talkers like cookie monster a bad name. >> cookie monster alive. >> reporter: forget cookies. the president likes his own name in his mouth. >> donald trump. >> donald trump. >> trump donald. >> donald trump. >> cookie monster. >> reporter: jeanne moos, cnn. >> stay on point, donald, stay on point. >> reporter: new york. >> thanks for watching. anderson starts now. and good evening. whether it's a federal judge saying that president trump is subject to the same legal standards we all are or new word that the president's former attorney may have implicated one of his current attorneys, perhaps the president himself in a serious crime, the breaking news hit hard late today and frankly it's still playing out tonight. newly released testimony of michael cohen telling a house committee saying that jay sekulow knew that his testimony was false. that news landed just as a d.c.

district court judge gave the president's accounting firm seven days to hand over years of his financial records to the house oversight committee. the judge refusing to stay the order pending appeal writing, i'm quoting here, the president is subject to the same legal standards as any other litigant, which speaks to several other stories which could fill the hour not to mention a court docket or two. signs the president may be getting ready to issue more pardons. and the white house directing former white house counsel don 3 mcgahn to defy a subpoena. president trump on his way to a rally in central pennsylvania was defiant if not entirely accurate. >> i think we've been the most transparent administration in the history of our country. we just went through two years of bob mueller with 18 people that hated donald trump, they were angry democrats as i call them. we've been through it for two years. they spent almost $40 million on

it. we had i think 500 people testify. we had 1.4 or 1.5 million documents. at the end of all of that he said there's no collusion. now what happens is the democrats want a redo and we've had enough and the country's had enough. there has never been ever before an administration that's been so open and transparent. >> okay. so that's not true. keeping him honest, it wasn't true when the president's advisors were stonewalling congress, refusing to answer questions, even deciding to assert executive privilege. wasn't true when he himself was refusing to sit down with robert mueller or when he refused to give house investigators anything at all or when he refused to answer written questions about the investigation. now to be sure, the president has, as all presidents do, no small amount of legitimate power. the executive is, after all,

co-equal branch of government. that's not the issue. whether it's pardoning criminals or defying judges, dangling pardons in front of witnesses against him, defying congressional subpoenas, stalling court ordere action and more is how he chooses to exercise the enormous power any president has. the other issue is whether he's seeking in all he does to expand that power in ways no president has or at least that none has gotten away with. that depends on what the other co-equal branches can and will do about it. first, the courts and the rulings on the financial records. we are joined with the latest on that. what are the key points of this ruling? obviously it's a setback for the president? >> reporter: that's right, anderson. it's a big setback for the president. the judge is saying they must turn over the accounting records back to 2011 pursuant to a subpoena by the house oversight

committee. the judge is rejecting the arguments from trump's legal team saying that they had no legal purpose and only wanted the documents to harass the president. the judge conclusively goes by point by point by the trump team saying congress has complete authority to do this because of the issue of the two branches of government and co-equal branches of government. the judge ruling decidedly in the house favor. these documents, trump's documents will ends up before the committee as soon as soechb days. >> even if they appeal, the judge is refusing to stay his decision or their decision until an appeal? >> reporter: that's right. so there was an agreement that they would not turn over the records until seven days after the judge's initial opinion. the judge is saying that because he does not believe that this case would win on the merits, that he would not grant this stay pending appeal. now it is possible that an appeals court could step in in the meantime and say that they will stay it, but at this point

these records could end up in the hands of lawmakers within seven days. >> and the judge went so far as to cite watergate as far as congress's duty to investigate which is a huge precedent and a huge third rail of politicians. >> reporter: it is. the judge goes through history citing not just watergate but the whitewater and the tea pot dome scandal as saying that congress does have this authority as a co-equal branch of government. i'm going to read a line from his opinion where he says that history has shown that congressionally exposed criminal conduct by the president or high ranking executive branch official can lead to legislation. this goes to the key point in here where trump's team is saying that congress doesn't have a legislative purpose and the judge is saying he doesn't have to decide what the legislation's going to be, he just have to see that it's something that congress could legislate about. >> thanks very much. i want to bring in cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin high atop manhattan's hudson

