prayer to kay when you drive by her place? >> of course. and also -- also to derek. it has to be hard on him. and so i always -- i always pray to make sure that he knows that even though his mother's not there, she loved him more than anything. --> display at 00:00:00:00 welcome to "kasie d.c." --> display at 00:00:01:19 i'm kasie hunt. --> display at 00:00:02:25 we are live every sunday from --> display at 00:00:04:01 washington from 7:00 to 9:00 --> display at 00:00:06:00 p.m. eastern. --> display at 00:00:06:20 tonight, plans for a north korea --> display at 00:00:08:09 summit hit a snag.

--> display at 00:00:12:27 plus, my exclusive --> display at 00:00:14:16 conversation with senator james --> display at

we've been talking about this now several days. we were just showing maggie haberman's tweet on screen, of course "the new york times" reporter involved in this. what is the steps the correspondents association can take in a situation like this? >> that is a good question. i mean, i don't speak for the correspondents association any more, but i do think it's

important for reporters whether we are all covering the white house or covering other aspects of washington or other beats around the country to stand up for truth, to call it out when something like this happens. in this case the president obviously saying something that is untrue. i think we can band together on that. and then as i repeated over and over again when i was president of the correspondents association, i think the best way we fight back is by doing good work. >> a.b. stodardt, we want it to be about the things we're writing. if we have sling ands arrows, that's part of the job. there has been a lot of republican criticism of the media over the decades. newt gingrich, we were not a favorite of his. but this does seem to be different than the kind of criticism that oftentimes politicians have thrown at the media in the past. >> well, leslie stall laid it out. president trump made it clear as a candidate. he made it very clear as the nominee. and then as president-elect and then as president that he is going to run against the media because it works. it works with his base. it works with even people who aren't even really trump

supporters. republicans who believe that the media is too liberal, is biased. and then independents which are skeptical of the whole process. >> and giuliani there was claiming oh, there are some democrats who feel this way too now. >> it is a very obvious strategy. they're not trying to hide it. giuliani made it very clear he is not a legal counsel right now to the president. he's playing his spokesman on tv basically about the mueller investigation whenever he can get the chance. and it makes trump happy and he fights back and says things like rigged and illegitimate and that's what he's doing. he's making it very clear. what's frightening obviously is that it works. and what dan balls is talking about today is just how much this has become sort of tribal gladiators and the way that trump and his spokesman and sort of the pro trump media and his members of sort of this group on the hill of members of congressmen who speak for him trash anyone who defends bob mueller, he's brought his numbers way down to the point republicans don't believe

anything mueller will come up with. >> i'm glad you brought up dan's column. i have more i want to share. the gap between the jeff flakes of the republican party and what increasingly is a pro-trump majority is how the president has been successful shaping opinion ahead of whatever judgment is levelled by the special counsel and his team. here's majority whip in the senate john cornyn talking with hugh hugh et about what the president has termed as spygate. >> can you explain the difference between a, quote, confidential informant, close quote, and a spy? >> well, you really can't. i mean, spies typically i think of in terms of foreign powers. but here, the fbi was involved in a counter intelligence investigation, i presume, and used somebody who had contacted various subjects of their investigation to communicate

back to the fbi what they found out. i guess for all practical purposes, for most people it wouldn't be any different. >> donna edwards, i'm kind of going back in my head to that clip of rudy giuliani we showed at the top of the show where he said, look, this is going to come down to impeach or not impeach question. he was acknowledging at its core there is a legal framework, but impeachment is a political question. democrats in your party have been saying they can't get ahead of the american public. they need to let the investigation take its course, have the findings come out. and then perhaps if the political will is there, there might be a way to move forward. but it does seem as though the president and his team are swaying public opinion without much pushback necessarily from democrats.

what's your take? >> well, without pushback from republicans either. and i think that part of what's happening -- >> fair. >> it's a one-sided argument because obviously bob mueller can't and won't come out and say, no, this is what we're looking at, this is the direction we're headed in. the president out there who is able to -- and i would say the press should stop using two and three syllable words and call it a lie. >> john cusack. >> it's much easier to understand, the public will get that. and the president has lied repeatedly because he has an intent to confuse the public. and i think by not calling it that, what happens is that the president is able to characterize things so that the american public is confused and you can see that in some of this recent polling. but it's a one-sided argument. when bob mueller comes out with his final report as we all expect that he will, and more, perhaps more convictions, but

