- [announcer] do you have an invention idea

but don't know what to do next? call invent help today. they can help you get started with your idea. call now 800-710-0020. >> good evening, everyone, i am laura coates, and welcome to "cnn tonight". our breaking news, everyone -- reports tonight that a former assistant to donald trump says that he instructed her to say he knew nothing about boxes, boxes full of classified documents. of course, -- at his private club. his exact word when he learned -- wanted to talk to molly michael, where reportedly, you don't know anything about the boxes. and this is -- what is in a position, i should mention, to know quite a bit. molly michael worked for the then president white outside of the oval office and continue to work after him after he left

the white house. so, the big question everyone is asking tonight is, what else might she know? plus, the gop at war with itself and impeachment inquiry into president joe biden going full speed ahead as a government shutdown continues to loom. and kevin mccarthy is fighting to keep his job in the face of a lot of pressure from the far-right of his own party. the question? can kevin mccarthy keep gamble. and how prince william apparently went incognito in new york central park today and, apparently, new yorkers did not notice. maybe they didn't care. we will tell you all about it tonight. we want to begin with new developments tonight in former president trump's -- now national -- bradley moss and litigation attorney a scott bolden. thank you -- you have undoubtedly heard this news. it is pretty interesting to think about the fact that -- and many a dramatic reading on how i think it may have been said.

the boxes, was it like, you know nothing, jon snow -- doesn't know anyone about the boxes. and of course, we know the boxes are very problematic. is this a broadcast, huge billboard, to say, obstruct? >> i think what it does is, it is a large piece -- what is unique about this new witness is it's a direct witness, its direct contact. there's no hearsay. with the -- double hearsay, we are -- >> -- i.t. person you are talking about. >> delete footage -- >> here, you have donald trump telling this direct witness, this is not hearsay. this is a party admission on his part because he knew that the documents and he knew and that the boxes where they are, and that he was telling about how you don't know anything about this. this is after he find out that she is going to be talking to the feds.

i think it is significant, because it's not a hard lift to get to the yuscil taveras peace. >> and it's why the documents remains the most clean cut and the simplest case of these four different prosecutions. there is no attorney client privilege issue here. there is no presidential immunity issue here. he can argue declassification until he is blue in the face. it has nothing to do with, you obstructed the investigation. >> let's stop there for a second. because that's a really important point, about the obstruction aspect of it and whether you think it is classified or not. that gets lost on a lot of people. because he, constantly says, i declassified. so, what's the big deal? a kind of all's well that ends well. but your point is that if you are being told to return it because of a subpoena, you don't get to say, you have reasons you want to keep it. >> exactly. and that came out in that meghan kelly interview the other day, when she said, you get it to subpoena, you do one of two things. or number two, you file a motion to quash it. what you don't do is what -- you make out like some mafia don want to be saying, oh, you

don't know nothing about the boxes, just -- what are you doing here? you don't >> -- very specific. that was very specific. >> even the kristen welcher welker interview -- these were clean videos, these were -- they weren't doctored. and the original question was, did you direct anybody to get rid of these videos or get rid of these tapes? and he never answered that question. she asked him to different ways. >> -- please, god, do not -- >> owe, is that the one time -- >> -- i won't let -- >> on the actual documents -- because, she says that, sometimes, he would hand her notes, on the documents, a kind of a to do list, a kind of honey do assistant -- appear to be classified, they had classified markings on them. now, it does not appear that any of that is actually

contained in the indictments against trump as we know it. but you could see them building a case, in fact, well, maybe he is particularly careless with documents. maybe he knows they have them and does as much as scribbling and goes as much here, a little bit of scrap paper. is that how you build it? >> i think that's why -- we saw a lot of reporting leading up to the indictment in -- which is that they were looking at all -- that in the white house, and how he was handling the documents when he left the white house and, throughout the history of it, it's -- expect to see in this testimony at the trial, the sooner we get to one, is that he was always reckless. he did whatever he wanted. there were no rules. this is a man for whom there was never been roles and that was the first time he has actually been held accountable. >> what is even scarier for donald trump is, what else does jack smith have is this witness who was his assessment, is she the only witness? issue the only assistance that has this information and can directly testify against him and put him in obstruction of

