good evening, there's breaking news tonight. hillary clinton has just weighed in on how congress should respond to the mueller report and whether house democrats should move quickly to impeachment proceedings. her comments relate to new reporting about the president today and the question is raises. something that no one has ever had to ask before because up until now it's simply been unthinkable. would the president of the united states leave this country vulnerable to attack by a foreign adversary to protect his own ego?

would he push the country into a constitutional crisis over the investigation of those attacks just to bolster his self-esteem? i know it sounds absurd or at the very least outlandish that a person so powerful might be doing that, but there's new cnn reporting on how president trump's insecurity over his election victory has made any cabinet level discussion or oval office discussion of ongoing russian interference difficult, if not impossible. a government official telling the lead's jake tapper that it is, quote, like pulling teeth to get the white house to focus on, quote, on the ongoing threat of russian election interference. not what happened in 2016, which the president has still not convincingly accepted, but what could happen in 2020 in terms of foreign interference in the next election. this same official saying to jake tapper, in general, senior white house staff felt it wasn't a good idea to bring up issues related to russia in front of the president. now, what makes this so startling is that top officials in this administration are well aware of the threat.

>> the warning signs are there. the system is blinking, and it is why i believe we are at a critical point. it was in the months prior to september, 2001, when according to then-cia director george tenet, the system was blinking red. and here we are two decade -- nearly two decades later, and i'm here to say the warning lights are blinking red again. today the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack. >> so of that the director of national intelligence, dan coats, whose department handles threat assessment. the department of homeland security has a responsibility of civilian cyber defense. and this government official, who spoke to jake tapper, says that the dhs tried repeatedly over the last year or so to set up more cabinet-level meetings on the subject of preventing interference again but, quote, kept getting the heisman,

meaning the stiff-arm from national security advisor john bolton and others in the white house. separately, "the new york times" is reporting that acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney told the department of homeland security second kirstjen nielsen not to bring up the subject in front of president trump. i'm quoting from "the times" account of a meeting mulvaney made it clear that mr. trump still equated any public discussion of malign russian activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory. now, mr. mulvaney disputes that, telling "the times," quote, i don't recall anything along those lines happening in any meeting. which is not quite the same as saying it didn't happen, it's just saying i didn't recall. the mueller report also speaks to that same notion. volume 2, page 23. several advisers recall that the president-elect recalled stories about his russian connections, the russia investigation and the intelligence community's assessment of russian interference as a threat to the legitimacy of his electoral

victory, not to the united states. hope hicks said that the president-elect viewed the intelligence community's assessment as his, quote, achilles heel, unquote, because even if russia had no impact on the election, people would think russia helped him win, taking away from what he had accomplished. that was when he was president-elect. according to this new reporting, it still seems to be his achilles heel. it's as if embarrassment over the attack on pearl harbor made it impossible for president roosevelt to fight the second world war or talk about it realistically or even hear about it from others. that's where we are tonight. in fact it's probably where we've been since before the election. >> i don't think anybody knows it was russia that broke into the dnc. she's saying russia, russia, russia. maybe it was. i mean it could be russia. but it could also be china and lots of other people. it could also be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay. you don't know who broke into dnc. >> so that was in september of 2016. we now know one month before that he was reportedly briefed

by members of the intelligence community that, yes, it was the russians. and here he is nearly two years and several more briefings later from his own intelligence officials saying this in front of vladimir putin. >> my people came to me, dan coats came to me and some others. they said they think it's russia. i have president putin. he just said it's not russia. i will say this. i don't see any reason why it would be, but i really do want to see the server. i think it's a disgrace that we can't get hillary clinton's 33,000 emails. so i have great confidence in my intelligence people, but i will tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. >> he later claimed he had messed up a word and didn't really mean that he didn't know why it would be russia. he said that in front of vladimir putin right there as you saw after meeting privately with him. we still have no idea what he discussed privately.

