according to the president and alex jones they're deep state, which is why it is a good thing so many jobs in various agencies have gone unfilled. don't worry about it. sleep well at night knowing only the best and brightest are at work in the white house and on "the ridiculist". the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for ""cuomo prime time"." >> a serious show but i have to do it. name the movie. it puts the lotion in the basket. >> come on. "silence of the lambs." >> there it is. my man. anderson, thank you very much. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time". speaker pelosi accuses this attorney general of perjury. the head of the house judiciary threatens to hold him in con tell. contempt. will the democrats follow through on their threats? if so, how? or are they going to be like the empty chair a.g. bill barr was supposed to sit in today at the hearing? we will ask a prominent senator calling for barr's resignation, presidential candidate amy klobuchar. new threats from the president as well that former white house

lawyer don mcgahn cannot testify before congress. the question is can the president stop him? we will take it up in cuomo's court. a closing argument tonight that's the most important one i have ever made to you. what do you say? let's get after it. ♪ >> now, look, speaker pelosi has been shy on impeaching the president but she came strong at the a.g. for committing a crime today. jerry nadler's warning that the a.g. poses a, quote, clear and present danger to our constitutional order. the house judiciary committee set up a chair today for barr to sit in, along with a place card with his name on it, spelled right, knowing full well he wasn't going to show today. so they are talking the talk, but what will they do? what should they do? he's not going to resign despite calls from democrats like my first guest, senator amy klobuchar, who got to question him yesterday, a judiciary member and 2020 hopeful joins me now. good to see you, senator. >> good to be here. thanks, chris. >> good to be with you again.

now, the idea of pelosi saying he committed a crime because it is a crime to lie to congress, former prosecutor klobuchar, do you believe that the a.g. committed a crime of perjury? >> at the very least incredibly misleading when he appears under oath before both the senate and the house, is asked about his views, if mueller expressed views to him about the report and he says, well, no, or i don't know. well, actually at that point he knew that that letter had been sent to him, right? he knew the letter had been sent which basically raised questions of the confusion that had been sewn by the four-page letter. so he knows that. he doesn't say it. at the very least misleading. at the most, he's not telling the truth. >> misleading though is not a crime. >> yes. >> with van holland, senator van holder, senator van holland asked him directly, do you think mueller agreed or disagreed with your conclusions?

he is going to use the space of saying, well, conclusions, it is not what he talked about in the letter, it is not what he talked about in the call, it was really about the summary. at the end of the day if you can't make the case, should you be talking about it this way? >> let's take it up a little bit because, first of all, of course what they have to do is try to get director mueller to testify. we're trying to push for it in the senate and there's bigger reasons than just even this for why we want him to testify. that report contained pages and pages of information about how a foreign country tried to invade our election. they didn't do it with missiles. they didn't do it with tanks, but they did it with computers. they tried to hack into elections. in florida they got very close. we need to get that information out there to the public. why? we have another presidential election coming up and this president has every reason not to protect that election. so we need to pass legislation like the secure elections act that would require backup paper ballots if something goes wrong. >> so the theory of your bill

was just in case, we'll have paper backups so we know what the count is. the white house was against it why? >> ask them. we know for a fact people in the white house called senators -- i know this because i heard from them -- and told them not to support the bill. the bill was headed to a markup why. it wasn't just at a hearing. it is a bipartisan bill. senator langford and myself introduced it. it also would require audits and better information sharing. it had the head of the intelligence committee, senator bure as one of the cosponsors as well as senator warren. >> why is it dead? >> because they stopped it in its track. they have an opportunity to allow it to go forward. we need to have that. we need to make sure the political ads on facebook and twitter and other social media, companies actually say where the money came from and what the ads are. >> so the senators on the gop side when the white house says, no, we don't like this, that's it, it is done? >> that's what happened. you haven't seen that happen before in the senate?

>> well, i just want to be clear about your understanding. >> they have been caving to the white house. yes. >> i heard you say something, i want to get the process down first. the president has every reason not to want to secure the next election. that's a heavy allegation, senator. what are you suggesting? >> the last way it was handled appeared to benefit him. let's look at what happened. it slowed at the very least, it slowed hillary clinton's momentum, right? it slowed her down. it reversed her momentum because of the way the russians hacked into her campaign's e-mail. imagine if they hacked into your e-mail. >> god forbid. >> and put it out there for your competitors to see. that's what they did to her. they hacked into her campaign chair's e-mail. they got information and they just as we know also on both the republican side, they hurt marco rubio in the primary. we know they were doing things in both primaries to try to sew discord. this isn't just bad for one campaign. i thought rubio had a good quote.

