the democratic party does not seem to be one party to me. your party is only trump. that when you say, i've never heard a chair say what you say, and you're sophisticated about your messaging. you want to run in the primary against this president, go ahead, you're going to get crushed. i've never heard a party chair say that before. >> i think you have. >> never. >> you have a president with this type of approval rating, that's delivered, that's delivered on the promises he's campaigned on, there's nothing prohibiting people from running. >> you did. >> no. >> why would i run against him if i were a republican after the chair said that? >> nobody -- they can run if they want. >> i know. >> they go through the same

procedure -- >> when my boss told me i'm a dead man walking -- >> it's probably a bad bet. i'm looking at his polling numbers. i look how popular he is, look at the map from iowa -- >> he's always over 85%. >> i don't see an opening. >> with republicans always over 85%. >> i don't see an opening in a republican primary. that doesn't prevent them from running. >> i think you have what you called a chilling effect on them. you say you're going to get crushed and you're the head of the party. i think that carries a lot of weight. that's all. >> the truth is the truth. unlike other politicians, i tell the truth. >> be careful. people in your party are going to get mad at you. >> the idea is this. that it's just interesting for the party that used to define itself by character. it was such a huge thing for you guys. it should be for everybody. but you guys really marched on it. you now have a party that actively ignores it -- >> i absolutely disagree with that. i totally disagree. >> when is the last time you saw big shots saying the president

slying about this? >> first of all, i spend a lot of time with the president. i know him in a very different way. >> please don't tell me you've never heard him lie. please don't tell me that. i have so much respect -- >> i spend a lot of time with the president. first of all, i grew up under the clinton era. i was in d.c. the same age as monica lewinskl. i was working at a firm. i watched then try to destroy her character and take her down. i go to church for my moral leadership. i look at politicians based on are you in line with my issues, are you going to cut taxes, going to deregulate -- >> you don't think the president is a moral leader for the country -- >> i look at all my political leaders more in line of how do you line up with my policies? what are you going to do? >> but politicians are supposed to be moral leaders, aren't they supposed to reflect our best? >> okay. >> aren't they supposed to? >> if that's your definition, of course i want them to be moral leaders but i'm saying how are they going to govern is part of

what dictates who you wlekt. >> you can be the nicest, most moral person in the world. i don't want you to be the president. >> do you want to know that i tell the truth? >> this president has told the truth on the things that he ran on. i'm going to cut taxes. don' done. >> build the wall and mexico is going to pay for it. >> the usmca he said is going to help pay for the wall. >> mexico is not -- >> he's done the national energy. >> i know, you talk about telling the truth, he add mimm d admitted -- >> barack obama said you like your health care plan, you can keep it. >> is that moral or moral relativis relativism? if somebody else said something that was a lie, is it okay for this president to lie? >> chris, i'm not going to get in the back and forth. all i know is this a president who came into states like mine and said i'm going to help raise your wages. >> going to drain the swamp. >> yes. >> how's the swamp looking? >> i think the president -- >> i think we drown -- >> he's fighting it every single day. >> how is he fighting it when he put the biggest alligators in it we've ever seen? look at the cabinet officials

that the have been dismissed. >> bringing great business leaders in to help with the cabinet. steve ma futunuchmnuchin. >> administration under clouds of unethical behavior. >> he's brought a different kind of cabinet. they're getting things done. >> less positions filled. all this political intrigue. people get indicted. >> i represent what i see around the country, i'm proud of this count country. i'm going to vote for him again. aisle excited work on his reelect. i think he did the things he campaigned on and that's how i view this president and more than that, i travel the country and hear people saying every day, i'm thankful he ran, i wish he got the recognition he deserves. i wish people would talk about the results more than the investigations and all the other things that are just noise compared to what's happening in our country, in our homes, in our jobs. that's what we want to hare abo lae hear about. >> biggest thing of 2020? >> going for a party that's expanding government, looks to

government for all the solutions or the party, liberty, continuing the american dream? that's what our party stands for. >> i'm surprised you used the word, socialism. >> they have to understand that's a total government takeover. >> we're going to see that battleground and a couple sparring points along the way. thank you for making the case. >> thank you for having me. >> appreciate it. all right. now, one of these e-mails i'm going to show to you, you have to filter this stuff for yourself. i bring on perspective on the show. right, left. you have to make your decisions. sleep well tonight. what did that mean in one of the new e-mails obtained by cnn? could mean something. could mean nothing. you got to look at cthe context. i'm kbing to give it to you. there's an issue about the e-mails and whether or not they were a window into dangling a pardon and if they were, is that wrong? the president can pardon anybody they want. you going to see them yourself and you can decide what's wrong and what isn't. also, is there a reason why the faa waited so long to finally ground the 737 max 8?