certainly more indictments than then the public will have an opportunity. republicans cannot continue to sit on the side line while the president really dismantles the system. >> evelyn parker? >> i agree with that. i spent seven years working for the senate arms services committee, one of the most bipartisan committees in the senate probably on the hill. and, you know, we always believed that nobody has the right to their own facts. and you get the facts together as republicans and democrats. so, the other thing we saw earlier this week as you well know was this attempt to get facts just to republicans. again, about the spygate thing to amp it up. >> right. you're talking about the meetings at the department of justice and information that those republicans on the hill were asking for. >> correct. and i mean, in and of itself meetings to get information, fine. but they should be bipartisan, especially when it is about an investigation of the executive branch. so, i think the biggest problem is this not calling a spade a

spade. certainly falsehood is okay, but lie is even better. and then bipartisan, the republicans need to speak out and defend the institutions, the truth and the process. >> we didn't even touch on either the fact that there were white house officials at the beginning of those meetings who may or may not have had the right to see that information. through all of this, of course, the president maintains that he and kim jong-un could still meet for an historic summit in singapore on june 12. the president confirmed on twitter today that a team of u.s. officials has arrived in north korea to, quote, make arrangements for the summit. and here's what the president had to say about it last night. >> those comments came after a surprise meeting between kim jong-un and south korean president moon jae-in yesterday. afterwards president moon said north korea remains committed to holding talks with president trump and to completing the denuclearization of the peninsula. evelyn, i want to get you to weigh in on this broadly, but

first, jeff mason, are you going to singapore on june 12, or are you staying home? i'm so confused. >> the fact that the president last week so very clearly canceled the summit -- >> it was a letter. >> not even the tweet. later also in his remarks that day at the white house, he said, who knows, maybe it will still happen on june 12. he's been leaving the door very wide open for that despite the very dramatic cancellation letter. he wants to go. he wants this to happen. and -- >> so, how did the letter evolve, then? obviously somebody convinced him this is the right thing to do or is this another impulsive, i'm going to send this because i want them to know i'm willing to do it? >> i think they were responding to a comment marc made the night before and which we'll either meet you for a summit or a nuclear showdown. the president and others decided we can't have a meeting under these circumstances. but he still wants to go. and so the key question there is whether or not they can agree

ahead of time that denuclearization will be the outcome of that meeting. and that seems to be where the south koreans and the north koreans have discussed a little bit and what the u.s., no doubt, is pushing for in advance. >> evelyn, i want to give you the last word here. what is your -- i was honestly surprised at the way some of the comments in the wake of the cancellation of the summit broke down on capitol hill. i was up there talking to republicans and democrats. it actually seemed to be a pretty universal feeling that going forward with the summit, assuming that denuclearization is on the table, was really the right move. i mean, do you see an area where there is a nobel peace prize in donald trump's future if he can pull this off? >> well, i mean, in a very distant future because the north koreans -- as we know, their

goal is not to denuclearize, to give up their nuclear weapons program. they say very clearly we want to denuclearize the peninsula and that's a whole 'nother ball of wax because that probably means removing u.s. forces. it means more than nuclear things when you ask the north koreans face to face. >> right. >> but it's a process and this is the whole problem. everyone is for a dialogue and a discussion basically opening a negotiation. and getting to some kind of freeze and then, sure, great. if one day we can get the north koreans to give up their nuclear weapons, fine. i think the president, this back and forth, isn't very helpful. first he got spooked, to answer the question you asked jeff, he got spooked by the north koreans not showing up for some working level meetings and i think he thought maybe they're not going to show up at my meeting. >> right. >> so this meeting between moon

and kim -- the south korean and north korean leaders respectively -- was basically to test, okay, you guys are coming, right? trump doesn't want to show up -- >> yes, i think there was also -- there were also comparisons that involved breaking up with the girl before she can break up with you. anyway, of course we would be remiss if we did not note that the white house issued a historic coin for this event featuring the likenesses of the president and kim jong-un. the initial coin offering was $24.95 on the white house gift shop website. now if you want one, you only have to pay 19.95. so, not the strongest start for that commemorative decorative coin. who knows. maybe one day it will be worth a lot more than that. anyway, just ahead, my exclusive interview with republican senator james lankford. we talk about whether the president's favorite #spygate is a fair description. his answer is no, at least, not yet. and as we go to break, a state of emergency in maryland. this is dramatic video of brown waters rushing down main street as flash floods strike ellicott city, not that far from where we are here. emergency rescue is underway. 13 miles from baltimore, it was devastated by similar flood waters in july of 2016. we are going to be watching this story. our thoughts and prayers are with our neighbors. we will keep you updated on

that. "kasie d.c." is back after this. thanks to dawn, rescue workers only trust dawn, because it's tough on grease yet gentle. i am home, i am home, i am home