he said, this time it was one party that got hurt and one candidate, the next time it will be the other one. but they're sewing discord in our own country. it makes people hate each other more when you have these fake ads that come out that are getting people mad at each other. they are doing that deliberately. so this is such a bigger issue of our national security. >> and 100% i agree. >> a four-page memo on what happened -- >> i agree. but there's a hyperfocus, especially in your party, on who did what and when within the trump campaign, and at some point it has to end, right? either you go down impeachment as, what, some kind of noble cause in the house, you believe that's what the base wants even though you will never remove him in the senate? what do you think should be the end game here? don't say the truth because it is not just about the truth. it is about what you do in the pursuit of the court. >> i'm in cuomo court so that's what i will say. no, what i will say the end game for our party should be to put a president in the white house -- and i would like to be that

president -- who will truly lead this nation again. to me right now our job is to protect our country from this politicization of the justice department, and it is not just about barr and russia and what is happening here. look at what they just did this week. they just filed a brief in the fifth circuit court of appeals to overturn the entire affordable care act, which will get rid of the protections for people who have preexisting conditions. this is the mom who is pushing the toddler in the stroller -- >> isn't this good for you? >> my kid has downs syndrome, this is what a preexisting condition looks like. >> here is my argument. isn't it good -- >> no. >> a lot of people you are running against are medicare for all, all in, let's do it. not you. if they go after the aca, the following precedent so far would suggest they're going to lose. now isn't there an opportunity for you to say, look, they tried to kill it, they failed, let's work on the aca instead of medicare for all?

>> my first priority, like any other senator, like any other leader, is to protect people and to -- what paul wellstone always called politics is about improving people's lives. that's what this is about. we cannot let people -- health care get taken away and thrown off their insurance, even if it is a political benefit right now. when i look at the bigger picture here, they are literally one by one by one using the justice department to go after things that are protected people for a long time. yes, we will make the case politically, but our job right now, chris, is to protect the people of this country. if that means pushing them in the congress, if that means people are going to bring lawsuits to stop them, that's what is going to happen. >> one quick thing i want you on the record about because, again, you are a lawyer. the idea of don mcgahn, the president says the former white house attorney, he can't, i gave him enough already to mueller, he did already, this time no, executive privilege. do you believe legally that he

can reestablish privilege because the theory is that, well, it was only for the executive, not outside the executive. i didn't waive that privilege. or do you think it is it, it is done, mcgahn is free to testify? >> no, i believe he is free to testify. i believe that because it is a public report. everyone felt it was going to be public in some way. there are pieces that are redacted but it is a public report. he went before them. that was a time they maybe could have tried to exert executive privilege but now it is a public report. so congress -- and i believe this will hold up in court -- should have every right to question the witnesses who spoke to mueller and are in that public report. otherwise this is an equal branches of government situation. we have the right to question those witnesses. but, again, when you step up from all of the details, what this is really about is making sure that we put a president in the white house that's going to obey the law and that's going to tell the truth. right now we don't have that happening. by the way, the president told the entire press corps, he said,

well, i assume mueller looked at my taxes and my financial documents, and when i asked the attorney general of the united states if that was true he said, i don't know. i said you don't know if mueller -- you have this big report -- looked at the documents? and he said, why don't you ask bob mueller. and i said, well, i will, and then the next thing you find out they're trying to shield us from asking him. so all of this is going to result in us pushing to get the information out, but guess what democrats can do two things at once. >> we'll see. >> we can push for the truth but we can also have an optimistic economic agenda for the country. that's what i've been talking about. >> absolutely. >> out there about health care, about infrastructure that you and i talked about last week, about making sure people are trained for the jobs we will have available in the next decades. that's what this is really about in this nation, and we have a president in place that is just sewing chaos, putting in a tax bill that will saddle the next generation with trillion dollars

in debt and not really governing for the long term. >> there's no question that you're going to have to do more than one thing at a time. we see the numbers the president's approval on the economy. people generally vote their pocketbooks. they don't seem to indicate they're going to vote on mueller, but you can do more than one thing at a time and we will be following. senator, you are always welcome here to make the case to the american people. >> i will continue to do that. thank you. >> thank you very much. there's news developing that may rile up the right. it involves the fbi and the trump campaign after the a.g. doubled down on his spying claim. plus, this is a legit legal question. can the president block mcgahn from testifying? you heard the senator's case. we will put it to cuomo's court next.