yards, john dean. how big a deal is this? >> this is a big deal for one particular reason. the accountants don't work for donald trump. they are not part of the government. so if there's a court ruling requiring them to turn over documents, they're probably going to turn over documents. the president can't order them the way he can order parts of the government to keep appealing, to be found in contempt. they really are going to produce these -- these documents if there's no stay entered by the court of appeals. >> and what is the likelihood that there would be a stay entered by the court of appeals. >> i don't think there dsh th-- is a very tough case. some of these are complicated. we'll talk about the don mcgahn issues. those are difficult legal issues. the idea that congress simply doesn't have the right to get these documents i think is an almost frivolous argument. the idea that congress doesn't

have a legislative interest in these. no judge has held that kind of -- made a ruling on those grounds for decades so i just don't think there is much grounds for the president's people to appeal on this one. >> john, this is clearly a significant win for democrats on the house oversight committee or at least potentially. it's interesting that the judge cited the watergate investigation as kara just laid out. i'm wondering what you made of this? do you agree that it's a big deal? >> i do agree with jeff. in fact, it's a very well reasoned opinion. the judge kind of interestingly, he lays out an overview in the first few pages of what he's going to do and i kept saying, where is the law for this? but as you get into the opinion, you see he's really backed up what he's saying and it's very solid law he's relying on. i think they're having a lot of trouble appealing this or getting a stay and this looks like the oversight committee's going to get their documents.

>> what's the next step in this? >> well, the next step is trump's lawyers will go to the court of appeals and ask for a stay. if they don't get a stay there -- >> and that can happen immediately? >> they can do that right away. since this seven day clock is running, i'm sure they will do that right away. if the stay is denied there, they could ask the u.s. supreme court for a stay. that's very unlikely. then the accountants will have to decide whether they want to go into contempt and as a private party, i just find it very unlikely they would be willing -- >> do we know how much information these accountants have? >> presumably it's all the tax returns. accountants keep copies of tax returns. the irony here is this whole big fight is over tax returns that every other president has already released since the 1970s, but it's something, you know, donald trump has fought for ages to keep secret. but that's really what this case is about. >> would -- would the

accountants -- would it be clear in those documents whether or not the president was actually being audited? >> i -- probably, but not definitely. i don't know. >> that would be interesting if he had been lying about that the whole time, too. >> i mean, i would have to look at the wording of the subpoena, but i think the wording of the subpoena just calls for the returns themselves. >> john, i mean, in terms of the white house blocking former white house counsel don mcgahn from testifying with his memo from the justice department, in your opinion does the legal argument hold water? as jeff was saying, it is a complex issue. >> i don't know quite how they're going to do it. mcgahn has got to be willing not to testify. he's got to be willing to be in contempt of congress potentially. they have no other -- they have really no leverage over him. it's mcgahn's call. while the president doesn't want him to testify, what -- what is left out of the opinion by the

department of justice is the so-called fraud crime exception where there is a criminal activity, and that's what the congress is most interested in. and they don't even address that issue in their memo. >> it's interesting, jeff. i mean, if it's up to mcgahn, i guess part of it feels -- is how mcgahn feels about the president because the president has been bad mouthing mcgahn. >> that's the fascinating wild card because if you read the legal opinion, congress can't force don mcgahn to testify but it doesn't address the question at all of what if don mcgahn wants to testify. i asked john, how did he testify in the face of these issues? and he just said, i showed up and testified. now don mcgahn may show up and testify. >> you asked for a subpoena? >> i did ask for a subpoena. >> but -- but the white house couldn't stop you. i mean, they -- they wouldn't -- didn't want you to testify, did they? >> they did not, but we wanted to test -- we wanted a subpoena

so that it was required i be there and hopefully set a precedent that if you get a subpoena, you've got to honor it, even if the white house doesn't want you there. >> mcgahn is a loyal republican. he's loyal to the conservative cause if not to trump in particular so i doubt he's going to show up -- he's going to show up tomorrow, at least until this plays out a little more. but, you know, he is risking contempt and, you know, as a lawyer, as a serious person, he probably does not want to be held in contempt, but that's his only choice. >> but he could essentially play it out with the white house, let them kind of run their legal arguments. >> right. and let it go before a court and have a court force him to testify as opposed to going in voluntarily. i think that's more likely to -- how it will play out. so i don't think anything is going to happen in the immediate future with mcgahn. >> right. >> there is a measure of mystery of what he is going to do.