these documents and obstruction of justice? >> a really important point. i want to read to you what the spokesperson for trump has said and has raised concerns about the fact that we even know about this information, saying, these illegal leaks are coming from sources which totally lack of proper context and information. the department of justice should investigate the criminal leaking instead of perpetrating their bases baseless witch hunt. of course, this was likely to be the response and guess who will be in front of members of congress tomorrow. -- merrick garland on this issue. we haven't had a lot of lead so to speak on these issues. the doj has been accused of being a kind of sieve. but we have not heard a lot hear from outside what they say in their indictments. are you surprised you even know this? >> no. this is witnesses talking. this is lawyers who were in the room talking and looking. there is no indication a lot of this is coming from the government. because of think of how much we learned when that indictment came out, when the superseding indictment came out, things that had never made it to the media. that is who is leaking.

that's not the government. >> donald trump's own people may be leaking this. because when you are threatened with jail or prosecution, you are going to talk to the government to save yourself, and leaking documents, or leak and communications, while i never endorse that, it happens in every major criminal case. >> important point. -- brad moss, scott bolden -- sarah matthews. sarah matthews, good to see you tonight. i wonder what you would make of all this. and firstly, you actually know molly michael. and i am wondering, from your perspective, just how much exposure did she really have to the inner workings of the former presidents office? and we all know, a force, she's outside the oval office. but did that mean he actually did rely on her? >> yes. so, as you mentioned, my time at the white house overlapped with molly michael, and she was there, she worked for trump in 2018 as one of his executive assistants. and she did sit right outside

the oval office in an area we called the outer oval. there were a couple desks there. but she was definitely a gatekeeper for trump. so, anyone walking in, trying to get facetime with the president, who was not on his schedule, she would stop them occasionally, and would not let them in. of course, there are certain very senior level folks at the white house who were able to walk right in and see the president. but she was not only just a gatekeeper for him. he relied on her for a lot of things. and she was at his back beck and call -- it was molly who is responsible for doing that. so, this was someone he knew very well who would have had a lot of facetime with the president, and they can't simply dismiss her as someone he would not be aware of, or who would not be in the know. because she was, quite literally, sitting right outside the most important office in the world, and someone who the president knew by name. and i think that makes for a very credible witness.

>> i remember -- we are all old enough to remember when the former president would say something like, that's the -- coffee boy or -- may have been inside of the white house at some point in time. this person seems pretty critical in terms of not necessarily the rank of her position, but her proximity, at least, to power. we also have a former aide and an i.t. worker, as you know, yuscil taveras, who -- he is cooperating. does that make it easier for more people to, maybe, do the same thing, now that both of these two individuals of spoken out? or, at least, not to maybe criticize him outwardly in the press, or at least cooperating and discussing with the prosecution -- >> i do think that we are going to see more people come forward, whether it is with this classified documents case, or any of the other indictments that trump is facing -- look, i think, in the case of the i.t. worker, he was, potentially, criminally liable. and so he struck a deal with

investigators, which was very smart for him to do. and i would hope that the folks around walt nauta and -- are advising him to do the same. as we have seen, trump is funding his legal defense, so, that doesn't seem likely. but someone like mom a little is particularly interesting to me, because she does not seem like she was vulnerable to any criminal charges. but when trump told her, look, you know nothing about these boxes, amid the fbi probe, she felt very uncomfortable, and very ended up resigning from her position, because she obviously felt like he was trying to push her towards, potentially, engaging in criminal activity, and she felt uncomfortable by. that >> did you speak to her about that, sarah matthews? she said -- resign as a result of. that what is your basis for believing that? >> that is just based on the timing of when she resigned, and in the new york times reporting they indicated that there was a connection there. >> so, when you look at this, and think about the resignation,

she obviously -- works there for the president. and mind you, this is somebody who followed him after he left the white house, which means post january 6th and a lot of other occurrences. trump, as you know -- he is known for going after anyone who comes out against him. now, again, i have to distinguish coming out against him in a vocal manner on a television program or otherwise or writing op-eds in books besides that, with somebody who has spoken in a way that may be unflattering towards him, or portrays him and depict him in a negative light as, likely this very well may do -- he has been known to come out against that person. do you expect him to do that with this person? >> i do that we have -- i have been on the receiving end of it. i testified against donald trump in front of the january 6th committee to talk about his lack of action that day. and i was told that i was a liar and had the full trump on

