etwhher the president and his attorney, rudy giuliani, sought to manipulate the ukrainian government into helping the trump re-election campaign. they were doing that before this complaint. now, something that may seem confusing as you go through the facts tonight is that the subject phone call that we now know took place in this time frame that people are looking at when this complaint came in, who did the president speak to, who was the leader at that time, he spoke to the president of ukraine. now, that call was already the subject of curiosity by congress because they were looking into these earlier efforts in part announced by mr. giuliani about his intentions of trying to get to ukraine to figure out some things about some of mr. trump's political opponents. so that's where it stands. we happen to have the man in the middle tonight. the president's counselor, former mayor rudy giuliani. good to have you on the show. >> i'm glad i'm on tonight because what you just said is totally erroneous. every single thing you just said

is completely spun in the same direction you've been doing for two years with these, oh, tonight papadopoulos is going to prove russian collusion. let me tell you what happened, okay? >> yes. >> what happened is that i was investigating, going back to last year, complaints that the ukrainian people, several people in ukraine knew about a tremendous amount of collusion between ukrainian officials and hillary clinton and the democratic national committee, including a completely fraudulent document that was produced in order to begin the investigation of manafort. they were trying to get to us but they were being blocked by the ambassador, who was an obama appointee in ukraine, who was holding back this information. in the course of investigating that, i found out this incredible story about joe biden, that he bribed the president of the ukraine in order to fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son. that is an astounding scandal of

major proportions which all of you have covered up for about five or six months. you've also covered up the fact that biden and his son took $1.5 billion out of china and that's why the president thinks you're a corrupt media, because if this were president trump and donald trump jr. and they took millions of dollars from a corrupt oligarch in the ukraine and they took $1.5 billion out of china while the president was negotiating with china, you would be screaming and yelling and going crazy about how corrupt it is. and because it's joe biden and he's a protected democrat, you don't cover it. this scandal is a scandal of major proportions. >> are you done now? because you haven't said anything. you can't just talk the whole time. >> i haven't said anything yet. >> you can't say everything is erroneous when i haven't said anything. what did i say?

>> you said i was investigating for political purposes. >> i did not. >> i'm a defense lawyer, chris. >> i know what you are. >> i'm a defense lawyer. that's protected by the united states constitution. >> why were you investigating this? why did you back away from the trip when it got scrutiny? >> because i was told, i was told that the people at the meeting with the president were people who worked for george soros and george soros had been funding this whole thing from the very, very beginning. not only that -- >> that is why you backed away? >> yes, because they were going to lie about the conversation i was having. >> do you have proof that soros was funding it? >> i absolutely do. >> how so? >> okay. george soros had a not-for-profit called antac. an tac is the one that developed all of the dirty information that ended up being a false document that was created in order to incriminate manafort. >> do you have proof of that? >> absolutely. >> you know -- >> chris, chris. >> the united states attorney here found its own stuff about manafort. >> december 16th, 2018, there is a finding by a court in the

ukraine that a man named telechenko, something like that, that he produced a phony affidavit that was given to the american authorities and an fbi agent named greenwood. and they found him guilty of that. nobody reports that in the united states because you don't report things that are favorable to the president and negative to democrats. >> rudy, listen -- >> let me go further about my findings. >> hold on a second. let's go step by step. forget about the fact that you said what i said was erroneous. >> it is. >> i didn't say any of the things you're saying. i don't even know if they're true. >> well, then why did you say i was doing it for political purposes? >> i didn't say political purposes. i said you were going after political opponents of mr. trump. that's what hillary clinton is. that's what joe biden is. >> joe biden is presumed innocent. but somebody has got to investigate him for going to the president of the ukraine and telling him i'm not going to

give you -- >> that's fine. but you're working under authority of the president. >> no, no, no, no. not because of the authority of the president. because when the new prosecutor that joe put in came in, he not only dismissed the case on hunter biden for getting about $6 million in laundered money -- >> the prosecutor that was removed, which of the original intrigue on joe biden, that prosecutor was removed, first of all, by consensus of a multiple of western countries and it was after hunter biden's stuff was done. look, you should have your hand on your face. you know why? this is all a distraction from what i asked you. >> no, it isn't a distraction. what you said is totally wrong, completely wrong. >> it's a factual timeline. the prosecutor was out -- >> you don't know what happened. i know what happened. >> how do you know i don't know? >> you're just repeating spin. >> oh, but you don't, right? you're not spinning anything. go ahead. >> i'm not spinning a damn thing. i'm telling you the truth. the prosecutor was removed because he was investigating the son and he was investigating

sorrows' charity or whatever the hell it was, antac. the new prosecutor that came in dismissed both cases and -- >> the prosecutor who was pushed out was unanimously seen as corrupt, by the way. >> no, he wasn't. he wasn't unanimously seen as corrupt. that's an after the fact statement. >> what do you mean an after the fact statement? was he corrupt or not? >> joe biden who is probably working with half the iq that you and i have. if you listen to joe biden's tape, he convicts himself. he says i told the president of the ukraine if you don't dismiss this guy, you're not going to get your $1.2 billion -- >> you're saying that's what biden said to the ukraine. did you ask the ukraine to investigate joe biden? >> no, actually i didn't. i asked ukraine to investigate the allegations that there was interference in the election of 2016 by the ukrainians for the benefit of hillary clinton for which there already -- >> you never asked anything about hunter biden? you never asked anything about joe biden to the prosecutor? >> the only thing i asked is to get to the bottom of how it was that the guy who was appointed