>> certainly the tax documents are the most fascinating thing. >> i think that's an easy legal issue. the mcgahn stuff is harder. >> how much detail will be in those documents will be fascinating. jeff toobin, thank you. coming up next, more breaking news. we mentioned at the top michael cohen telling a house committee about being offered a presidential pardon and how clearly he said the president's lawyer jay sekulow spelled out what it was for. see what it could, and i say could, say about the president's no obstruction claim. ♪

[laughter] ♪ ♪ "i'm okay." ♪ ♪ thanks to priceline working with top airlines to turn their unsold seats into amazing deals, family reunion attendance is up. we're all related! yeah, i see it. and because priceline offers great deals by comparing thousands of prices in real time, sports fans are seeing more away games. various: yeah-h-h! is that safe? oh, y... ahh! not at all. no, ma'am. nope. and more people than ever are enjoying romantic getaways. (romantic music) that's gross priceline. every trip is a big deal.

and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin that's gross 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. my time is thin, but so is my lawn. now there's scotts thick'r lawn 3-in-1 solution. with a soil improver! seed! and fertilizer to feed! now yard time is our time. this is a scotts yard. last year, the department of veteran's affairs partnered with t-mobile for business. with va video connect, powered by t-mobile, vets can speak to their doctors from virtually anywhere, and get the care they deserve, without it counting against their data, so they can return to their most important post. soulmate, best friend, or just dad. the va provides the care, t-mobile provides the coverage.

etsy is the place to the things we hold on to. sold by real people and made for all of life's moments. our belongings don't just show what we care about. they show who we are. shop etsy.com we humans are strange creatures. other species avoid pain and struggle. we actually... seek it out. other species do difficult things because they have to. we do difficult things. because we like to. we think it's... fun. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger built for the strangest of all creatures.

at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. you know those butterflies aren't actually in the room? hey, that baker lady's on tv again. she's not a baker. she wears that apron to sell insurance. nobody knows why. she's the progressive insurance lady. they cover pets if your owner gets into a car accident. covers us with what? you got me. [ scoffs ] she's an insurance lady. and i suppose this baker sells insurance, too? progressive protects your pets like you do. you can see "the secret life of pets 2" only in theaters. we have more breaking news tonight and it goes straight to the question of whether the president or the people around him obstructed justice. specifically we're talking possible pardons. just the latest in potentially

most explosive data to emerge in roughly 400 pages of newly revealed house testimony. evan perez joins us. evan, you've been pouring through these documents. what have you learned? >> one of the explosive charges that michael cohen makes is surrounding this issue of pardons and he says that the white house raised the issue of pardons and specifically because they wanted to essentially shut down the russia investigation. i'll read you just a part of the exchange that happened in the 15 hours of testimony that michael cohen gave to the house. he said, quote -- the question to michael cohen is, is it your testimony that whatever discussions that jay sekulow had regarding pardons was done with the knowledge and authority of the president? cohen said, i believe so. jay sekulow is the president's personal attorney who was handling a lot of these inquiries, anderson. there's a second part of this where the question goes, was it something that you sought from the white house or they raised with you? cohen said they raised the topic

and what they were doing, including publicly, they were dangling the concept of pardons and the purpose, of course, was to keep everybody in the joint defense team. this was a joint defense team that was essentially only verbal. there was no written language to support the idea that there was a joint defense agreement between cohen and some of the other people, of course, who were part of this investigation. >> so specifically what did he say about jay sekulow? because jay sekulow was one of the president's attorneys. >> right. exactly. he says that in particular jay sekulow had a lot of these conversations with him and one of the accusations that he makes is that jay sekulow suggested to him that he give false testimony in particular about the trump tower moscow project. you remember that michael cohen falsely testified that all of those discussions ended in january of 2016 as a way to essentially get away from the presidential campaign.

