good evening. we begin tonight keeping 'em honest with a top official in the trump administration defying congress. he may also be violating the law. the question is why? there's breaking news on that tonight. and there could be even more in the hours and days to come, but first, i just want to get you quickly caught up on the background. joseph maguire is the acting director of national intelligence, or dni. according to congressman adam schiff, who's the chairman of the house intelligence committee, the dni, the acting dni, is refusing to turn over a whistle-blower complaint to his committee. now, the law requires that the intelligence community's inspector general report all credible complaints involving urgent concerns to the director of national intelligence, the

acting director maguire, which according to congressman schiff, the inspector general has done. now, we don't know what this whistle-blower complaint is. neither apparently does congress. but the inspector general does, and according to schiff, they judge it to be both credible and urgent. according to the law, once the inspector general has reported the whistle-blower complaint to the director of national intelligence, the statute says, and i'm quoting, the director shall within seven calendar days of such repeat forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees together with any comments the director considers appropriate. and that's what acting dni maguire is refusing to do. he's refusing to turn over the complaint from the inspector general that the inspector general has already signed off on to the congressional intelligence committees. now, again, we don't know what the nature of the complaint is, but if congressman schiff is correct, the inspector general thought it credible and urgent. and the law is very specific. it even defines what an urgent concern is. it's, and i'm quoting now, a

serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law, or executive order or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the director of national intelligence, involving classified information. i know it's confusing, but it continues. the inspector general reports this urgent complaint to the dni, but the dni is refusing to inform congress about it as required by the law. now, his office last night told the house intelligence committee it does not meet the definition of urgent concern, because it doesn't relate to activity under his supervision or doesn't involve conduct by a person in the intelligence community. now, we have no idea if that's true or not because we don't know what the complaint is about. what's interesting, though, is that over the weekend, congressman schiff, the house intelligence committee chairman, had another explanation about why the acting dni is not complying with the law. listen. >> according to the director of national intelligence, the reason he's not acting to

provide it, even though the statute mandates that he do so, is because he is being instructed not to. that this involved a higher authority, someone above the dni. >> so the idea that he's being -- that the dni is being instructed not to, that is chairman schiff's account. the dni in a letter to the committee said that the complaint involves, and i'm quoting, conduct by someone outside the intelligence community and involves confidential and potentially privileged matters relating to the interests of other stakeholders within the executive branch. so there are a lot of questions tonight without a lot of answers, but we might soon be getting them because tonight, just a short time ago, chairman schiff announced that the acting director will testify in public next week and the intelligence community inspector general will be testifying tomorrow behind closed doors. joining us now, a member of the committee, democrat jim himes of connecticut. congressman himes, this is confusing certainly to follow. in tomorrow's hearing with the intelligence community's inspector general, who forwarded

this report, saying it was an urgent concern, what exactly is the inspector general going to be able to talk about? i know it's behind closed doors, but is he going to be able to tell you what is actually in the complaint or who is instructing him or who's instructing the dni not to hand it over to your committee, if that's what's happening? >> well, yes, i think he will be able to discuss what's in the report. remember, the law requires him to forward that complaint to the relevant congressional committees, to my committee. this idea that the dni has the authority to say, no, i disagree with the inspector general's decision is lawless. it's made up out of whole cloth. he does not have the authority to do that. and the reason that's important, anderson, and people need to understand this, because it's not that complicated. remember, a whistle-blower is somebody within an organization who says, something's going on here that isn't quite right. the idea that the boss of that organization, in this case the acting dni, could say, sorry, we

don't agree this should be dealt with outside, that betrays the whole purpose of having a whistle-blower. imagine this whistle-blower right now is thinking to themselves, all the protections that i have, the whistle-blower protections that i have by law, are now at risk because the boss decided lawlessly to stop this from happening. so at some level, it's pretty simple, anderson. >> so let me just clarify that. because this is interesting -- this is a real key point. you're saying under law, if the inspector general has forwarded this whistle-blower complaint, has deemed it of urgent concern, deemed it a real issue, has forwarded it to the dni, you're saying the dni does not have the legal authority to say -- to not forward it on to congress? the dni's only option is to forward it on to congress and they can add comments if they want, saying, i don't think this is valid, i don't think this is under our purview. but he has to forward it to congress? >> that's exactly right. and you said it exactly right. that the dni can add explanatory

