or increasingly withdrawn, changes in sleep, changes in eating, changes in enjoying the things that you previously enjoyed, those are sort of the obvious ones. i think that the idea that the person has now sort of lost hope. there is a hopelessness about them, that's probably the biggest one. kevin, the signs were obvious. he was crying. he was upset as he got to the bus stop, all these people saw him and he said, look, if one person was kind to me. if one person had shown me friendly eyes, as he said it, he wouldn't have jumped. that didn't happen. he's dedicated his life to say it's okay to talk about, it's okay to reach out. if somebody drops of a cardiac arrest, you probably know to pump on his chest. if somebody is suffering from mental illness, not only do we not help, we often turn the other way. kevin wants to change that. >> sanjay, thank you. >> thank you. >> it's a one-hour prime time special hosted by sanjay 9:00 p.m. right here on cnn.

saturday. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." alabama just passed a law that bans almost all abortions. they clearly want to go to the supreme court. we're going to get after the two most pressing questions, what's the chance that this law makes it to the supreme court and is roe v. wade vulnerable? and if so how? we have key insights and information on both of those. but this issue is much more about politics than it is about law at this point, and in alabama it was all about men, zero women in alabama's senate voted to pass the ban. we have one of only four women part of that body here and she's far from finished with the fight. a lot of chatter as well tonight about the military plans this president and his pals are working up to deal with iran. where is congress in the equation? the constitution says they are supposed to declare war, not the president. we have a senate foreign

relations committee member on what lawmakers may do to stop the president. what do you say? let's get after it. look, it matters that it's all men make these decisions. 25 lawmakers voted to take away a woman's right to control her own body in alabama last night. now, this afternoon the state's female governor did sign that extreme anti-abortion bill into law. it will make it a felony for a service provider, medical provider, a clinician, a doctor to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, even if there is a health risk to the mother. not even impregnation by rape or impregnation by incest. neither is excluded. listen to one of the four women in the alabama senate taking her male colleagues to task. >> do you know what it's like to be raped? >> no, ma'am, i don't. >> do you know what it's like to

have a relative commit incest on you? >> on me? no, ma'am. >> yes, on you. okay. so that's one of those traumas that a person experiences, just like that child experienced. and to take that choice away from that person who has such a traumatic act committed against them, to be left with the residue of that person, if you will, to have to bring that child into this world and be reminded of that every single day. some people can do that. you know, some people can but some can't. >> shouldn't it matter that no woman wanted to vote for this? yes, i get that the governor signed it but this is about legislation at this level. now, first of all, let's be very clear. the alabama law only has one

exception to the exclusion of abortion and that is if the health of the mother is involved. rape and incest, as you were just hearing there from this senator is not an exception to the law. so this is one of if not the most extreme restriction of abortion law in the land right now. now, that lawmaker was vivian davis figures. she's the longest serving woman in alabama's senate. she joins me now. senator, thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. cuomo. it's good to be with you this evening. >> the pleasure is mine. so is it true, senator, that you reached out to the governor's office and say -- said, listen, you should have an executive exception here for rape and incest. did you ask that and did you get a response? >> i did. i called her office, left a message with her assistant as well as put it in writing and had it hand delivered to her before she signed the bill asking her if she would please send over an executive amendment that would make those two

exceptions in the bill, incest and rape, and she did not need to -- she did not do that and she went on to sign that bill into law. >> what are your fellow lawmakers tell you when you say, you know, when you went with that gentleman there -- it's one thing when it's on the floor being recorded, but what are the men and other colleagues saying to you about why they won't recognize rape and incest, why they want a law as harsh as this one? >> well, what you have to understand is that this is a political hot button that is part of the republican agenda across this entire country. so you have people who are in these offices who are following orders, if you will. and although they know that those two exceptions should be made, they would not, they would not. i have to say there were four senators who did vote for that exception and that was senators ward, jones, marsh and mcclendon. and i applaud them for that.