squad and their allies come after me. and they did the same thing with cassidy hutchinson during her testimony before the january 6th committee. but it is going to be very difficult for them to try to paint molly michael in the same light, given that this is someone who has followed donald trump all the way down to mar-a-lago and his life post-presidency. she has -- i think that she has nothing to lose and is telling the truth here, and is trying to do the right thing by cooperating with investigators. but i think it is not going to be long before we see trump and his folks come after her and try to make her into a liar, which, obviously, i don't think she is. it seems like she is a very credible witness in this case. >> sarah matthews, a really important point. the credibility is really the whole ball game when it comes to seeing how a jury might view the testimony and might view all of this in context. it is not simply someone who we -- thought of as the enemy -- the former president. so, we will see how this all

goes. sarah matthews, thank you for joining. as i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> also, coming up, everyone -- hunter biden. what he says he plans to plead not guilty to federal gun charges. and there's no testimony, by the, way that is casting a lot of doubt on the claims from a whistleblower who alleges that there was political interference in the investigation of hunter biden's taxes. for more on all of that, and just what it means for the president, next. ♪ i'm going to somewhere, anywhere. ♪ ♪ a beach house, a treehouse, ♪ ♪ honestly i don't carere ♪ find the perfect vacationon rental for you booking.com, booking. yeah.

[stomach growling] it's nothing... sounds like something. ♪when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion♪

♪upset stomach, diarrhea♪ pepto bismol coats and soothes for fast relief when you need it most.

rich, velvety coffee. café quality espresso. one high-pressure system that can do both. brew to your heart's desire with the l'or barista system. a masterpiece in taste. >> tonight, hunter biden said that he is going to plead not guilty to three felony gun charges. now, it comes, as the gop led house committees are preparing to amp up their own investigations into hunter biden and, of course, his father, the president of the united states. there is new testimony from the fbi and also irs officials that are casting doubt on he claims from the irs whistle blower who alleges that there were some

political interference in the federal investigation of hunter biden's taxes. joining me now is tristan love it. he is an attorney for irs whistle blower gary shapley. tristan, thank you so much for being here tonight. this is continuing to be a very big story. and i'm glad to have your incident particular. you have obviously heard tristan -- leveitt -- david weiss -- not -- and that he was denied a request for special counsel status. what is your response to these different recollections? >> first off, to be clear -- new interviewees, the only other one who took notes was special agent gary shapley's coming in the supervisor, and he has said that he has long since shredded those notes but his contemporaneous response to a special agent shapley -- you covered it all --

and lying it or misleading -- and anything -- definitely would have -- on the substance, there are two key points, i think, that are important. the first is that all the other -- that they were not familiar with the testimony that attorney general merrick garland gave before the senate appropriations committee five months before this meeting in question. because, and that hearing, garland was grilled by senator hagerty on whether biden's political appointees would be involved in weiss's approvals in -- and garland's number one response was they put the -- special agent gary shapley was very aware of that testimony going into the meeting and i think that helps to explain why others, for whom this meeting was a year ago, and not particularly significant to them, because cases had been declined in d.c. and california throughout, that is why this stood out for more than others -- the second key point i would just add is, for those in specific wording, all the attendees had testified that most -- whether the d.c. and california u.s. attorney would let weiss

-- charge in the district, and if he couldn't, weiss would have to follow another process, seeking special authority, which is exactly what we have seen he has done in seeking special counsel status. >> for the non lawyers, the idea of contemporaneous notes, i just want to revisit for a moment. because it is actually what you use, in some respects, to actually decide who has credibility or not. what amount of way to give to someone's statements or testimony, we believe, that with this written down close in time to the event, that it has greater weight, greater credibility, less of an opportunity to try and insert lies or falsehoods or miss recollect some things. so, i understand that point. but the other aspect of the recollections -- weiss himself twice spoke or wrote to congress, prior to, of course, being elevated to special counsel. and his recollection, of, course with that he did have the authority. he was not undermined or hamstrung. how does that factor in two recollection of your client, among others, to suggest that he was not accurate?