it's not even clear many of his top officials know for sure either. the president referred to dni dan coats who just issued the warning we played at the top less than a week before that the system was blinking red. the president said what you just heard in response. and even that couldn't stop him from casting doubt on something that every top intelligence official in his own administration considered beyond any doubt. yet according to all we know from the mueller report, "the times" and our own reporting, they could not mention the subject to him even though they knew the country was under attack. let that sink in. the commander in chief couldn't be told that the country was susceptible to further attack because not hearing apparently helps the president sleep better at night. feels better about himself. as for the country, perhaps not so much. more perspective now from colonel ralph peters. colonel peters, if this reporting is correct that the secretary of homeland security

was told not to bring up preventing further attacks on the united states to the president of the united states essentially because his ego couldn't handle it, didn't want to hear about russian interference. >> well, i think that's the standard line, that this is about 2016, about the legitimacy of his election. we're looking backward, but i believe that donald trump is looking forward to 2020. i mean he can read the poll numbers. he's not doing well. his negatives are very, very powerful. and if the democrats don't self-destruct, which they are perfectly capable of doing, he's going to be out of office in early 2021. and think what that means. if he doesn't win re-election, there's not just a new president, anderson, there's a new attorney general, there's a new secretary of the treasury, a new director of the irs, perhaps a new director of the fbi. and once he is out of office, the senators can't help him, even if the republicans maintain the majority in the senate.

he's going to be in the hands of the courts. and it does appear that there's going to be plenty to follow up. if he's not in prison, he'll be in the courts for years. so i really believe that donald trump is stonewalling on taking effective measures to prevent our electoral system because he wants russian help. he'd take chinese help. he'd take help from albanian folk singers. he is desperate to win. by the way, if he doesn't win in 2020, you're going to see the ugliest departure from the white house in american history. >> so what you're saying is, is that it's not just about ego, it's not just any talk of russian interference he hates because in his opinion it questions the legitimacy of his victory, but you're saying he needs it or wants it to happen again to win? >> absolutely. i mean certainly his ego is always involved and he wants 2016 to be seen as legitimate. but what matters to him is re-election. it's becoming desperate.

i believe he is afraid for all his bluster and bravado, he's a terrified man. he knows the consequences if he loses in 2020. he knows, because he knows far better than you and i know, far better than robert mueller knew, what his exposure is, what his criminal exposure is. just today documents are transferred from deutsche bank. this is going to go on for some time. and i genuinely believe that this is a president who does not care about this country. it's trump first. it's not america first. it's make trump greater, not make america great again. and i do believe he will do everything he can to prevent our government from stepping in and blocking russian attempts to disrupt and influence the election. >> i've talked to trump surrogates about this or people that support the president on this issue and say he's tougher on russia than anybody else. >> yes. >> they always point to, well,

look, the fbi is working on stopping russian interference. homeland security is as well. the secretary of state is as well. does it matter if the president isn't holding cabinet-level meetings about this? does it matter if the president doesn't want to hear about -- i mean is it ongoing -- does it make a difference if there was buy-in from the president on preventing this, full stop? >> it makes a profound difference. if the president is excited about something, everybody gets excited about it. you need presidential leadership. you need the president to empower everyone from the -- from the department of homeland security to the intelligence agencies to work together to do all they legally can to prevent and interfere with russian attempts to disrupt the election. and to me, it is as clear as can be that trump is sending the signal he doesn't want it to happen. he continues to slow roll sanctions on russia.

still will not criticize vladimir putin. i believe, i believe with the firmest conviction i can possibly communicate, that trump will welcome russian help and any other help, but especially russian help in 2020. he is counting on them, because he wants to win this election at any cost, at any cost to our country. >> lastly, a few hours ago kim jong-un arrived in russia for his first one-on-one meeting with putin. i wonder if they have a conversation about president trump, and i can only imagine what that conversation would be like. >> well, i think there would be some laughter. kim is clearly dating around. but putin has manipulated trump brilliantly. kim jong-un got much of what he wanted and trump got nothing in return. trump's flabbergasting incompetence is yet another issue. i always come back to the russia

issue. you know, if you think back, if you want to look back at 2016 and that statement, when he stood up and said, russia, if you're listening, it's as if in 1940 fdr had said, berlin, if you're listening, we need help. putin is our enemy because he has chosen to be our enemy. he is an inveterate enemy. he wants the united states damaged badly, if not destroyed. he is gleefully disrupting everything he can. and our president is his accessory and assistant. >> i do want to ask you one last question. yesterday i talked to paul krugman on the program and one of the things he had written and he talked about it last night on the program was saying that he believes we may not have a functioning democracy in 2020 if the president wins again. essentially america, as we know it, is under threat. and one of the things i asked him -- he said if you're not scared, you're not paying attention.