did it have skin in the game? why do i use that phrase? because the person who's coming up on the show who knows the faa uses it explain the delay. what's 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. (ba♪y crying) ♪hold on, i'm comin' ♪hold on, i'm comin' ♪hold on don't you worry,♪ ♪i'm comin' ♪here we come, hold on♪

♪we're about to save you i'm comin', yeah♪ ♪hold on don't you worry,♪ ♪i'm comin' whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental! read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor ron! soh really? going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them

highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms...again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines,

and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. the big story you saw first on cnn, evidence that suggests the president's team was dangling pardons. michael cohen clearly thought a pardon was in play in april of last year. why? because he got this e-mail. and it relayed that the president's then-newest lawyer named rudolph giuliani wanted cohen to sleep well tonight because he had friends in high places. and both sides can argue, and will, over who brought up pardons to whom. but the conversations happened. these e-mails proved that. there was talk of a, quote, back channel to the president. one the trump team hoped would continue. and we know the conversation went all the way to the white

house. so you can decide for yourself how this squares with cohen's testimony before congress, but as i've said, it's less about what he can say and more about what he can show. ergo the e-mails. now, this shows plenty. especially in context. the person sending the e-mails is somebody namedd robert costello. why is he interesting? because he was not cohen's attorney. that's key here. he was pushing his services claiming close ties to giuliani. the timing of costello showing up in all this also key. the feds had just searched cohen's homes and office. giuliani had only been on trump's legal team a few days at this point. cohen was trying to figure out if he should stick to a joint defense agreement with the president or if he should, as he eventually did, flip. at the same time, costello was e-mailing trump -- cohen.

same time costello was e-mailing cohen, trump was tweeting how he always liked and respected cohen and didn't see michael flipping. now, it's true, the word, "pardon," isn't in the e-mails. costello says it's utter nonsense to read that into his words and he says cohen asked him to go to the president about this. but wait, why would cohen not ask his own lawyer to do that, and why would michael cohen, the president's lawyer, not call the president directly? unclear. what is clear, people on the president's side were worried about what cohen was going to do. they wanted him to remember his close relationship, one that is now gone thanks to what cohen calls his decision to tell the truth. so, prosecutors made a big move today. they made paul manafort pardon-proof just minutes after today's sentencing. i'm talking about new york state prosecutors. state charges can't be pardoned.

is this legit? cuomo's court takes it up. i'm a dancer, i live in new york city. casting directors will send me a video of choreography and say, "if you can be here in a couple hours, the job is yours." and then i need my phone to work while i'm on the subway, or streaming the video they sent me while i learn the choreography as best i can. they key is to hold the bar up top and not the pole, so that you have full range of motion. it's a little kooky. (chuckles) (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. with advil liqui-gels, what stiff joints? what bad back? advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts.

you'll ask... what pain? with advil liqui-gels. all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge.

that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. these new cohen e-mails show concern. so does the idea of using matthew whitaker to mess with the sdny investigation. how much do they matter? let's take them up with cuomo's court. elliot williams, former federal prosecutor who we should point out consults for lawworks. an organization dedicated to protecting the special counsel. and john dean. unparalleled perspective as nixon's white house counsel during watergate. an honor to have you both. all right.

so, elliot, let's start with you. why do i care about the cohen e-mails?

the the chair of the rnc. they only talk about criminality. nothing is wrong. i call it the, if it isn't a felony, it's fine standard. this from the party of lincoln that used to be all about character when it was about praising bill clinton, wasn't just about his crimes. it was moral turpitude. now, elliot, if you can't prove it's a felony, everything was fine. sure, they may have lied about it but republicans don't care. and this is going to be a political trial and that's what gets them through. >> right. not all conduct that is suspect or questionable for a president of the united states or frankly a campaign for the presidency is, you know, is going to be chargeable in criminal court. now, is that conduct that you wish to have a president or a campaign engaging in? so, you know, some prosecutors call that awful but lawful conduct. and i guess, you know, we will find out over time what the nature of the conduct is. but you're absolutely right,