>> oh, i think it is important to understand there are two different phases of the investigation, we will call. so, the underlying investigation weiss has never spoken about. that is the part of the investigation the special agent shapley and special agent ziegler so they were blocked from -- leslie wolf -- but weiss has never spoken about that -- that's, you can't ask about the big guy, the next question is about the dad, all of those. weiss has written about this prosecutorial phase, where he was trying to bring charges that the districts. and i think it is important to recognize that he himself has acknowledged in his letter -- he actually wrote three to congress, two to chairman jim jordan, and one to ranking member lindsey graham on senate judiciary. and he told lindsey graham, he had sought or had discussions with the -- special charging authority months before this meeting. and gary shapley is -- he was an acting assistant special agent in charge. but he would have no reason to know that from the u.s. u.s. attorney when --

unless it was actually discussed at that meeting. so, people can argue that he took away from different understanding, that they discussed that authority, and not that he had been asked for it. but, again, all the attendees that had been -- that the facts are clear that the d.c. u.s. attorney declined to bring charges after a baroque law for weiss, and then the meeting was to discuss after the -- central district would allow bringing charges and, if he didn't, then weiss would have to go to the attorney general and speak the >> as we -- sitting here -- guess what? david weiss now is special counsel. he has that authority. and we have had at least now three -- hunter biden -- but let me read for you a second, a portion from the hunter biden a lawsuit. and this is, of course, not naming your client or the whistleblower's in this actual suit against the irs, a very important point to note. but here is what it. says and i am quoting. these agents, putative whistleblower status, cannot, and it does not shield them from their wrongful conduct in

making unauthorized public disclosures that are not permitted by the whistleblower whistleblower process. in fact, a whistleblower, they write, is supposed to uncover government with conduct, not the details of that employees opinion about the alleged wrongdoing of a private person. i am curious as to what your response is, given that they are not actually named in the suit. but, clearly, they are part of the substance of the argument against the irs. >> yeah. so, there is two parts of the whistleblower protection. i was appointed by president biden to the -- systems protection board, which protects whistleblowers, like those in the irs. and those protections apply across the government. what made this case unique was that these whistleblowers had special confidential taxpayer information. and that is governed by a more specific law that when the whistleblower protection act i dealt with on the -- board. that statute, written by congress, gives congress the authority to receive that information and, if it choose, to release it, like it did with

president trump's tax returns less than a year ago. so, the whistleblower's here did not share this information in any way outside of that confidential process with congress. once congress made the decision to release it, that is public information. and so, they have spoken about that since then, just like any private citizen could. >> an important point to raise. and, of course, it wasn't, from my understanding, -- the facts of this case so far, you are -- according to your client, but it was not as if congress had not asked for the information. but a whistleblower can often be a confusing notion. how much protection is guaranteed, what can be said, and to what extent. but, again, they are not named in the suit. tristan leavitt, thank you so much for your thoughts and insights tonight. i want to bring in cnn legal analyst and former u.s. attorney, michael more. michael, it's good to see you this evening. thank you for joining. as you heard from the conversation i was just having with counsel for one of the whistleblowers, we know that hunter biden is actually going

to plead not guilty to the gun charges, perhaps not a big surprise that he is not going to plead guilty to those things -- but what is his best argument, when you look at what is before him in this pleading and in the idea of what is already happened, particularly in light of the fact that there has already been an implosion of the earlier charges that were thought to even be brought against him? what is his best strategy here? >> i am glad to be with you. i do think he has some avenues he could pursue. he is coming on a case that has been, now, it charged by the special counsel, dealing with whether or not his gun application was correct. there has been a -- opinion about that very issue that, i think, will wind its way up to the supreme court, and that, is whether or not, he made the time at the application, who is actually under the influence of something and whether or not that is a constitutional bar to him owning a gun. at some point in his life, some prime date, he may have had

some drug problems, whether or not that is going to be constitutionally sound position that would have prevented him from having a firearm. so, i think they are probably anxious to move this issue forward and get the appellate issue onto the court. and one way to do that, obviously, is to go ahead and enter a not guilty plea and -- file your motion, challenge the charging document, and, at that point, ask a court to make a ruling on. it and that is one thing. the other thing, of -- course >> i will say, one part of, the michael -- excuse, me i will also point -- the way he is going to do, it obviously -- remotely, that's been his request, to do it remotely, not unheard of for a criminal defendant -- but your second point, go ahead. >> the implosion of the plea deal, and the agreement. they were operating on an agreement. and there is, typically, from a federal prosecutors point of, you want to make sure that you stand by the agreements that you make. and so, there is an arrangement in place. and that is going to become another background.