comments, but in this case, the dni appears to have consulted with the department of justice, which has no role under the law in this determination and is acting on the face of it. you don't even need to be a lawyer to understand this. is acting illegally in doing this. by the way, quite apart from the law, which is pretty important in the united states of america, in the history of these referrals, there has never been a case in which the boss, in this case the dni, has overruled an inspector general or said that this is not a meritorious decision. it has never happened before. and the reason that's really important, quite apart from the rule of law, is that, again, think about the whistle-blower. if the whistle-blower doesn't know that they have the ability in a protected way to go to the congressional committees on things that are profoundly serious -- i don't know what's in this complaint, but remember the intelligence community takes lethal action. it surveils. it does really dangerous things. ir inside the intelligence community, if somebody doesn't believe there's a legally protected route to get to people like me in the congress behind

closed doors, what happens? they go to the press. they do an edward snowden, and they decide that's the best way, to blow our secrets out into the public. while it may seem complicated, at some level this is very simple. there is a law that somebody who thinks there has been wrongdoing can come to the congress, and the dni is right now illegally standing in the way of that process. >> in terms of what this whistle-blower has raised or alleged whistle-blower has raised, at this point, we don't know and you don't know what is contained in that complaint. you don't know what this complaint is about at all, is that correct? >> well, that's right. we do have a little bit of a hint. you alluded to this in your opening. the dni in the letter to the committee said this involves other executive department equities of people that quite frankly, when you read the language, would appear to reference the president because there aren't other people other than the president of the united states who have privilege in the executive department. the president does have executive privilege. but, again, there is no

provision for the dni to make that determination. it is an illegal determination standing in the way of a process that is essential to making sure that the intelligence community, you know, behaves itself and abides by the law. >> so just in terms of what's going to happen, i mean tomorrow you have the inspector general testifying behind closed doors to you. next week acting dni maguire is agreeing to testify in open session. certainly, you know, as we saw yesterday with corey lewandowski, just because someone agreeps to appear to a hearing these days, it doesn't actually mean they're going to answer the committee's questions. >> inspector generals by their very nature are supposed to be independent. they're outside the hierarchy. they can't get fired by the boss, in this case the dni. so i do anticipate that the inspector general -- i hope the inspector general will tell us what the substance of the complaint is. look, maybe there's nothing to it. maybe there is. maybe there isn't. we don't know. it appears to involve maybe the president of the united states, but we just don't know that. but we do need to know that, and

we need to make sure the integrity for whistle-blowers is there. by the way, anderson, we watched corey lewandowski yesterday simply refuse to answer the questions of the congress. so there needs to be accountability here, and it is time for the congress of the united states to start asserting its authority probably through mechanisms like inherent contempt where we start fining people and making people very, very uncomfortable when they thumb their nose at the elected representatives of the people of the united states of america. so this dni, cory lunds, they need to be held accountable. our country doesn't work if the congress doesn't have the ability to do oversight of the executive branch. my republican friends need to remember there will be a democratic president someday, and they will rue the day they supported a republican president in thumbing their nose at the congress of the united states. >> yeah. i mean whoever is in power, we have checks and balances for a reason. and clearly this seems to be a

breakdown, at the very least, not only in whistle-blower protections but in checks and balances whatever the complaint may be. congressman himes, appreciate it. we'll learn more hopefully tomorrow. i want to get some perspective from all of this from cnn chief analyst jeffrey toobin and asha rangappa, also a former fbi special agent. jeff, obviously, look, democrats were hearing from adam schiff, eric swalwell, congressman himes there. they are raising alarm bells about this. the bottom line is we have no idea if this is a legitimate complaint. we have no idea what this complaint is even about. are they making too much of this, or is this serious? >> well, i don't think we have no idea. we have no idea of the substance, but we know it's not a frivolous issue. i mean, the inspector general of the intelligence community has said it is urgent. it is an urgent matter. so it's not just some crazy person wearing a tin foil hat.

now, whether it implicates the president, whether it actually is a substantive legal, important issue, you know, we don't know that for sure. but this is not a frivolous issue. >> but, jeff, couldn't it be a personnel matter, a sexual harassment matter of people who were working in the intelligence community? >> absolutely. it could be something that is very specific to one person, not something that is, you know, related to policy. but it also, you know, given what the dni has said, director of national intelligence, it does appear to involve someone very high-ranking, someone with a privilege, someone -- either the president or someone in the white house complex. all of that, you know, suggests that they should just follow the law. maybe it's nothing. if it's turned over and we learn that this is a personnel matter or a minor matter or a, you know, simply incorrect whistle-blower complaint, fine.