chris, the mere fact that there may not be -- not everything is criminally chargeable. the reasonable doubt standard that we follow in the law in criminal court is incredibly high, but the president of the united states is not to be held to a reasonable doubt standard. >> right. >> when it's a question of judgment. judgment on behalf of the american people. >> we do have to figure out what the standard is. i don't think we know that yet, either. john dean, whitaker not denying according to nadler the chair of the judiciary committee that he talked with the president about who controlled the cohen investigation. what is potential expowe susure that? >> well, he'd made a fairly flat statement he had really no such dealings with the president of conversations with the president. and this could conflict with that sworn statement. and i think that's what the committee's looking at. apparently, there are different interpretations of the conversations today. one of the ranking members, minority members, came out and said they heard it very differently than nadler did. and there's apparently no

transcript. so i'm not sure this is going to go anywhere other than continue things and they need to put this man under oath in another forum. >> so we're going to have to do it again. let me ask you this. something, elliot, that really kind of tweaked me today. minutes after manafort gets sentenced, new state charges from the manhattan d.a. office in new york, they say they've been looking at it since 2017. but, boy, does it stink of a political move. how do you see it? >> right. they need to insulate themselves from the politics, if they wish to have their prosecution taken seriously. now, look, very well might be, they are legitimate charges and -- >> minutes after he gets sentenced? >> but, again, look, the timing of it isn't great. manafort could potentially face state court charges in virginia, illinois, and california. so the idea that these aren't legitimate, you know, we should put that to rest. now the question is the timing

is they cannot make this look political because the president, look, a largely democratic city, it's a democratically elected district attorney. and so certainly, the allegations of partisanship are there. we've seen that the president can attack the credibility of an institution. as you saw with the special counsel. i think he can do that here if, you know, so as with all prosecutors, look, i face this, all prosecutors do. you need to be taken seriously and you're bringing charges without fear or favor, and if there's that implication, certainly it doesn't bode well for those charges, but they appear to be looking at the indictment. they're righteous charges based on unlawful conneduct. >> usually the state cedes to the fed when it's the same fact they're looking at. we need to learn more. they have wood to chop here to convince people it's all straight ahead prosecution. john, i have a question i want to ask you a dozen times over the next six or seven weeks. okay? as people start to process the

spin game that is going to fall on our heads when congress passes along whatever mueller gives to the a.g. and he lets flow through to them, what is your guidance for mr. and mrs. america in terms of what lens should they look through when they are hearing whether this was wrong or not, whether it's a crime, whether it is or isn't, whether it's impeachable or not. what's your guidance? >> i think common sense comes to play. they're going to know if these are offensive acts or not. if there was some sort of conspiracy that the president was part of, if his campaign was, indeed, helping the russians figure out how to target on social media, you know, who knows where this might go. but we do know that they have gotten to the bottom of it and at some point, that's going to be public. and i think people just, like the normal jury, will decide, you know, does this play or doesn't it play? is it defensive or not? i think common sense is always

the essential element. >> it's an interesting word, offensive. your perspective is, you know, so strong because you've lived this reality once before. so, john, honestly, i'm going to keep leaning on you about this because we're going to be desperate for williams, welcome show. well argued. john dean, thanks as always. why do we ask and refer to watergate? because this is going to be a next chapter of that kind of political trial, so brush up on what happened. you don't want to watch cnn's original series "tricky dick." it premieres this sunday night 9:00 eastern and pacific only on cnn. question, what took so long for our government to ground the same jets that went down overseas? was it money put ahead of safety? my next guest knows all about the inner workings of the faa. we got to dig for perspective. we did that. we have it. some light will be shed. next. we still need glasses

on table ten. ♪ he'd be proud of us.

a family business should stay in the family. see how lincoln's insurance solutions can help protect your family, your business and everyone who counts on you, at lincolnfinancial.com

. look, the timing matters in this plane story. a day after much of the world grounded boeing's 737 max 8 jets, now the united states is following. the president today announced the grounding of these models. max 8 and 9. and there's been mounting pressure, but he did it. over the faa did it. i still don't understand that.

