we begin with my conversation with former illinois governor rod blagojevich. president trump this week commuted his 14-year federal prison sentence. he was convicted of a string of charges including wire fraud, attempted extortion and conspiracy to solicit bribes. he was impeached by the illinois state legislature in 2009 and a year later declared his innocence on a brief appearance of "celebrity apprentice" hosted by donald trump. his commutation has been criticized by democrats and republicans in illinois familiar with his record. i spoke with the former democratic governor, who now calls himself a trumpocrat, a few moments ago.

governor blagojevich, there's obviously been criticism about the president's decision to commute your sentence. it's certainly within his power to do so. what interests me since you've been out in the statements you've made you've shown no remorse for the crimes you were convicted by a jury of and are portraying yourself as a victim of persecution by prosecutors. just about everyone though that's looked at the evidence against you says that's just false. >> well, i don't think they've looked carefully because i am a political prisoner. i was put in prison for practicing -- >> wait a minute. you're a political prisoner? nelson mandela was a political prisoner. they have no undue process and unjustly jailed and you had jury convict you. you had appeals courts look at your sentencing and you even -- you even appealed to the supreme court twice and they refused to hear you. so you're hardly a political prisoner. >> well, first of all, nelson mandela went before a court.

he was convicted in a court of law. i had -- >> by a racist apartheid government. >> that's correct. >> and not a jury of his peers. >> but if you were to ask -- i bet if you were to ask nelson mandela whether he thought it was fair in the early '60s -- in south africa. he would say what i'm saying. >> i just got to stop you. i'm sorry. as someone who worked in south africa and saw apartheid the idea that you are comparing yourself to somebody who has actually been railroaded by an apartheid system is just nuts and, frankly, like offensive. >> you're the one making the comparison, not me. i didn't bring up nelson mandela. you did. >> you're saying like him you were railroaded by a an all white jury for an oppressive regime. >> you're putting words in my mouth. i never said that either. there were -- the jury was -- had -- you know, some

representation from african-americans, though, what i'm saying is i was thrown in prison and spent nearly eight years in prison for practicing politics, for seeking campaign contributions without a quid pro quo. no express quid pro quo and i was given the same standards senator menendez was given. i could very well have been in the u.s. senate instead of where i was. now, i'm not complaining that i'm not in the senate but i am complaining that i was sent to prison by a handful of corrupt prosecutors who are abusing their power, they're uncontrolled and they're the ones that chief justice breyer talked about when he said that our country is in trouble because of these uncontrolled prosecutors who can do just about anything they want to do and are using their power to go after government officials for what he called routine practices. >> let me just ask you -- >> that's what i went to prison for. >> so you're saying it's corrupt prosecutors. do you know who the guy is who actually approved the wiretap, the phone tap on you was?

it was michael mukasey, the attorney general at the time. he's actually a trump supporter now and trump defender. he was a george bush appointee so the idea that's one of the corrupt prosecutor, the guy who actually tapped your phones and actually gathered all the evidence against you. >> no, i think he got -- he signed off on what the prosecutor -- >> he was fooled by prosecutors? >> i think that he was given some information and he agreed to do the wiretaps and then made -- had wiretaps that if they played all the tapes which they didn't do, they put a seal order on the tapes wouldn't allow me to play tapes in court, tape recordings they made that proved everything i'm saying is true about what they did to me, i think the result would have been very different. >> so but, okay, here's where your argument to me doesn't really hold up. you're saying it's these corrupt prosecutors who tricked the

jury, you know, who didn't -- >> they lied to the jury. they lied to the jury. >> okay. >> yes. >> you're the one who's been convicted of lying to the fbi, though, by that very same jury. but just hear me out here. what i don't understand is, let me just remind you, it wasn't just -- it wasn't -- it wasn't prosecutors who convicted you, found you guilty, it was actually a jury who found you guilty and that's our system. you also then were able to appeal and you appealed to the circuit court and twice i believe and they actually upheld your conviction. so other judge, a higher court, the u.s. 7th circuit looked at the evidence again and said it was overwhelming. that's a quote. they upheld your conviction then you twice had the opportunity to apply to the supreme court to hear your arguments and you know what, they refused because they said, your argument doesn't hold up. the very argument you are making right now was looked at by the 7th circuit, by the supreme court, it was heard in the