dismissed the case against antac. >> so you did ask ukraine to look into joe biden. >> of course i did. >> you just said you didn't. >> no, i didn't ask them to look into joe biden. i asked them to look into allegations related to my client which tangentially involved joe biden in massive bribery scheme, not unlike what he did in china. you explain to me how the kid got $1.5 billion from china. >> just be careful about what you say. i asked you did you look ukraine to look at joe biden? you said no. then you went on to say that you did. it's all -- it's all recorded. >> no, i didn't say that. what i said is this. i asked them to investigate the allegations that relate to the false charges against the president of the united states. those allegations tangentially involve biden -- >> so your answer should have been yes. >> let me finish, chris, let me finish. >> go ahead. >> and don't try to interrupt because you don't like the answer. >> i don't like evasiveness. >> i don't want you to distort what i'm saying because you're totally biased.

>> i'm not biased. why would i have you on if i'm biased. knowing that we're going to have this kind of conversation. >> because it is sad to watch what's happened to you. >> sad what happened to me? i'm a sellout? >> you are a sellout. >> you're telling me i'm a sellout? >> these are crimes of major proportions and because they're democrats, you won't cover it. $1.5 million investment in china by biden's private equity fund. >> i'm not saying these things shouldn't be looked at. >> and whitey bulger's nephew. do you know that they were partners with whitey bulger's nephew? >> rudy, i'm not saying that anything you're saying shouldn't be looked at. >> that's outrageous. and your corrupt media won't cover it because he's a democrat. >> rudy, i can't just cover something because you say i should. that's not the way it works. i've got to tell you, who my whole lifetime stood up for one simple ideal when you were the best, which was character counts in leadership -- >> and you were standing up for two systems of justice. joe biden can be involved in

bribery. joe biden's son can get $1.5 billion from china and you won't cover it. and you want to cover some ridiculous charge that i urged the ukrainian government to investigate corruption. well, i did and i'm proud of it. >> then it's not a ridiculous allegation. you just admitted it. >> it's a ridiculous allegation. of course. >> rudy, you just admitted that you did it. >> of course i should -- of course i should -- >> i'm not saying it was wrong for you to do it. i'm asking you if you asked them -- >> it wasn't wrong for me to do it. >> i asked if you did it and you said yes. did the president ask the president of ukraine to do the same thing? >> i knew this a year ago. the only way this would come out is if you come after me. well, fine, come after me. >> i'm not coming after you. i'm asking you question, okay? >> i'm answering your questions and you don't like the answers. >> some of the answers i don't love but i'm letting you give it. >> the answers make out a prima facie of bribery against the vice president of the united states at the time. >> they're your suggestions

about it, and that's fine. i'm not saying that it doesn't deserve discussion. will you please answer my question. >> let's talk like lawyers for a minute. >> okay, respect this lawyer consider -- >> rudy, i don't want to go down a rabbit hole. >> i taught law. you're going to listen. if i offer something of value to someone in return for their official action. joe biden offered $1.2 billion loan guarantee in return for him firing a prosecutor. >> you have proof that it was a quid pro quo situation and you can show it? >> yeah. you know what the proof is? joe biden, 2018 january in front of the council on foreign relations saying the whole thing. >> he said i'm going to give you this money if you get rid of this prosecutor? >> 100%. exactly. >> send me the transcript. >> go listen to it and apologize to me. go listen to it. he said exactly that but he lets one thing out. he left out the fact that his son was under investigation. >> isn't that the important thing because he needed to have a motive in order to do it? >> no. the crime gets completed when he

says i'll give you the $1.2 billion but you have to fire the prosecutor. for whatever reason he wants the prosecutor fired, you cannot offer something of value in exchange for official action. crime, over with. motive, the kid was under investigation because he had gotten $6 billion for the most crooked ukrainian oligarch -- >> obviously if they could have shown that biden was doing something for his son that went beyond questionable ethics -- >> you believe that, chris, go somewhere on an island. >> boy, i'll tell you what. i wish you had the same attitude when i was asking you about all the ridiculous thing this president has tried to pass off as truth and now you're incredulous. it's easy for you to say when the current administration is the one we're looking at, right? why don't you wait for a democratic administration and then level the charge. >> he got $1.5 billion from china while trump is negotiating with china. >> it would be a problem. it would be a big problem.