i'm going to ask our guest. but why? is it this new satellite data suggesting similarities between the deadly crash in ethiopia and another accident of the same plane last october? seems the trump administration is doing the right thing in the interest of public safety, but did we get there the wrong way? let's ask aviation expert and former faa safety inspector, david soucie. also the author of "why planes crash." welcome to "primetime," brother. it's the first time i've had you on here, but you and i have spent a lot of time together. it's good to have you. so here's the suggestion -- >> yeah, we have, chris. >> -- do you think that this decision was all about waiting for critical mass of data and getting it right, and that the satellite images that they found up in canada or whatever was the tipping point? or do you think that's an excuse? >> oh, it's certainly an excuse. i had that data, everyone had that data. data is transmitted freely to

the open market. anyone can get it. i had it. some analysts that i work with had it. it showed clearly that the flight, this flight, was so parallel to the difficulties that lion air had, it was imminent to us now, lwel, the administrator, saying we didn't have that data before, but we do now. they didn't have to dig the black box out of the dirt to find the data. the data was transmitted via satellite to everyone on the planet. why does he say he has it now and decides i'm going to do the right thing for safety and ground the aircraft? >> so what's going on here? is this just about lying to us and why would you lie about something that's going to be so easily discovered? what are the pressure points? >> well, i think there's two things, chris. an overinvestment in your safety system. when you think things are safe, when you convince yourself that your safety system is fine, we're robust, we know what we're doing, we're going to find these risks and manage them the way that we're supposed to.

you get overconfident in that system and forget what you really have to do is check yourself to see if you've swayed your decisions or if there's something you're not looking at and i think that's what happened here. i think they became so strongly committed to the fact that we have safe aircraft that they weren't willing to take that step back and say, hold the bus, let's just park these airplanes for one minute, let's figure it out. let's see what we have going on here and see if the fixes we have in place that we put in place after lion air when those come out in april, will that fix the problem? it most likely will, but why take that risk? >> right. now, i heard it suggested that, you know, this isn't new, the faa always defers to boeing. defers to a lot of different makers. is that true? isn't that the opposite of the exigency of oversight? >> well, it kind of is, chris, but back in 2009, this whole idea of oversight at least in the aircraft manufacturing side changed a great deal. the faa kind of extracted itself as the safety process.

they said, we're now going to be the safety overseers as in we're going to draft up the regulations, here's how they're supposed to be done. you go do these. but as part of that regulation, you have to have a continuous improvement program, you have to continue yally self-evaluate an show us you have a system that fixes safety problems. so they did that and they have this. it's called the safety management system. i worked on it with dr. arnt at the faa early on. i was the national business process development lead for the world when it comes to the faa for almost four years. we worked on this. it came out great. it worked really well. i'm not sure we had the foresight to know what happens way down the road when the faa starts getting less involved and starts not having the critical oversight at the level it needs to have. >> less involved and, plus, a lot of human capital sharing and there's a lot of contact between boeing and the faa and boeing and washington. put up the graphic we have just

about the connective tissue here. just to kind of deal with this idea of was it just about data oar was this about something else? the tenth largest lobbying player. all right? 2018 lobbying topped $15 million. they give to everybody. in fact, in this last election, they give a lot of money to republicans and democrats. not just one party. trump oversaw the sale of the max planes in vietnam. they give him $1 million for the inauguration. all right? now you have a former boeing exec that now runs the pentagon. one of the divisions inside there. so is this a little too close for comfort? >> oh, it gets even closer. look at dan elwell, worked for the aerospace, what it is, is the aviation industrial association, i think it is, and for three or four years, basically lobbying to d.c. about this and now he's in charge of the faa. so that doesn't make any sense at all to me, but what does make

sense, chris, is that if i was in that, and i had those close ties with the industry, why in the world would i want to ground that industry? you know, that's where i think someone has skin in the game here. this is where someone had, was responsible for that industry and was too close to the industry and didn't want that industry to feel the impact that grounding those airplanes would have. >> and another weird part of this that happened. not just the timing but the tone. the president, the white house put out this statement today saying they ordered it. i'd never seen that before. you know, the white house doing it. the faa comes out and says, no, no, we're in charge. that's not true. they work for the executive. but the faa said, no, we did this and obviously we have the cabinet secretary on top of us as the transportation secretary. she was with us. and so was the president. but it seemed odd, like people wanted credit for this. >> yeah, and elaine chao is saying we were in on it, too. i've had conversations with a couple of gentlemen, i'm on the world aviation forum, so what we

talk about there is do we have enough oversight on a global level? we're just talking here about the united states. >> right. >> but this oversight goes to a much higher level than that. and that higher level doesn't exist. so the head of the iko, we had conversations with her about this. and where this is going next. she's actually meeting, or had planned, to meet with elaine chao next week in d.c. to discuss this very issue. i'm not sure if that's still going to happen or not now because elaine has made that decision to go ahead and ground these airplanes, but even if the international community after realizing that the whole world may have been wrong, but the faa was right, now we're back in track again, but i really think that there's different reasons for why we are at this point than what we might think. >> yeah, just, it doesn't feel right. so we got to stay on it. david soucie, you've been very helpful and i will call on you again. good to see you. >> thank you, chris. >> all right. you know where david is?