i'm sure we are going to hear mr. biden's counsel raise that at some point, that there was a reach now by the government, even though mr. hunter biden was operating under the terms of the agreement as set out. so, that's not finished. the only issue will be the remote appearance. federal judges can do most anything they want. and we saw during covid people began to appear remotely, from safety issues, and otherwise, for court officials see reasons, that they were allowed to use video court appearances. and so there is nothing new here. he has a unique position, because he is protected by secret service. and to bring him to court across the country requires an expenditure, not all of effort, but the time of agencies, and they need to secure the courthouse and all of those things, to go along with the protectee. so, certainly reasonable for the judge to do. >> as you know, a lot of this, were people who were leaning into the legal aspects of this, and everyone's become kind of an armchair lawyer these days. this function, in pleading not guilty, can be something of a very quick nature. it's not a long motion process,

or, certainly, the length of a trial in any respect. so, it's a very routine process to happen. and they are also saying, they are not asking for any special treatment. but what do you make of the contradicting parts of the irs whistleblowers claims that there was some political interference in the investigation of hunter biden's faxes and, of course, others, who were saying, i don't recall this the same way? and, i might add, three times, david weiss contacted congress before being the -- special counsel to say, no, i had the power, i wanted it to have. i mean, you can quibble with whether he really meant that having then elevating special counsel -- but do you put a lot of stock in the fact that there were contradictions? >> it looks to me like this whistleblower is being, now, the pan, maybe, of some republicans in congress who want to make something out of a case by attacking the process as opposed to the facts of the case. so, what i look at it, what i hear is, you have sort of high quality caliber witnesses who

are now contradicting testimony from the whistleblower. and the problem for the whistleblower in his credibility in that instances that you have multiple witnesses now saying this is not what we said, this is not what was happen, you have david weiss saying that this was not what was happen -- those things begin to chip away, i think, at the foundation, maybe, of this case. on the other hand, of course, i heard your interview earlier, and you are correct. the contemporaneous for notes notes, lawyers like to have witness -- because it's something that you argue that, look, at the time, these are the most current and reflective recollections it can be presented to you. and so, there is no reason and no possibility those were changed. and so, we have a witness now that has those notes. again, when you have multiple witnesses, and as a matter-of-fact, there were three or four or five witnesses saying, you know, that's just not that was said, that you can -- nothing unusual about having, things, maybe understood differently by different people to a meeting -- but when multiple people begin to say, i mean, if you think about your kids. you may have one child who said,

well, i -- thought i could, and you have four more who said, no, i clearly heard we could. not probably go on the side of the. for >> that was strangely specific. how many kids do you have, michael more? >> two kids, but -- >> [laughter] -- >> listen to me about -- >> two kids, a lot of cookies, and yet, no cookies left, everyone. michael moore -- mayor garland -- testify -- a few questions about all of this. don't you think? cookies or not -- michael moore, thank you so much. >> glad to be with you. >> look, we are now, what? 11 days. 11 days to go until a government shutdown? and chaos among house republicans seems to be worse than ever. so, can speaker mccarthy actually reach a deal? and can he even keep his job? that is next. g sounds) everyone's gonna need more tide.

it's a mess out there. thatat's why there's 85% more tide in every power pod. -see? -baby: ah. diabetes can serve up a lot of questions, like, "what is your glucose?" and "can you have more carbs?" before you dide... th the freestyle libre 2 system know your glucose level and where it's headed. no fingersticks needed. manage your diabetes with more confidence. and lower your a1c. the number one doctor prescribed cgm. freestyle libre 2. try it for free at freestylelibre.us it could be a sign that your digestive system isn't at its best. metamucil gummies make it easy to get the fiber you need. promoting your digestive health for a better you. metamucil gummies. the easy way to get your daily fiber. ♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪ ) ( ♪ )

( ♪ ) -awww. -awww. -awww. -nope. ( ♪ ) constant contact delivers the marketing tools your small business needs to keep up, excel, and grow. constant contact. helping the small stand tall. (screams) bleeding gums are serious, jamie. dr. garcia? woah. they're a sign of bacterial infection. crest gum detoxify's antibacterial fluoride works below the gumline to help heal gums and stop bleeding. crest saves the day. crest.