>> well, i don't think you're going to have to wait to see some of trump's maliciousness. he's already doing tremendous damage, abetted, by the way, by the senate republicans who are amazingly undercutting their own institution and its powers for very short-term gain. but trump, yes. if trump wins, he'll do great damage. but if he loses the election, he is going to call upon his supporters for violence. there's not going to be a civil war, that's idiocy. but you will see isolated violence on the part of crackpot supporters. he will be clinging to the doors of the white house giving orders to everybody on all sides that the honest people will not obey, career employees will not obey and military will not obey. anderson, let's check back in in a couple years. and i'm telling you, it's not funny. it's going to be very, very ugly whatever happens. but trump needs to go for the good of this country. >> and the silence of

republicans on capitol hill is extraordinary. the republican party that i knew growing up, you know, the party of reagan, i mean that's just -- it's just a dim memory. >> yeah. in national level elections as an adult, i've voted for republicans probably two times out of three. they don't exist anymore. that party is gone. these people are so incredibly craven. and this was the party of patriots. they were going to defend the american alamo to the last round. >> and the constitution. that was everything. >> oh, forget the constitution. they don't -- i mean they're shredding it. the constitutional crisis is right now with the republicans in congress preventing congress, doing their best to prevent congress from fulfilling its duty of being a check and balance on the president. and they also allow this president, who has already gone rogue. it's not a question of will he go rogue. he is daily damaging our country

at home and abroad. anderson, i don't get a buzz-off being on tv. the reason i'm here is i believe deeply we have to speak out. when trump is gone, i'm gone. sooner is better than later. >> colonel peters, appreciate you being here with us tonight. thank you. >> thank you. next, colonel peters' point on congress' confrontation with the president or at least the democrats. we'll talk with the democratic member from the oversight committee. next, hillary clinton offering her advice to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. is anybody listening? we'll take a look at that just ahead. also more breaking news. cnn has learned what the president's bankers are sharing with the authorities. creep

breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh! i can breathe again! ughh! vicks sinex. breathe on. they're america's bpursuing life-changing cures. in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells...

because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

woman: this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. vo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections,

or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman: help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. into your own little world.k especially these days. (dad) i think it's here. (mom vo) especially at this age. (big sister) where are we going? (mom vo) it's a big, beautiful world out there. (little sister) woah... (big sister) wow. see that? (mom vo) sometimes you just need a little help seeing it. (vo) presenting the all-new three-row subaru ascent. love is now bigger than ever. tonight's breaking news, our first take on the mueller report from hillary clinton. in a piece for "the washington post" opinion pages, she has the following advice for congress. i'm quoting now. what our country needs now is clear-eyed patriotism, not

reflexive partisanship. republicans share the constitutional responsibility to protect the country. she goes on writing congress should hold substantive hearings that build on the mueller report and fill in its gaps and not jump straight to an up or down vote on impeachment. in 1998 the republican house rushed to judgment. that was a mistake then and would be a mistake now. she also mentioned her experience on the watergate impeachment hearings. joining us is john dean, who was former nixon white house counsel and also max boot, author of "the road not taken, edward landsdale and the american tragedy in vietnam." also steve cortez, a cnn political commentator. max, just in terms of substance of what secretary clinton is saying, whether or not she's the right voice for it as she herself raises in the piece, the idea that it's not a binary choice, either go for

impeachment hearings or go to impeachment or do nothing, she's saying there's essentially this middle way. >> yeah, i think it's basically called kicking the can down the road, anderson. i'm not disagreeing with her advice. this is in fact what speaker pelosi is choosing to do, to hold these hearings and build up an evidentiary base and create popular revulsion against donald trump. they're dreaming if they think there's any set of facts that they can possibly come out with that will cause a single republican to ever vote for impeachment of donald trump. so at the end of the day they're still going to face that difficult choice. are they going to push a motion of impeachment through the house without any republican votes, with no hope the senate will remove trump from office, but is it worth doing to lay down that marker to say what trump has done is so abhorrent and such an affront to the rule of law, and even if he's going to beat the charges in the senate. essentially they're recognizing