>> how come you're not covering the fact that that happened with biden. >> i don't know that it did. that's why. you're making it sound like he did to it help his son. i don't know that he did it to help his son and he said he didn't do it to help his son. >> do we really believe me didn't know his son was under investigation. >> why won't you answer the question? >> what's the question? >> thank you. did the president talk to the ukrainian president about what he wanted done with joe biden and what he wanted done with paul manafort? >> i have no idea. i never asked him that. i don't know if he did and i wouldn't care if he did. he had every right to do it if he was the president of the united states. he had every right to say to the ukrainian president, we have two outstanding allegations of massive corruption -- >> did he ask you to do what you were doing? >> no. i did what i did on my own. >> really? >> i told him about it afterwards because i'm his lawyer and know how to investigate. >> so you never talked to him about it before? you only talked about it after? >> three months after i found out about it. i founding out that it was true by getting signed sworn statements from five people in

the ukraine who said we were brought into the white house, the obama white house, and we were told go dig up dirt on trump and manafort in january of 2016. you have no idea how big this is, because you're blinded. you're blinded by your prejudice. >> give me the affidavits. i appreciate the personal insults. >> i'm not going to give you the affidavits. who are you? >> i'm a journalist. you keep saying the fbi. >> hold on, rudy. >> you're not the fbi. you can't indict anybody. >> you want to say i won't cover it because i'm like this. now you won't give me the proof. >> i'm not going to give you proof. what can you do? you can't indict anybody? believe me, the proof is in the right hands and you're going to find out about it. i used to think you'll be embarrassed when you find out what happened. but you know something -- >> why would i be embarrassed by the truth coming out? >> you should have been embarrassed when there was no russian collusion. you should have apologized for all the coverage you did about russian collusion. >> why should i apologize. i was the first to say there is no crime of collusion.

i was one of the first to say -- >> yeah, but then you went on to say -- >> he did do other things wrong, and you know it. and the rudy giuliani who was a prosecutor and a mayor knew what right was and what wrong was before becoming a lawyer for this guy. >> you guys are on a mission to get this guy no matter what. >> that couldn't be farther from the truth. >> what he did is nothing compared to what biden did. >> i'm very interested in your personal insults of me. we can meet some other time and you can say it face to face. >> i'm not insulting you, chris. i'm institutionally insulting you because your coverage is horrendous. >> all right, fine. >> so it unfair and it shocks me as a person who fought for justice all his life. >> it gets called into question as what you've been doing as counsel in this case. >> i've been representing my client in the best spirit and in the best way that i can do as a lawyer and i vindicated him. and now i am proving that what

happened to him was a frame-up. >> you didn't vindicate him. you kept him out of the chair. you kept him out of the chair with mueller and that was the best thing you did and that was a great move. >> and you know what you're going to find out? it was ukrainian collusion with hillary clinton that she paid $1.5 million for and the joe biden family has been selling -- >> you want do give me the proof, that's fine. >> i don't have to give you the proof. >> when it comes out, i'll cover it. it would be nice is all i'm saying. >> it's written in books, you just won't read it. it's all over the internet, go read it. >> all over the internet. >> have i the proof. >> you send me the affidavits you have of people who give sworn statements of what they're saying. >> i don't need affidavits, all i need is joe biden's statement on television that he told the president of the ukraine i'm going to hold back the $1.2 billion -- i'm going to finish this sentence. >> you said it five times. >> i'm going to hold back $1.2 billion if you don't fire the prosecutor. that is the crime of bribery. >> fine. >> in every country in the world. >> he doesn't agree with you. >> if you want a motive for it,

his son was under investigation. if he didn't know his son was under investigation, then he is truly mentally ill. >> listen, rudy -- >> you don't think i would know my son was under investigation? you don't think when i took my son to china and he came back with a billion dollars i wouldn't know it? >> i'd have to have proof otherwise. now, how -- >> how about circumstantial evidence? >> rudy -- can i ask you one thing about the news today. >> sure. so we can get a little bit of an understanding of a national security considerations? is that all right? >> sure. the national security consideration, you should be worried about is how they compromised ukraine -- how they completely ukraine in 2016 and used them as an arm of the democrat national committee. >> i hear you. whenever you want the proof to come out and it comes out and we cover it and i can see what you're talking about. >> no, you won't. no, you won't. >> and you won't give me the proof. >> i do not believe -- i believe your network will cover it up. >> all right, all right. >> i believe your network will spin it against us.

>> well, we'll see. you won't give us the proof, but you think we'll spin it. >> i'm not going give you the proof. >> i know. i heard you five times. >> i give enough proof for to the authorities. there's enough proof for you to go after it if you were being honest and fair. >> okay. so this u.s. intel official who worked in the white house says he hears something on a phone call we believe with the president of ukraine, that's what "the washington post" has that troubled him. so he formed -- lodged a complaint with the inspector general. now, there's one legal fight between the i.g. and dni. that is what it is. but i want to ask you this. >> who is this guy? i have no idea who it is. >> i have no idea. >> i'm telling you everything i did. this guy is hiding somewhere and skulking around. >> whistleblowers deserve protection. we both know that. >> yeah, they do. and some whistleblowers are liars, right? a little of both. >> it would be nice -- if you're not worried about anything. >> how about we take an impartial position and say this whistleblower could be telling the truth or this whistleblower could be a democrat holdover who