>> tonight, house speaker kevin mccarthy, the man you see speaking right there -- well, he is desperately trying to wrangle his unruly republican majority has the

clock is ticking towards a government shutdown. of course, the battles inside the house gop or putting his entire speakership in jeopardy, as house republicans struggled to even pass a spending bill. >> this is not conservative republicanism. it is the stupidity. the idea that we are going to shut the government down when we don't control the senate, and we don't control the white house -- it is a clown show. >> -- ultimately, it is a decision of a leader. want to lead or not -- >> i don't know whether we will have the votes or not. because of out a lot of conservative friends who like to beat their chest and thump around going, oh, this is not pure enough. >> let's talk about it's now with pop puck -- tara palmieri -- charlie dent -- biden-harris 2020 campaign -- glad to have --

we begin with you, congressman dent. we see -- problems surrounding this annual discussion about a government shutdown. he's mccarthy really in as much trouble as he seems to be -- >> everybody enjoys the circular firing squad from time to time. i think he does have a very big problem. and there is a way. out there is a simple way out and it has to do with hakeem jeffries and the -- clean bill to the senate. that would be easy. >> that is a way, also, out, of the speakership? -- >> the funding. -- he's would have some of these folks make a motion to vacate the chair. and i think that speaker mccarthy mccarthy hurt himself by opening up the impeachment inquiry. so, he would need democrats to help him on that as well. but whatever good where he had with the democrats has probably gone away because of the impeachment inquiry. so, i think he has put himself in a bit of a box. but, like i said, this is -- no how this is going to. and the senate is going to send

a bill to the house that will provide disaster relief and ukraine money and they are going to tell the house, you know what? we will see you later. you guys can take this up or you can shut the government down. >> actually, you spoke, tara palmeri, two former, newt gingrich -- well, he is still newt gingrich. but the former newt king grinch -- with him, about this correlation between -- and what is happening right. now what did he say? >> he does not think it is actually intersecting in any way. he does not think it was sort of a carrot that kevin mccarthy gave to the house freedom caucus, that he could pass a spending bill. but i think anyone can see that they were hungry for impeachment, those house freedom caucus members. and kevin mccarthy probably miscalculated by saying, okay, if we launch this impeachment inquiry, this will make them happy. and they will let me pass this spending bill and -- might not like everything in it, but they will let me get it through, and i can get it passed one more day, and i won't have to deal with a motion to vacate.

but he was. ron he gave them what they wanted and he burned any goodwill that he would have had with democrats. and they would, ostensibly, be the ones to save him if there is a motion to vacate. because, perhaps, if there was not so much bad blood, he could ask hakeem jeffries, can you find five members who are maybe in red districts that could, perhaps, just vote present? i don't see hakeem jeffries doing him any favors anymore. because they are literally going after the president of the united states two days before the government runs out of money? like, the first hearing is two days before the government runs out of money? i think that there is no good we'll right now. it would be a pretty big feat to be able to convince him to save his speakership. because, also, what is it that the democrats -- i mean, for them, they just get to sit by, eat some popcorn, watch kevin mccarthy get killed, watch them go through possibly 15 more votes to stay at speaker because they may not be able to get -- or someone random comes up there, someone more right wing,

or just -- it's another disaster and now they have to reopen the government? who, by the way, is going to call the vote to open the government? so many problems that they can just enjoy. of >> course, actually, you think hakeem jeffries and all democrats would have tremendous -- what do you actually think? >> i think kevin mccarthy backed himself into this corner when he made these deals with the freedom caucus, to even get the votes to become speaker. he would not be in this situation if he did not allow them to hold him hostage. and so, now, he's really reaping what he is sowing. and it is going to backfire on the short term and, potentially, long term, when we -- remain speaker. most importantly, i think it will ultimately backfire on american people when the government shuts down. because, what does that mean? people can't get their social security checks. people start to struggle. i remember working in the government and fearing a government shutdown under