but the law is clear that the congress should be informed when the inspector general says it's an urgent matter. >> and, asha, the law is clear, i assume as congressman himes is pointing out, and correct me if this is wrong, that the director of national intelligence actually has no legal authority to not forward this. that according to the law, the dni has to forward it because the inspector general has ruled this is an urgent concern, is that correct? >> that's right. the way the statute is worded, the dni is basically performing kind of a, just a procedural function. he doesn't have the discretion to determine whether or not something is urgent. that is placed in the discretion of the ig. the definition of whether something is urgent is whether there has been some kind of abuse or violation of law or, you know, illegal order or something like that.

so it does have to meet a certain kind of definition. but once that determination is made, it has to move forward. so the issue here is that, that the dni has taken on this veto power. and i would also say that i would question the assertion of some privilege because, you know, we've seen that this white house has a very expansive view of privilege. it may not be a senior person. i mean it could be corey lewandowski. it could be ivanka's next-door neighborhood. i mean, you know, they are willing to claim privilege for many people who don't have it. i also wouldn't necessarily say that it's the president or even somebody super senior given how they've used that term. >> jeff, chairman schiff has said that acting dni maguire told him he wasn't handing over the complaint because someone above him was instructing him not to. i'm not clear exactly who's above -- i mean, dni is sort of an amorphous -- i mean, it's an unusual position in that it actually has no, you know, they're not collecting intelligence, they're not

head headening an agency. they're overseeing the coordination of the intelligence community. >> right. but, you know, the dni is subject to senate confirmation. so, you know, the only person technically he reports to is the president. i mean, if you want to be literal, i believe, on an organizational chart, the only person above him is the president of the united states. >> asha, what about the rationale for not turning over the complaint, that it doesn't meet the definition of being an urgent concern, that it doesn't actually involve an intelligence activity or somebody in the intelligence community? >> well, the substance of the complaint is going to be kept opaque until it finally reaches congress. remember that this particular statute is sort of the alternative mechanism for whistle-blowers when it involves classified information. that's why there's this whole separate process that's set up. but ultimately the idea is to get this complaint, make sure that it's credible so it goes

through this process, and get it to the intelligence committees. it's just giving it to them for their attention. it doesn't mean it's going to become public. and i think it's really undermining their oversight authority. and i should add, anderson, that the reporting requirement is not just for the house intelligence committee, but also for the senate intelligence committee. so it will be interesting to see whether senators warner and burr also, you know, stake out some kind of interest in getting this information as well. >> to that end, our colleague, ted barrett, just spoke to senator warner, who's the ranking democrat on intelligence, and he said that he thinks there will be some resolution of this next week. we'll see. >> asha rangappa and jeff toobin, thanks very much. still to come tonight, did iran commit an act of war? the secretary of state thinks so. his boss, president trump, less so, it seems. the disconnect on national security, next. also, after a week of stumbles and unforced errors, we'll examine whether the democrats are hurting themselves in their confrontations with the president.

every day, visionaries are creating the future. so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country.

e-commerce deliveries to homes why accept it frompt an incompyour allergy pills?e else. flonase sensimist. nothing stronger. nothing gentler. nothing lasts longer. flonase sensimist. 24 hour non-drowsy allergy relief a peaceful night sleep without only imagine... frequent heartburn waking him up. now that dream is a reality. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? at verizon, we're building the most powerful 5g experience for america. that's why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl...

imagine what it can do for you. bill's back needed a afvacation from his vacation. an amusement park...

so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. i waited to get treated. thought surgery was my only option. but then i found out about nonsurgical treatments. it was a total game changer. learn more about the condition at factsonhand.com it was a total ♪ (music plays throughout)♪ ♪ but family can only tell you sot much... about your history. i found some incredible records about samuel silberman... passenger manifests, census information, even wwi draft registration cards. the records exist... they're there, they're facts.