they turned around ask still voted the bill to become law. it was also in the senate that it was those all republican men that voted this into law, but before it got to the senate it came from the house of representatives, which is where it started. and let me make sure everyone knows that it was a woman, representative terry collins, who sponsored this bill and it was also the other four or five republican women in the house of representatives who signed on as co-sponsors. so this wasn't a law that was put into effect by just men. and, of course, the governor is a female and she could have put that amendment on there with just an executive amendment sending it back over to the statehouse for both houses to vote it in and she chose not to. >> right. but you know what? it depends on how you want to look at it. there are people in the audience who will say, yeah, that's right, senator, women are very anti-choice as well. and they are strong about it,

especially in your state but across the country. we see that, the numbers for men and women are really not that different when it comes to how they feel about this issue. >> well, you know, there are people like me who are pro-choice and pro-life. >> how do you be both? >> i am pro-life. well, you be both because you don't personally believe in having an abortion for yourself, but you believe that you, yourself, should be able to make that choice for yourself. until you've walked in somebody else's shoes you cannot imagine what they have gone through, you don't know their journey, you don't know their experiences, you don't know their plight. so they should be able to make that decision for themselves. not only that, god gives us free will and he expects us to choose his word, but the other thing is is that we don't have a law in this entire country on any books in any state that mandates what a man can or cannot do with his body.

so why do we do that to women? >> because women are the only ones that carry life. >> are you saying that we're not intelligent enough? >> no. maybe some say that. maybe some of this stems from patriarchy when women were seen as chattel and one of the first challenges to roe v. wade was having to inform the husband and it was a very big deal that the court upheld the right to privacy as a number of those rights, that zone of privacy. but what about the counterargument that only women are blessed with the ability to carry life. men can't. that's why you don't have a similar restriction. >> and since we are, we should have more of say so what happens. >> understood. do you think this law is going to make to the supreme court? because it does bear a striking resemblance to the texas law that brought us roe v. wade in the first place. >> of course. that is the plan. that is the plan. but while they are doing this, they are gambling with

taxpayers' money because if this -- if this law is challenged, and the aclu has already said they're going to file suit. so when it's challenged and we have to come up with those millions -- potentially millions of dollars that are going to be taken away from education in the state of alabama, away from mental health, away from so many of the issue us that we need to be dealing with, that is gambling with taxpayers' money and i think they're being very irresponsible fiscally. >> i hear your argument on the money. it certainly -- litigation isn't cheap but they're also playing with people's health because as we know, one of the reasons we had roe v. wade in 1973 was because women who were desperate who couldn't find any other avenue to a dignified way for this did what they thought they had to and many were injured, mutilated, and of course i think the year before you had roe v. wade, you had almost 40 women died trying to get this type of procedure done. so you have to keep an eye on all of that. senator, we're not one and done on this. >> absolutely. we argued that.

we argued that. we also offered an amendment to expand medicaid because the women's health that it's going to affect most are poor women. >> absolutely. we've seen that -- it's a regressive violation. then you have the hyde amendment that comes in on that as well. but we're not one and done on this on this show. we're going to follow it through the courts. we'll see where it goes. when you have something that is important in terms of what's happening in your state, let us know. you have a place on this show. >> thank you so much. >> all right. senator vivian figures, thank you very much. all right. so we're talk about possibility here. could the law in alabama make it to the supreme court? we know that's the plan. did they pick the right route? and if so, would roe v. wade be vulnerable, what is the vulnerability? we're going to take a look at the history and it is very predictive of what may happen next. president trump is also about to do something next, roll out a new immigration policy, a revamp of the whole system. he says take you just 20 minutes

to get it done. why doesn't he just use the emergency declaration to relieve the situation? that would take, like, two minutes. great debate ahead. calling all sunscreen haters. you're gonna love this. new coppertone sport clear. not thick, not hot, not messy, just clear, cool, protected. coppertone sport clear. proven to protect. you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. not to worry about changing their minds in retirement. you may have always imagined your dream car as something fast. then one day you decide it just needs to be

safe enough to get her to college and back. principal. we can help you plan for that. with advil liqui-gels, what stiff joints? what bad back? advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil liqui-gels. it's either the assurance of a 165-pointor it isn't.on proces. it's either testing an array of advanced safety systems. or it isn't. it's either the peace of mind of a standard 5-year unlimited mileage warranty. or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned. or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through may 31st. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. i'm begging you... take gas-x.ed beneath the duvet your tossing and turning isn't restlessness, it's gas! gas-x relieves pressure, bloating and discomfort...