that this is not a position that they want to go to and basically de facto what speaker pelosi is saying and secretary clinton is saying let's just focus on exposing trump's wrongdoing and not go to impeachment because the chances it will back fire and blow up in our faces are too great. >> she said watergate offers a better precedent of what to do. as someone who lived that precedent do you agree? she's saying the televised hearings in watergate were crucial to essentially involving the public, changing people's minds. >> i do agree with her. you have to educate the public. that's what happened during watergate. that's what she's suggesting should happen again. that's the only way you can really politically move forward is to have an informed electorate. they are not today. a grand jury doesn't inform anybody other than prosecutors and maybe the jury later. but we do need to have those kind of proceedings. and i think that's what the house judiciary committee and

the oversight committee are going to do. they're fighting, though, with getting their subpoenas turned down and that's going to be their problem. >> and, steve, obviously the clock -- the idea for the administration is just, you know, do not cooperate, maybe run out the clock or just see what happens in the courts. i'm wondering, as a supporter of president trump and his agenda, do you think democrats moving for impeachment now would be essentially a gift, that it would mobilize trump supporters even more than they may already be? >> oh, i think it would absolutely be a gift, anderson, because the facts of the case as laid out in the mueller report don't justify it at all. it is important by the way. we can't bypass the deliverer of this sermon on obstruction of justice from of all people hillary clinton. i mean that is really the height of hypocrisy and shows once again that she is really the paragon of arrogance, that she

would dare to lecture us about tampering with an investigation. you know, when her staff was taking hammers to their personal devices, to their blackberries, i'm afraid one of them when swinging for their devices hit her in the head. that's the only way you could possibly explain that she could think we are willing to accept this kind of a lecture from her when she should in fact be writing this op-ed from prison. the only reason she's not is because the fbi leadership under obama gave her a gift that no other american would ever get -- >> just in terms of what she's actually saying. we don't need to go down the road of -- trump won, she lost, she's out of it. just in terms of what she's saying, you agreed essentially that democrats moving for impeachment, you're agreeing essentially with pelosi, that democrats moving for impeachment would actually be a gift for trump? >> i think it would be and for republicans in general. i think the president is easily going to win reelection, regardless. if they move toward impeachment,

i think then the house control very much shifts in favor of the republicans taking back the house of representatives. the people don't want this to be the issue of 2020. cnn's own polling taken just a few weeks ago, cnn asked what are the important issues for the 2020 election. a total of 0.0% said mueller or russia. this is not resonating with regular americans out of the beltway. number one is immigration, number two is health care. those are the issues that matter. if the democrats decide they're going tilt at windmills and go after impeachment when there is no case to be made, they're going to pay a political price. >> the president's approval rating, though, is at 39% so just in terms of -- it's not as if people are not -- there's certainly people who are interested in the mueller report, but obviously there are a lot of democrats, max, who are concerned that focusing on impeachment, talking about it on the stump for these 2020 candidates, that it takes away from talking about tabletop issues. >> of course. there's a part of me that almost

wonders if donald trump wants to be impeached, if he's trying to goad the democrats into impeaching him because he is so flagrantly attacking the rule of law. not just what was shown in the mueller report and documented obstruction of justice but now he is ignoring the subpoenas of the house. he is daring them to sue him and hold his appointees in contempt. >> it would go nowhere. the house -- democrats control it. they would go for it. >> ultimately the only recourse the democrats have is a topass motion of impeachment in the house. the senate will not approve. it seems like trump is trying to bait them into doing that because it would mobilize his supporters. let me just put on the table here that there is a need for justice. there is a need to uphold the constitution, anderson. there is a need to punish law breakers. that is very fundamental to our system of justice. and there is no question in my mind that donald trump has broken the law. he needs to be held accountable. it's just a question of how.

