thank you so much, kate. by the way, tonight on cnn kate has a fascinating look at the life of the first lady in her documentary "woman of mystery, melania trump." it is at 9:00 and you don't want to join us. "ac 360" with john berman in tonight starts now. breaking news tonight. his advisers privately admit he is handling questions on this poorly, and even as they do the president of the united states might just be proving their point. he just thanked a top lawmaker for making it easier than it would otherwise be for him to break the law if he wants. easier to do what he said just two days ago he is open to doing, colluding with foreign governments to win reelection and never mind the fbi. john berman here in for anderson. these two items on collusion and private doubts inside the west wing broke at the end of the day of what some were calling a walk-back by the president, a cleanup of a gaffe they called

it. keeping them honest, what about the so-called gaffe was no gaffe at all. what if the president said to abc's george stephanopoulos days ago was, and i know it sound crazy, the truth. tonight's tweet is fresh evidence of that. quoting now, thank you senate majority leader mitch mcconnell of understanding the democrat's team of not playing it straight on the ridiculous witch hunt hoax in the senate. that's the president thanking the senate majority leader for blocking legislation that would have required any offers of campaign help from foreign agents to the fbi. senate republicans killed it yesterday afternoon. it was done and done quietly all things considered, meaning the president didn't need to say a thing let alone just as the whole story was dying down, but he did. the fact that he did is pretty telling. it suggests that this morning's so-called walkback which you will see in a moment might not count for so much, and what the president really, truly believes is what he originally said.

>> your campaign this time, foreigners, if russia, if china or someone else offers you information on an opponent, should you accept it or call the fbi? >> i think you do both. i think you might want to listen. there's nothing wrong with listening. if somebody called from a country -- norway -- we have information on your opponent. oh, i think i would want to hear it. >> you want that kind of interference in our elections? >> it is not an interference. they have information. i think i would take it. >> that's the president of the united states telling abc news and the world that it is now open season on u.s. elections, that he's fully open for business. oh, and he went on to add that the fbi doesn't necessarily have to know about it. all of it prompted the chair of the federal election commission to issue a public rebuke of the president. it reads in part, let me make something 100% clear to the american public and anyone running for public office. it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value in connection

with the u.s. election. this is not a novel concept. so that's where we left it last night. then this morning the president went on "fox & friends" and this is what became known as the walk-back, the cleanup. listen carefully. >> you have to look at it because if you don't look at it you're not going to know if it is bad. how are you going to know if it is bad? but, of course, you give it to the fbi or report it to the attorney general or somebody like that. but, of course, you do that. >> of course you give it to the fbi, he said, or the attorney general or somebody like that. but you have to look at it, he says. how else would you know if it is bad? now, unclear there whether he means bad as in bad for the country, bad for public confidence in the democratic process, or merely bad for his opponent. but, hey, you got to take that rolex from the guy in the bar because, you know, how else can you find out if it is stolen? that in a nutshell is the president's argument. don't call the cops before

inspecting the goods. some walk-back, maybe though a still listening walk-back, and some cleanup, but let's say for a minute that the president for whatever reasons did, in fact, intend to somehow temper his position. you still have to ask yourself given the latest tweet, given what you just heard, given his original remarks, which rings truer, the so-called cleanup or the so-called gaffe? and we do have some new reporting right now on how all of this is unfolding inside the white house. cnn's jim acosta joins us now with what his sources are telling him. jim, what are you learning about all of the fall-out surrounding the abc news interview? >> reporter: yeah, john, sources telling me and abby phillip, my colleague, that essentially people inside the white house and outside the white house close to the president feel that mr. trump mishandled these questions coming from abc about whether or not he would accept foreign dirt on a political opponent in the upcoming 2020 campaign. one source told me earlier today