fast! so we can all sleep easier tonight.

welcome to our lounge. enjoy your stay. thanks very much. ♪ ♪ find calm in over 1,000 airport lounges worldwide. it's another way we've got your back. the business platinum card from american express. don't do business without it. all right. here's what we know. the new alabama law is a flagrant contradiction of the federal standard found under roe v. wade. that is intentional. how do we know? well, one of the bill's sponsors in alabama said point-blank this bill is about challenging roe v. wade. so let's put that to the side. now, the roe case in 1973 was actually the result of a test of a law that is very much like this law from texas. the court found 7-2 that constitutional rights to privacy and liberty allowed a woman to terminate her pregnancy if she so chose.

the court architected a three-tier standard during a pregnancy, setting 24 weeks at the point at which a fetus becomes a viable person under the law with rights, allowing the state to incur, to change the laws of when you can get an abortion. the new alabama law actually harkens back to the old days pre-roe and even someone like pat robertson says this law is too much. >> i think alabama has gone too far. they've passed a law that would give a 99-year prison sentence to people who commit abortion. there is no exception for rape or incest. it's an extreme law and they want to challenge roe v. wade, but my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the supreme court because i think this one will lose. >> now, it's important to remember what's at stake. in 1972, the year before roe, 39 women died from illegal or self-induced procedures.

that's the reality that people are afraid of going back to, back alleys, desperate days potentially as more than a dozen states try to further curtail access and opportunity when it comes to reproductive rights. as much as we may like to think that the courts are not political, elections have consequences. this president has been appointing federal judges at a record pace in the process the right managed to reshape american courts. now, that's why laws that seek to further restrict access rather than outright almost ban abortion like the alabama law may now have a chance of actually getting through the district courts, maybe even the appellate courts. but, again, going all-in like we're seeing in alabama, that is likely an overreach, as even pat robertson acknowledges. here's why. the more extreme laws like alabama's focus on whether a fetus is a person and when, but the legal foundation of roe is not about that question. the landmark 1973 decision stands on two pillar's, a

woman's constitutional right to privacy and viability of potential life that she is carrying. privacy was the key in 1976. that's when a court said a woman didn't have to get her husband's permission for an abortion. in 1990 when the justices said teens must be allowed to get a judicial bypass on parental consent rules. then in 1992's planned parenthood v. casey, this was a big case. webster was the precursor to casey saying that the privacy standards should shift to whether the law places an undue burden on the woman or put in place substantial obstacles in the way of obtaining an abortion. you see, roe v. wade has not stood absolute. it has been eroded. this loose definition of what is undue or substantial provides an opening for more conservative justice, and given that most of the legal battles are going to be fought before they get to the supreme court, the sheer volume

of challenges may provide an opportunity to further whittle away at roe. so that's what we're dealing with here and we'll see where it goes from there. the president says on another big issue of immigration he's got a complete revamp plan that will take just 20 minutes to get done. why doesn't he just take two minutes and use his emergency declaration to give what the people who are protecting our borders are begging for? that's the start of a great debate next. >> tech: at safelite autoglass, we know sooner or later... every chip will crack. this daughter was home visiting when mom saw a chip in her windshield. >> mom: honey is that a chip? >> tech: they wanted it fixed fast so they brought it to us. >> mom: hi. >> tech: with our in-shop chip repair service, we can fix it the same day... guaranteed. plus with most insurance a safelite chip repair is no cost to you. >> mom: really? drive safely. all right. ♪ acoustic music >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, ♪ safelite replace.

if ywhen you brush or floss, you don't have to choose between healthy gums and strong teeth. complete protection from parodontax has 8 designed benefits for healthy gums and strong teeth. complete protection from parodontax.

if you have moderate to little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.