denver. dealing with all that weather. he's been in the bureau for six hours waiting to do this hit because he can't get home. that's something to connect with, what's going on in the middle of this country with weather is no joke. all right. so investigators are unraveling the largest college admissions scam in u.s. history. a lot of people are asking what should happen to the students who benefited from the crimes? what about their degrees? what about if they're in schools? should they get to stay? these are tough questions and worthy of a back and forth with d. lemon. ♪ 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. rewards me basically aeverywhere.om so why am i sliding into this ski lodge with my mini horse? because hotels.com lets me do me. sorry, the cold makes him a little horse. hotels.com. you do you and get rewarded. jay inslee -- a governor into a clean-energy leader with a bold vision for our future. we are the first generation to feel the sting of climate change, and we are the last generation that can do something about it. we need to break the stranglehold of the oil and gas industries and develop clean-energy jobs in this country. jay inslee for president. sign up at jayinslee.com.

act now on climate is responsible for the content of this advertising. l'oréal's new unlimited lash lift mascara. 1. stretch it. 2. tilt it. 3. lift it. reach even smaller lashes. unlimited length. unlimited lift. new unlimited mascara by l'oréal paris. my dream car. it turns out, they want me to start next month. she can stay with you to finish her senior year. things will be tight but, we can make this work. ♪ now... grandpa, what about your dream car? this is my dream now. principal we can help you plan for that . first of. first of all, we have not

heard the half about this type of cheating scandal going on in academics and how people access this type of privilege. we're going to learn more. this guy is not the only guy. we already know parents paid a fortune lying andi cheating to get their kids into prestigious colleges. the tax implications of the scam. you got to remember that. this isn't that policed, this world. they tripped a law that was about tax fraud with a bogus chari charity, not the system, itself. what happens to the kids? usc said it will deny admission to any student connected to the scam. okay. but a lot of these kids have already been admitted. some have graduated. now, there are a lot of questions that come up. i have them. i'm going to use them, though, in response to the one and only d. lemon. d. lemon -- >> yes, sir. >> -- what do you think should happen to the kids who are currently enrolled as an extension of the scam and to those who have graduated?

>> well, that's two different things. the ones who were enrolled, i think they should go. ones who have graduated, i don't know if there's anything you can really do about that because they've left that part of the system. >> you could decertify their degree. >> okay. well, that's a good call. i didn't even think about that. i think, yeah -- >> they would sue, though. >> huh? >> they would sue and say that even though the way they got in, you would argue, is illegitimate, they did the work and got the grades to earn the degree. >> okay. so let me say this. if you -- every single individual should be judged and reviewed on its own merit. okay? if you got into a school pretending to be an athlete and you're not, then i think what you say is fine. once you're out of the school.

if you got in the school pretending to be something that you're not and you're still there, i think you should go. but if you didn't say you're an athlete and your parents paid a lot of money and you didn't know, okay, fine, but i think every i don't know how the legal system is going to work this out because this is so new. i don't feel sorry for the kids. no. i feel sorry for the kids who didn't get into the school because these people gamed the system. so, you know, i think whatever -- i think the consequences should be harsh for them. >> even if the kids didn't know what their parents were doing? >> well, i think that, again -- >> case by case? >> individual merit, case by case. and even if they didn't know, i don't know. i mean the parents still did it. i don't know. >> this is a tough call. it's one of those things that seems pretty simple. well, ill gotten gains, you got to get out, you know? if you did anything else this way, if you stole a car, you got to give the car back when they

catch you. >> yeah. >> this is a tougher call than that. it will be interesting to see -- >> if you allow it to happen, you keep perpetuating this sort of bad behavior. so i'm going to talk to jemele hill, the great sports journalist for the atlantic. she's going to be on to talk about the rigged system. also we're going to talk to mr. michael isikoff on everything russia, including paul manafort today. >> strong. strong. see you in a second, handsome. >> no singing tonight, though. >> we couldn't do better than we did. the president's still crying no collusion today after the manafort sentencing, even though it had nothing to do with that subject. he keeps saying it because he wants you to believe it. you need to get ready for what is to come. this is no joke, and i have an argument for how we should examine it next. you still stressed about buying our first house, sweetie?