is trying to destroying donald trump. >> he could try to be doing that. >> like a lot of people have done. >> 100%. in your opinion -- >> like the stupid "new york times" story the other day. >> listen -- >> did you cover that? how "the times" really screwed up the other day. >> listen. >> did you cover it? >> if the complaint had come out. >> you don't answer that. >> i'm trying to get a question out. because this kind of matters, i've got to be honest. >> okay. >> so if the complaint goes to the i.g., we both know what the law is. the dni and i.g. have a disagreement about whether or not they're supposed to get it. the dni then says reportedly there is someone above us that does not want this to be delivered to congress. >> i don't know what you're talking about. there's somebody above us doesn't want it -- what are we talking about? >> that's what i'm asking you. >> i don't know about this conversation. >> what power in the executive branch above the dni would not want this kind of complaint delivered to congress? >> i have no idea why they would or why they wouldn't. all i can tell you is what if

reported is true, it doesn't make a damn -- it doesn't make any difference. if the president of the united states said to the president of the ukraine investigate the corruption in your country that has a bearing on our 2016 election, isn't that what he's supposed to do? unless you assume that the president is guilty as opposed to the fact that those people in the ukraine were trying to frame the president, which is exactly what they were doing. >> what if he said i have $250 million that you want. >> if he said that? >> why don't you investigate what's happening with joe biden and what's happening with what he did to me and i'll give you the 250? >> isn't that exactly what joe biden did and admitted on tape in 2018? >> so you -- >> wait a second, chris. stop. >> you think it was wrong? >> you asked me a question. you've got to take the answer. >> no, i don't have to take it. you can't run in an opposite direction about joe biden every time i ask you about the instant case. >> i'm making a point if you

want to hear from me. if you don't want to hear from me, just cut me off. >> no, i will never cut you off. go ahead. >> the fact what you're saying to me is completely equivalent what joe biden admitted on tape two years ago and you didn't cover, which is i told the president of the ukraine you're not going to get your $1.2 billion unless you fire the prosecutor. how come you didn't cover that? how come i wasn't called on here the night that that happened? because you're not fair. you're not fair in your coverage. >> okay. >> would you please recognize that. now, i'll tell you about trump, right? >> go ahead. >> i have no knowledge that the president ever said anything -- i don't even know about the $250 million. >> okay. >> in aid. i have no knowledge of that. i just know about various meetings. >> when you're done i'll tell you why i'm asking. >> but the reality is that the president of the united states, whoever he is, has every right to tell the president of another country you better straighten out the corruption in your country if you want me to give you a lot of money. because if you are so damn corrupt that you can't investigate allegations. >> that would be fine. >> -- our money is going to get

squandered. >> that would be fine. >> don't you think that's happened in the ukraine under yanokovich? >> i think there was a lot of corruption. >> the guy was working for russia while joe and obama were giving him billions. >> here's why i ask you the question. >> but nobody covers that. >> here's why i ask you the question. >> okay. >> so the president has this conversation. there's something in the conversation that's troubling enough for someone to lodge a complaint under the whistleblowers statute. >> who knows who this person is and what motive he has. >> okay. rudy, we covered that. i'm trying to tell you the premise of the question. >> you don't think there's a deep state? of course there is. >> i think there's a little deep state going on in this conversation right now. >> i'm a deep state? i go on television and answer question. >> after adam schiff -- not so great tonight, i've got to be honest. you've been very insulting, very circumspect. >> i'm very insulting directly to your face, not mind your back. i don't do anonymous sources or let me skulk around. >> that's also not very fair to what you're saying.

but let me get back to what matters. i understand. >> i think your network is corrupt. >> i understand. here i am giving 20 plus minutes to the president's lawyer to make the case on national television. >> right. >> boy do i hide the ball. >> don't cover biden's bribery in ukraine. go cover the $1.5 billion out of china and then i'll respect you. >> let me ask this question because i want your lawyer's mind. >> not just you, your network. >> no, no, you keep saying me so deal with me. you say whatever you want. >> i am deal with you. >> you respect me, you don't respect me, that's on you. i live my life, i do my job. fine. >> there was a massive -- there was a massive scandal involving joe biden -- >> i let you say it ten times. i've heard it. >> you are not covering it. >> but you are also -- you are doing everything you can to spin away from what i'm trying to ask you about. >> i am not. the president did nothing wrong. >> the president, who's your client, he knew nothing about what you were doing in the ukraine. very convenient. so this is what i want to ask

you about. he has this conversation. the person gets upset and files the complaint. after adam schiff sends the letter to the dni saying i want that complaint, the $250 million is released to the ukraine that had been held back all this time. >> i don't know anything about that except for the fact that if adam schiff sent me a letter, i would tear it up and throw it in the garbage. >> of course, of course. why did they release the money right after adam schiff -- >> i don't know. i have no idea. >> you don't think that's -- listen, you're spinning things together out of whole cloth. >> i'm not spinning anything, chris. >> you're not curious about that? >> i'm not curious about what? >> you're not curious about the $250 million getting released only after there are questions about what was said to the president of ukraine. >> if the president of the united states said to the president of any country i have -- i am not going to give you money because your country is corrupt, you've got to straighten out these problems. >> we don't know that's what he said. >> i don't know what he said either. >> why would that upset an intel official? why would an intel official get upset about that?