>> john, i want to ask you something. the president wrote on twitter if the partisan dems tried to impeach, i would first head to the u.s. supreme court. that's not how it works. you don't first head to the supreme court. >> no, it doesn't. it's surprising at this stage of his presidency he has no idea how the impeachment process actually functions. you can't take it to the supreme court. it's strictly a congressional, constitutional process. the only involvement of the court is the chief justice, when the president is the subject of the impeachment, sits as the judge in the senate and chairs the senate trial. that's it. there's no appeal to a higher court. once that judgment is made by the senate, either up or down, both on guilty and on removal, two separate votes. >> john dean, max boot, steve cortez, thank you. running short of time. appreciate it. coming up next, what a house democrat thinks about the president's resistance to house democrats and their investigations.

pardon the interruption but this is big! now at t-mobile buy any samsung galaxy s10 and get a galaxy s10e free! pleasson. your heart's notthing strong enough. my heart is as strong as any. uncover your family history, from over 10 billion historical records. get started for free at ancestry.com and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear.

leave no man behind. or child. or other child. or their new friend. or your giant nephews and their giant dad. or a horse. or a horse's brother, for that matter. the room for eight, 9,000 lb towing ford expedition.

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.

we've been reporting tonight hillary clinton weighed in today in "the washington post" with advice on how congress should follow up on the mueller report. she's calling for hearings but not a rush to impeachment. meantime the president today signalled his resistance to congressional demands for witnesses saying we're fighting all subpoenas. i spoke about it earlier with a democratic member of the house oversight committee, congresswoman katie hill of

california. congresswoman hill, first off i want to ask you about the op-ed from hillary clinton on how to respond to mueller's findings. she's saying it shouldn't be a binary choice of democrats, either move to impeachment now or do nothing, she's for televised hearings, further investigation. do you agree with the path forward that she's laying out? and is it helpful for her to be weighing in on this right now? >> i actually could not agree more. i think that this is the only path forward, where we have to make sure that people really understand what's going on and a dense legal document that's almost 400 pages long and that, frankly, a very, very small portion of the population is going to read is -- i think right now people are taking away the wrong thing. we did a video that was trying to explain it a little bit better, but people need to have these hearings. they need to have the opportunity to hear directly from mueller and from other key witnesses in a televised way that we're able to provide the

sound bites and the analysis from. i think that's what's going to ultimately lead us to a place where we can decide whether or not impeachment is the right course of action. >> i think some republicans hearing that, or maybe even some democrats, might say, well, if the only reason to have hearings is to try to help convince the public of what democrats believe and what you certainly believe, isn't that political? if it's not actually finding out new information but just framing it in a way that people are going watch tv as opposed to reading a report? >> i don't think that's true. i think that it is finding out new information. it's filling in the gaps of what we didn't get from the mueller report or what was redacted and obfuscated. i think those are exactly hillary clinton's words. but i think that we also have to -- this isn't about -- this isn't about making decisions for people, this is about providing the opportunity for them to hear directly and decide for themselves. we're not going to be framing anything.

this is direct access to hear from the witnesses and to hear the facts in a firsthand way that you can only get from -- you know, from opportunities like this. and then ultimately people will be able to decide for themselves what they believe and whether they think that this kind of behavior is right or wrong and how we need to move forward as a country. >> just in terms of the subpoenas from your committee and the house, the president weighed in on those today from the south lawn. i just want to play that for our viewers. let's listen. >> we're fighting all the subpoenas. look, these aren't like impartial people. the democrats are trying to win 2020. they're not going to win with the people that i see. and they're not going to win against me. the only way they can maybe luck out, and i don't think that's going to happen, it might make it even the opposite, that's what a lot of people are saying. the only way they can luck out is by constantly going after me on nonsense. but they should be really focused on legislation.

>> he did use his favorite, a lot of people are saying this. but if the white house does fight all the subpoenas, couldn't they just run out the clock on them? the reality is those subpoenas are only valid until 2021 when a new congress is seated, right? >> i mean this is clearly their strategy is to run out the clock. we have to use every tool in our toolbox to make sure that that's not the feasible option. this is a real challenge for us. we haven't seen an attempt by any administration to defy congress in this way and to defy subpoenas. frankly, i think that this is some of the most alarming behavior that we're seeing is what's happening right now with the refusal to cooperate in any way. really i think that the more that we see of this, the more concrete it is and the more clear it is that this is obstruction. this is active obstruction. whether you want to call it criminal obstruction, it doesn't matter to me. you are clearly trying to obstruct the american people knowing what's going on and what