[kno♪king] ♪ memories. what we deliver by delivering.

the wifi that set just raised the bar again. introducing xfinity xfi advantage. it comes with everything you love about xfi. the best speed, coverage and control. but it doesn't stop there, you also get enhanced network security, safer browsing, and more. plus it helps to optimize your network's performance. giving you the best coverage from attic to basement. so you can focus on streaming your favorites. not finding a signal. make the best wifi even better,with xfi advantage. simple, easy, awesome. not one more american life should be lost because our

lawmakers failed to secure our borders. from drugs, to the wrong people being allowed to come in because of a corrupt and broken system that can be changed in 20 minutes. 20 minutes. if they want to change it. >> 20 minutes, says our president. we've had no real movement in 20 years or more, but, sure, why not simplify this morass of machinations -- nevertheless, that's how long this president says it should take to approve his plan to revamp the whole deal. i must say it does not inspire confidence that the plan is supposedly the brain child of the president's son-in-law jared kushner who needed to be tutored in how the current system works. senior administration officials tell us border security and merit-based entry are key principles. what about what to do about family separations? why isn't that in there? what about daca? remember the group this president promised to help.

>> we could help the dreamers. we want to have the dreamers. we will have a deal with the dreamers. >> where is it? when is it? why not now? so why give this offering, even at 20 minutes, when the president in two minutes could use his current emergency declaration. i know i argued it was a misapplication of the 1976 statute, i still think it is. there is not a lot of case law on it and not many people are challenging it, except out there in california and we don't know what's going to happen. that's the start of tonight's great debate with angela rye and ken cuccinelli. good to have you both. ken, help me with that. i'm not saying they shouldn't revamp the process, i'm just saying it's not practical. they can't agree on what time it is. let alone immigration. but the emergency declaration, i have this from legal counsel and sources at dhs, cbp, at the white house. he could tap those pockets and have the defense department do more of what they're doing right

now, building temporary places, helping with accommodations, helping pick up some of the rolls there nonessential to border patrol. why not do that? >> well, of course they're doing some of it. i guess you're arguing, well, do more. >> yeah. >> that's theoretically possible. i think the rollout here, though, you rattled off things that aren't included, but let's look at what is included, and that is completely changing the legal immigration system and securing the border. those two things. and has always been a mantra, fairly bipartisan, i would say, that you got to secure the border first before you do anything else. and though that's gotten less bipartisan over the years. and that's one element. and the other element is the structure of the legal, not illegal, the legal immigration system. i think it's perfectly reasonable to not throw in everything else you mentioned, to not include daca, to not include these other things. i mean, you take on the pieces

you can handle, and i think a key element, and i've heard the president say it a couple of times when i have been in discussions about this subject, is that they want to stake out what they're for in the legal system. and not just have everybody arguing i'm against this, i'm against that, but to stake out a positive position. i think this is a very constructive part of the discussion. if it doesn't happen before 2020, what they're essentially doing is forcing it into the election, whether it's for republicans or democrats. >> that's fine. there is nothing but opportunity for people on this issue because, angela, there is an emergency right now. the irony that the president fake an emergency about the caravans and the drugs and the terror, but now you've got these kids living on rocks and in the dirt because the good men and women trying to keep us safe on the border are desperate for more resources and they're going to start debating a full-scale plan when they're not just going to provide emergency relief? >> well, and, chris, we've seen the president do this before, right?

he will, you know, develop this whole new elaborate scheme, a whole new red herring, a whole new way of addressing something when he doesn't know really where to start. that's what this is really about. he doesn't know how to solve this other problem. he's assigned jared kushner, who is known for -- i mean, you can shake your head and that's fantastic, but the truth of the matter is simple, this bill -- or this -- these border principles, these immigration principles don't address the diversity visas. they want to eliminate them completely. these border principles don't deal with daca, which is also a crying shame and a crisis. this bill -- these principles, because there is still no bill, and they criticized aoc for doing the same thing, does not deal with the fact that when you look at the military, the fact that folks fight in the military for our safety, for our protection. the number of immigration applicants that have been accepted who have been allowed to become citizens have gone down more than 70%.