courtroom and no one bought it. the illinois senate unanimously voted to remove you. everyone in the illinois house also voted, democrats and republicans to impeach you except for one person, you know who that was? your sister-in-law. i mean, give me a break. >> okay, that -- i hear what you're saying but let me fill in some of the facts that you don't seem to have. first and foremost, when a prosecutor comes out and arrests a sitting governor with a s.w.a.t. team and announces a big lie, the sail of a senate seat which incidentally was reversed by the appellate court and ruled the discussions about the senate seat were routine politics. >> they still upheld your conviction, though. they upheld your conviction. >> they did not. they reversed those charges -- >> those charges -- you know what, you had like how many charges against you, 15, 16, yes, they threw out a couple of charges. there were still enough charges for a judge to then look at it and say you know what, the sentence still stands, but go

ahead. >> let me ask do you know what the charges were that were upheld? do you know what they involved? they involved -- do you, anderson? i can tell you if you don't. >> i do but go ahead. >> requests for campaign contributions. >> extorting a children's hospital -- >> it's extortion if there's evidence of a quid pro quo, of an express quid pro quo. >> you know what, you -- come on. you're a smart guy. to extort somebody, to extort somebody you don't have to say, i am now extorting you. i am now going to threaten you. i am now going to promise you something, a quid for a pro. i mean, it doesn't work that way. >> it does work that way. the united states supreme court in 1991, the highest court in the land, anderson, established the rules for fund-raising and they said that routine political -- >> that was the argument you made in court that this was all routine fund-raising. >> it's only bribery or extortion -- it's only a crime

if there is an express quid pro quo, one thing for another. there was never evidence of that. they never proved that. they simply said that if there is a connection in the mind of somebody, that that then is the standard. >> but, sir, you know the jury -- >> i have to make this point. >> okay. >> the jury made the right call based upon the fake law that the prosecutors gave them. they -- they used a standard against me that the supreme court in the mccormick case said was not the law. think about that they used a standard the supreme court said was not the law. how different is that from using -- from a dirty cop planning a murder weapon to frame an innocent man? >> all of this sounds good on tv. >> it's all true. >> it all sounds good on tv. >> all true. >> but you know what, the jury actually looked at the evidence, actually you had two juries looking at evidence. you also have now had the 7th circuit court of appeals looking at the evidence and they said it was overwhelming against you. and they do know the law and on top of that the supreme court was looking at this great injustice that you're talking about and said, you know what, twice we're not going to look at this because you know what, it

should stand. >> can i answer that? >> yeah. >> the supreme court only takes 2% of the cases. it's very hard to get into the supreme court. now, with regard to the appellate court, shockingly disappointing that they would uphold an unlawful standard. i would simply say to your viewers and you take a look at the mccormick case. 1991. establishes the standard. senator menendez was given the lawful standard and his case was ultimately thrown out by a judge. me, they used the standard the court said was not the law and that is basically a dirty cop planting a murder weapon to frame an innocent man and then you talk about the primacy of the supreme court, let me remind you in 1857 the best judge in america, chief justice taney said that dred scott a black man was not entitled to the same rights as anybody else. and so they don't always get it right either. i've learned something in these eight years and that is we have a racist and corrupt criminal justice system in many areas. >> right.