you've been trying to do. i think that that's absolutely horrifying. >> so the bottom line on your position is, senator elizabeth warren is calling for moving toward impeachment now. is the bottom line that the public isn't fully on board at this point with that or not enough of the public and that impeachment -- moving toward impeachment now without overwhelming public support and then you have a senate that's not likely -- there's no sign any republicans are going to vote for impeachment in the senate. it's just essentially going to hurt the democrats? >> i don't actually think we need to be looking at it from what's going to hurt the democrats or not. i think that's a very dangerous message for us to be sending. what i think is more important is for us to say we have to lay out the argument through hearings and through every possible means before we move forward with something as serious as articles of impeachment. i don't think that we can live with ourselves to not have exhausted every possible

opportunity to do this in the light and in a way that the american people can really understand and have an opportunity to really internalize what's happening. i just don't think that that's -- it cannot be a political decision. it's something that is so much more fundamental than that. and i'm somebody who believes that when the time comes, even if it's months before the election, if we have to decide to impeach, even if that's a political danger, even if it means that i'm going to be ousted from my seat that i just took, then if it's the right thing to do, we have to do it. >> representative katie hill, thank you very much, appreciate it. >> thank you. coming up after a short break, more breaking news. cnn reporting on the bank that lent donald trump hundreds of millions of dollars over the years and what it's now sharing with investigators. drivers just wont put their phones down. we need a solution. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking.

selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never. smartdogs are not the answer. but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico. [laughter] ♪ ♪ "i'm okay." ♪ ♪ it's not small. but it's not just big either. it's the kind of big where you'll never have to ask, "should i scooch up?" it's big that looks at a sunroof

and wonders why it can't just be most of the roof. it's big that's better because we built it that way. the spacious, 121 cubic feet of cargo space ford expedition. the spacious, 121 cubic feet of cargo space your digestive system has billions of bacteria, but life can throw them off balance. re-align yourself, with align probiotic. and try align gummies, with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar.

balanceus.org the united explorer card makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com.

there's more breaking news tonight. cnn learned that deutsche bank, a bank that did millions of dollars of business with donald trump over the years has begun providing financial records to the new york state attorney general's office. the bank's cooperation is in response to subpoenas issued for the documents, and those records are part of what president trump has said he considers his red line. joining me now is danielle enrich, finance editor of "the new york times." david, how significant is that deutsche bank is handing over these documents? and also do we know -- is this

the full -- i mean, is this all the documents they have or just some documents? >> first of all, it is significant. this is the first step in what's going to be a long process, not just with the new york attorney general but also with congressional investigators, who are really prying into everything they can about deutsche bank and its relationship with donald trump. the bottom line is we do not know exactly what they are handing over. the new york attorney general and the new york investigators have subpoenaed different things. so what is being handed over to new york is stuff related to a handful of loans or loan requests that the bank did with trump over the past six or seven years before he got elected. that's a fairly narrow request relative to what congress is looking for. what's key here is that deutsche bank is starting to cooperate and actually fork over these documents to prosecutors and other authorities. that means there's about to be a lot more scrutiny on trump and his financial position than there ever has been in the past.

>> what's fascinating and you've been reporting this more than anybody, and you and i talked about this before, you reported about how deutsche bank ended up doing business with then citizen donald trump in the first place, even though he had defaulted on loans, and correct me if i'm wrong, on deutsche bank loans, he would just go to another part of deutsche bank and get loans from them. even people in deutsche bank who had done business with him and had their loans defaulted on would tell other people in deutsche bank don't give him loans, they still gave him loans. >> yeah, they did it anyway. trump really played the bank like a fiddle. and it worked very well for donald trump, who extracted hundreds of millions of dollars out of deutsche bank at a time when no other main stream financial institution would lend him money. it did not work so well on deutsche bank. while trump did not default on any of the most recent loans,

the bank made him deutsche bank finds itself in this white-hot international spotlight where investigators all over the world, but especially in the u.s., view the bank as kind of the holy grail for untangling the secrets of donald trump's finances. that is not a fun place to the bank to be right now. >> you've actually said that were it not for deutsche bank, there might not be a president trump, because he may have gone bankrupt. >> yeah. on one occasion after another over the past 20 years, deutsche bank lent to donald trump when no other bank would touch him. that enabled him to bounce back repeatedly from defaults and bankruptcies that for normal human beings, like you or me, would be the end of our relationship with the financial system. you can't just default and rip off your lenders and then expect to get more loans. except that's exactly what happened with deutsche bank and donald trump. it enabled trump to keep building more and more properties and keep plastering his name on things all over the world which gave him a lot of credibility as he campaigned in