[kno♪king] ♪ memories. what we deliver by delivering. behr presents: a job well done. painting be done... and stay done. behr premium plus, a top-rated interior paint at a great price.

that keeps all your doing, done. find it exclusively at the home depot. ♪ the house, kids, they're living the dream ♪ ♪ and here comes the wacky new maid ♪ -maid? uh, i'm not the... -♪ is she an alien, is she a spy? ♪ ♪ she's always here, someone tell us why ♪ -♪ why, oh, why -♪ she's not the maid we wanted ♪ -because i'm not the maid! -♪ but she's the maid we got -again, i'm not the maid. i protect your home and auto. -hey, campbells. who's your new maid? i protect your home and auto. and your eyes have theal. power to speak volumes. with voluminous original mascara from l'oreal. the original brush separates every lash. our creamy formula, builds 5x volume.

america's #1 mascara. voluminous original. from l'oreal paris. you're worth it. like.. pnc easy lock, so you can easily lock your credit card when its maximum limit differs from its vertical limit. and clover flex, for when you need to take credit cards when no one carries cash. or requesting a call to help get a new credit card- one that hasn't followed the family goldfish. pnc - make today the day.

tonight we are learning a lot more about how the fbi investigated ties between the trump campaign and russia. according to "the new york times" in 2016 the fbi sent an undercover investigator to cozy up to trump campaign aide george papadopolous in order to gather information. now, her efforts supposedly did not yield anything useful, but here is the question for us. is this spying? let's ask intel experts susan hennessy and former congressman mike rodgers. hennessy, surveillance or spying? >> i can't hear hennessy. go ahead again. >> i don't know to what extent the terms are interchangeable. i will say as a former attorney at the national security agency, i don't think i have ever heard a lawyer describe lawfully authorized surveillance as spying. i'm not sure i heard an operational person use the term "spying" to describe, you know, authorized intelligence collection that the united states undertakes, you know, pursuant to its mission. if you want to call this spying,

i think that's fine, but then you essentially have to describe all law enforcement techniques including title 3 wire taps as spying as well. it's an over inclusive definition to me. >> mike, the reason we sparse is because spying suggests to people like you that you did it wrong, it was on the sneak, against somebody that didn't deserve lawful surveillance versus the way you are supposed to do it. how do you see this? >> well, i'm a big believer in counterintelligence investigations. if you have someone overseas engaging in activity that certainly appears that would be trying to solicit and/or cooperate with a foreign adversary to do anything, i think the fbi had the obligation to do something about it. i will say it is a big, big step to put an agent or in this case an fbi agent to travel overseas. you have to go through a whole big process to do that, by the way, including the cia on the ground there has the opportunity to say yes or no to these kind of things.

so you have to go through that whole process to do this. so that was a big step, but i call it a counterintelligence investigation, not necessarily -- and, again, they went, they found nothing. that's good. they reported it as nothing. that's what you do in this case. but, remember, we had an american citizen overseas at the bar bragging about the fact, and in other places to people of interest that, hey, i have this connection with russia. i think it was an individual stepping way beyond his -- you know, listen, i think this guy thought he was something he was not. >> papadopolous. >> he was naive. yes, papadopolous. i think he was over there bragging on all of it. >> i hear you on that. now the question becomes all it took, very involved as mike rodgers say. what does it reflect, hennessy, that they were out to get trump and it is proof or does it show they were spooked by what the guy had been talking about that came to them from the australian diplomat and it shows how

serious they were and how by the book they were, which is it? >> it clearly speaks to the level of alarm, but i don't think the way to think about a counterintelligence investigation as being out to get someone. ordinarily we think about counterintelligence investigations as defensive essentially, right? you are concerned about the campaign. you are concerned somebody with ties to foreign intelligence services might have some influence that the campaign isn't aware of. so the entire sort of lens through which we think about this is really getting information in order to take defensive measures on behalf of the united states, in order to preserve the integrity of our national interests and our democratic processes. you know, again, it is a significant step that they would send someone overseas. >> right. >> it does show, you know, i think how alarmed they were. they didn't know it at the time, but fast forward all the way to just a few weeks ago when we finally saw the mueller report. the volume one of that report had over 100 pages documenting contacts between individuals related to the trump campaign

and individuals connected to the russian government. >> all right. so, mike, let's put it this way. let's put a button on it. if you are looking to make the case that they did the wrong thing, they were spying on trump because they wanted to hurt him and they find out that an american citizen had an fbi agent planted, posing with the name azra turk, in a position she didn't really hold, does this fuel the fire? >> i think it is definitely going to fuel the fire. chris, here is the one thing i do think. i do think that they need to evaluate for their own interests, including the fbi's best interests, what was the predicate to getting the fisa court order. i think that would be wholly appropriate. they should review it. all of that is reviewable material. >> on carter page. >> including -- on carter page. on this case, if they want to review what they went for, i think this is an open and shut case. remember, you have foreign intelligence services coming to the united states intelligence services saying, you know what? this is odd. this is odd to us.