it turns out those discussions happened way into the year, much longer than michael cohen had first testified, so according to his newer testimony he says that jay sekulow helped coordinate that false testimony. now if you believe sekulow and the white house, they say that of course michael cohen cannot be believed and the reason why they gave the january 2016 date, anderson, is because that's all of the documentation they had. from looking at the documents, that's the last they ever saw any mention of the trump tower project in moscow. >> i mean, these are pretty explosive allegations obviously against sekulow. does cohen have any proof? >> he does not. he has very little to corroborate what he is saying here. again, that's the weakness of some of this testimony. he makes a lot of allegations and a lot of it is either him inferring, if you see that exchange about what he believes the president would have known simply because he says sekulow would have been talking to the

president. now he doesn't know what those conversations were and so he's making a lot of leaps in some of this testimony and, again, i think the white house believes that you can't -- the fact that michael cohen is now in prison in part for lying to congress they say is proof that he should not be believed. >> evan perez, thank you. elliott williams and cnn chief legalable list jeffrey toobin. elliott, how does this transcript reconcile with the trail already laid out in the mueller report and the president's tweets about the trump tower moscow? >> in a normal world we would have every reason to disbelieve michael cohen as a not particularly credible witness because he's already pled guilty. we have a long pattern laid out in section two of the mueller report of the president engaging in largely similar conduct, of trying to get people to at best be cute with their stories and at worst lie and we've seen it again and again and again and it's sort of happened multiple

times. to some extent michael cohen's statements are at least supported and at best corroborated by sections of the mueller report. so he, again, you know, this is piggybacking on something evan had said. he's not wonderful witness, to put it charitably, but again, we've just seen this pattern from the president once again and it should surprise no one. >> jeff, there's a difference between the president and jay sekulow. jay sekulow is an attorney. he's very smart about what he can, should or should not say legally. he did publicly say something that was not true. he said he was given -- he had the wrong information when he said the president did not dictate the response about the russian meeting on air force one. that turned out to be not true. this one is essentially putting jay sekulow -- i mean, again, there's no direct evidence of it, but if it's true, it's a pretty big allegation. >> but it is similar to the other situation that you just described in that sekulow is

dealing with information given to him by his client. jay sekulow doesn't have independent knowledge of when the trump tower moscow negotiations ended in 2016. he seems to be trying to convince michael cohen to line up his story with donald trump, but that doesn't mean that he knew the story was false. and as for the issue of pardons, i mean, it sounds to me -- i mean, i read the testimony, too. it's sufficiently general that it does not seem like it's an outright promise, but the falsehoods here seem to come more from donald trump. sekulow does not seem to be engaging in any improper conduct. >> elliott, in one of the transcripts that was released cohen testified that, quote, virtually all my conversations were referred back to the client. jay wasn't going to speak on behalf of the president. he was relaying messages back and forth. so if sekulow isn't giving counsel but instead acting as a

mouthpiece, i assume he's still protected by attorney-client privilege? >> he is. now the question is attorney-client privilege can't be a total shield for criminality if he is concealing criminal conduct. the question is, what did he know? this is what we're talking about. was he aware he was directing an individual to tell an untruth on behalf of the president of the united states. this piggybacks on what jeffrey said. there's a lot of speaking in generalities but also in, you know, pattern of behavior from the president of the united states. so the generalities and the winks and the nods that seem to characterize so much of the behavior from the president of the united states. so, again, there's a lot of conduct that we're seeing once again, you know, in this testimony tonight that steps up to the line of propriety, maybe doesn't step over it, perhaps can't be charged, probably can't. again, is it appropriate conduct for the president of the united states? again, i'm saying president of