there's nothing addressing that. all of these are crises, and here is our reality, chris. the reality is the president is tapping more into the fear of this country, playing footsie with the numbers usa folks who say immigration makes our wages go down when really people can always increase wages. we have to be real about what's going on and this is the same conversation we were having last night and it's simple, you cannot develop policy absent people and compassion. it does not work. it results not just in hurt individuals but also hurt families. they are now putting at a lower scale the idea of families being able to be brought in and admitted into this country because they already have a family member here. they are instead preferring people who are highly skilled labors. it's a huge problem because at the end of the day what they're saying is you have to be amazingly brilliant, you probably have to be whiter, diversity visas, again, are gone

and you can't even serve in the military. this is reminiscent to me of what happened before the civil rights movement really began. that's a problem. >> all right. so, ken, how do you take those on? >> yeah, well, for starters, i hear a lot of complaining about what's not here and with the exception of the last comment about flipping the proportion of legal migrants who are economically based, they have a job lined up, et cetera, with family based is the only substantive complaint i'm really hearing here. with what's in the bill. >> you weren't listening. >> you both complaining a lot of things that aren't in the bill but not a lot about what's in the bill. what's in the bill are all really 70/30 proposals with the american people. by the way, my expectation is that numbers usa will not support this because it maintains the same number of legal immigrants today -- well, after the bill passes as we -- >> well, there is no bill. these are just principles. even the senior officials, as

you know, ken, i don't have to tell you this, they don't have a bill. they just have some principles. >> then why are we talking about it? because this is the first -- this is the first administration that i can remember to put forward a coherent alternative to the current legal immigration system -- >> that's not true. there was a senate bill that was passed under the obama administration. >> i didn't interrupt you. you should shake your head. i didn't interrupt you. i'm just going to keep talking. >> it isn't true but go ahead. >> the fact of the matter is barack obama did nothing but talk about this and use it as a divisive issue. >> that's not true. >> just like criminal justice reform. >> you don't think president trump uses it as a divisive issue -- hold on, i don't want to talk about anything else. >> he's put a substantive proposal on the table and he's going to take fire from both sides for it. >> his senior officials said it is light on details, it's just operative principle. it's not a plan. it's not a bill. he doesn't know how to do it. here's my concern with it. i'm fine with him putting something forward. i'm fine with him having the debate. >> if you really believe that,

chris, why are we bothering to talk about this? >> i'll tell you why. there is an emergency. you guys lined up to help him fake rationalize what was the emergency situation, which wasn't the real one and now you have it -- >> i don't know who you guys is. >> the republicans. >> saying that the drugs and the criminals are the real crisis. >> and the rapists. >> i kept saying to you it doesn't come out in the numbers. the real threat are these kids and the people coming with them that we can't control. i went down there numerous times to show you people the reality of what it is, and he's not addressing that. it's like putting forth a plan to fix the levees right after katrina when all the people are drowning in the water and need food and help, you're saying let's fix the levees. >> chris, the long-term solutions -- the long-term solutions all have to come through congress. they do. whether it's money -- >> why not do what they're asking them to do through the

emergency declaration. he can do it. >> that is short term and band-aid solutions and he's trying to put it at least in the public discussion a long-term solution -- >> i'm fine with that. >> to rally support. >> but that long-term solution doesn't address the detention issue, which is what chris is talking about is the emergency. >> you're right. >> that's the whole point. eliminating diversity visas is not an emergency. dealing with the fact that people are -- >> look, folks -- >> low skilled versus high skilled and focussing on high skilled is not an emergency. making sure that veterans and current -- >> he didn't say it was. >> folks currently fighting in the military -- >> that's true. >> can't become citizens is not the emergency. it is a problem. >> i'm saying you should deal with the emergency. >> everything else can be out there, i'm just saying it's an emergency. it's very real. i'm afraid kids are going to die. they don't have to. he's got this emergency declaration that i think is a fugazi emergency declaration, but he's got it and he's using it to just build the fencing. use it to help them do these

other things. i don't get why he won't. that's all. >> but that's not -- >> chris, one of the things that's interesting about this -- >> okay. >> -- proposal is this would align america's immigration structure in terms of the proportions of people coming in, humanitarian, family -- >> right. >> -- and economic with almost the entire rest of the world. >> i'm okay with having that discussion. it's just there is an emergency -- >> smearing of the president. >> it's not smearing. i'm not smearing. i'm not smearing anything. >> i am. >> i'm saying there was an emergency and he's not dealing with it. >> she is. >> she is angela. good night. >> he's doing both at the same time. this is walking and chewing gum. >> he knows better. he can't walk or chew gum. >> listen, i don't have any more time to debate it but there is no debate on this. you call the head of dhs and ask him if he's getting what he needs to deal with the overflow, ken, and he's going to tell you no. and a lot of what he needs can be -- >> right. >> -- given to him through the emergency declaration and