>> this is why i hope one day maybe you'll join me in the fight to reform our criminal justice system and do something about the problem of oversentencing blacks and latinos. i learned that when i was there. >> well, what's sad is you hadn't actually learned that when you mattered. when you actually were the governor. you talk about working for the criminal justice reform. there's a lot of people in chicago and in illinois who actually like spit up when you say that because when you were actually in power and when you were actually governor and could have helped thousands of people with clemency cases you blew it off. the governor after you inherited a huge backlog, nearly 3,000 clemency petitions that you failed to review. in fact, you were sued by -- you were sued as governor by cabrini green legal aid to try to pressure you to actually pay attention to clemency cases instead of extorting people for money and campaign contributions. so it's a little ironic and frankly a little sad and pathetic and hypocritical. you talking about, you know, commuting -- getting -- you get

a commutation of a sentence which is within the president's right but you ignored a whole hell of a lot of other people who were hoping you would give them clemency when you actually mattered. so actually you know what, i'm happy -- it wasn't a question. it was a statement. i'd be happy to work with people on criminal justice reform but i wouldn't work with you. >> okay, can i answer that statement and question? >> yes. >> okay, i had's like to address that. look, when you've been put where i was and you have all the time that i was given to think and look back on some of the things you might have done different, that's certainly an area you talked about that i certainly wish i would have done more on. there's no question about that. >> fair enough. >> that's among my biggest regrets. i didn't know how corrupt the criminal justice system was until it did it to me and that was a wake-up call. one thing about me as governor when the cases came to me and i was given files about people who were seeking clemency or pardons, i acted appropriately. >> actually, no, they sat on your desk and that's why you were sued.

>> i did clemencies and i did pardons. i didn't do nearly enough. it wasn't a priority. i would acknowledge that. i didn't go to the office every day doing that. instead i was giving health care to all the children, free public transportation to seniors and disabled. >> actually you were holding up money to hospitals in order to get campaign contributions but what, listen, governor -- >> that's a business lie. they got $8 million from me. >> they got it after you left. >> i promised -- i ordered it before that happened and they got it while i was governor. that is not factual. >> okay. governor blagojevich, i do wish you the best. i really am glad for your family that you're out and -- >> i don't know by the way you were asking me questions. i'm sorry, anderson. i appreciate -- >> honestly, look, i have no problem with you getting out. the president can commute whoever he wants. i just think -- i wish you're besmirching prosecutors who actually are no longer in government but prosecutors are important to our system and you are going after the very basis

of our justice system which has plenty of problems but, you know, part of the thing is you got out, do you have an obligation to at least admit what you did wrong and you refuse to do that and creating a whole new alternate universe of facts and that may be big in politics today but it's still frankly just bullshit. we got to leave it there. >> it's not bullshit. i lived it all. >> thank you, governor. >> okay, thank you. i apologize for saying bs. i don't usually use that language. a lot more ahead tonight, much of it is breaking news. what the president said about russian interference to help him wing re-election in spite of what his intelligence officials are telling him which is that they are indeed interfering as well as new reporting about how russia is working to -- i'm sorry about saying the bs word. also ahead, breaking news that could change the bloomberg campaign. women who signed nondisclosure agreements to talk about their complaints against the candidate.

through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from finding out what's selling best... to managing your fleet... to collaborating remotely with your teams. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. you're doing more to keep your body healthy for the future. shouldn't your toothpaste do the same for your mouth? future proof your whole mouth with new crest pro/active defense. its active defense technology neutralizes bacteria to shield against potential issues. crest.

my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer,

or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity. motor? nope. not motor? it's pronounced "motaur." for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

more breaking news. tough words for vladimir putin from a man whose 2020 campaign, the russians are trying to help according to u.s. intelligence. that man, however, is not president trump in this case, he's bernie sanders. shortly after "the washington post" reported today he is been briefed by intelligence officials on the interference sanders had this to say. >> the american people whether you're republican, democrats, independents are sick and tired of seeing russia and other countries interfering in our elections. the intelligence community has been very clear about it. >> according to "the post" it's not yet clear what form the interference has taken or what final end though in 20126 you'll recall they were involved in sowing dissension to help get trump elected in the general election. we already know the intelligence community concluded they are working to do it again on the president's behalf, which keep in mind brings us to president trump's reaction. because regardless of who you think should or shouldn't be