yeah, i thought doing some hibachi grilling would help take my mind off it all. maybe you could relieve some stress by calling geico

for help with our homeowners insurance. geico helps with homeowners insurance? they sure do. and they could save us a bundle of money too. i'm calling geico right now. cell phone? it's ringing. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and condo insurance. ♪ now i'm wondering if yourool i loves still strong. ♪tayed too long. ♪ get to know geico and see how much you could ♪ ooo baby, here i am, signed, sealed, delivered, i'm yours ♪ applebee's 3 course meal now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

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

simple. easy. awesome. mueller's report is coming. prepare yourself. this is going to be about interpretation. the left is going to point to more people pleading guilty, among them more close advisers to this president, hooked on more charges with more prison time than we have ever seen before. the president will be more out in front of his defense than you have seen before. this will likely be his obsession. his basic and flawed sales pitch to you will be what was parroted by the party head tonight. nothing matters. >> i can only tell you one thing. again, that was proven today. no collusion. there's no collusion. there's no collusion, and there hasn't been collusion, and it was all a big hoax.

and you know it. it was done and stated by the democrats because they lost an election that they should have won. >> facts first. hoax. by any analysis, russian interference is all too real. this president knows this better than any of us as his intel people, all picked by him, have told him as much. and during the campaign, he was obviously aware as he cheered on russia's efforts. >> the hillary clinton documents released today by wikileaks make more clear than ever just how much is at stake in this election. so much corruption. >> his problem is there was corruption in his ranks. people close to this president lied about contacts with people reasonably suspected to be connected to those interference efforts. intel confirms the same reality. no hoax. then there is the spine of what

you will be told by this president and all his pals. no collusion. they are factually incorrect, but this one is going to cut two ways, and it's going to be a point of division in this country, division that i see a remedy for. i'll finish with that. right now let me tell you there was collusion. in a legal context, this behavior of secretly cooperating for deceptive purposes, taken by itself is not a crime. so giving polling that may have helped shape trolling and reaching out to get hacked e-mails and meeting with russians with dirt about clinton all qualify as collusion. they are all wrong things to do, especially when you've been told not to do it. proof of performance on this is the fact that these people around the president lied in every instance to conceal what they did because they knew it was wrong. so the first weakness is that

not saying collusion is not recognizing the facts. not a hoax. they did wrong things, and they knew it. but not a crime. not charged as far as we know, but still wrong. the president and company will argue if it's not a felony, it is fine. is that the standard that you want for acceptable behavior in a presidency? that's your question. second weakness, the president has let this get personal. he conflates and confuses the relevance of understanding how russia messed with the election with the idea that their efforts diminish his legitimacy. the proof of this is in what he says all the time. >> and they said, how do we solve this horrible problem? we lost an election that in theory, some people -- i didn't, but some people thought they were going to win, right? and they said, i have an idea. let's blame russia. >> he didn't think he was going to win. and the problem is no one

created the russia problem except this president by denying it. no one created the suspicion about the involvement of his campaign in russian efforts except his people and him by lying about so many contacts and deals and meetings with the wrong people, bad people. so gird the loins and get ready to rumble. but know going into it, there is a chance for consensus. here's the remedy. if we can all agree that things can be wrong even if they are not crimes, there's a good chance that the majority of this country will see what comes out of congress as the fruit of mueller's probe and that it is worthy of scrutiny, and it is or is not offensive enough for you to require action. if you can't agree on that, that things can be wrong even if they're not a crime, this is all

going to be a rorschach test. it's going to look like whatever you want it to be, and that will be a great disservice to the truth and to our democracy. and it will make it that much more likely that the russians will do this again because the resulting division will be proof that their efforts to confuse what is real and factual, to blur what matters, to play out our differences -- this will be the best proof yet that their efforts worked. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon right now. >> rorschach test. reality is not a rorschach test. truth is not a rorschach test. you know, and the russians win if that is, indeed, how people feel. >> yes. >> they win. >> yes. >> i really don't get it. i don't get how so many people are hoodwinked, how so many people don't believe what they see and what they hear, how people -- and you're probably