that made it so real for me, it wasn't just a story anymore. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com just prior to landing in saudi arabia today, secretary of state mike pompeo called the attacks on saudi oil facilities, quote, an act of war. he also reiterated in no uncertain terms iran was responsible for saturday's attacks. it doesn't seem to be the same language that president trump is using. the president announced new sanctions were forthcoming on iran, but didn't go nearly as far as secretary pompeo saying, instead, there are, quote, many options to deal with iran. he's also been far less clear than pompeo about iran's alleged responsibility. appearing with his new national security adviser, the president also hit back at senator lindsey graham, who had suggested on twitter that the president's previous responses to iran had shown weakness. >> but if you ask lindsey, how'd it go going into the middle east?

how'd that work out? and how'd going into iraq work out? so we have a disagreement on that. and, you know, there's plenty of time to do some dastardly things. >> joining me to talk about it, fareed zakaria, cnn host of "fareed zakaria gps." certainly, i guess you could say mixed messages from the secretary of state and the president. and it's so fascinating, because we're really seeing you know, just by the president's often tough talk, there is a real streak of not wanting to -- you know, it's an understandable position, not wanting to get involved in another iraq, another conflict in the middle east. >> you know, there's a kind of fundamental incoherence in trump's foreign policy, which is he is, himself, fairly cautious. he really doesn't like the idea of getting into wars. that's always been his position. but he's surrounded himself with these super hawks. and at times listens to them. so if this was his position, why would you withdraw from the iran nuclear deal, which had put iran in a box. iran was abiding by it,

everybody said. they weren't acquiring nuclear capacity, and you could work to deal with their other actions. by withdrawing from the deal, we've set in chain a sort of series of actions, because what has happened here is iran is now struggling to figure out what to do. the u.s. sanctions, the fact that the sanctions are so tight, that no one else can do business with iran are strangling with iran. so the iranians are sort of searching for some path. they first went to the europeans and said, can you give us relief? can you find a way to do business with us? the europeans tried. can't. the dollar is too strong. you have to use the dollar to do international deals. so this is their other path, which is, okay, you put maximum pressure on us. we are going to show you we can put maximum pressure on you. and the signal here is crucially, if you want a war, this is the kind of response we could do. we could shut down saudi oil production. this one strike shut 50% of saudi oil production down. >> which is something saudi arabia seems very aware of, the saudi prince, cnn's reporting

tonight that saudi prince bin salman actually met with u.s. officials at the end of august, essentially saying, saudi arabia does not want the u.s. to get into an armed conflict with iran. they don't want saudi arabia to get into an armed conflict with iran. >> exactly. the saudis appear to be backing off as well. everyone has been sobered up by this because you suddenly realize the stakes have gotten very high. and, again, what's puzzling is why did we go down this path? you know, what was the point of trying to strangle iran without a clear strategy? and this is where i think trump is beginning to realize that he's been ill served by the advisers he had. that's perhaps why he fired bolton. that's perhaps why he's now essentially districtly contradi -- directly contradicting his closest ally in the senate, lindsey graham, and seems to be contradicting pompeo, who inexplicably is taking this independent line off the president. >> if it's true iran is sending a signal with this, look at what

we can do, do they want war? because i mean if they're being strangled in sanctions, obviously a war is costly not only in human lives, but for a country being strangled, it's not an easy thing to wage a war. >> it's not. but i think their feeling is they're getting strangled anyway. they're in a bad situation. whenever you put a country under that much pressure, they have less to lose. also what's going on i think is there's an internal dynamic here in iran. there are people in iran who told rouhani and zarif, the president and foreign minister, don't trust the americans. don't do this deal. this was all played out in the iran parliament. >> don't do the nuclear deal? >> don't do the nuclear deal. the americans will double cross you. they'll withdraw. they'll put sanctions back, and we'll have destroyed our nuclear facilities for nothing. that is essentially exactly what happened. and so the supreme leader now is listening to the hard-liners. he's listening to the hawks, the people in the revolutionary guard, and maybe this is their preferred tactic. they've always wanted a little bit more of a sense of, we can

fight back. we've got proxies all over in yemen and syria and iraq. >> right. >> even in afghanistan. why don't we use them? >> it's so fascinating to see what happens next given if pompeo is saying this is an act of war and iran -- you know, that sort of leads down one path. we'll see where the president decides to go. thank you very much. coming up next, the latest salvo in the president's war with california. his push today to let cars there pollute more and the politics of being at odds with america's biggest electoral prize. we're woven together by the moments we share. everything you need, all in one place. expedia. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost.

unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? i like to make my life easy. ( ♪ ) romo mode. (beep) (bang) good luck with that one. yes! that's why i wear skechers slip-ons. they're effortless. just slip them right on and off. skechers slip-ons, with air-cooled memory foam. we can't give you, unlimited summer, but we can give you unlimited talk, text and data for just $30 a line for 4 lines. and that comes on our newest signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. so you can... share more sunsets. stream more videos. and stay connected with friends while you slide into fall.

all for just $30/line. and for a limited time, you can get free smartphones too! come to t-mobile now and get new 4 lines of unlimited and 4 free phones for just 30 bucks a line! ♪ performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ (classical music playing throughout)

hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can know who's on your network and control who shouldn't be, only with xfinity xfi. simple. easy. awesome.

president trump visited the southern border today in a state, california, that he's now at odds with on two key issues, addressing homelessness and clean air.

on clean air, the president today said he's revoking california's waiver with the environmental protection agency, which allowed the state to set more stringent vehicle emission standards. they've since become the de facto national standard among carmakers and carmakers who have shown no appetite for changing that and building two types of cars. now, that said, the president sees it otherwise, tweeting, many more cars will be produced under the new and uniform standard, meaning significantly more jobs, jobs, jobs. automakers should seize this opportunity, because without this alternative to california, you will be out of business. again, automakers seem to disagree and clearly so does california's leadership. >> we're winning. and that's the frustration he's having. we are winning. he's losing. and we're winning because we have the law, science, and facts on our side. and we have not only the formal authority, we have the moral authority. and that is something missing in this white house. >> well, this could get very messy in the legal dimension for a very long time. it's also playing out in the political arena, where california makes a convenient

culture war target for the president and vice versa for governor newsom. more on all of this now from cnn's senior political commentator and former obama white house adviser david axelrod and "new york times" correspondent maggie haberman. what do you think the strategy is behind this for president trump? >> i think there's a combination of factors. your point that this is a good target for the president in terms of the culture war is certainly one of them. and it's also a way for him to look as if he's being tough in terms of ending the regulatory state, which we know has been a big piece of his administration, his campaign promises and then something that don mcgahn and others, steve bannon and the white house set about trying to do. i think this is about reminding his base. i don't think you can divorce any of this from the fact that the state of california had tried to make being on the ballot conditional on releasing your taxes. and that was aimed squarely at donald trump. >> and you think this is payback for that? >> at least in part. i don't think it's the only motivation, but i certainly think it's impossible to look at anything going forward between gavin newsom and president trump as away from that.

>> david, how much of this is also the governor newsome getting underneath the president's skin? >> well, i'm sure there's some of that. i think what maggie said makes great sense. you know, that was an assault on the president, the demand for his tax returns. but i do think this serves his larger political project. you know, california is a symbol of liberalism and he wants to make the case that, you know, out of control liberalism is what he is fighting and, you know, the homeless problem. you know, he didn't -- he really wasn't talking about solving the problem. he really went to exploit it, and he went to exploit it by saying everyone else is being victimized by these homeless people, and this is what you get under this kind of leadership. and that serves his -- everything the president does politically, to my mind, ultimately boils down to trying to drive these big cultural wedges in our political

environment and in our society. and he exploits them. and this was part of it. one thing i want to say, though, on the fuel efficiency standards. you know, i'm old enough to remember when the republican parties with a free trade party, for balanced budgets, and for federalism. and this is a huge intrusion on california's prerogatives that the president is engaging in -- >> but california made a deal with -- right. california made a deal with a number, i think it was four, automakers about standards. so you're saying, essentially, that this is an intrusion on california's ability to do that? >> well, it's just on their rights as a state. we should note that the justice department then opened up an antitrust investigation against the four automakers for cutting the deal with california. so this is a full-scale war on the state of california. and 13 other states have followed california's standard. a third of the country lives under these california standards, so it would be a huge

setback for the fight against climate change. tailpipe emissions being the chief cause of these greenhouse gases if the president were to prevail here. >> it's also, obviously, for governor newsom, there is an advantage beyond just the environmental interest and the politics of it all. going toe to toe with president and beating him on some issues. >> which he said. i mean, he made very clear, we're winning and he's not and that is getting very frustrating to him. i think that gavin newsom has had higher office ambitions for a very long time and i don't think that this is divorced from that. i do think it helps him. i think that at a certain point, it is going to come at potentially greater and greater costs to his state and i don't know what that looks like going forward. i will say i am struck watching this, particularly less about the emission standards and more in terms of the homeless crackdown that they're talking about in very vague terms. but what is striking about the donald trump candidacy is the way he is targeting this state's