president, it is self-evident that any president or any candidate faced with such a challenge would say something similar to what senator sanders said today and in a sitting president's case would actually act on it. as we've been seeing play out the president has indeed acted on it but not in the way you would think any president would, fired his top intelligence official, joseph maguire, for having the temerity to allow the house members who actually have oversight responsibility in the matter to be briefed on all of this. figuratively speaking the president killed messenger, at least fired him. as for how seriously he takes the threat to the country and democracy we'll let the president speak for himself. >> i see these phonies, the do nothing democrats, they said today that putin wants to be sure that trump gets elected. here we go again. here we go again. did you see it? the story. aren't people bored? i was told a week ago they said they're trying to start a rumor,

it's disinformation. that's the only thing they're good at. they're not good at anything else. >> well, he also once again called this all a hoax which at least means he's consistent. here he is two summers ago reporting to dan coats saying that russia was undermining our democracy while standing next to the perpetrator himself vladimir putin. >> my people came to me, dan coats came to me and some others, they said they think it's russia. i have president putin, he just said it's not russia. i will say this, i don't see any reason why it would be. >> not only did the president publicly side with putin over coats and the intelligence community he ultimately got rid of dan coats and at odds with his hand picked fbi director and hand picked former acting attorney general and his former russia expert whom he fired after she testified in the impeachment hearings and warned against falling for russia's cover story.

>> there's some questions and tapes i've heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps somehow for some reason ukraine did. this is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the russian security services themselves. >> well, the president as you know has been pushing that exact same cover story, the question is why? you've heard his defenders say it's because he cannot tolerate any suggestion his election was tainted but with all due respect who cares? he didn't take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the purity of his victory or his feelings, it was to protect the constitution and so too the public servants he's fired for trying to live up to those same words. joining us a lawmaker in on the briefing that cost the acting dni his job. connecticut democratic congressman jim himes. you've seen the president call his assessment from his own officials a disinformation campaign.

i know there's a lot you can't say but how do his comments square with what you have been told about the facts? >> yeah, well, anderson, i can't talk about what was said behind closed doors. there's obviously a lot of media reports out there. i can certainly say, you know, the way the president articulated it blaming the democrats for another hoax, again, i can't confirm who said what but i can promise you that the democrats aren't saying anything here. you got a bunch of news reports about what might have been said in that meeting. but, look, we should unpack that a little bit, right? what was or wasn't said in that meeting isn't all that important. and we can come back to that. we can talk about why the russians might have an interest in bernie sanders or donald trump. it's not about them as individuals but creating schisms, about creating divisions in our body politic but what's really important is what you were talking about there. that the president in the oval office and i obviously wasn't there may have berated his chief intelligence official for

telling him something he didn't want to hear and, anderson, we've seen this movie before. when presidents or when people in power want the intelligence community to say something, we saw it under the bush administration in which the cia and george tenet, the director of the cia, famously characterized the existence of weapons of mass destruction in iraq as a slam dunk because that's what the vice president, dick cheney, and the president wanted to hear and there are thousands of americans and many hundreds of thousands of people who paid with their lives for that bastardization of that story. >> challenging conclusions and would be consistent with the interference that some of them have run for the president since he took office. how seriously do you believe house republicans are taking this? >> well, you know, it's a serious thing for then, right? we saw in the impeachment

proceeding how all of the republicans in the house and almost all the republicans in the senate are cowed by this president. they need to do what this president wants them to do or they lose their jobs. that's the dynamic on capitol hill right now. many of these folks are good people who behind closed doors express a lot of concern about what the president does. but they know that if they step out the way mitt romney does, they will be treated by the president and by conservative organizations the way mitt romney was treated. so, but, again, this really isn't about donald trump. this isn't about bernie sanders. this is about the fact, i believe, to the core of my being that the russians are going to try to do exactly what they did in 2016 again in 2020 and why wouldn't they? the president of the united states didn't hold them accountable for it. you know, there's really never been any accountability other than a few indictments, other than the intelligence community sort of showing that we know