gainer, the second go around, and really being nervous. these are public servants, a lot of them. and when they are considered nonessential and don't have to go to work, they don't get paid either. so, i don't think hakeem jeffries needs to bail mccarthy out. i think if he does make a deal with them, he needs to be doing it for the american people. >> you even heard what mitch mcconnell say earlier, talking about how it does not impact republicans -- there's been four true shutdowns in the past when you have had the government closed for more than one business they. but i think the point that tara palmeri made, especially, on the timing of the ashley allison and charlie dent -- mccarthy, to gingrich, to boehner, as well -- look how long it. wasn't look how the majority lead that you actually have. i mean, 33 for boehner. 25 for gingrich. only nine for mccarthy. and by the way, that my -- people on leave and otherwise. so, it's a really significant aspect of. but, again, the priorities, in terms of the goodwill of the

american people of the electorate, if you set up days for the -- you say, yes, i am going to prioritize an impeachment inquiry that we don't really have a clear notion of right now of what the high crime and misdemeanor is. listen to -- to put it back to the speaker gingrich, listen to what he had to say about what mccarthy would have to have here. >> mccarthy has that smoking gun, maybe, one term. he needs to have about ten smoking guns. because the new york times in the washington post and the professional democrats will simply reject one or two or three. but there is a place. remember, it takes about a year and a half for nixon to have to leave office. and by the time he has to leave office, 46 officials are convicted during watergate. >> what is your reaction to that, charlie? >> look, this whole situation with the impeachment -- you have to separate the impeachment from the government

funding issue. decide that makes the policy demand or the funding issue. -- the shutdown. if i don't get x, i am going to shut down the government. you will be blamed for that. that's where we are. this impeachment inquiry just further complicates things because what has been said about the democrats and now are less likely to play ball with the republicans in the house. and so, this whole situation -- i've seen this so many times, i mean, the senate -- the house republicans are isolated right now. senate republicans and senate democrats are on the same page. they are going to pass a funding bill. and they are going to do that. they are going to send it to the house with a big vote. and then mccarthy has to make a decision. if he brings it up, as the senate sends it over, he is going to have this rear guard action and they are going to come after him. if he does not bring it up, the government shutdown. >> -- darned if you do, darned if you don't, everyone. tara palmeri ashley allison, -- think, you all of you, i

appreciate your time. also, you are probably following this story -- it's about the comedian -- multiple allegations of and sexual assault. now, he is being blocked from making money on youtube to be specific, and that is far from the only -- fall out. keeping kids together, here, at places like the lunch table. where they can share who they truly are. [boy] chicken nugget man. because when kids are together, they thrive. lysol. here for healthy schools.

oh, oh, oh...i'll be the judge of that. oh, that's nice... oh!! searchable, verified reviews. that's better than the ham, and i've never said that. booking.com booking.yeah

youtube is temporarily preventing comedian russell brand for making money from his videos. that of course is following allegations from four women who say that brian sexually assaulted them on separate occasions between 2006 and 2013. now, one of the women said that she was 16 and brand 31 at the time of the alleged assault in london. listen. >> russell engaged in behaviors of a groomer, looking back on

it i didn't even know what that was then or what that looked like. he would try to drive a wedge between me and my parents, taught me to lie to them. i was at my dad's house and it was 11:00 at night. russell was texting me saying please, i need to see you, i'm really upset, i need to see you. >> cnn cannot independently confirm these allegations, the comedian preemptively denied the accusations in a video that he posted on friday. >> these allegations pertain to the time when i was working in the mainstream, when i was in the newspapers all the time, when i was in the movies. as i've written about extensively in my books, i was very, very promiscuous. during that time of promiscuity the relationships i had were absolutely always consensual. i was always transparent about that, almost two transparent, and i'm being transparent about it now. >> now, youtube says it paused monetization of its channel for

violating its creator responsibility policy. the bbc also said it rule remove some of its online content that removes brand. joining me now is the host of the boston globe today. thank you so much for being here tonight. you have been following this, as i have. brand tried to get ahead of this by publicly denying the allegations before they are even known or came out to the rest of the public, but now youtube and bbc are taking action. are they right to do so, given that these are still, at this point, allegations? >> well, thank you for having me, laura. absolutely they are right for doing this. let's start first with words. laura, you and i are in the words business. we speak for a living, we have conversations, we report. what i really want to do is stop using the word allegation and let's use the word report, which sounds stronger. women allege the sexual assault