this just doesn't fit quite the picture that you have an american citizen running around saying really crazy things. again, i don't think it was fuelled by the trump campaign honestly when you look at the information. you think, this was a guy that wanted to be something different, he wanted to be bigger than he was. >> papadopolous was a poser. he was pretending to have connections in the campaign he didn't. he was pretending to have contacts he didn't. >> completely. >> no question. but if you don't know that and you hear it -- >> let me ask you one thing -- exactly. let me tell you one thing that could have been a benefit of this. they could have gone and found out this guy was getting sucked into something he didn't understand that also would have been a benefit for the campaign and the country. so i would be careful about how they look at the fbi's positioning of this. they want to review the predicates of it, hey, fine. again, on the predicates of that fisa report for carter page, i think that's definitely reviewable. i think they're just going to find that there were all of these instances that led them to believe that they had the right to do it, or not the right -- excuse me -- the responsibility to do it. >> right.

>> as protector of the united states and our national security. >> more to come, that's for sure. susan hennessy, mike rogers, thank you for helping us make sense of it. so the president says he has been exonerated. so why wouldn't he want his former white house counsel to go before congress? he did nothing wrong, right? why hide him? new drama over requests for don mcgahn's testimony, but now it starts off as a legal question. can he block it? you see those good-looking, smart people. let's get after it next. ♪

smarter, faster, better. businesses that spend more time picking the right partner will reap the rewards. at ram commercial, we consider every detail for our promaster and promaster city work vans. because like you, we know it's the little things that make the biggest difference. that's how you go from surviving... to thriving. that's how yand relief from from survivisymptoms 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. tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. to help you grow and protect your wealth. she's staying in a rainforest tree house? that's my dream. you dream big for a man on a plane to omaha. and she's zip lining with little jon? what! it's lil jon. even he knows that. thanks, captain obvious. you're with big jon. i'm steve. don't hate-like their trip, book yours with hotels.com and get rewarded basically everywhere. hotels.com. be there. do that. get rewarded. nueven if you try to eat well,. you might fall short in key nutrients. get more by adding one a day. it's the #1 multivitamin uniquely designed for men and women.

one serving, once a day. one a day. and done.

so on the same day that the attorney general dodged his house testimony, president trump gave strong indication he's not going to let his former white house counsel, don mcgahn, testify. >> i've had him testifying already for 30 hours. >> so is the answer no? >> i don't think i can let him and then tell everybody else you can't. i would say it is done. we've been through this. nobody has ever done what i've done. i have given total transparency. it has never happened before like this. >> i have to say it. it is not total transparency

when you duck sitting down man-to-man, face-to-face with the person you said you were happy to talk to under oath. it is not full transparency when you have your lawyers doctor up a bunch of questions that don't even touch obstruction of justice. now, let's get to this issue, all right. can the president keep his special counsel from testifying or did he waive that privilege? cuomo's court is in session. jim schultz, argument for, argument against. jimmy schultz, he can keep him from testifying. what's the case? >> so executive privilege is there so that presidents can communicate with their staff freely and that those communications do not become public. >> okay. >> courts have been very deferential to executive privilege as it relates to congressional subpoenas. they have been less deferential as it relates to law enforcement subpoenas and subpoenas that have been approved by a court. in this case, the subpoena for

don mcgahn's testimony and some of the documents have wide-ranging scope, far beyond obstruction of justice, far beyond any of the things that we saw in the mueller report. so i would say, yes, he has a really strong case at limiting the testimony of don mcgahn before congress. >> even do we -- >> now, that being said it hasn't been tested. >> did he waive it? >> i don't think he did. here is why. mcgahn was communicating with an executive agency when he was giving that information. he was not communicating with outside officials. >> i get it. >> his communications were within executive agencies. >> i get it. let's not filibuster the point, jim. >> let's go back to the holder case though real quick. >> i'll give you one example. >> this happened to me and bob. this went back to the obama administration and communications between holder and obama relative to the "fast and furious" investigation, they fought it because that's what executive branch does. it fights for executive power and executive privilege.