that these clips coming from abc have been, quote, tough to watch, and they essentially feel at this point the president did try to clean this up but there has been some lasting damage. they're not exactly sure how much damage was done, but there was some lasting damage from what the president said. he clearly invited foreign governments to turn over damaging information on political opponents in that interview. as you were just playing a few moments ago, he sort of cleared it up but left a lot of collusion confusion because in the course of that interview on "fox & friends" he seemed to be saying, well, maybe i would turn it over to the fbi but i might want to have a look at it first. that's not exactly the same thing as going straight to the fbi. >> no, not at all. and i understand, jim, that some of the president's advisers have taken issue with how sarah sanders handled all of this, correct? >> reporter: that's right. and there was some grumbling going on inside the white house among some of the president's political advisers as to whether or not the outgoing white house press secretary simply granted too much access to the president during the course of this

interview and put him in a position where he made these kinds of comments. now, of course, it was the president's decision to do the interview and also make those remarks, so you can't blame too much of this on sarah sanders, but there was some finger pointing going on inside the white house and among the president's political advisers. it just goes to show you, john, that there was concern as to what the president said, otherwise they wouldn't be pointing fingers at one another. >> so the people you are talking to, jim, do they think these comments from the president are going to hurt him with his supporters at all? >> reporter: you know, what we're hearing at this point -- and, john, you and i have seen this movie before. when the president makes these sorts of remarks, it is kind of incredible how much teflon coating he has when it comes to this issue of interference in our elections. the sources that we've been talking to over the last 24 hours have told us essentially they feel though that this is just an issue for democrats and people in the media, not necessarily something that's going to dent his support among his supporters. and i think one true sign of that came earlier today, john,

when the senate majority leader was thanked by the president on twitter for mitch mcconnell's comments to "fox news" that essentially the public needs to move on all of this and that democrats are never going to give this you have. it is just one more example when it comes to this issue of foreign interference, it seems that the leadership of the republican party has essentially had this president's back no matter what he says. john. >> i will say we've heard from many non-partisan people in the national security community they've been concerned about the comments as well. jim acosta, thank you very much. >> you bet. joining us now someone with a better sense of almost anyone on how the president thinks and what he believes, cnn political analyst and "new york times" white house correspondent maggie haberman. maggie, cnn is reporting there are people inside the white house looking at what the president said this week and they're concerned. >> they are. >> they think it didn't go well. what are you hearing? >> there are a couple of things going on. one, there are concerns about the specific remarks about, you know, i would take it, which was his language about foreign interference. to be clear, we're weren't talking about -- which he is describing as opposition research and we should be very

clear that's not what it is, not what opposition research is. i know we talked about it here before but it is worth noting again, and it doesn't have to be russia. it could be almost any country. they're concerned about the fact he gave a series of interviews in the last two weeks, two on his foreign trip, his state visit to the uk, and then to normandy, and then this interview, a very long interview with george stephanopoulos, where he said all manner of things that a number of his aides thought were regrettable, a number of his advisers thought were regrettable. he talked about the vietnam war dismissively as he was getting ready to attend d-day. they don't think it will dent his support, but they know that his base has to grow, that he can't contract if he is going into 2020. anything that could shave off even a little bit of support is worrisome. >> the part about being concerned with the george stephanopoulos interview confuses me because it wasn't a trick question. it is one of the major questions

out there, would you listen to outreach from foreign countries offering dirt on political opponents. you know, robert mueller basically presented that question to the world at the end of his one public statement. >> that question was also asked of the president's son-in-law, jared kushner, about a meeting that jared kushner attended with the president's son and the then-campaign chairman paul manafort with a russia criminal-linked lawyer, would you do it again. his answer was not just no, i don't know, i'm not getting into a hypothetical. it is the second time we have seen that and it suggests there's not been a lot learned in terms of going forward. i also think that it is not excuse making, to be clear, but you have to remember for this president acknowledging that he wouldn't do it again would be admitting that someone made a mistake last time, which i think he is always loath to do. but in refusing to do so he is hurting himself. >> why this what some are calming a walk-back today, even though he did still say he would listen and determine whether to hand it over?