the united states. his attorney is acting as his agent so i don't want to suggest that sekulow's hands are entirely clean with respect to misconduct if he is in fact acting as an agent of the president. >> isn't all of this stuff that mueller would have seen? >> yes. basically the story that michael cohen is telling here is consistent with the mueller report. >> right. >> one, this is -- this whole area is one of the areas of possible obstruction of justice. this just underlines why it's important to have live witnesses and actual testimony about these things rather than just the mueller report itself. people -- it's all based on mueller's conclusions, but if the witnesses come forward, either in transcript or better yet as live witnesses, people can make up their own minds about who is telling the truth. >> there is a big difference between reading a report which frankly most americans had not read at 448 pages single spaced and seeing somebody on television in their own words.

>> that's why don mcgahn's testimony, mueller's testimony is so important. most people get their information through television, through video and the notion that the mueller report is good enough, it just doesn't comport with the reality of modern life. >> jeff toobin, elliott williams, thank you very much. from the first time suggesting that the president committed impeachable offenses, he's talking. we'll see what he says about his own party's leadership on this issue. there's thousands of ingredients out there. the freshest stuff this planet can grow. not buzzword fresh. but, actually fresh-fresh. fresh. at panera, we hand-pick berries at peak-season. use creamy avocado. cage-free eggs. and a dressing fit for a goddess. oh and every ingredient is 100% clean. come taste what a salad should be. and for your next event big or small, try panera catering. panera. food as it should be.

...when a plan stops being a plan and gets set into motion. today's merrill can help you get there with the people, tools, and personalized advice to help turn your ambitions into action. what would you like the power to do?

neither president trump, the head of the republican party nor primary challenge will deter senatorse senator a ma. president trump called him a loser and a total light weight. a michigan state lawmaker, state rep jim lawer said in a statement that amash was out of touch. none of that appears to have

affected amash. he spent ten tweets knocking down the most common rationale for why there is no case. for instance, he wrote, if an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice if it were there. they asked him a range of questions about his republican colleagues and the impeachment process. here's a sample. >> mccarthy saying that you work with nancy pelosi. >> i think everyone knows he's lying. that's typical kevin. >> when you say you're going to review impeachment proceedings as a process, what do you definitely mean by that? >> well, it's a process. it's not like the resolution is just drawn up overnight. it's a process. you have to come to the right conclusions about how to draft something. >> but you would like to see them start at some point? >> i think it's appropriate to do so. >> speaker pelosi is in charge

of that, not me. >> primary, now you're running after your tweets about the impeachment. >> it's not serious. >> so you feel like you're safe for two more years after this? >> i feel very confident in my district. >> joining me now, usa today columnist, kirsten powers and michael kaputo. kirsten, what do you think the congressman's political calculus is here and do you think this could give other republicans cover to do the same thing although no one seems to be standing up at this point? >> i don't think you can read nooch what amash is doing. he is's conservative, principled and he's willing to buck the party. he's criticized trump before in a party where nobody criticizes president trump. so i think that he -- i don't think he's honestly really worried about the political

calculus. he feels like he has a great relationship with people in his district. it's half and half, republican and democrats. he's used to navigating the waters of people who think differently. i assume based on what he saw he feels confident in his relationship with voters. >> michael, is it unusual to think that any other republicans would break with the president here? >> i think we have a lot of independent minded people in the house and senate but justin amash is entirely different. he's never supported the president. ever since 2010 he's got one bill with his name on it. he renamed the post office. he's not really done much. michigan 3, the president won 52-42 in 2016. i think it's important to realize i haven't seen the president's victory map in the

campaign headquarters for 2020, but certainly michigan is on one or another of the versions of it. and he needs michigan 3. that grand rapids area is very pro trump. michigan 3 he won 52-42. i think representative lower has a good shot at unseating him but i think amash has something else in mind. >> what do you mean? >> i think he plans to run against the president as a libertarian, as a third party candidate. we know the host of never trump republicans who, you know, lost their magazine and weekly standard have been meeting on a regular basis trying to find a third party person to come in and ross perot the president this time around and i think amash is doing a tryout now. >> kirsten, over the weekend a michigan state representative said this allowed him to launch a charge against him. sitting republicans criticizing the president can be the downfall of their careers.