>> you are talking about an anonymous informant. >> that's right. >> we have no idea if he's credible or not and you're making a big deal out of it because you want to make a big deal. >> we know nothing. >> wait, wait, damn it! let me finish. >> you've been talking the whole time. >> you cut me off. >> the inspector general -- >> you only cut me off because this is a program with an agenda. >> listen, thing a is to get to the truth. the inspector general assessed the whistle-blower complaint. they found it urgent enough to want to go to the dni under the statute. >> the only thing the inspector general can do is look at what the person says and say we have to investigate it. he has no idea if the person is honest, dishonest or crazy. >> really? you don't think part of what the i.g. is doing is assessing the credibility of the person who comes forward with the complaint? >> 100% they have no idea how to do that. >> how can you say that? >> by the way, it is perfectly appropriate for a president to say to a leader of a foreign country investigate this massive bribe that was -- >> i know.

if it wasn't general and it was specific and it was quid pro quo, that would be troubling, and then the money got released right after adam schiff asked for the complaint. that's what i wanted to ask you about. i appreciate your take on it. >> you'll have to ask somebody else about that. >> i will. >> i don't know the answer as to why it was released but i find nothing wrong in what he did. >> you don't even know what he did. >> i find a lot wrong in what you are covering up and what you continue to cover up and what your network continues to cover up. >> and i'm telling you you may give me proof of what you found -- >> i have proof. >> give it to me. >> go look. go look at joe biden january of 2018. everybody has heard that. that's not a new story. >> bribery, 100%. >> he does not admit bribery 100%. he said there was no quid pro quo. he wasn't doing anything. >> he didn't say that. >> he said i'm not doing it for my son. >> he left his son out of the conversation. he just said i told the president of the ukraine -- >> he's been asked about this and said i did nothing for my son and the timing doesn't match up. >> a year later.

>> that's when he was asked. >> he said i didn't know my son was under investigation. garbage. not true. and you are now -- >> yeah, what am i now? >> engaging about all kinds of fantasies about the president when there's clear proof about a democrat and you can't handle it. how about we go to china when you flew his son there on air force two and eight days later -- >> listen, rudy, i don't know what any of this has to do with what i've been asking you about tonight. i've got to be honesty. >> it has to do with how unfair you are. >> it's unfair for me not to want to tolerate you talking about joe biden all night long when we have an inspector general fighting with the dni, fighting with congress over a whistleblower complaint that involves this president and you and what you've been doing playing with ukraine. >> we have an anonymous whistleblower complaint compared to clear proof that biden's son iervegs got to go, rudy. >> -- got $1.5 billion from china and you won't cover it. tell me you're not unfair. >> rudy, i told you, give me the proof. >> nobody buys that, chris. that's why your network has no

ratings. >> i'm sure they buy everything you're saying right now has nothing to do with distracting from what this president's problems might be. >> i'm not distracting. >> you've been doing it over a year and a half. >> i haven't been doing that. >> the hell you haven't. you've been distracting from the truth for a year and a half and i hope you enjoy it because this president got the benefit of something you built up for decades, your credibility and you put it on the line for him. good choice. >> i put it on the line for him 1,000% and i think your network is a horror to this country. >> that's fine. i still have you on. >> you are undermining fairness and justice. >> and i still had you on. i'm so unfair that i had you on. >> that the united states could co -- vice president can come out of china >> and i've had you say that a dozen times on my air. i've asked you for proof and i have you on anyway even with all this trash coming out. >> the proof has been there two years and you're covering it up. >> send the proof whenever you want. >> you cover up so much more about hillary. >> i'm covering up so much i've kept this interview going 28 minutes.

and let you say it a dozen times. that's how afraid i am. you made two points. >> and interrupted me 500 times to try to stop me from telling the american people what's going on. >> you've made your points. >> you continue to mislead them, which is what you've doing. >> you've been here the whole time so you're part of it now. rudy giuliani -- >> i can document every single thing i said. >> then give me the documents. thank you. >> why would i give you the documents? >> because you want the truth to come out. >> of course i'm making sense. >> if i trusted you -- >> oh, now you don't trust me either. all right, rudy giuliani. >> why would i give the enemy the documents. >> now i'm the enemy. now i'm the enemy. >> you are not fair and impartial. you are totally biased and your network is a creature of a democratic national committee. >> rudy giuliani, i appreciate your take, as always. >> you should be embarrassed to be on that network. >> i'm the one that should be embarrassed. >> absolutely. >> i'm embarrassed. i'm embarrassed. for you. have a good night. >> you shouldn't be embarrassed for me. that's garbage. >> have a good night. >> don't be embarrassed for me. >> somebody needs to because you're not aware of what you're doing. >> of course i'm aware of what i'm saying. >> have a good night.

>> well, you shouldn't have a good night because what you're doing is very bad for the country. >> i've got to go. with respect, i've got to go. we're going to try to digest what to pull out of that with former general counsel to the fbi about how this complaint system should have worked, what has actually happened here and what are the questions going forward. jim baker says he doesn't think that this whistleblower scandal is going to end well. why? next. i switched to miralax for my constipation. stimulant laxatives forcefully stimulate the nerves in your colon. miralax works with the water in your body to unblock your system naturally. and it doesn't cause bloating, cramping, gas, or sudden urgency. miralax. look for the pink cap.

this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change. ♪ ♪ award winning interface. ♪ ♪ award winning design. ♪ ♪ award winning engine. ♪ ♪ the volvo xc90. our most awarded luxury suv. ♪ ♪ walking a dog can add thousands walking this many?day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up

with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move. should always be working harder.oney that's why your cash automatically goes into a money market fund when you open a new account. and fidelity's rate is higher than e*trade's, td ameritrade's, even 9 times more than schwab's. plus only fidelity has zero account fees and zero minimums for retail brokerage and retirement accounts. just another reminder of the value you'll only find at fidelity. open an account today. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know.