-- or report. what russell brand conveniently didn't do in his monologue on his social channels was, back in 2007, at the same timeframe when these sexual assaults are being reported to have happened, he, on his show the russell brand show, advised a 16 year old who is turning 16 to have a sexually themed birthday party. we can say all of that is just jokes, but i don't joke like that and i don't really hang out with people who joke like that. so there is too much smoke around here for us not to get singed and burned from the heat of russell crowe. and that is really the issue for me. we know that sexual assault doesn't get reported nearly enough as it to shirt and here you have four different women in the span of 2006 to 2013, seven years reporting that

russell brand sexually assaulted them and them, or to some of them and we know that that could be the tip of the iceberg. so yes, absolutely parenthesis man for making money until it gets adjudicated in a court. if he is found innocent, as we saw with johnny depp, when disney decided not to have johnny depp in movies, if youtube doesn't want to have russell brand making money, sure, let's do that until we know what the truth is. >> it is interesting to think about or the former prosecutor the idea of word choice. reports versus allegation, obviously the presumption of innocence in a court of law. is markedly different and the court of public opinion, as people have talked about at great deal. there is that monetizing aspect of it, the notion of what is required in order to stay on a particular platform, it is obviously not a guarantee. we will be following this, of course, and we are always welcome to have your insight as always. thank you so much because this is going to have a story with

legs, we appreciate it. >> all right, you have a good night. >> you too. a major appearance today in central park. the thing is, no one noticed. how prince william managed to go incognito in one of new york's biggest landmarks. next. nor puddles of water, nor unexpected detours withth a 20 foot drainage pipe, can stop the ruggedly capable telluride x-pro from getting you to your dinner reservation on time. ♪ okay! ♪

ma, ma, ma— ( clears throat ) for fast sore throat relief, try vicks vapocool drops. with two times more menthol per drop, and powerful vicks vapors to vaporize sore throat pain. vicks vapocool drops. vaporize sore throat pain. that grimy film on your teeth? dr. g? it's actually the buildup of plaque bacteria which can cause cavities. most toothpastes quit working in minutes. but crest pro-health's antibacterial fluoride protects all day. it stops cavities before they start. crest.

♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪ ) woah. ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) constant contact delivers the marketing tools your small business needs to keep up, excel, and grow. constant contact. helping the small stand tall.

make a splash with the ultimate pool party essential. blendjet gives you ice-crushing, big blender power on-the-go, so you can soak up the sun with a frosty beverage. enjoy 15+ blends before rapidly recharging via usb-c. and it even cleans itself with a drop of soap and water. stand out even when you're accidentally twinning with our kaleidoscope of colors. make this summer the coolest ever. order yours now from blendjet.com. well, new york city is full of high-profile visitors for the un general assembly this week. but, one high-profile visitor managed to stay just under the radar, it is the future king of england, prince william to you and me and he is in town for the earth shot prize summit. get this. he went for a run in central park this morning and,

apparently, nobody noticed that there was a royal in their midst. >> did you go running in central park this morning? >> i did. i decided to join the hordes of new yorkers doing their morning routine as they went around central park. >> so, if a prince runs in the park and nobody notices did it really happen? or was it just new york city, everyone? thanks for watching, our coverage continues. . my customer was enjoying her new car, when her windshield cracked. [gasp] >> customer: my car! >> tech vo: she didn't take i it to the dealer. she scheduled with safelite. we have the latest technology for the newest vehicles. and we do more replacements and recalibrations than anyone else. >> customer: thank you so much. >> tech: don't wait-- schedule now. ♪ pop music ♪ >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ oh, booking.com ♪ somewhere, anywhere... ♪

booking.com, booking.yeah ♪ ♪

nice footwork. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho!

running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. - [announcer] do you have an invention idea but don't know what to do next? call invent help today. they can help you get started with your idea. call now 800-710-0020. >> tonight, on ac 360 -- breaking news, new reporting that the former president told an aide not to acknowledge that she knew about classified files he kept at mar-a-lago. also, tonight, with 11 days until the governnt