>> i gotcha. however, the difference with the example is they hadn't waived it first. let's make the point. asha, the trick for you is he did it within the executive. now you are asking to go within the judicial underneath doj or to congress as a separate branch, so it doesn't count, the initial waiver within the executive? >> chris, the executive privilege is a limited privilege to protect deliberations, policy deliberations, things concerning national security that are purely outside of the purview of congress. it is a separation of powers issue. when you are talking about obstruction of justice in which congress has an interest in protecting, then that privilege no longer is something that belongs exclusively to some executive branch function. it is potentially concealing evidence of a crime, and we know from u.s. v. nixon that the privilege then doesn't hold. i think it would not hold even

in the case where it is congress that has oversight because of the specific fact that congress has an interest in uncovering acts of obstruction. i think that you are right, that he has waived the privilege already, and i think a third thing here is that the white house has no leverage over mcgahn. if he actually wants to voluntarily come in and testify, there's pretty much nothing that the president can do. so i think that this is an uphill battle for the president. and just to add, the president is equating -- if he is saying he has already talked to mueller, so now, you know, congress doesn't need him to do more, then he's basically conceding that congress is entitled to see all of the 302s which mcgahn provided to the fbi. if they're equivalent, then that should just be handed over if mcgahn isn't going to testify. >> well argued. there's something else i want to get. play the sound bar. >> do you have any objections? can you think of an objection why don mcgahn shouldn't come testify before this committee about his experience?

>> yes, i mean i think that he's -- he's a close adviser to the president. >> never -- >> and the president -- >> never exerted executive privilege. >> excuse me? >> may have already waived executive privilege. >> no, we haven't waived executive privilege. >> we? we, jimmy, haven't waived executive privilege. that's the attorney general of the united states of america, not rudy giuliani or somebody else working in the white house counsel's office right now. come on, jimmy. >> rudy giuliani is not a member of the executive branch, he couldn't exert it. it is solely within the purview of the president, and barr said later on it is up to the president at the end of the day. >> he said "we." >> i get it, but he said the decision is up to the president. >> he said "we." >> he was referring to the collective we. we are talking about the executive privilege. remember holder's communication with president obama on the

fast and furious investigation. >> again with the obama. he said we. >> we were talking about the collective there as well. we were talking about the we discussion between the attorney general of the united states as an adviser of the president and the president on something that was related to the investigation. >> you heard eric holder -- >> and they fought it. >> hold on a second. you heard eric folder refer to obama's executive privilege exercise with "we haven't decided yet?" >> i didn't say that, chris. >> don't make the analogy. hold on, let asha get in. i don't want to a take all of our time. >> the collective we -- >> there is no collective we. >> don't put words in my mouth. that's not what he said. >> you made the analogy. i'm saying it doesn't stand. asha, go ahead. >> yes, chris, i guess it is the royal we because the president clearly believes he is a king. >> see what i'm doing, jimmy? that's my royal thing. looks like my mother making -- but it isn't. >> he thinks he is a king -- >> go ahead, asha.

>> you know, this is a tell. this is a tell that -- this is a slip of the tongue here where barr really sees himself as an extension of the president, as a representative of the president and not of the people of the united states. it kind of illustrates why he's a disaster as an attorney general and really needs to go. he does not understand his job. and if he really wants fob the president's lawyer, i bet he would make a very good lawyer for the president. he should -- and he probably would make a better one than rudy giuliani. he should resign and he can go work for the president and let someone who is interested in serving justice take his position because he's clearly not interested or capable of doing that. >> i tell you what, i would drop the gavel against asha rangappa on the last point because sekulow and guilliani got this president a sweetheart deal. he didn't have to go in there after he said he would. the questions that they had to answer, they obviously got to process all of those. there were none about obstruction. >> mueller said he didn't need him, chris. >> mueller didn't say he didn't need them.

he said he had enough anyway. >> he says in the report they were unable to and he did not do it because of the delay it would cause, and i think he was being cautious and prudent. >> he had enough information. >> we'll see what he thought when he testified. >> you're wrong. he didn't say he didn't need it. >> okay. let's go back for a second here. >> we can't. i'm out of time. i'm out of time. i'm out of time. >> give me one second, one more point, chris. >> one more. >> you got it wrong, mcgahn is a lawyer's lawyer. he is not going to just walk in and testify. it is the president's privilege, the executive privilege. you got that all wrong, asha. it is up to the president of the united states, not mcgahn. >> he doesn't work for the white house anymore. he could come in. what is the president going to do, fire him? >> i understand. >> what is he going to do. >> but the counseling he gave to the president is sacrosanct because that's the purpose of the privilege. >> it is not an attorney/client privilege. understand the difference between attorney/client privilege and executive privilege. >> i understand. you're missing the point. >> i have to leave it there.

i love you both, but thank you both. only the best. the president knows how to pick 'em. he said it to us so many times. the best people and so many believed him. now we're going to look at the proof in the pudding. we've got a latest withdrawal from stephen moore for the fed and just one more layer on a wall of wackos, next. behr presents: a job well done. painting be done... and stay done. behr premium plus, a top-rated interior paint at a great price. that keeps all your doing, done. find it exclusively at the home depot.

oh! oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing.

serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ ask your healthcare provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

of course we all remember when this president promised to hire only the best people. >> we're going to use our best people. we're going to use people that

are so much more talented than there are anywhere in the world. >> in the cabinet we will have all of the best people. >> we will get the best people in the world. >> you see stories of chaos, chaos. this administration is running like a fine-tuned machine. >> known as an edsel. it is true if you say it enough except when it isn't. six former trump advisers were indicted, dozens of people around him were publicly shunned, chased out of the white house for shady things. we're going to have to add a new name to that, mr. stephen moore. today the economic commentator withdrew his name from consideration for a seat on the federal reserve board of governors because of revelation after revelation about decades after decade of disparaging comment after disparaging comment that moore made about a lot of things, especially women. let's have a great debate.

cnn political commentators angela rai and scott jennings. here is the proposition to debate. he said he would give us only the best, and even now, although somewhat early in the president's tenure, we can say, angela rai, i start with you, that this is the worst collection of people we have seen in modern history. yes or no? >> well, chris, i learned in the second grade by my dear ms. irene lindsey, my second grade teacher, we do not engage in put downs. i won't call these people bad. >> chris cuomo, were you -- >> i'm not going to call them bad, but i am going to say they should have been properly vetted. by vetting i mean that they should pass some type of process, have you said nice things about the president before is not a vetting process. i also think that there should be some basic ethics 101, do you have some type of moral fortitude about you, something like that.

i think the other thing we have to realize is when donald trump talks about the best and the greatest and all of that, he engages in a little something called hyperbole and we should take it with a grain of salt, if it should be a grain of salt. maybe it is something else, but i can't say it on tv. it is another four-letter word. nevertheless, nevertheless, i think our reality is that it is now incumbent upon the senate to vet people. >> right. >> and they did that, you know, suggestively by saying that these folks would not be nominated. >> now, scott, you have done this. you know, you dealt with whom to pick and whom to put around a president. i mean is there any defense for the list of choices i'll put up on the screen for the audience? you didn't have anybody -- you didn't have anything like this around either bushes. >> well, what i dealt with were specifically things like mr. moore's possible job where you would have a president nominating someone that would be going through senate confirmation. i mean traditionally the way this works is you do a pretty deep background check on someone, and that includes everything they've ever said,

everything they've ever written. you also have a fair amount of conversation going on with the senate before someone is nominated so that when the formal nomination is made there are no surprises. in this particular case -- >> how do they keep getting it so wrong? >> -- it doesn't sound -- >> scott. >> >> they haven't gotten it wrong on, say, federal judges. you know, what i want to see on jobs like the fed is the same kind of communication that they've had with the senate on judges. there's been -- >> they've got a list, they got a list from outside organizations of judges that conservatives like and they picked off the list. somebody else did the vetting for them. when they do the vetting they pick people who wind up continuously chased out of office. we have never seen anything like it. tell me where i'm wrong. >> well, certainly nominees in other administrations have failed. >> i know, but not that many. >> you had nominees that failed votes and nominees that had to pull out of the process. >> but not even close.

>> in the process -- >> not this many. >> i think there's a difference between a fail and an epic fail. if we can put that lovely yearbook like group of photos you just had up, that is an epic fail where every single one of your picks had some type of ethical issue, had some type of challenge. i have experienced stephen moore's issues with women. he decided he could tap me on the shoulder on a bill mar show. i don't know him. he does not -- i will do ms. lindsey's second grade and fall back. >> listen, you said judges. i was going to let it go but why let anything go. scott, do you remember senator kennedy with the joker who they put up to be a federal judge who never tried a case, who didn't know what happened inside a courtroom? give me an analog for that, any time in any other administration where you have heard anything like that? you can't. >> i remember during the obama administration several of their

ambassador nominees had no experience whatsoever with the country they were going to and they were embarrassed beyond recognition at their hearings. some of them got confirmed. >> who were they? >> i recognize ambassadorships turn into fiascos like this, but here is the point. it happens. it shouldn't happen and you want to minimize it, but it does happen. i think this is another case where we're trying to make it seem like something is unique to trump when in fact every administration goes through this. >> but, scott, when it happens so much more. >> epic fail. >> -- than anyone else that we can count. i'm giving you every opportunity. you say, well, it has happened before. not like this. i don't think you disagree with that and be telling the truth. that's all i'm saying. >> look, here would be my wish. my wish would be you have vetting before nomination or a name is even floated. you have conversations with the senate. 90-plus percent of your issues like this within not -- >> i get it. >> you would not have these kind of problems because they would be detected and you would not float them. >> i know. you are giving a reason why they stink at it.