2016 as a businessman running for president. >> can you just explain again, i think people will say, wait a minute, why would a bank, you would think there are smart people in deutsche bank, why would he default on loans with one part of deutsche bank and those people say never do business with him again. why was deutsche bank so desperate? >> they were really eager to make a name for themselves in the united states. trump even at the time before he was running for president was -- he was very well known. he was a splashy name, a big reality tv star. he had a knack for getting publicity and for attracting crowds. and that was exactly what the bank needed at the time as it tried to make itself not just a random german bank but a household name in the united states. david, fascinating reporting as always, thank you so much. >> my pleasure. >> let's check in with chris. >> another fan, another fan with me tonight, coop. this is carlina regina cha

cuomo. what do you want to say to anderson? >> you're my second favorite store. >> thank you very much. is don your first? >> he says don lemon so your favorite? >> cuomo, of course, he's my third. i've never watched you guys, i bet you're amazing. >> you've said enough. >> she's with us tonight. >> i love your show, never seen it, but i love it. >> the best kind of fan i can have. what we're doing tonight is we're taking a look at you covering the deutsche bank documents going to new york, fitting that in with the president's -- dove tailed with what we saw in the "new york times" about the homeland security secretary being dissuaded from bringing up interference. does this become abuse of power? we have gym clapper, mike rogers, they know the intelligence side and the political side.

we're going to go through it with them and then we'll talk about biden with ax and -- and mr. carney, who worked with biden and obama. >> all right, good show, we'll see you in 14 minutes from now, chris, see you this. >> tomorrow's the day vice president biden will declare if he's running for president. where he fits in the crowded field, we'll hear ahead. -keep it down there. i have a system. -keith used to be great to road-trip with. but since he bought his house... are you going 45? -uh, yes. 55 is a suggestion. -...it's kind of like driving with his dad. -what a sign, huh? terry, can you take a selfie of me? -take a selfie of you? -yeah. can you make it look like i'm holding it? -he did show us how to bundle home and auto at progressive.com

and save a bunch of money. -oh, a plaque. "he later navigated northward, leaving... progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. but we can protect your home and auto [music playing] jerry has a membership to this gym, but he's not using it. and he has subscriptions to a music service he doesn't listen to and five streaming video services he doesn't watch. this is jerry learning that he's still paying for this stuff he's not using. he's seeing his recurring payments in control tower in the wells fargo mobile app. this is jerry canceling a few things. booyah. this is jerry appreciating the people who made this possible. oh look, there they are. (team member) this is wells fargo. so chantix can help you quit "slow turkey." along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix.

former vice president joe biden is making it official tomorrow. after a long period of formal indecision, he's going to join a very crowded race for the democratic presidential nomination. of course he's been a prominent political player for decades, but the question is where does he fit in among opponents who are mostly younger and more diverse? will that matter? our randi kay spent time with a group of florida democratic voters, getting their reactions. >> who is ready to vote for joe biden? raise your hand. one, two, three out of eight. >> reporter: eight florida democrats, most of them still undecided. >> why are you already committed to joe biden? >> first and foremost, i think he can beat donald trump. >> i would like to see a unifying experienced candidate representing the party going into, you know, a general against president trump and i think that he reflects the values of democrats enough to get support from all wings of the party. >> i think joe biden is the only

candidate who could really pick up the moderate votes, the votes in the middle. he is probably the only one that's going to pick up those votes in blue collar america. >> reporter: everyone in the group likes biden but some are intrigued by new faces in the field like mayor pete buttigieg. >> i really like joe biden. i do like him, but this fellow from indiana, i think he's great. i like him. can he win? >> if you thought he could win, would you vote for him? >> yep. i would. i would. >> if not joe biden then who is it for you? >> i have been watching andrew yang, and i think some of the things that he says is unifying. i do think it's interesting with his universal basic income and trying to supplement $1,000 a month. >> i liked andrew yang, the minute i heard him talk. he's a bright guy. he expresses himself well. >> i definitely want to see joe biden in the mix. let's say it's today joe