they're not doing it and i don't know why. >> they're getting more of all of it because of the emergency declaration -- >> no, they are not. >> and not enough because of congress. >> i disagree with that but you take it up with him. he'll make a different case. angela, ken, thank you very much. appreciate it. the president has ordered warships and warplanes to go to the gulf. now, this situation is all about why with iran. how does he justify the move? they're saying heightened threats. he's got to show there's an imminent threat to be able to act unilaterally. that is if the congress wants to do its job. senators on both sides of the aisle say they want answers. they should be in charge. the constitution gives them the duty to declare war. not the president. a key senator joins us next. s... s...u... s...u...v... these letters used to mean something. letters earned in backwoods, high hills, and steep dunes. but somewhere along the way,

suvs became pretenders, not pioneers. but you never forgot the difference, and neither did we. there are many suvs, but there's only one legend. hurry in now to the jeep celebration event and get $500 additional bonus cash on select models. [ chuckles ] so, what are some key takeaways from this commercial? did any of you hear the "bundle your home and auto" part? -i like that, just not when it comes out of her mouth. -yeah, as a mother, i wouldn't want my kids to see that. -good mom. -to see -- wait. i'm sorry. what? -don't kids see enough violence as it is? -i've seen violence. -maybe we turn the word "bundle" into a character, like mr. bundles. -top o' the bundle to you. [ laughter ] bundle, bundle, bundle.

-my kids would love that. -yeah. billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart.

all right. so here's the latest. the state department is pulling nonemergency workers out of iraq. why? they're worried about an iranian attack there on them. they're also sending a carrier group, the united states is, to the persian gulf. and there's talk of sending in u.s. troops, maybe as many as 120,000. why?

that's the key question. a purported imminent threat coming from iran. now, that's operative legal language. that's what the president needs to show to act on his own. democrats are demanding answers, including my next guest, senator chris murphy. he's on the all-important foreign relations committee. senator, good to have you back on "prime time." >> thanks for having me. >> has the white house articulated an imminent threat from iran that justifies these military actions? >> the white house has not articulated an imminent threat. we have repeatedly asked for briefings in a classified setting from the administration so that they can outline to us the information that they have that has caused them to take these escalatory steps and they have refused to give congress that briefing, which is absolutely outrageous. there is rumors that that briefing is going to come sometime next week, but who knows, next week might be too late. trump's military leaders begged him not to take the escalatory actions that he has undertaken over the course of the last several months.

they begged him not to pull out of the iran nuclear agreement when iran was complying. they begged him not to name the iranian military, the irgc, as a terrorist group, knowing that that might provoke attacks on u.s. troops there. he has ignored his military advice over and over and now he has set in motion a series of events that may end up in hostilities breaking out. and as you noted, if he wants to take action, he has to come to congress and he hasn't talked to us about the intelligence that would allow us to make that decision. >> that's the good news and bad news, right? the good news is he doesn't have the power, absent the show of an imminent threat, to congress even under the aumf reinterpreted in 2001. that's only as good as the political will to enforce it. that's where you guys, with all due respect, democrats and republicans, you don't have been giving power to presidents for decades. they talk about taking back

power. it never happens. what's going to happen this time? >> so there's legislation on the floor right now that would withdraw funding for any pre-emptive strike against iran. and at any time, even if we haven't authorized a military action, the united states congress can pull funding. >> right. >> we have the powers of the purse. >> purse. was it bipartisan? >> but as you point out, congress doesn't have the willingness to do it. the republican leadership in the senate seem willing at this point to outsource all decisions about war making to the president, and, frankly, i will admit that democrats were willing to outsource those decisions to president obama. >> true. >> during his tenure. this has been a long-term abdication of responsibility and it ultimately may get us into an unnecessary and very messy war with iran. this has been decades in the making, unfortunately. >> you know what i haven't seen -- what do you think of this suggestion, i've talked to your colleague tim kaine about this a lot. why don't you go on record, why