>> because there's still the reality of the situation and there are enough people who know that this had to be dealt with. >> there is one other political reality he did create, which to give democrats an opportunity to propose this legislation which would make it illegal not to tell the fbi if you get this foreign outreach from foreign adversaries offering dirt on political opponents. that is something the democrats, i imagine, could run with. >> democrats could absolutely run with that in the house even though they know it is not going anywhere in the senate, but it could certainly lay bare for people what the issue is and what they're talking about and the stakes here. among democrats there is some quiet and not-so-quiet grumbling that there's more they could be doing on the voting front to just try to, you know, highlight areas where they think the president has problems. >> all right. i want to ask you something which you have done a lot of work on in the last week, which you had a terrific report which said that there were concerns within the trump campaign that their internal polling had shown the president trailing joe biden in key swing states, many of them. the president then denied it,

called it fake news among other things i'm sure, and then today abc news didn't just mash it, they were handed the very polling from the trump campaign. >> i don't know that they were handed it from the trump campaign. the trump campaign certainly confirmed the numbers they had were real. but, yes, to your point we report reported and "politico" and cnn reported that the president was behind biden in a number of states, in a 17-state poll. what the campaign then said i think once approached with the numbers by abc was these were just one set of numbers, it was the worst case scenario. but once again, you have the president of the united states saying this is fake news, this is not real, and that term has come to mean stories he doesn't like. >> right. he didn't like your story, and then he lied about it afterwards. >> right. look, this is always the question. is -- i don't know how much of the information he knew, i don't know exactly what he was shown, but that's not really the point. that's why he should be more careful with what he says and not just tweet everything is

fake because it strikes a cord. >> right. although some of the reporting out there also included the fact that he wanted justification for the bad polling. he certainly knew the polling was out there because he wanted it spun a different way. >> yes. he wanted his aides to say that these -- the reporting by us, by you guys, by "politico" wasn't true, and then he denied that he had wanted them to deny it. the whole thing is chain reaction to himself. >> once again, reporting by maggie haberman and "the new york times" proves to be correct. >> thanks, john. >> thank you very much for being with us tonight. i appreciate it. next, more breaking news. this item involving the president's taxes and who can see them. we will tell you which influential legal voice has now just weighed in and how much creedence that opinion, which favors president trump, might carry. later, elizabeth warren, who likes to tell voters"i have a plan for that" if she becomes president. the question tonight, do all of those plans add up to a winning strategy? i've got an idea! oooh, what is it? what if we give the people iphone xr,

when they join t-mobile? for a limited time, join t-mobile and get the awesome iphone xr on us. you mighyour joints...ng for your heart... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. if you have a garden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels. don't stoop to their level. draw the line with the roundup sure shot wand. it extends with a protective shield and targets weeds more precisely. it lets you kill what's bad right down to the root while guarding the good. roundup sure shot wand. got bugs too?

roundup for lawns bug destroyer kills and prevents them, even grubs. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage.

humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. 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. ♪ ♪ award winning interface. award winning design. award winning engine. the volvo xc90. the most awarded luxury suv of the century. more breaking news tonight.

the justice department has just weighed in on president trump's tax returns, namely whether the treasury department can keep them away from the house ways and means committee and perhaps the public despite a law that seems to strongly explicitly suggest otherwise. cnn's laura jarrett has late reporting on this and joins us now. laura, what exactly is the justice department legal argument here? >> john, the basic claim made by doj tonight is that the text of the tax code may be clear, but what really matters is the intent of the democratic congressmen who served the subpoena for trump's tax returns, richard neal. the justice department says because the chairman wants to make the taxes public it is not a legitimate legislative purpose, and so treasury secretary steve mnuchen has a duty not to turn them over. >> so it is about the democrats' motives? >> exactly, and doj called the chairman's stated need of looking into legislative proposals on things like the auditing of presidential