biden/elizabeth, i'm in 100%. it depends on who is next to him. >> are you more motivated by a candidate's positions or are you more motivated by a candidate that can beat donald trump? >> i think we have to vote for the one that can win by the numbers. i think joe's a great candidate. >> even if you didn't agree with all of his platforms. >> exactly. >> it doesn't matter who is right, it matters who is going to win because i think that trump is an obstructionist and an embarrassment and he's destroying what this country's about. >> how many of you believe that joe biden can beat donald trump? all of you. but yet you're not ready to vote for him. >> i have a lot of respect for joe biden, but in a lot of ways he really represents politics of the -- of the 20th century. >> joe biden is part of a diminishing component of the electorate. those young people i think are looking for new ideas. may just be looking for younger blood.

>> how do you think joe biden would do taking on donald trump if he is indeed the nominee? >> i don't know a single other candidate who could go toe-to-toe with donald trump in a debate, in a casual and i think confrontational way. >> do you think he would let trump bully him? >> to me, he'd, like, eat him for lunch. that's what i feel that debate would be like. >> reporter: randi kaye, cnn, delray beach, florida. >> a big day tomorrow for the democratic field. you can, of course, see it unfold here on cnn. coming up tonight, a lighter end to the broadcast. what do president trump and elmo from "sesame street" have in common? you may be surprised. not just the love for television cameras. stick around for the ridiculist. allergies with sinus congestion and pressure? you won't find relief here. go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more. with peak season berries, uniqcreamy avocado. and a dressing fit for a goddess. come taste what a salad should be.

and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be. ♪ ♪ book now and enjoy free unlimited open bar and more. norwegian cruise line. feel free. 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

time now for anderson cooper's ridiculist. tonight it involves two cooper classics, bizarre vernacular and egos run amok. you may notice that president trump has an unusual tick in his communication style. we saw it again today. i'm not talking about the screaming or the cursing or mimicking a dog choking to death. what anderson cooper is

referring to is the president's habit of referring to himself in the third person. >> we just went through the mueller witch hunt where you had really 18 angry democrats that hate president trump. they hate him with a passion. >> him. he is him. why is he doing this? also, grammar aside for a moment, if he says witch hunt one more fricking time, glinda is going to float down from oz. the scarecrow doesn't have a brain, but even if he did, the third person in chief wouldn't be worried. i kid you not. >> china has total respect for donald trump and for donald trump's very, very large brain. >> let's just be happy he landed on brain because that sentence really could have taken a turn for the worse. now, you may be thinking, believe me, could have taken a turn for the worse. sorry.

i just decided to add that in. believe me. i did. now, you may be thinking, hey, speaking in the third person, that's just part of the job, accompanies the trappings of power. no, it does not. anderson cooper knows a thing or two about a thing or two and the president of the united states is not supposed to talk like elmo. >> it's such a beautiful day. elmo just wishes there was someone elmo could play with. >> you know elmo once tried to choke anderson cooper out in a green room at letterman. anderson cooper forgave him. that's the kind of guy anderson is. it was a habit long before he moved to 1600 sesame street back in 2012, citizen trump tweeted "the apprentice" was the number one show on television on sunday from 10:00 to 11:00. congratulations, donald. hey, it's a good life. a good life lesson. if no one else is tweeting compliments about you, tweet your own, you deserve it. now, obviously i've been joking

about this the whole time. i don't talk about myself in the third person, nor does anyone at cnn. >> that wolf blitzer, the best beard in the business. he's wolf blitzer and he's in "the situation room." >> okay. wolf is allowed to talk however he wants. he's the hardest working guy in television. you should hear his beard talk in the second person. it's weird. as for president trump, anderson cooper will be looking for him and his very, very large brain on the ridiculist. that does it for anderson cooper. i'll hand it over to chris cuomo for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> thank you, mr. cooper. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." new information that homeland security was told not to even mention addressing russian interference or how to stop it with this president. could congress add this to a potential abuse of power charge? hillary clinton has some ideas of what they could do with it. she charts a path for congress to follow, but does her voice help or hurt the situation? and tonight, s