don't all the senators who know that this is unconstitutional on both ends, it's unconstitutional for him, it's unconstitutional for you to let him do it without having the discussion and the right process and the right finding. why not go on record on the floor of senate, get everybody who says we're supposed to do this, not him, so at least we know that god forbid something happens and people need to be held to account like after the iraq war, at least there was a vote there. my suspicion is, chris, that's why senators don't want to do it again, is you don't want to own it because we know what happened when you owned it the last time. >> well, you know, we don't want to own it, and i'm not amongst this group. i would vote for the right authorization of military force if the circumstances presented, but congress really doesn't want to own military action any longer because the definition of war and the end of war is messy. it's not as if armies march against each other. it's not as if there are peace treaties. so when the definitions of enemies and success and victory

become so blurred, congress just doesn't want to get its hands dirty. >> fair point. >> but the constitution doesn't change. it's still our responsibility. but to your point, yes, we should be able to put members of the senate on the record. this legislation i referred to earlier would be hard for republicans to oppose because all it says is that the president does not have the power to launch a pre-emptive strike against iran without congressional authorization, and i'd be hard-pressed to listen to a republican argue against that bedrock constitutional principle. we're going to try to get a vote on that in some way, shape or form in the senate in the coming weeks. >> we're going to need you because one of the problems of what this president has done with his abuse of truth is that i don't know what happens if he comes to the american people and says, here's what i want to tell you about what i know about iran. the intelligence agencies that he's bashed, the institutions of our country that he has questioned and put into question now this country that's so divided is supposed to accept his word?

we're going to need a faction. we're going to need congress and the executive to be on the same page. so this is going to be something to watch and that is part of our job. senator chris murphy, i appreciate you coming on to speak with candor about it. i will come back to you on this, i promise. >> thanks, chris. >> be well, senator. all right. now critics say that president trump ought to get his head examined. literally. a former high-level member of a republican white house decided to go down this road. that's not what congress saw coming. this is a crazy story. d. lemon, he's going to love it. me, not so much. why? next. ♪

♪ welcome to our lounge. enjoy your stay. thanks very much.

♪ ♪ find calm in over 1,000 airport lounges worldwide. it's another way we've got your back. the business platinum card from american express. don't do business without it. noso let's promote ourke summer travel deal on choicehotels.com like this: surf's up. earn a fifty-dollar gift card when you stay just twice this summer. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com behr presents: outdone yourself. staining be done... and stay done through every season.

behr semi-transparent stain, overall #1 rated. stay done for years to come. find it exclusively at the home depot. (door bell rings) it's ohey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. 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. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. to save 30% on all the medications we carry. so go directly to petmeds.com now. all right. so listen to this story. top house republicans wanted to pick the brain of a former bush 43 economic adviser about the trade war with china. they got that, but they got a lot more, including a phycological profile of president trump and his chinese counterpart. larry lindsey was the former administration official and he said he enlisted two psychiatrists to analyze trump and xi. they rated trump a 10 out of 10

narcissist. president xi got the same score but the docs also called xi machiavellian. d. lemon, what do you make of this? >> well, i'm not a doctor or a psychiatrist, so i don't want to diagnose anyone. this is simply my layman's -- >> you don't want to diagnose but you stayed at a he'll day -- holiday inn express last night. >> am i glowing? is that the same as the bada bing, bada bomb. listen, you don't have to be a doctor to realize that he is a narcissist and has an enormous ego and he likes dictators and he likes strong men and he wants to show power and he wants to be the center of attention for the 4th of july, rather than the country being the center of attention. i'm not surprised by the findings. again, i don't want to diagnose anyone. i'm sure these were not his patients -- >> right. >> they were not his doctor. so that's a caveat we should put there.

you don't have to be an expert to see that. he's an egomaniac. come on. >> listen, i get the description and i get all the buzz around this. i don't like it. as you said, they didn't examine the guy, let alone xi, and i think you wind up victimizing the president when you do this. >> agreed. >> and you give him high ground because he's able to say look at what they save about me. >> do you think i'm wrong to say he has a big ego and an egomaniac? >> i think he has a huge id. >> the id -- >> hey, did you hear about this? >> what? >> the president just pardoned his billionaire friend, conrad black. two things, conrad black is not a citizen of the united states, but he was in prison here. >> right. >> and he just happened to write a book about donald trump -- >> is it a glowing book? >> called "donald j. trump: a president like no other." he was convicted a decade ago on fraud charges.