candidates and the president himself, he called all of that pretextual, the justice department does, pointing to a bunch of states from other democrats who said they need trump's tax returns for a variety of reasons like looking at his financial health, which clearly have nothing to do with enforcing federal tax laws. >> i know it wasn't a surprise. we knew the justice department was going to weigh in and we were going to see it. i guess my question is what is the next step for the democrats here? >> well, the justice department also doesn't have the last word here. this isn't a legally binding opinion. it is just their argument. so chairman neal so far has not made any moves to get his subpoenas enforced in court but that's where it is all headed in all reality. today's opinion from the justice department just shows how aggressive a stance this administration probably plans to take to keep those tax returns under wraps, john. >> but no filing yet? this isn't in a courtroom waiting to be heard at this point? >> no, this is just a 33-page missive from the department that shows what they will say in court down the line. >> all right. laura jarrett, thanks so much

for being with us tonight. appreciate it. joining us now, two cnn legal analysts former federal prosecutor. you know, shan, does the justice department have a valid argument there's no legislative purpose and it carries a risk of abuse? >> they do not. that was not a legal opinion, john. it was just, as laura said, an argument. i mean when i worked at the department my understanding was the department defended our laws. here they seem inclined to either abandon them or to find a way around them, and this is just silly that they're saying that they question the motive. they're not in the business of questioning motive. they're in the business of doing legal analysis. there's no legal analysis in these 33 pages. >> carrie, as laura pointed out the doj says chairman neale proclaimed publicly several times he was committed to making the president's tax returns available to the public, which they say proves it is partisan and not for legislative reasons. do chairman neale's prior

statements have -- undercut his argument here? >> well, i think it is possible for two things to be true. it is possible for him to have a legitimate legislative purpose, and i think that he does. he has demonstrated that. there's all sorts of different potential legislation we could think of congress could pass with respect to a president needing to make their tax returns public or the enforcement of the irs audit against the president. so i think he's demonstrated a legitimate purpose. there also is something to the argument that the justice department has, which is that he also has made statements and other democrats have made statements about making the returns public. so it is possible for both things to be true. what is clear in the legal opinion from the justice department is that they are not challenging the text of the statute at all. >> the text of the statute which says, "shall furnish," shan. you know, the treasury department shall furnish these

tax returns and the statute says nothing about motive. it doesn't come up at all, which, in fact, the justice department agrees with today in its legal argument. >> that's right. carrie is right. they don't challenge the legal basis because there's nothing to challenge. there's really nothing to interpret about it. i mean it says "shall" as you pointed out, john, and the justice department has come up with an argument for thou shall not follow that law. >> carrie, what about the potential for abuse though or what about the idea that this law might not be a good one anymore if, if this administration or if this congress wants to get the president's tax returns, what is to stop another congress from going after a different president's tax returns in the future? >> yeah, i mean there's something to that, although the president could have handled this. so he is the first president, at least in our modern history, who has not released his tax returns. that has raised all of these questions, and so congress is attempting to use a law that has been passed, that was enacted

into law, having been signed by a prior president. so they're using the law to obtain them. he could make this whole thing go away by releasing his returns, and so there is a legitimate reason for them to be able to pursue it. it also raises the question, i think, as to whether the president is abusing his authority by having the justice department, sort of under his authority make arguments that protect him personally. >> talk to me about that. i think that's really interesting. what does that say about the bill barr justice department? >> well, it shows, first of all, that not just bill barr but that the entire instrument of the justice department including the office of legal counsel which issues the definitive legal opinions for the department and advises the rest of the executive branch is being asked and is fulfilling arguments that potentially benefit the president personally. i think -- i mean they are going

to make the argument that they are defending the executive in this case, but given the fact that some of the returns pertain to returns before he was president, that's where i see some question about it. >> so, shan, what happens next? when does this get to a courtroom? >> it can get to a courtroom if they go -- if they, being congress, try to go the route of contempt. that would be a mechanism by which to get to the courtroom. at this point that's really the more proper place for it to be. i mean the department can make those arguments if it wants for a fact finder, for a judge to discern, but, you know, their language is so bootstrapping. i mean they say that, quote -- it is not exactly a quote, i'm remembering it. that it is not -- can't possibly be constitutional for congress to have an invalid purpose. i mean it is a completely c conclusory. if you want to challenge the law, you can do that.

of course, they can't do that. >> shan wu, carrie, thank you for being with us. we found out that sarah sanders will be exiting. joe lockhart is next. this is the ocean. just listen. (vo) there's so much we want to show her.

we needed a car that would last long enough to see it all. (avo) subaru outback. ninety eight percent are still on the road after 10 years. come on mom, let's go! mom, what's for din-ner? just water. lots and lots of water. you wouldn't feed your kids just water, so why starve your plants? feed their hunger and get twice the results. new miracle-gro performance organics.