you saw senator flake and corker forced into retirement. do you believe this contesting the water as some sort of challenge to the president? >> it could be but it's not really new for justin amash to be doing things like this. he has a long history of being independent minded and criticize his party. kevin mccarthy criticized him but what he left out is often when justin amash wasn't voting with him, it wasn't because he was liberal, he was coming at him with a conservative standpoint. he's a member of the house freedom caucus. he's actually quite conservative and, by the way, just as a matter of fact, he votes more with republicans than he does with democrats. he's a person who has a history of doing this. if he was going to run against trump, that could be another factor but i honestly think he would do this regardless of that because he has such a long history of doing things like this. >> michael, the congressman did actually read the mueller report.

he said few members of congress have read it, the unredacted version that their minds were made up. does that seem like a fair point to you? shouldn't members of congress actually read the entire 448 plus pages? >> well, they should, in fact, and now it's out in a couple of different paper back versions, too. so there's no reason not to read it. i think painting justin amash as a member in good standing as a member of the freedom caucus is a misrepresentation. i talked to michael johns, one of the founders of the tea party in 2009, 2010 who campaigned on behalf of justin amash in the tea party wave, he said it's united among all tea party members that they want the freedom caucus to throw justin amash out. >> why? why, michael? >> because he's not conservative. >> because he's criticizing donald trump. >> he voted in favor -- well, no, he voted in favor of funding

for planned parenthood. he voted for the wall. >> he has a reason. i disagree with him on a lot of things. i don't want to be the defender of justin amash. the reason he voted that way, he doesn't think you should be singling out planned parenthood. if you want to make a defunding of health care services across the board, fine. constitutionally speaking he doesn't think you can single out an entity. it's not about abortion. >> understood. he's a chapter and verse defender of the constitution. he knows it well. he's a university of michigan law school grad. the freedom caucus was against the funding of planned parenthood. he should be drummed out of the freedom caucus. we'll see that soon. >> democratic leaders in congress continue to be skeptical when it comes to initiating impeachment proceedings. it's unlikely one republican would move the needle. >> definitely not. like i said, we cannot read

anything into justin amash's behavior. we've seen how reticent people are to criticize donald trump and he's had no problem doing that and he's, you know, gone his different ways on various things even -- but even if you were to get a handful more republicans, it would take more than that, i think. i think right now what the democrats are doing, they're going through the investigation and trying to, you know, build the case that that's the direction that it's going to go and that's really all they can do at this point. >> kirsten powers, michael kaputo, good to see you both. stay with us. a lot more ahead including the perspective on the just released closed door testimony from michael cohen. my time is thin, but so is my lawn. now there's scotts thick'r lawn 3-in-1 solution.

with a soil improver! seed! and fertilizer to feed! now yard time is our time. this is a scotts yard.

returning to our breaking news. one of the things that michael cohen told the house intelligence committee behind closed doors was one of president trump's attorneys raised the possibility of pardons. joining me is former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, cnn legal analyst parik barara. the president of the u.s. was, according to cohen, effectively offering up pardons to close down the investigation. a, if true, is that obstruction? b, does it matter given he's the president? >> well, those are two very good

questions much as i often say on this program, the devil's in the details. it depends how it was said. it depends on the exact words used. it depends on the intentions of the people making the statement and it depends on what the understanding was of the person who received the statement. you can have a suggestion that's kind of cute, say, look, as i saw from some of the transcript that was released today before i walked in here, look, everything's going to be okay. the president likes you. that's not as explicit as, look, if you tell this thing that is not true and that you and i both know is not true, i can guarantee you that there will be a pardon at the end of the ordeal for you, that's one end of the spectrum, which is much more severe and much more obviously a thing you need to be worried about criminally, i think. i don't know that we have that here. >> if the allegation is true though and cohen is obviously an admitted liar, the president's lawyer was somehow involved in cohen's false testimony to