homeless problem as if there is nothing else nationally is fascinating to watch. >> also, if you just look at the homeless populations, new york -- i think the last number -- the last numbers that there were national numbers, new york is the largest, l.a. is second, seattle, i think is third. although i think there's been an 8% drop over last year. there's obviously, san francisco is -- there's a huge issue on the west coast, but it is a nationwide issue. and it's not something -- there is no easy solution to this. >> no, and to your point, it certainly is right at home for the president in his hometown. it's not something we've heard him talk about other than taking a disparaging shot at bill de blasio, the mayor, from time to time. but it strange watching him approach it this way. >> david, it's interesting that the president is -- obviously it's one of those things that people see, homelessness, and therefore it's something that, i guess, he wants to be seen as doing something about. but, again, it is not -- i mean if there was an easy solution to homelessness, it would have been

solved already. it is a very complex thing, and there are many different kinds of people who are homeless for many different reasons. >> it is a complex thing, and his administration has taken some steps that in many ways have affected it negatively. i don't think this was about solving a problem, anderson. i think this was about exploiting a problem. his message to the rest of the country is this is what these crazy left-wing liberals and radicals produce with their disso lute policies and this is what i'm fighting. i think he was using the homeless as a backdrop for his political project here. you know, he's never evidenced any interest in the homeless before. >> yeah. maggie haberman, david axelrod, thanks very much. just ahead, are democrats their own worst enemy when it comes to running against trump? howard dean and john kasich are next.

♪ ♪ award winning interface. ♪ ♪ award winning design. ♪ ♪ award winning engine. ♪ ♪ the volvo xc90.

our most awarded luxury suv. ♪ ♪ i mean, if you haven't thought abfrankly, you're missing out. uh... the mobile app makes it easy to manage your policy, even way out here. your marshmallow's... get digital id cards, emergency roadside service, even file a... whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa! oops, that cheeky little thing got away from me. my bad. geico. it's easy to manage your policy whenever, wherever. can i trouble you for another marshmallow?

there's concern among some democrats that they've done a good job this week of making president trump's case for him on a number of issues, starting with the impeachment investigation. the house judiciary committee's

first big televised hearing fizzled after corey lewandowski successfully stonewalled. likewise, beto o'rourke's comment at last week's debate that he would take away all ar-15s is now being used by president trump to backtrack on gun control legislation. he tweeted today, quote, dummy beto made it much harder to make a deal, convince many that dems just want to take your guns away. we'll continue forward. and then there's brett kavanaugh. many democrats, including some presidential candidates called for justice kavanaugh's impeachment after a new allegation of sexual misconduct was published in a "new york times" essay. the essay was missing key details found in the book that severely undermined the impact of that new allegation. i want to get some analysis. former democratic presidential candidate and dnc chairman howard dean and cnn senior political commentator former republican ohio governor, john kasich. >> governor dean, all of this taken together, are democrats making the president's job easier for him here? >> you know, i'm not sure what

they're doing. in terms of the impeachment stuff, look, you have to get to the bottom of what really happened and you need the facts. so i don't think kavanaugh is going to get impeached. i think people are upset with what's happened with the supreme court over the last 20 years. 71% of young americans 35 and under believe the supreme court is more interested in politics than they are in the law. that's a big, big problem for the country. so the kavanaugh stuff is a symptom of that, certainly not the cause. >> governor kasich, i mean, how important -- obviously, this is very early stages in this election, but how important is it that the democrats at large or any party is cohesive in its message, or at least not making unforced errors as it heads into an election year? >> yeah. well, first of all, i always like being with howard dean. he's a smart guy, and he's -- you know, he's got a lot of wisdom to tell you the truth. look, i think howard would agree with this. this is going to be a mammoth turnout. so when people worry, are you