♪ when you have nausea, heartburn, ♪ ♪ indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea ♪ try new pepto liquicaps for fast relief and ultra-coating. ♪ nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea ♪ get powerful relief with new pepto bismol liquicaps.

all right. back to our breaking news at the top of the hour. president trump's abc news interview this week, which was even panned among some inside the white house, as we mentioned white house officials have privately expressed frustration with how the president answered the questions. a source close to the white house says some political advisers were not impressed by how sarah sanders handled the

interview prior to the announcement of per departure yesterday. so the question tonight, what is going to happen after she leaves? according to "the new york times" the president is said to be eager to install a woman to replace her. could the exit of sanders mean the return of the daily white house press briefing? there's an internal debate over whether to revive it, according to the times, as the president heads into the thick of the election season. we are day 95 since the last briefing. my last guest didn't shy away from facing reporters when he held the position even when things were not going that well. he wrote a critical op-ed on sarah sanders saying she failed on almost every aspect of her job. let's talk to former white house press secretary joe lockhart. strange to see you in the night. i usually wake up with you, which is a totally different thing. >> let's move on. >> listen, the idea that the white house is frustrated with sarah sanders, how she handled the abc news interview, does it ring true? >> yes, i have to think and it is just a hunch that the last

two weeks might have accelerated her departure. i think if you book end the europe trip, the sitting down with laura ingraham and the ceremony in normandy, knowing that the president has no impulse control and will go off on nancy pelosi and any oponent in the worst of all settings, a sacred place, you book end that with giving george stephanopoulos, a tough interviewer and a guy not likely to be wowed or in awe of the white house or trappings because he worked there for four years, those were bad decisions. i assume they were sarah's, maybe they weren't. maybe it is unfair. but ultimately the buck stops in the press secretary's office, and, you know, the president was put in a bad situation. despite, you know, doing it to himself he shouldn't have been there. >> is it sarah's fault that george -- you know, he is a great guy and a great interviewer, but those were obvious -- that was an obvious question. is it sarah's fall george asked

the question everyone in america wanted to know the answer to? >> i think a big part of the press secretary's job, it is a little bit like a lawyer in court. never put somebody out unless you know what they're going to say. you work through it. and if the answers are not going to work for the president to help promote his agenda, to help defend against something, you don't put him out. you know, there just seemed to be a little bit of malpractice there to just sort of open the doors and say, come on in, ask anything. you know, the president's ready. >> all right. your op-ed about sarah sanders where you say she failed at almost every aspect of her job, i mean you spared nothing in this. why? >> well, i mean the press secretary's job has multiple facets to it. the part that i think she did do well was she defended the president. you should defend the president, but you have to defend him by telling the truth. she failed there. i think the mueller report story about the, you know, smearing james comey and talking to fbi -- you know, she talked to fbi rank and file and said he was a bad guy, that was

instructive that under oath she told the truth, but beforehand and then when she was back in her office talking to reporters she doubled back to the lie. so it means that unless, you know, this is a person who unless they're faced with jail time is not going to tell the truth, that's -- you're in the wrong job if you are there. the second thing is the big part of your job is to keep the public informed, and going 95 days without doing a briefing sends the message that the public doesn't have a right to know. the third is you're there as the advocate for the press and, you know, one of the things that sarah sanders did is she normalized this idea it is okay to view the press as the enemy of the people. never once did she stand up and say, "well, the president is being hyperbolic there, we don't think that here at the white house." she basically echoed it. in almost every aspect of the job i think she failed. >> if truth is not a priority for this white house, is it worth restoring the press briefing?