(vo) go national. go like a pro. bleech! aww! awww! ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft for the win win. with licensed agents availablep when 24-7,d it. it's not just easy. it's having-jerome-bettis- on-your-flag-football-team easy. go get 'em, bus! ohhhh! [laughing] c'mon bus, c'mon! hey, wait, wait, wait! hey man, i got your flag! i got your flag, man! i got your flag! it's geico easy. with licensed agents available 24/7. 49 - nothing! woo! tell him we're flexible. don't worry. my dutch is ok. just ok? (in dutch) tell him we need this merger. (in dutch)

it's happening..! just ok is not ok. especially when it comes to your network. at&t is america's best wireless network according to america's biggest test. now with 5g evolution. the first step to 5g. more for your thing. that's our thing. all right, let's get right to jim baker here. it's good to have you on "primetime." i understand what rudy was trying to do. i don't appreciate how he was doing it. i'll take that up with him later. but the sum and substances of this. it doesn't matter what the president said to the president of ukraine. it's fine. what's the line?

>> well, look, i don't know what the facts are here. >> right. >> i'm a bit reluctant to speculate, obviously. >> but can a president say anything to another president? >> can a president say anything -- no, i president can't say literally anything. the president of the united states has been given authorities and duties an responsibilities that he must execute consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states in the interests of the american people. he's taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and he is obligated to take care that the laws are faithfully executed among other things. so he can't say anything. he must act in a way that is consistent with his oath and consistent with his other responsibilities under the constitution. what exactly was said in a conversation with a foreign leader, if that is what this is all really about, and we don't know that, then he just can't say anything to some foreign leader that might be unlawful,

unethical, immoral, illicit, that type of thing. so, no, he doesn't do that. and the president -- this is something that i do get a little bit worked up about. the president doesn't have any rights under the constitution. the people have rights under the constitution. the president has duties and responsibilities. >> fair point. >> he needs to put the interests of the american -- he needs to put the interests of the american people first at all times. not his own personal or political interests, in my opinion. >> so let's look at what was supposed to be the process here and what has gotten constipated to this point. whatever the president said in this phone call reportedly made this u.s. intel official concerned enough to file a whistleblower complaint. it now goes to the i.g. that's where the complaint is filed under the statute. the i.g., according to rudy giuliani, does not do and has no ability to do any assessment of whether the complaint is believable. i don't think that that is true by any guideline i have looked at for an i.g.

what is your understanding? >> no, that's preposterous. the i.g. of the intelligence community has plenty of authorities and plenty of resources to be able to investigate something of this nature, just like the other i.g.s do around the government. i've been investigated many times by i.g.s. it's not a pleasant experience to go through, but they have plenty of resources, they produce very voluminous, well documented reports. >> right. >> you might agree with them, you might disagree with them, but they've the capability, i.g.s in general and this one in particular have the ability to investigate something of this scope for sure. that's just preposterous. >> and whether somebody is a lawyer or not, it stands to reason that for the inspector general to assess a complaint and come up with a finding that it was urgent enough to motivate them to go to the dni about it, obviously they had made a credibility assessment and some type of sufficiency case on their own side.

so now they go to the dni and they say we believe under the statute this is something in your purview that should now be passed along to congress. now, two things happen. one is that the counsel on the dni says, no, i disagree. i don't think this is within the dni purview. what is your understanding of that type of conflict? >> well, so that is a legitimate thing to me for the dni to do. when he's confronted with this, if he had some level of confusion about it or didn't know exactly what to do, to consult with his counsel, his main lawyer. that seems legitimate to me. the general counsel of odni is a capable, trustworthy person of high integrity so it is legitimate to seek his advice on that type of question. that is what the legal advice is for the office of the director of national intelligence, what the dni general counsel says. my understanding here is --

>> thanks, jim, go ahead. >> i was just going to say my understanding is the next thing that happened, i don't know if it was the dni directly or the general counsel, one of them or both of them then went to the justice department to seek the justice department's views on what the law said with respect to what they could or had to do under these particular circumstances and that then led to another series of events i'm happy to chat with you about. >> is that kosher? is the dni supposed to do if it's not clear? >> when i was at the fbi, i frequently went in particular to the office of legal counsel, which is the office most likely that they went here, that they went to in this particular circumstance, to seek their counsel. you know, olc typically is -- has numerous smart lawyers who can help and give great advice, and so reaching out to olc on a tough legal question doesn't

seem improper or anything untoward about that. but that's probably what happened. the thing about talking to olc, though, especially if you get an opinion from them is that their legal determination is binding on your agency and the rest of the executive branch. olc operators under delegated authority from the president. the president is the one who actually has the authority to make binding legal determinations for the entire executive branch. he's delegated that authority to the attorney general and to the office of legal counsel. and so the reality is for people in the executive branch, what olc says goes. they have the final word on what the law is for the executive branch. >> i want to take one step sideways in the analysis an then want to get back to the idea of what's supposed to happen now. but the step sideways is this. rudy giuliani at some point in