kind of stoking the other side, i mean, anderson, there's no more stoking the gun people. i mean they're as stoked as you can get them. so the question is turnout, and i think it's going to be enormous. the question is will the democrats be able to talk a little bit more about bread and butter issues, the family table. i had a democrat call me last night. i was saying what's going on in your part of ohio that's been heavy democrat, that's been voted for trump. he goes, sometimes i feel like they're talking to the professors at the university rather than to our folks, who are really caring about the kitchen table issues. i think they have to be careful about that. >> but, governor kasich, if beto o'rourke is saying, you know, i'm going to -- yeah, i am coming for your ak-47s, i am coming for your ar-15s, i am coming for your guns, i mean i can't believe that doesn't stoke up some people who, you know -- doesn't it confirm every far-right conspiracy theory that the democrats want to take your

guns? >> well, you know, i think it was a crazy statement, but that brings us to the craziness of these debates. look, it happened to us in '16. it's happening now. these debates are not serving the selection of our best leaders. they drive people to the extremes. beto, when he was running for the senate, said i don't want to take your guns. now he says he has to because he has to get your attention. does that mean that the pro-gun people are more stirred up because of what he said? some of them will run around and say, see, i told you so. but do i think it stoked them up any more? no, because they're all going to turn out and vote. so will the other people, the people who were in favor of reasonable gun control. they're going to turn out and vote. it's going to be, i believe, a mammoth turnout. and so, you know, when you think about are they stoking them up, well, maybe a little bit on the margins. but they're all coming. it's going to be some election. governor dean, do you agree with that, the beto o'rourke

comments, lewandowsky yesterday, which was sort of hyperpartisan, a spectacle. it didn't seem to produce all that many results or new information. the democrats can't even decide what their investigation should be called. >> let's first talk about the guns. most people, like about 68% of people, believe that assault weapons should be banned. that's pretty stunning. >> right. but that's different than taking a forced buyback, which is essentially, you know, confiscating -- >> well, banning it, what's the difference. at least you get money when you do the buyback. you don't get anything if you just ban them. >> but a ban, like the last ban, was just for new weapons. it wasn't taking old weapons that -- >> look, i'm just telling you what americans believe. they believe assault weapons ought to be banned and high content magazines ought to be banned. i don't think that hurts beto at all. i mean, i never read the president's tweets, but apparently he tweeted about that. you know, so what. john is right, and i want the

democrats to listen to this. if we are talking about donald trump with three months to go, we lose, period. this campaign cannot be run on what a jerk donald trump is. it has to be run on what the democrats are going to do that is going to be better. and so trump will say this, trump will say that, trump will remind everybody every day why they don't like donald trump. we cannot play that game. we have to talk to ordinary americans about what we're going to do to make this better. >> anderson, sometimes, you know, social media is not accurate. you know, sometimes social media is -- a lot of times it's by activists and people of great passion. but, you know, everybody's not watching this. there are people like getting up and going to work and going home and having dinner, and, honey, how's is going? those are things -- that's where people live. they don't live like on twitter. i mean i like twitter. we all do. >> actually i don't. >> but don't take that as a sense of where people are. you know, howard, you're your own twitter. you're did at it. >> no, that was me.

i'm on it but i've given it up. i try not to even look at it. you know, david axelrod wrote this thing essentially saying, look, trump will destroy himself just by being himself. don't focus on that. governor dean, do you agree with that idea? >> i essentially do agree with that. trump has already destroyed his presidency, and i think he'll destroy himself. but we have to give him the rope to do it. if we fall into the trap all republicans did in 2016 and let trump be the issue of the day, we lose, because he's really good at that. he's a narcissist. he's really good at that. >> governor kasich? >> anderson, i don't agree with that, that he'll self-deinstruct. i don't agree with that. but i think you have to have a refrain. i think you have to go back to it all the time. this is what you promised, and what did you deliver? >> right. >> you delivered bupkis. that's what it's got to be, back and forth. he's not going to just fall apart on the stage. i was on the stage with him a lot of debates. i never took the debate. of course i didn't win, but there's a lot of reasons for that as well. >> really good discussion. i appreciate it. thank you.