>> well, you know, that's -- that's -- i don't know that i can answer that question. i don't think anyone should take the job if truth isn't the first order and the second order and the third order of business. let the president just tweet. if lying is acceptable, let him be his own press secretary. if someone is going to go into that job -- and doing the daily press briefing is a huge opportunity for the administration. it is one lost here because you get to drive the narrative, and you drive it in a way that's much more disciplined than the president's early morning tweets. yes, everybody chases that, but there's no strategy behind that. >> there's also necessity on days when there's conflict with iran and other things for instance. >> sure. >> do you believe there's been lasting damage done to the job of press secretary? >> i'm afraid there has. you know, i'm afraid that whoever is president next, whether it is a democrat or republican, may look at this and say, well, we don't have to do this, you know. the risk is too high.

we can just do it through talking directly to our supporters on social media, and all that does is further divide the country. when you only feel like you have to talk to your people. the thing about the press briefing is it is wide open. anyone who wants to watch it can watch it. that's how people used to speak to the whole nation rather than, you know, through "fox news" or through, you know, a liberal website or progressive website. i'm afraid that people will take the wrong lesson from this, and it really is -- you know, it sounds self-important, but it really is a blow to democracy when you cut the press out of the system. >> joe lockhart, great to have you with us. i appreciate it. next, president trump's best known catch phrase, "you're fired." see why you won't catch him using it with one of his most outspoken staff members, kellyanne conway. does the white house consider her above the law?

-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. -i do. since my dvt blood clot i was thinking... could there be another around the corner? or could it turn out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis

didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis.

the office of special counsel's report on what it called kellyanne conway's numerous violations of the hatch act could not have been more

clear, nor the watchdog agency's conclusion goes she used her government job to preach partisan politics and that failure to fire her for that would, quote, send a message to all federal employees that they need not abide by the hatch act. the response from the president today during a phone interview on fox also could not have been more clear. conway, he said, did nothing wrong. nothing, he said, but exercise her first amendment rights. >> well, i got briefed on it yesterday and it looks to me like they're trying to take away her right of free speech, and that's just not fair. it really sounds to me like a free speech thing. it doesn't sound fair. i will look at it very carefully. >> so, mr. president, you're not going to fire her? >> no, i'm not going to fire her. i think she is a terrific person. they have tried to take away her speech and i think you are entitled to free speech in this country. here with me now former white house communications director for president obama and a cnn political commentator, jen

sake. former director of the u.s. office of government ethics and cnn contributor, water shaw. water, the idea that kellyanne conway was just exercising her first amendment rights, does it hold any water? >> no, it is just utter silliness. the hatch act has been upheld by the supreme court and repeatedly by lower courts. this is a well-established restriction. keep in mind, she is entitled to speak freely on her own time off government property, but the whole point of the hatch act is to keep her from misusing her government position to advocate for a candidate or against a candidate in an election. >> the law specifically, just to be clear on this, water, distinguishes between when she is working as in this case a senior counsellor to the president or when she is off on her own, correct? >> right. that's absolutely right. >> so, jen, i want to play some instances where kellyanne conway, again using her official job, violated the hatch act. listen. >> doug jones in alabama, folks,

don't be fooled. he will be a vote against tax cuts. he is weak on crime, weak on borders. he is strong on raising your taxes. he is terrible for property owners. i've yesterday to see presidential timber, just a bunch of wood chips. amy klobuchar, you can get 81 and 0 and get, oh, my. elizabeth warren spent decades, folks, appropriating somebody else's heritage and ethnicity. >> yes. >> and she has been lying about it. kirsten gillibrand, this weekend in her 50s, apparently was the first time she has eaten fried chicken and she waited for the cameras to roll. it is sill reply stuff. held to account for the obama/biden legacy. >> some of those even included statements on the white house lawn, repeated instances, jen, of these hatch act violations. >> that's right. and it is pretty shocking to watch. when i was in the white house in 2016, our lawyers were so strict, we called them the hatch act police behind their backs. they may know if they are