what happened and the president then denying it. there's really never been accountability for the russians for what they did in 2016. >> yeah, and doing it again apparently. congressman himes, appreciate it. the former director of national intelligence joins us next. we'll be right back. uhh, excuse me, is there a problem here? you're in a no parking zone. oh, i... i didn't know. you didn't see the sign? that... that wasn't there when i was here earlier. (whimper) really? you know, in italy, they let you park anywhere. have a good day, sir. with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. (glass shattering) (frustrated yell) (car horn blast) (yelp)

(want you to spend your stax refund with them.s at sprint, we're doing things differently- we say, keep your refund. you heard that right- because now you can get the samsung galaxy s10 for zero dollars a month when you switch. yup, zero dollars a month. plus, sprint's offering a 100% total satisfaction guarantee. while i think their network and savings are great, you don't just have to take my word for it. try it out and see the savings for yourself. so, what are you waiting for? switch today. for people with hearing loss, visit sprintrelay.com. (sensei) beautiful. but support the leg! when i started cobra kai, the lack of control over my business made me a little intense. but now i practice a different philosophy. quickbooks helps me get paid,

manage cash flow, and run payroll. and now i'm back on top... with koala kai. hey! more mercy. (vo) save over 40 hours a month with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business. than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results.

tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. without asking your doctor can you help keep these iguys protected online?? easy, connect to the xfi gateway. what about internet speeds that keep up with my gaming? let's hook you up with the fastest internet from xfinity. what about wireless data options for the family? of course, you can customize and save. can you save me from this conversation? that we can't do, but come in and see what we can do. we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. ask. shop. discover. at your local xfinity store today.

more on tonight's breaking news. retired admiral william mcraven former commander of u.s. operations. has just weighed in on the firing of joseph maguire and write, as americans we should be frightened. deeply afraid for the future of the nation. when good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when

presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security, then there's nothing left to stop the triumph of evil. joins us now is former dni james clapper who served under presidents in both parties currently cnn national security analyst. those words i got to say from men like mcraven, i mean, that's terrifying. >> you know, they're pretty, pretty compelling, anderson, and i think he has a point. clearly, i think he's affected by very close friendship, long-standing friendship of decades that he and joe maguire have, but he makes a good point about here is the acting director of national intelligence, an honorable man who served his country with great distinction in the navy as a s.e.a.l. and didn't campaign for this job and then just tried to do his duty as he saw fit

living up to his oath of office and was trying to convey truth to power and his reward for that was he got fired. >> yeah, i mean he wasn't attacking the president. he wasn't, you know, speaking behind the president's back. he was reporting to congress, which is what the job is. >> exactly. as required in the law, you know, you're supposed to keep the congress fully and currently informed. and that's what the office of director of national intelligence was doing. now as i'm hearing, the purge is under way at odni is purge of professionals and so i think the objective here is to neuter odni as much as possible. >> you know, it seemed like, i don't know, a year -- time seems to all blend together now, but, you know, it wasn't so long ago that, you know, advisers to the president in the white house were -- would go on tv and say, look, the president -- this

administration is taking the, you know, concern about russian interference incredibly seriously, et cetera, et cetera. the president continues to publicly, you know, he's calling it disinformation. he's now fired the guy who is reporting to congress about it and a lot of the people who were saying, you know, this administration is taking it seriously, they're gone too. they're all out. i mean how concerned are you that this threat is not being taken seriously by had administration? >> well, i'm very concerned about it and the threat that we portrayed in our assessment of january 17 still holds. the russians on the heels and the wake of their success in 2016 clearly they're going to do it again in 2020. and they really don't care about anyone. their objective is to sow as much discord and distrust and dissent in this country as they possibly can and they're already