>> thank you. up next, canada's prime minister justin trudeau is saying about a photo that just surfaces of himself looking like this. at verizon, we're building the most powerful 5g experience for america. that's why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl... imagine what it can do for you. panera's new warm grain full of flavor, color,. full of- woo!

full of good. so you can be too. try our new warm grain bowls today. panera. food as it should be. so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. e-commerce deliveries to homes the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪

not owing anyone anything is the best feeling in the world, i cannot stop smiling about it ♪ (music throughout)

more breaking news tonight.

canada's prime minister said he made a mistake when he wore brown face make-up at a party at a private school where he was teaching in 2001. "time" magazine broke the story after it obtain adyearbook photo showing trudeau at was described as an arabian knights themed event. trudeau has apologized said he's made a mistake when he was younger, adding he's worked all his life to fight intolerance and discrimination. i want to check in with chris. >> we have chelsea handler on the show talking about her new documentary about white privilege. she confronts not just the obvious issue of endemic and cultural racism but where is its source and where is the solution, and where is the ability of white americans to look at themselves? it's good to have her here. beto o'rourke on the show.

a lot of democrats are talking, he just had a great pam discussion on your show, about wlopt what o'rourke is pitching is good for him and good for a chance of a deal? and as for trudeau, we don't like that kind of behavior, but that was in 2001 and we're dealing with it culturally all the time. how do we judge today with what people did in the past? >> chris, thank you very much. see you in a few minutes. is the truth really out there? see what the u.s. navy says about ufos and maybe some videos that you haven't seen before. una for just $30 a line for 4 lines. and that comes on our newest signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. so you can... share more sunsets. stream more videos. and stay connected with friends while you slide into fall. all for just $30/line. and for a limited time, you can get free smartphones too! come to t-mobile now and get new 4 lines of unlimited and 4 free phones

for just 30 bucks a line! ♪ performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪

i can taste my beer! i can taste my beer. i can taste his beer. i can taste your beer. i want to taste his beer. samuel adams sam '76. finally, a refreshing lager that you can taste. barb, i can taste my beer. (classical music playing throughout)

ever since you brought me home, that day. i've been plotting to destroy you. sizing you up... calculating your every move. you think this is love? this is a billion years of tiger dna just ready to pounce. and if you have the wrong home insurance coverage, you could be coughing up the cash for this. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem,

like me-ow. this is the family who wanted to connect... so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, to go where they could explore and experience adventure in unexpected places... ♪ who were inspired by different cultures ♪ and found that the past can create new memories... leading them to discover: we're woven together by the moments we share. for everywhere you go, expedia has everything you need, all in one place. the u.s. navy has finally acknowledged that videos reportedly showing ufos flying through the air are real. the several videos they're talking about were recorded several years ago by fighter pilots. and in 2017 they were made public by "the new york times."

more now from our randi kaye. >> reporter: images of that rotating thing captured by u.s. navy aircraft, censors locking in on the target. commander david fraver saw it firsthand during a training mission, describing it like a 40 foot long tic tac maneuvering rapidly and changing direction. >> as we both looked out the right side of our airplane, we saw a disturbance in the water and a long object pointed north. >> the object was first cited in 2004 and then similar again in 2015. footage of the sightings declassified by the military weren't made public until december 2017 by "the new york times" and a group that researches ufos. >> there's a whole fleet of them. >> my gosh! they're all going against the wind. the wind's 120 knots west.

>> this was extremely abrupt like a ping-pong ball bouncing off the wall, the ability to hover over the water and start a vertical climb from basically zero up from 12,000 feet and accelerate in less than two seconds and disappear is something i've never seen in my life. >> reporter: the navy said they don't what they are, but there are simply confirming to the cnn the objects scene in the clips are unqualified aerial phenomenon or uaps. they were investigated by a secret $22 million program, part of the defense department budget that investigated reports of ufos. the program has since been shut down but it was run by a military intelligence official who told cnn they found compelling evidence that we, quote, may not be alone. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> that blows my mind. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo primetime." chris, i find that terribly exciting that those things are real, those videos are real.

>> it's clear. look how effusive your emotion is. >> i rarely get this emotional. >> this is crazy. you're blowing my mind here. anderson, i'm right there with you. everybody shows it in different ways. i'm just sitting here basking in your light, brother. basking in your light. anderson, have a good night. i am chris cuomo. welcome to prime time. we have two big voices tonight making a lot of waves as they take on two of america's biggest most systemic and intractable problems. racism and gun violence. chelsea handler is here and so is beto o'rourke in just moments. so what do you say? let's get after it. president trump seems to have a new scapegoat for his own inaction on guns. guess who? >> hell, yes, we're going to take your a.r.-15, y