i'm not fighting your reason. i'm saying they don't do it, so why don't you take an integrity stand and say, you know what? what is right is right. look at that collection of losers in the list you just put up there. we have never seen this many people kicked out for malfeasance before. a little bit of honesty is refreshing. >> well, look, i am all for finding the highest integrity people for appointments. look, we didn't call stephen moore a loser when we put him on the network hundreds of times over the last couple of years. >> listen, i didn't know he had been saying things like that all the time or i wouldn't have him on the show, saying you can't pay men and women the same thing, it depresses men. that's the kind of thing they say on fox. >> also the kind of thing that was said 50 years ago. >> go ahead, angela. >> nevertheless, here is one thing we could all agree on. people should be vetted like they're vetted for any other kind of job. we are talking about people making crucial decisions about the united states' standing not only in this country but also in the world. the bottom line is people should

be properly vetted, bottom line. >> true. all i'm saying is this, scott, you are always welcome on the show, but you have to expect a hard time when you are dealing with the degree of problems we have seen in the past. that's all. i'm coming after you about it, it doesn't mean i don't want you here. angela rye, you kept to your second grade teacher's -- mantra. >> that's not true. take it back. >> thank you very much. you ever treat to eat your feelings? that's why i do. that's why i'm 230 pounds. listen, it probably wasn't a really happy meal, right? mcdonald's long-time rival is doing something beautiful. they're serving up crappy meals, but they're doing it for a cause i love! some food for thought with a man who loves to eat, d. lemon next. hamburglar. is this ride safe?

i assembled it myself last night. i think i did an ok job. just ok? what if something bad happens? we just move to the next town. just ok is not ok. especially when it comes to your network. at&t is america's best wireless network according to america's biggest test. now with 5g evolution. the first step to 5g. more for your thing. that's our thing. we're finally back out in our yard, but so are they. the triple threat of dandelions, lurking crabgrass and weak, thin grass! scotts turf builder triple action. this single-step breakthrough changes everything. it kills weeds, prevents crabgrass for up to 4 months, and feeds so grass can thrive, all guaranteed.

only from scotts. our backyard is back. this is a scotts yard.

to save 30% on all the medications we carry. so go directly to petmeds.com now. we eat happy meals because they make us happy. you know who doesn't eat a happy meal? people who aren't happy all the time, and there are a lot of those. you know what? the burger king sees an opportunity in that reality. it is introducing real meals. the goal is two fold. troll mcdonald's, obviously, but, more importantly, aiming to raise awareness about mental health. take a look. they say i'm too young to raise my baby girl. take your opinions and suck it, world.

♪ >> now, i want to bring in d. lemon because, man, does he love to eat. he has probably gone through a thousand of these. >> i was wondering why they put it next to me on the set. >> which one do you have? >> it is a green one. it says a salty meal. are you trying to tell me something? >> you are salty. it is a whopper, fries and a large drink. now, look, what do you think of what they're going for here as an idea? >> i think any time you can educate people about mental health and take the stigma off of it, i think it is good as long as they're not making fun of it. if they're trying to actually help people i think it is fantastic. >> 100%. my one thing will be the closing is on this because there's a side of it that i really hope becomes as appetizing as anything in one of these boxes. but most of these are emotions, right? salty, yaaas, these are feelings. it is not what -- it is different than dealing with the emotional component of illness.

but anyway we get at it, you know what it reminds me of? i got the dgaf meal, by the way. that's what this one is. i got it because it is black and that's what i wear every night, but it is called the dgaf meal. very edgy. >> oh, don't give a -- ohhhh! >> all right. i'll tell you what, though. i like it do you remember in the '80s, "this is your brain on drugs?" >> yes, i do. with the skillet and the egg. >> and it brought it home for people in a basic way and it got people talking. not enough. i'm hoping this does that. that would be great. >> i think it would be great, you're right. this is drugs, this is your brain on drugs. but, listen, no one is happy all the time. that is true, and that's okay. feeling your way is just as important as ordering your way. okay. listen, at the very end of the day for me, i love a whopper. >> of course you do. of course you do. >> i love a whopper!