watchers, but the fact is this law has been around for decades. the reason as water touched on is so that you're not influencing electoral politics from the white house. most white houses abide by it. watching kellyanne conway, i mean she is not just using -- playing into politics, she is kind of attacking and obviously engaging in efforts to go after president trump's opponents. that's exactly what you're not supposed to do. that's why the law is in place. >> water, what happens now? because kellyanne conway isn't going to jail. she is not losing her job. is she allowed to just keep on making comments like this? >> well, she wasn't allowed to do what she did and she did it anyway, so she will probably continue and she probably won't be fired. i think one good thing that has come out of this is it truly exposes the level of lawlessness in this administration. you have got career federal employees who in this administration have been fired for hatch act violations.

one of them was even barred from working for the government for another five years. but it seems that in the trump administration the higher the level the official, the less the rule of law applies to them. so at least now we have clarity that the trump administration is not even paying lip service to the idea that they care about the rule of law. i think it shows a particular disdain for laws that lack in effective enforcement mechanism. >> jen, what message does it send to other white house employees? what message does it send to future white house employees? >> well, it sends a message that you're above the law if you are in the white house. certainly that comes from the current president and, hopefully, that's not what the message future presidents send, but i think one of the points water made is really important. you know, i worked in an agency as well during my time in government, and the vast majority of federal employees don't even have posters of candidates they support, whether they're democrats or republicans. they give no indication of that because it is not appropriate and that's not how you conduct

yourself in federal service because you're serving the american people. there's only a handful, a very small number of even white house employees that can engage in political activity. so this is sending the message that that doesn't matter anymore, and we don't have to abide by that. that kind of goes into this divisive theme we've seen from this white house, that you only are governing a small population of the people in this country, that's to your political advantage, and not the whole country. it is a huge problem obviously. >> water shaub, jen psaku, thank you for being with us. >> thank you. she was polling in the single digits, far behind the back, now elizabeth warren has caught up to second place to bernie sanders. we talked to senator warren today. that's next.

introducing miracle-gro's next big thing: performance organics. this new organic collection of soil and plant food is what you've always wanted. no compromise. twice the results. guaranteed. miracle-gro performance organics.

i've got an idea! oooh, what is it? what if we give the people iphone xr, when they join t-mobile? for a limited time, join t-mobile and get the awesome iphone xr on us. what sore muscles? what with advpounding head? .. advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil.

the line-up for the two nights of democratic debates was announced earlier today, and when senator elizabeth warren steps on to the stage during

round one on june 26th, she will be the only top five polling candidate that night. so a few months ago national polls had her far back, trailing the other progressive favorite, senator bernie sanders, by double digits. in the last week state polls in ohio and iowa have her ahead or about even with sanders. to understand the turn around, her aides say watch her on the campaign trail. that's where we find national correspondent m.j. lee who talked to the senator today. >> dream big! dream big! >> reporter: nearly 100 town hall meetings, thousands of selfies and a whole lot of plans. elizabeth warren is riding high into the summer on fresh momentum and energy. poll after poll shows warren climbing, within striking distance of senator bernie sanders for second place nationally, neck-in-neck in iowa and ahead of sanders in nevada. >> this isn't about polls. it is way too early to be

talking about that, but it is about ideas. it is about talking with people about what is broken in our country. >> reporter: in a historically crowded democratic contest for president, warren has bet big from day one on policy. >> and i have a plan they collect information on every buyer and seller that comes through. >> to student loan debt cancellation and universal child care. >> what it means to talk about student loan debt cancellation. universal child care and real investment in early learning for zero to 5. >> her heavy strategy is clearly resinating with some democratic voters. >> i'm excited that she knows what she is doing and has experience and a specific plan for how to change the world. >> he is able to articulate many of the issues that are facing us and more importantly she seems to have a workable plan to

address these issues. >> warren also committed to a grass roots campaign. she is refusing to hold high dollar fund-raisers during the primaries. >> i'm not smooching up to my millionaires hoping they will fund super pacts on my behalf. >> this is elizabeth warren. warren has been a leading voice among the 2020 field and impeachment proceedings against president trump. >> this is not about politics. this is about principle. >> warren faces stiff competition from former vice president joe biden that has consistently lead in the polls. >> how do you appeal to moderate voters that might be more inclined to support a joe biden at this point. >> the way i see it, it's talking about where things have gone wrong. how long before donald trump came along, we had a government that was working better and better for those at the top.