that interview admitted what he denied, assuming he was really thinking about what i was asking which is, yeah, i went to ukraine and asked them to look into these allegations about biden because i have all these affidavits -- he had a whole proof argument about why it was okay for him to do that. what are the guidelines for when it is okay? he said the president didn't know what he was doing until after he did it. so let's assume that for the sake of the analysis. what's the line? >> yeah, i had a hard time understanding exactly what he was saying. i feel like i need a aspirin and ginger ale or shot of whiskey or something after that whole discussion. >> imagine being me. >> i didn't really understand it. >> but if he went to ukraine and said you need to look at what happened with joe biden and people trying to set up the trump campaign, if he went there and said that to ukraine or one of their emissaries somewhere, if he delivered that message, why would that be wrong? >> well, so the -- look, i don't

know exactly why he's doing that. is he doing that in connection with the campaign? is he doing it under some other authority? is he at the direction of the president as some type of diplomat or something? it's not at all clear to me exactly why he was doing that. >> he said he was just defending his client. >> yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me. i'm not going to pronounce, chris, that it's unlawful in some way without having done a deeper analysis of it. but what is concerning to me is the extent to which the president and those around him are willing to go overseas to seek the assistance of foreign governments with respect to internal affairs. look, if the -- mr. giuliani thought that something was improper, the way to deal with -- improper being illegal, go to the fbi. take the facts to the fbi. have them investigate it. if there's some violation of u.s. law, they're the ones equipped to deal with it. i don't understand what he was doing. >> he suggested that he has given them all this proof that

he has and won't give it to me and you heard his whole explanation for that. jim baker, i appreciate you helping me wade through the analysis and i appreciate you even more having to listen to the first interview and wonder what i was going to ask you about coming out of it. i'm sure that was a nice head trip for you. thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> yes, thank you. now, as you're processing, well, what is the outcome of this kind of situation? here is a suggestion. we have brand new numbers that suggest if you look at the polls, this dynamic of who's the enemy and who isn't and fair and fake and all of this stuff, it's having an effect on you. not just what baker was talking about but it is motivating turnout in a way that we may not have seen before. the wizard of odds will put meat on those bones, next.

i work hard and i want my money to work hard too. so i use my freedom unlimited card. even when i'm spending, i'm earning 1.5% cash back on everything i buy. earning on my favorite soup... got it. earning on that eclair. don't touch it. don't touch it yet. let me get the big one. nope. this one? nope. this one? no. let me get them all. i'm gonna get them all. it's just the basics. can you double bag this right here? earn 1.5% cash back on everything you buy with freedom unlimited. can you also tell me what it is? chase. make more of what's yours.

t-mobile's newest signal reaches farther than ever before. with more engineers. more towers. more coverage! it's a network that gives you ♪freedom from big cities, to small towns, we're with you. because life can take you almost anywhere, t-mobile is with you. no signal goes farther or is more reliable in keeping you connected.

all right. so we know that you guys are all going crazy over that rudy giuliani interview. two things. thank you for all the well wishing. he can say whatever he wants about me personally. that is a look for you at what our new normal is. why didn't i return it? one, i have respect for him. i've known him all my life. he supported my father a lifetime ago. and that's what we do on this show. i don't have to insult somebody personally and i'm not going to do that. he can, that's his choice. now, second of all, i know he threw a lot out there and i know a lot of it is troubling. let me try to pull some truth out of some of the allegations, all right? and you don't have to take our word for it, although you should, but in realtime double check this with politifact.

they looked at this in may of this year. here were their main takeaways. hunter biden did hold a directorship for a company while his father was vice president. if you think that smells bad, you're not wrong. experts agree biden holding the position created a conflict of interest for his father. there is no question about that. that's not enough to say there was a crime. you've got to look at what was happening and why. vice president biden did press ukraine to fire its top prosecutor. he did have the threat of withholding u.s. aid. he admitted that there was bullying involved. but he wasn't doing it personally. he doesn't have that kind of money. it was the position of the wider obama administration. it's a meaningful distinction. lastly, politifact found no evidence to support the idea that joe biden advocated with his son's interests in mind, okay? it's not even clear that hunter's company was actively

under investigation or that a change in prosecutors benefitted that situation, all right? and again, if there is proof to the contrary, i welcome it. now, the president is not in a hurry to deal with these questions about ukraine, but i've got a case for him on something else. i see a big win on the horizon for this president. i'm not talking about the election, i'm talking about something right now. that is my closing argument. it may be a little weird after what rudy said about me, but i have an argument for this president that i think he's going to want to hear, next.