there's nothing like that flame broiled whopper and, of course, you know -- did you get one of these? >> yes, i got this one. >> can you put it on? >> i don't want to mess up my do. >> come on. >> i always don't want it to be a jiff or a gif, whatever they call it, all over the internet. especially when it's so close to home. what do you have on the show? >> you know, nasty woman. hillary clinton is a nasty woman. kamala harris is a nasty woman. he always talks about women. he always talks about women, their looks, they're nasty, if they're smart or not. i'm going to have van jones and w. kamau bell, who, by the way is from california, senator harris' hometown. we'll talk to those gentlemen and get their scoop on "cnn tonight." >> i wonder if the president when he hears about these meals and he'll wind up eating all of them when he said he wasn't sure about his emotions. >> every time he invites some professional team to the white house he serves them fast food. i'm sure some of these happy

males and this -- what do you call it and. >> unhappy males. >> unhap unhap unhappy meals. >> keeping it real with both sides cuomo. >> not doing it again. talk to you in a second. now, there is a part of this i'm so in love with. i think it's so important and i brought up what happened back in the '80s for a reason. this, to me, is the most important thing i've ever communicated in a closing argument before. i hope it works for you. i hope it makes a difference. next. red lobster! featuring three new dishes that are planked-to-perfection. feast on new cedar-plank lobster & shrimp. or new colossal shrimp & salmon with a citrusy drizzle. tender, smoky, and together on one plank... ...but not for long- so hurry in!

onmillionth order.r. ♪ there goes our first big order. ♪ 44, 45, 46... how many of these did they order? ooh, that's hot. ♪ you know, we could sell these. nah. ♪ we don't bake. ♪ opportunity. what we deliver by delivering. each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move.

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. so the reason burger king did the real meals is to draw attention in part to mental health awareness month. what a good thing. but it highlights something that is so, so sad. how are we still here, still needing a month in which to coax people to recognize the worst set of maladies in our midst? mental illness affects more types of people in this country in more ways with worse effects and more far reaching implications and effects than anything else.

think about what i just said. it is the worst thing we face in terms of our health. too many of us don't even consider it illness, like cancer or diabetes or heart disease. none is as daunting as mental illness in terms of what it robs us of in this society. got cancer? you're sick. depression, snap out of it, toughen up. now, look, i hope these meals are like that cultural catch moment from the '80s. remember this? >> this is drugs. this is your brain on drugs. any questions? >> so simple, so relatable, so obvious. it made something abstract and about government and facts and remote. you could talk about it. there was a dialogue. it created recognition.

but boy is it past time to get back to where we were on that level. how many of us know somebody who battle mental illness and/or addiction? i know it intimately, many layers of my life for many years, there is nothing i fear more, nothing i worry about more for my kids because i know the reality. my eyes are open to it and my prayer for everyone watching is that it never touches you and that if you see this and you think about it you get help for anyone that you can. you want numbers? fine, they are staggering. this is an easy argument to make. depression is the number one cause of global disability. meaning it costs humanity more than anything in terms of productivity. 23 billion is the cost in terms of work productivity lost. problems at home, can't even put a price on the pain and complications. 15% of adolescents are affected. by depression. depression or anxiety, 1 out of every 4 will have one of those

diagnoses in their lifetime. suicide, that's the most devastating outcome of this illness, it kills more people than car accidents every year, it kills more firemen than fire, more than 47,000 americans died of opioid overdoses in 2017. now, i connect those. by the way, two decades ago that number was 8,000. more than 23,000 people died from cocaine and other stimulant overdose deaths. that's up nearly 50% in just two years. why am i bringing up drugs? because it's related. overdose -- ask a clip overdose, ask a clinician. overdose is often a mask for suicide and so much of addiction is self-medicating pain that's often related to emotional and mental illness. here why i'm going from a jokey thing to this heaviness, i've never seen the hurt this illness causes. and i know the biggest part of stopping it is not the illness. i know it's not that we know how to treat it, it's that so many

are so reluctant to get help, so many in society are reluctant to respect mental health for what it is, the stigma, that's the enemy. how big a problem? look at it like this. antidepressants are among the most prescribed drug in the country and yet a study showed only 11% of male suicide victims had antidepressants in their system. 44% in females. what does that tell us? they weren't getting treated. another grab at it. 60% of mass shooters by one count have a history of serious mental disorders and 2/3 had never been seen by a mental health professional. i've never seen anything more dangerous matter less to those who are threatened. and i really hope that something like this will get people talking about the reality that mental illness is as real as real gets. maybe then we'll start seeing people less ashamed, people less predisposed to stigmatizing. it matters so much that this would be my one wish, if a genie came out of a bottle.

get rid of mental illness before world peace. why? peace is temporary. we know that. mental illness is too often forever. i'm sorry to be heavy but i have never argued anything to you that matters more than this. that's all for us tonight, thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. >> we've all dealt with it, either ourselves or someone we love, someone in our family, friends, co-workers, we've all dealt with it and it's time for the stigma to go away. i was speaking on the plane the other day to someone who works with these sorts of things. and she said -- question hope she said, i hope i have it correct, it's a brain disease with behavioral and psychological effects. it's a disease of the brain. and as long as we understand that and learn that, that there is no stigma, there's nothing wrong with going to see a psychologist or a psychiatrist for help, it's actually really good if you do that. there's nothing wrong with being