congress about trump tower moscow, what would that mean for sekulow? obviously those are a lot of ifs and i mean if sekulow is just a messenger sending messages that he doesn't know whether they're true or not, does that matter? >> yeah. i mean, obviously when you're trying to make an allegation about anyone, whether it's a criminal allegation or an ethical allegation or some other kind of allegation of impropriety, especially against a lawyer, it's important to know what was in that person's mind, what that person's intent was. and as happens in other circumstances, both with lawyers and with spokespeople, and you can fault them for this, for not getting the real truth, but they only know what the clients tell them. if it's the case that a lawyer like jay sekulow or someone else just didn't have the knowledge, then i don't think it means that much. as a practical matter it doesn't mean that much for him because the person who has looked at all of this and was going to make a determination of all of this fell straight into the wheel house and the hartland of what

bob mueller was looking at and he chose not to take action. part of that was because he had trouble talking to the lawyers because of the attorney-client privilege. separate from all of that, what i had read both in the washington post report and based on some of the testimony, with respect to the issue of the trump tower deal, you know, it could be argued that jay sekulow was somewhat suggestive but i think, you know, we're getting really ahead of ourselves to say he did something approaching something unlawful especially when you know that michael cohen, you know, has credibility problems, which is not to say that michael cohen has not told a lot of things that are truthful. i i believe a lot of things that he said. if you take the step of the allegation, you need more than i've seen. >> based on this judge's ruling that this accounting firm has to release the president's financial documents within seven days, it's very likely obviously the president is going to appeal

it. do you think these documents will get out before any kind of appeal is filed or ruled on? >> that seems unlikely, although the judge didn't issue a stay so i have to go back and read it again. i will suggest to the audience though, i read it quickly on the play coming down here, it's a good opinion. it sets a very good bedrock framework between all of these squirmishes and how they're going to go. the president's lawyer takes an extreme view going back to president buchanan in 1880 saying the congress has no role in investigating anything whatsoever. seems to repudiate the idea that whitewater was lawful or inappropriate or the committee to investigate watergate was unlawful. that's not how the constitution works and it's not how i think judges who are appointed by either democrats or republicans are going to view it. we'll see in the next few days. the other thing that's heartening about it, some of these things are going to get

through the courts quickly. the judge in d.c. heard the matter quickly, had a proceeding quickly, wrote a 41 page opinion very, very quickly. i think this will leave it up to the courts of appeals or the supreme court. >> preet, appreciate it. democratic candidate does a town hall on fox news. the president doesn't like it, like not at all. that's on the ridiculist coming up. while the leading allergy spray is indicated for 6 symptoms... claritin-d is indicated for 8... including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d. get more. it's nice.

♪ you got this! ♪ woo! ♪ ♪ ♪ 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 last year, the department of veteran's affairs partnered with t-mobile for business. with va video connect, powered by t-mobile, vets can speak to their doctors from virtually anywhere, and get the care they deserve, without it counting against their data, so they can return to their most important post. soulmate, best friend, or just dad. the va provides the care, t-mobile provides the coverage.

let's check on chris for for what he's working on for cuomo primetime. what have you got? >> we're taking on the breaking news tonight. we had a court say that the president's tax prep folks have to comply with oversite and now we know more about why congress is so hot on this trail.

>> when it's time to change you got to rearrange. we'll argue about why they're releasing it. but you learn things about michael cohen and the president's son and doesn't inform us about as to why congress was acting with such confidence. >> dthe other thing, i know you're a big fisherman, did you hear about the great white tracked off of long island sound this weekend. >> i'll forgive the dig and say there is believed to be a hatchery near montage and we have been seeing them for years. so there was bait and we were

fishing on it and there was an explosion and we thought it was a pressure shark but this one came flying out of the water and didn't know what it was. it was about five feet long -- >> i lost you. you lost me. but i understand you met up with don lemon this weekend on those waters. here's don's version of events. we met up with him for a sunset cruise. he's a terrible boat captain, he almost rammed my vote. >> first of all, that's even better than i would usually give him credit for in terms of accuracy and english. he is a new boat owner. >> i was helping him out. he wanted to see a sunset. i said i know a magical place for a sunset. >> that's sweet.