♪ are we supposed to dance? ♪ boy bands without dancing are just ok. get a better than just ok unlimited plan with spotify premium included on america's best network. only from at&t more for your thing. that's our thing.

all right, so mr. president, you're on the verge of a signature achievement. that's what i see this potential gun safety legislation has. i argue to you that your advisers are selling you short and scaring you off of this legislation for bad reason. i know you value pragmatism over principle and that's okay. both will point you to the same place on this. first, it is the right thing to do. and when the nra and the naysayers are not in your head, you instinctively get that. after parkland, you got it. i will be strongly pushing comprehensive background checks with an emphasis on mental health, raise the age to 21, end

sales of bump stocks, congress is in a mood to finally do something on the issue i hope. then we know what happened, the nra got to you. and that fear of losing the core of your supporters made you shift. but one of your political talents is knowing your crowd. and you know very few things galvanize americans like these shootings do. the resolve is growing. by the way, the nra is mired in scandal and dropping in its membership. here are the numbers about this country. look at the numbers. 89-9 support requiring background checks for all potential gun buyers. 86% support a law allowing police to take guns from someone a judge finds dangerous. what we're calling red flag laws these days. you like to be the winners. the numbers are clear. and so, again, after the attacks in texas and ohio recently, you swung back to where your head and your gut take you. we cannot let those killed in el paso, texas, and dayton, ohio,

die in vain. republicans and democrats must come together, get strong background checks. we must have something good if not great come out of these two tragic events. and you were right. but then those around you start their chirping about the base and how the democrats will never give you credit. and you slid back to a place of fear. >> we're not moving on anything, we're going very slowly in one way because we want to make sure it's right. >> the principled position is clear. background checks on all commercial transactions are well within the legal and political parameters. you would be the first one to get it done here. and the man on your staff who has been best to you and for you is your attorney general. and he believes the same thing. he's running around trying to get this together, get bipartisan support, finesse it to your advantage. but it can't happen without you. i know your guys are saying to let the bill come to you. it won't.

your guys in the senate are too scared. and even mitch mcconnell is hinting he wants a nudge. did you hear this? >> we need some guidance from the president about what kind of proposal that would make a difference he would actually sign into law. i think, given the multiple horrendous shootings in august, we owe it to the american people to act. >> be careful with him. because he's creating some space for himself there that he thinks something should be done, but he's waiting on you. you wouldn't let him vote on a house bill that passed seven months ago so this has to be done in the senate, at least to start. now to the key sticking point, the base. what happened after you did bump stocks? nra was against it. they rallied the rabid. you did it anyway. not congress, you. naked. and it was not about future sales. bump stock owners were legally required to destroy the devices

or turn them in. very aggressive. no cover from congress. so what happened? before, 37% approval. a month later, 39%. in party, 86%, 87% after. you lost no one. now you're saying, beto o'rourke, he hurt the chances of a deal. look, if he did spook people, he's the only candidate going that far. the law is probably not even in line with his thinking. and it's not anywhere in congress right now. this is about you and what you want. that's why lawmakers are pausing. and the fear of confiscation or something short of that, like a ban, is all the more reason for you to deliver something far short of what he wants and others may want. so beyond the logic, the proof of what happened when you acted on bump stocks and the overwhelming support for the

things that your own loyal ag is putting together, the source you trust most has already told you the reality here. >> i could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and i wouldn't lose any voters, okay? it's like incredible. >> you're right. they don't care what you do with the truth, what you deny, who you divide, how you hide. you can say and do whatever you want. you pass this legislation, you have a chance of getting some new support because there are people who believe you would never do this, you don't have the head or the heart to do what's needed. there's no basis other than scared advice to believe you're going to lose any of your base. you know it yourself, you heard what you just said. and you'll be doing the right thing on an issue that matters and will likely save lives. you want maga to mean something other than a return to days of division. this is the kind of move you make. the table is set. all you have to do is do what you do best, tell people what you want and take credit when they get it done. now i know what rudy said about me, i forgive him for that, he

was just making his argument, he was doing it in his own way. i'm making this argument to you and to your followers because it just makes sense for all of us. thank you for watching, "cnn tonight with d. lemon" starts right now. >> nice closing statement, closing argument. you know what i want to talk about, don't you? >> no. >> you don't? you have no idea? >> none, help me. >> pretty boring show you had so i don't want to talk about anything. no, seriously, i want to talk about rudy giuliani. >> i know. >> i know you think i'm going to come down on you. no, i actually thought it was a substantive interview. not that you really care what i think, right? >> of course, i do. i love you and i respect you. >> here's what i think. i thought it was substantive. i thought that he was, and i think that i'm right, trying to pull a corey lewandowski, what corey did the other day in congress. distract, deflect, don't answer questions, talk about, what do you think, what do you think, just keep deflecting, but in that, just as what happened with corey lewandowski,

there were some actually substantive admissions in there. he admitted that he asked the ukraine government to investigate joe biden in that interview. he didn't realize he did, just as corey lewandowski probably didn't realize he was going to admit that he lies to the media, or that the president committed obstruction of justice or asked him to do something that he was, you know -- that was not lawful. >> yeah. >> i think that it was -- but i think that that was -- it was important, the admissions that he -- his performance was important, and also what he ended up admitting, very important as well. >> yeah, i -- >> it's a tactic. it's a tactic. >> there's no question. i call those "attack-tics." they've become the new normal. it's very pronounced. people say, how do you keep your cool? i know what it is. this one was a little different than others because i've known rudy giuliani most of my life. i have always respected him.