welcome back to "kasie d.c." this week congressional leaders from both parties were briefed on those highly classified documents related to the russia investigation. rudy giuliani now says the president's own legal team wants a briefing on this classified information as well. i asked republican senator james lankford who sits on the senate

intelligence committee about the risks surrounding these briefings. when we sat down for an exclusive interview this week. the department of justice this week showed highly classified documents to members of congress at the demand of the house intelligence chairman devin nunes. they are, we are told, documents that involve a top secret intelligence source. you are a member of the intelligence committee. we hear all the time about the need to protect sources and methods. was this something that hurt national security, these demands? >> if it gets out, yes. otherwise it's normal. there is a group called the gang of 8 you hear talked about. so, they have access to a lot of information that typically only the president has access to. so, it's not uncommon for them to have access to sources and methods. >> democrats are upset that emmet flood, the white house lawyer, was included in this meeting. do you think his presence was appropriate? >> i don't think it's appropriate if he saw the classified documents.

my understanding was he was at the beginning of the meeting when they were setting it up, but wasn't present when actually the documents were shown. those documents need to be highly classified and kept in very close hold. if you're affecting sources and methods that is long term national security issues. >> do you think the department of justice acted 100% ethically and a politically in launching this counter intelligence investigation into president trump? >> interestingly enough, that is actually one of the questions we've had for a while. it is a basic question to say how did the investigation begin? what started it? now, we have a set of answers from the justice department for the past year basically to say, this is how it began. now there is a question for the first time in a while to say, is that really how it began? because the time line is not matching up. what's helpful in these documents -- and i haven't gone through them yet, i'm not in the gang of 8, we will go through some of the these documents in the days ahead. but as we go through these documents we are trying to answer the basic question, how

did the investigation begin, when did it begin. >> the president of the united states is accusing the fbi of spying on his campaign. do you think that is an accurate characterization? >> i don't think it is a good characterization yet. i think they were doing an investigation. from what i've seen they were asking questions and trying to get additional information. my concern is why were they asking questions at that moment, why were they engaged. was there enough information to say, yes, they should go to the next level to get additional information. >> should he be calling this spygate, or is that misleading to americans? >> i would say the president can call it whatever he wants to call it. he always has a unique name for everybody and everything. that's just his way. >> you don't see this as potentially dangerous or injecting politics into the mueller investigation? >> we're actually asking the questions to be able to find out why and what. this may end up being entirely normal at the end of it or may be a bigger issue. if the time line is different now and we find out when this investigation was done and when this informant was planted, if it was done at a time different than what we were told by the fbi in the past, that is a pretty big issue. why was he planted before they started the investigation. that is an entirely different issue. there are great people at the

fbi. that's why it gets lost in this. there are tremendous number of patriots that work for the fbi all over the country and alameda over the world. i don't want them to get besmirched. we have to separate out the thousands, 35,000 plus great folks of the fbi from one or two bad actors that might have been there that made an unwise decision. but we don't know that yet. >> do you still have confidence in rod rosenstein? >> i do. i think he is continuing to be able to make hard decisions. he has a lot of hard decisions in front of him. >> the president won't say he has faith in rosenstein. a shame. it's a tough call. the has been clear he doesn't like the investigation he, he wants it to move on. he sees it as a distraction in the white house. i'm sure there are conversations about this. he's been passionate from the beginning, he didn't do any collusion, nobody around him did any collusion. he wants this to be resolved and go away.

i said over and over again i think it's best for the president and the presidency to have a full good investigation and settle this for the american people one way or the other so we can move on. >> do you think it is sufficient for the d.o.j. to use the inspector general to investigate the origins of their investigation or do they need to go further? some of your colleagues in the house on the republican side have called for a special counsel to investigate the investigators. >> i think the first step is an inspector general. if the inspector general michael horowitz has been a nonpolitical person. if he comes back and says, hey, i've got some things i'm not getting access to, not getting answers to, then we have to be able to push to the next level. let's let the i.g. do his work and get that resolved. i have confidence in michael horowitz and he'll do a good job.