>> when i noticed his boat had not just his fiancee but two dogs with life vests on i pushed him away from my vessel because of the violation of sea and man law. that's what happened. >> putting life vests on a dog is a violation of man law. >> it is a violation of everything that is good and holy. >> i'll see you in a few minutes. >> the ridiculist is next. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck. heading out here? get the ford ranger. the only adventure gear built ford tough. my time is thin, but so is my lawn. now there's scotts thick'r lawn 3-in-1 solution.

with a soil improver! seed! and fertilizer to feed! now yard time is our time. this is a scotts yard. it opened up so dnmany doors. it's a lifelong adventure finding all of these new connections all the time. new features. greater details. richer stories. get your dna kit today at ancestry.com. there's thousands of ingredients out there. the freshest stuff this planet can grow. not buzzword fresh. but, actually fresh-fresh. fresh. at panera, we hand-pick berries at peak-season. use creamy avocado. cage-free eggs. and a dressing fit for a goddess. oh and every ingredient is 100% clean. come taste what a salad should be. and for your next event big or small, try panera catering. panera. food as it should be. yesss, i'm doing it all. the water.

the exercise. the fiber. month after month, and i still have belly pain and recurring constipation. so i asked my doctor what else i could do, and i said yesss to linzess. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. linzess is not a laxative, it works differently. it helps relieve belly pain and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. do not give linzess to children less than 6, and it should not be given to children 6 to less than 18, it may harm them. do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach area pain, and swelling. i'm still doing it all. the water. the exercise. the fiber. and i said yesss to linzess for help with belly pain and recurring constipation. ask your doctor. at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like,

"wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. let's see, aleve is than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. -excuse me. uh... do you mind...being a mo-tour? -what could be better than being a mo-tour? the real question is... do you mind not being a mo-tour? -i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

tonight the world's biggest most elegant cable news fan has his tail in a twist. a man that thinks journalism is an hour long phone call is on a tirade against his most famous network. their offense, their actual news division and not their morning zoo crew invited a propaganda pact to appear on their air. the president tweeted yesterday in part hard to believe that fox news is wasting air time on mayor pete as chris wallace likes to call him. does that sound like a jealous 15-year-old boy to you snapchating his bestie late at night? it's hard to believe jenny would be wasting time on pete or peter as chris likes to call him.

when the network you rely on gives a platform to someone else. someone that is young. a national road scholar. someone that went to war with a veteran? how could they? the president continued his texting probably to his best friend corey. now he'll never be president. that's what i imagine. first of all mike wallace passed away in 2012 and is unavailable for interviews. also the bit that president trump keeps doing trying to compare pete to a cartoon character with a gap tooth only

underscores that his stock pile of fossilized nickname nuggets is running lower than his credit line with deutsche bank. here's how blind his devotion is to fox news. he thought it would be good to air opposite the game of thrones finale. she was still on air this weekend doing her best impression of that amtrak seatmate you just can't get away from. >> grab your popcorn, junior mints or whatever makes you happy, the real show is about to begin. this will be true reality tv. no scripts, no rehearsals, just a gang of criminals pointing fingers at each other. a version of true crime and the reality show survivor. >> wow, who wrote that?

biting. talk about a way to turn me off junior mints. anyway, she thinks real life is like survivor which is interesting because her show is like law and order when a suspect represents herself at trial. it's hard to imagine the president would actually boycott fox news though. surely he will be back on the phone with hannity sometime soon like one of those overnight, late night talk radio callers if anything calms an angry president trump it's being fed like a bird in primetime. >> i'm chris couomo. apologize for the voice in advance. welcome on a huge night for o r oversight and breaking on our watch, we know much