excelling and, you know, the election is months away. >> the idea -- i mean to that point it's also a point that congressman himes made moments ago on the program, which is that this isn't about, you know, russia backing sanders or backing trump. it's about or i mean it may be but it's certainly about sowing dissension and can look at it in different ways but the idea regardless of who they're supporting, the end result is to sow dissension. >> exactly. and that was their objective in '16 and always has been their objective. they have a long history of meddling in other elections and we have a history of it going back to at least the '60s. just the magnitude of what they've lately done notably in social media and i suspect the reason for -- i'll use air quotes here -- supporting bernie sanders is that's a way to promote divisiveness within the democratic party and it's just their cynical analysis of how to sow discord in this country and

they excel at it. they have a very sophisticated understanding of our political landscape. >> general clapper, appreciate it. thank you. up next more on the political and legal dimensions of all this as our breaking news continues in a moment. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ all we needed somebody to lean on ♪ the new xc90 plug-in hybrid electric. xc90. recharged.

i was told to begin my aspirin regimen, blem. and i just didn't listen. until i almost lost my life. my doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. listen to the doctor. take it seriously.

economically powerfully influenced my values. bernie sanders he's fighting to raise wages. and guarantee health care for all. now, our country is at a turning point. hard working people, betrayed by trump, struggling to survive. in this moment, we need a fighter. bernie sanders. we know he'll fight for us as president because he always has. i'm bernie sanders and i approve this message.

before the break you heard a frankly chilling warning tonight from the former commander of the u.s. operations. about the suppressing facts and truth in democracy. let's get some perspective from "new york times" contributing editor and cnn political commentator rick santorum and kerry porderro. senator santorum, shouldn't the president be concerned that russia's meddling in the 2020 elections like they did in 2016 and calling it a democratic hoax? >> well, you know, i think he should be concerned and i believe he is concerned. i think he's concerned that this information is being fed out there and that it leads to exactly what your previous guests had talked about. dissension and conflict between democrats an republicans.

and i think the president unfortunately played into that. i think you've seen democrats react the same way. some. at least the ones running for president. president the same way, sort of trying to sew dissension which accomplishes exactly what the russians hope to do, which is to sew doubt about the validity of our elections. >> the president called this idea disinformation essentially. he said this is misinformation and the information he is -- >> the specific thing is it's helping his campaign. i don't think he's saying the russians are involved in trying to affect the election as disinformation. i think everyone accepts that as the truth. >> does the president? >> trump doesn't accept it. >> he told vladimir putin he doesn't understand why they would be involved. >> remember when he stood next to putin like an impotent lap dog. agreeing and nodding his head.

he threw his own intelligence agency under the bus. >> that's not what we're complaining about. >> he's been complaining about them talking about the -- >> let me bring the receipts. bring the receipts and let's debate it out, all right? the reason why trump is a russian asset is because trump behaves like a russian asset. trump has said that his own intelligence agencies are part of the deep state. he throws them under the bus. doesn't believe the agencies concluded in the 2016 election. he believes vladimir putin. he promotes all talking points. he is sending attorney general william barr on taxpayer dollars to gather evidence to promote a russian conspiracy theory that ukraine, not russia was involved. in 2016 elections. he says there's deep state conspiracy theories. instead of doing something as a commander in chief, he fires dni maguire by simply presenting him information.

if putin's goal is to weaken democracy and hurt institutions, trump is putin's asset. >> the reality is that that donald trump has been tougher on russia than any president in recent history. look at what he's done with respect to ukraine and supporting them in the process as well as a whole host of other things. >> and blagojevich is a political prisoner. >> anderson -- >> all of this objecting is russia wants him to win, that's the objection. >> kerry, go ahead. >> we've outlined what the problem is, which the problem is that congress needs to be able to obtain and the public needs to understand exactly what the russian activities are with respect to threatening and conducting activities to interfere in the 2020 election, and we have a president who is hostile to the intelligence community and doesn't accept or even want to be discussed with congress that intelligence information. the way that we need to fix that

problem is the intelligence committees need to schedule the worldwide threat briefing and instead of conducting these hearings even though normally intelligence committee hearings would be conducted behind closed doors. it needs to be conducted like it is every year, in public. they need to call the intelligence chiefs, including whoever happens to be the acting director of intelligence on that day along with the other chiefs of the other intelligence elements who have information about the 2020 election threat and they need to testify in open session. what that will do is drive two things just quickly. one, it will produce a written statement that the white house will see ahead of time. so there won't be a surprise about what's in the written statement. the second piece is that then members of congress in open session can ask these officials under oath what the actual intelligence is.