he served like three-plus years in prison. it was a long time ago. he's just pardoning him now. he's a british citizen and just wrote a book saying the president is a great guy. >> it sounds like you're proving the story that we just -- >> i'm saying you don't need the narcissism label, just point out stuff like this. >> and you're right. you just proved the point. listen, here is the question, though, that i have and i think that everyone in the country should be concerned about. if we're going to war with iran. fareed zakaria will be here to talk about that. and we're also going to talk about the minority in this country ruling over the majority of people. is that fair? should our election process change in some way? we'll discuss all of that. >> deep thoughts from d. lemon, i like it. >> think about what's happening with abortion, the majority of people are in favor of abortion but they're trying to strike it down, so we'll see. >> my man, i'll talk to you in a second. >> see 'ya. >> more than a dozen countries

have joined together after what happened in new zealand to clamp down on internet extremism, all right, especially because of the violence like terrorism. the united states won't sign onto this. why not? the argument of two points, next.

with moderate to severe ulceratiyour plans... crohn's, can change in minutes. your head wants to do one thing... but your gut says not today. if your current treatment isn't working...

ask your doctor about entyvio®. entyvio® acts specifically in the gi tract, to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio® has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. woman: ahh! need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites and lets you see how your baggage will affect the cost of your flight, so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done.

you're gthe latest right fliginisn'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. can you believe that new zealand was two months ago. a guy opens fire on two mosques in christchurch, new zealand, leaving 51 dead injuring dozens more. another hater. he did something uniquely evil, he broadcast the massacre live

on facebook, fewer than 200, we're told, watched the attack live. facebook says it removed it 29 minutes after it started. within 24 hours after that users attempted to re-upload it 1.5 million times. judge that for what you want. the interest and reach aside, new zealand's prime minister saw a need to regulate such online extremism and she asked the world to join her in a pledge. >> when it came to the way that this attack was specifically designed to be broadcast and to go viral, responses to that needed a global solution. there is more work to be done here when it comes to stopping the proliferation of online and violent extremism. that was the basis of the court. >> 18 governments signed onto the christchurch call for action.

so have a number of companies, including amazon, facebook, google, microsoft and twitter. the argument is about who's not on the list, us. president trump didn't want to join his counterparts in paris for the signing. in a statement the white house says the united states stands with the international community in condemning terrorist and violent extremist content online. we agree with the overarching message with christ's church call for action. the united states is not currently in a position to join the endorsement, not currently in the position. i don't even understand what that means. is it not ready, do we not have time? you know, we have other things to sign? the white house officials say that the document could potentially conflict with the first amendment. all right. now we're getting somewhere. let's deal with this, two arguments. the supreme court has been very expansive in protecting speech. in fact, the evolution of jurisprudence has been more expansive to protect more speech, even the most hateful ideas, things that we hate we

don't forgive but we protect. the keyword, though, is speech. now what did we see in chris's church? we saw action. the murderer there did terrible things. he didn't just say them. he didn't just broadcast his ideas or even his verbal threats. he acted on them. why am i being so deliberate with it? it's a meaningful distinction in the law and in common sense, and under the law i believe i argue to you that it would meet the exception from protection, a clear and present danger that would reasonably lead to imminent threat of harm. how does it not make that -- reach that standard? it was that. he did harm. so why isn't the white house making this case? are there good people on both sides of this one as well? second argument. since when does this administration tread gently around legal precedent. examples, the president tried to ban muslims, all of them, from

coming here, knowing it violated the law. the emergency declaration we've been talking about abuses past precedent of a reasonable application of that statute. but he did it, right, he's currently flouting well established precedent as a president of cooperating on oversight, regarding his tax returns and all those subpoenas. this president has always freely attacked judges and rulings he doesn't like so why not be bold here? i do not see the legal limitation. i don't see it. why not sign on? what is it? why would this president not want to stop people from broadcasting violent acts? the most concerning point to me is he won't make the case to you. the white house won't come out and talk about it. they pushed it to the side and i