now the trump administration, the most corrupt in living memory, but the problem is a long time big problem and the way we fight back is we tackle that corruption head on. >> mj lee cnn manchester new hampshire. >> and mj lee joins me now from manchester, new hampshire. the senator didn't bite on your question on joe biden but the fact of the matter is is that she and the former vice president feuded for years, correct? >> that's right. dating back to when he was a senator at delaware and elizabeth warren was a bankruptcy law expert. they crashed on capitol hill on that very issue. we learned today that joe biden and elizabeth warren are not going to be on the same debate stage for the first democratic set of debates instead she is

going to be on stage with corey booker and amy klobachar and that is not a clash we're going to see at least in the first democratic debate. i did ask her if she had started doing debate prep. she says she has not yet. >> time to get started. thanks so much. she lives in the people's house but people still know very little about our notoriously private first lady melania trump. that's going to change in just minutes. you'll hear from aids in her close inner circle and get a rare look inside the east wing. that's in just a moment. hey guys! up there! or, to laugh out loud. you're in the middle. but when it matters most, you count on tracfone to keep you connected, for less. ♪ our smartphone plan gives you talk text and data

with unlimited carryover starting at $15 a month, no contract. all with nationwide 4g lte coverage. get top smartphones or bring your own phone. tracfone. for moments that matter. they're america'snes or bpursuing life-changing cures. in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. 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. or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness,

and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. 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.

moments away from a fascinating new special report. how much do you really know about melania trump. we often see more than we hear from her. she is one of the most private first ladies we ever had. so a white house reporter was able to get access that very few had thus far in the east wing to help give us a better understanding of mrs. trump, what she is like and what she does. here's a quick peek of tonight's upcoming documentary, woman of mystery, melania trump. we don't have the sound here but there's a lot in this special. you'll see it at top of the hour. i want to bring in kate bennett

to walk us through what else we can expect. >> obviously the first lady is in the spotlight but is still so elusive and is a woman of mystery. what's the biggest misconception. >> there's two camps. there people that believe she is miserable and trapped in the white house and those that feel like she is a very traditional stoic grace under pressure first lady. i think the truth is somewhere in between. i don't think she's trapped or miserable and unhappy. i do think it's a role she never saw herself being in. there's no job description. it's what you make of it and for someone like melania trump that values her privacy and always has, this is a complicated experience and i think she doesn't want to go out of her comfort zone. >> so you were able, and this is terrific to get access, full access to the east wing where the first family lives.

what was that like? >> she oversees her staff and we got to pick in to where there are the different components that put the east wing together and for this administration a part of the white house apparatus that no one has gotten a chance to see, like the president melania trump is not a big fan of the media so meeting the people that see her and work with her every day brings a big component to this first lady. >> we look forward to the special. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> we want you to have a wonderful weekend. happy father's day to me. the premiere of woman of mystery, melania trump starts right now. the following is a cnn special report.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the first lady of the united states, mrs. melania trump. >> she's the most unusual first lady in modern history. >> she is very reclusive. melania trump is never be holden to the ways of broadcasting everything that you're thinking and doing. >> there's persistent rumors that mrs. trump does not live in this white house. >> she is forging her own path. >> hi. >> the president warned her that people are going to attack you about this. >> flying under the radar. >> still no sighting of the elusive first lady. >> setting her own trends. >> everybody has a different taste. >> the jacket. >> the jacket. >> this jacket. >> i don't think she can shake it. do you? >> not to mention coping with the intense scrutiny of her