the risk is that the president might not like what is said in open session and he might even fire people, but if that's what happens, that will be information and a data point that the public will have to understand why he doesn't want this information out. >> senator santorum, does it concern you that the president fired joe maguire, i mean, for it seems like doing what was his job, which is reporting to congress. no? >> again, i mean, you know, i've got -- there's been lots of reporting about what was actually said in that hearing and the amount of evidence that actually supported the idea, or intelligence that supported the idea, but president trump's campaign was specifically being helped. i think that was the real concern. of course, you know, look, let's just be honest. the intelligence committee is where the impeachment and adam schiff is where the impeachment came from. that's obviously a very sensitive point on the part of the president that this what seems to be shaky information,

that they did not get a heads up on, was briefed to the committee that started the impeachment against him. >> where else are you going to go? they're the intelligence committee. >> i guess there's protocols. if you're going to brief this to a committee that just impeached the president, you might want to let the president know and give him the backup as to why they're going to say those things. >> i can sort of understand why the president wasn't happy with the way things went down. >> it's hard to imagine that the president wasn't given the same information and informed whatever congress was informed of that it would have caught them by surprise. >> the president was impeached for trying to abuse his power to force ukraine to interfere in our elections. he said he is open towards interference. he asked russia in 2016, russia, if you're listening. the question i have for republicans and donald trump is why are you not protecting u.s. elections from foreign interference?

why are you against election security bill? why are you spending money for space force? why are you spending money to bail out farmers? that's socialism by the way. why don't you spend money to help our elections. if donald trump is watching, you criticized the movie "parasite." one tweet to criticize vladimir putin. i dare you to criticize him once. give me one tweet to prove you're against him. >> more breaking news straight ahead involving democratic candidate michael bloomberg and nondisclosure agreements with several witnesses. -- women. s curious. i learned about my grandfather's life on ancestry and it was a remarkable twentieth-century transformation. he did a lot of living before i knew him. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com

through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from managing inventory... to detecting and preventing threats... to scaling up your production. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. are you currently using a whitening toothpaste, but not seeing results? try crest 3d whitestrips. its enamel-safe formula lifts and removes stains to provide 100% noticeably whiter teeth or your money back. try crest 3d whitestrips.

non-drowsy claritin cool mint chewables. feel the clarity of new the only allergy product with relief of your worst symptoms, including itchy throat. plus an immediate blast of cooling sensation. feel the clarity and live claritin clear.

more breaking news tonight. this time from the michael bloomberg campaign. he says he will release three women who made complaints involving him from non-disclosure agreements. this after fellow democrat elizabeth warren first raised the issue wednesday night in the first televised debate.

>> the mayor has to stand on his record, and what we need to know is exactly what's lurking out there. he has gotten some number of he has gotten some number of women, dozens, who knows, to sign non-disclosure agreements, both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace. so, mr. mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those non-disclosure agreements so we can hear their side of the story? >> just last night in the cnn town hall senator warren offered this. >> so i used to teach contract law and i thought i would make this easy. i wrote up a release and covenant not to sue and all that mayor bloomberg has to do is download it, i'll text it, sign

it. >> in a tweet late today bloomberg said his company identified three ndas signed over the past 30 years and women who contact the company, he says, will be released from those three. speaking with reporters tonight, senator warren says the release is just not good enough. bloomberg needs to do a blanket release. joining us now is bloomberg adviser tim o'brien. what changed? 24 hours ago mayor bloomberg said he was sticking with the nondisclosure agreements, that the women wanted it that way and all the parties wanted it that way. >> senator warren is an insightful, courageous and admirable public servant. i think it's wise for us to pay attention to anything that she highlights. that's what mike is trying to do. i'm disappointed in how senator warren chose to put this on the stage.

she quoted things that mike allegedly said that he didn't. i think she knew that. i think she's highlighting this issue to distract from the fact that michael bloomberg has a very admirable record in total around women in workplace, women with philanthropy, our campaign platform is all about empowering women in all of those spheres but obviously we can do better. i think a lot of the spin around this issue with sexual harassment, there are headlines that 40 or so women sued michael for sexual harassment. i think it was to focus that michael bloomberg had been involved in dozens of cases -- >> so you're saying there's been only three? >> three cases over 30 years that mike was involved in

directly, and he's willing to lift the nda on those because he's one of the parties involved. his hesitation in the other cases is that other people were involved. >> and you're saying the other cases at bloomberg were related to bloomberg as a company, not to michael bloomberg specifically? >> correct. and a lot of these headlines -- look, i think this is an important issue for us to focus on in the me-too era. men have had their foot on women's necks for quite a long time and i'm grateful to senator warren for flagging it, but i also think it's done an incredible disservice to what is true about mike's record with women over dozens of years. i think the women who worked for him by and large, the vast majority of women who work for him know what he's done in terms of his respect for them in the workplace, his respect for them on this campaign and his respect for empowering him at a time

when donald trump is obviously on the other end of the spectrum. >> can you guarantee those three are the only ndas involving michael bloomberg? just to be clear, are there are any ndas involving the mayor and matters aside language he allegedly used? >> our lawyers looked at this extensively and these are the only three that involved mike directly. >> senator warren said it isn't good enough, that the mayor should sign a blanket release, don't put the onus on the other party to seek relief from the company. why have you set it up if those three women contact the company, then that's the process? >> well, you know, senator warren's a lawyer. she represented a lot of companies that sign ndas.

i think she understands that in many corporate cases there are standard way of trying to resolve litigation outside the court system and it protects all the parties involved not to release all of them en masse. i do think, however, that there's a concern that these have been used to silence women in the workplace and i think that's a valid and important concern. and, in fact, what bloomberg lp has decided do is not use ndas in harassment claims that come up in the company. we're grateful to senator warren for highlighting that. i think she's done a disservice to presenting an accurate portrayal of who mike is over his life with women and women's issues, but we'll go forward on this. >> tim o'brien, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. >> coming up, new details on john bolton's book when we come back. i wish i had gone into aspen dental much sooner. it would've saved me a lot of money that i spent. my family has bad teeth.

when you're not able to smile you become closed off. the meaning of a smile to me is the beginning of a conversation. the best advice i can give anyone... ...is don't wait. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to free exam and x-rays for new patients without insurance. yes to flexible hours and payment options. and yes, you'll start smiling more too. don't wait, book at aspendental.com or call today. a general dentistry office.

build a clear plan for retirement. one that covers health care costs, taxes, and any other uncertainties. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. it's been a very busy night. more breaking news, "the washington post" reporting that the president has, quote, directly weighed in, unquote, on the security review of john bolton's upcoming book. the post citing two people familiar with the conversations. the president is telling staffer that he views bolton as a

traitor and he will try to block the publishing of the book. don't miss full circle. it gives as you chance to have in depth conversations. you can catch it streaming live at cnn.com/full circle or watch it any time on demand. >> the news continues. a lot more ahead. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo primetime." >> thank you. i am chris cuomo. big news, russia is interfering. now, the next hurdle in the election, nevada. and we have pete buttigieg tonight. he needs a big finish and he needs more than that. he needs big money. but first, we have to look at what the president did today. it's supposed to be a job, the first job is keep us safe but what did he just do with this intel overhaul?