>> i want to ask you about somebody from your home state of oklahoma, scott pruitt, the epa administrator. do you have any concerns about the ethical decisions he's made, the spending? you're a fiscal hawk. he spent $43,000 on a phone booth without asking congress. he was supposed to ask if he spent $5,000. >> i've known him a long time just as the attorney general in oklahoma. this is not a random stranger i just met. i know him, i know his family. scott walking into government, i don't think did everything exactly right, but the office of government ethics is going through and looking at every single detail. to be able to make that evaluation.

they are going to get the report back as well as the inspector general as you know, to be able to walk through and give the report to the president and decisions be made. there's a lot he has done right. >> an interesting conversation there with senator lankford. evelyn farkas, you were watching and had some reaction to what he was explaining about spygate, this fbi informant and the origin of where this all might have started. >> yes, i was trying not to jump out of my seat during this because, look, the spy issue was we were spying on the russians. and if you remember, you think back to the summer before the election, what was happening? we had media reports about the russians and their interactions with the trump people. i don't know this for a fact, but my guess is it began with the cia with other -- our foreign intelligence agencies saying, hey, these russians are meeting with people. these russians are talking about this, that and the other thing, right? we picked up on it. it takes a little while before that gets solid enough where people want to say to the fbi, okay, step in now and look at americans. i mean, it's not an easy step to go from looking at russians to looking at americans. >> you're saying you think this originated with our foreign intelligence services. >> in every bone of my body, i believe that our people who were watching the russians, maybe other countries, i don't know. i know very well what our source ands methods are vis-a-vis russia. we had excellent infell jensen all the way up until i left in october 2015. and i didn't change as far as i know. so, we would have known -- we could have, we could have known, i should say, we could have picked up on something. so i don't know for sure, but in my gut, i believe that we, the american government, saw this first emanating from overseas. >> a.b. stoddart, i spoke to some folks on capitol hill every day, who are frequently skeptical of the president. who say they want know more about the origins of this

investigation and this decision, and that there is something that the justice department knows or perhaps that they did act incorrectly. what is your sense of -- >> i've had those same conversations. i think what people need to do is look at the reputation of the inspector general horowitz and of bob mueller and they need to go to the internet in 2018 or have someone print the report out for them when each one comes out and they need to assess it on their own without watching the narrative and the pro-trump media or from congressman devin nunes or from the mainstream media if they distrust it because both of those men have excellent reputations and everyone is waiting for their sort of honest untainted assessments of what went on. the interesting thing people have to remember is paul manafort was acting for years as a russian agent. paul manafort was on our intelligence radar screen since 2013. the reason you come in with fbi, the idea they had informants sort of honest untainted assessments of what went on. the interesting thing people have to remember is paul manafort was acting for years as a russian agent.

paul manafort was on our intelligence radar screen since 2013. the reason you come in with fbi, the idea they had informants having conversations is how you would act if you were trying to protect the political health of that campaign. it's really hard to make the argument it was politically motivated in the end, brought down donald trump and elected hillary clinton. >> when we continue, we're going hear more from senator lankford on why he doesn't see the president as a role model for his children. plus, last week we brought you kiersten gillibrand who said they should stop dragging their feet and pass sexual harassment legislation. of course hollywood still reckoning with its own problems and that can make for some awkward television. just ask the cast of "arrested development." we're going to talk about all of that up next. i'm leaving the track behind,

but i'm not standing still... and with godaddy, i've made my ideas real. ♪ i made my own way, now it's time to make yours. ♪ everything is working, just like it should ♪

so, a remarkable sight this week. a handcuffed harvey weinstein surrendering to authorities in new york city. charged with rape and other charges. if convicted he could spend decades in prison. the three charges involve two different women, but nearly 100 others have accused weinstein of sexual misconduct, claims that he has denied through his lawyer. meanwhile, on capitol hill, the

senate passed a bill to overhaul its sexual harassment policies, including a provision that will force lawmakers to pay back taxpayers if settlement they are found good morning of harassment. joining us now from new york is culture writer for "the new york times." he had an interview with the cast of arrested development that made big headlines and i think is indicative of where we stand right now. it's great to see you in your new context, not strictly on the trump campaign bus. >> i sleep a lot more now. >> i'm jealous actually just a little bit. but, no, you're doing wonderful work as always. and i want to touch on weinstein briefly, but then i'm very interested in this interview you did with the cast of arrested development. the weinstein images, though, did stick out to me, it does seem as though this me too movement and the sea change in our culture when we saw bill cosby finally convicted, now we are seeing this, when there wasn't any before. >> it is remarkable on many levels.

harvey weinstein was a towering figure both in the film industry and also in politics. and so there's way more left. he's under investigation in l.a., london, "the wall street journal" broke earlier this week he's facing federal investigations. so there's way more to be told of the harvey weinstein saga. but on top of that, just this week we talked about the arrested development cast. we talked about morgan freeman which cnn broke a couple days ago. it opened the floodgates, right? louis c.k., all these names ensnared because harvey weinstein, the women that came forward, opened the floodgates for an entire industry -- several industries including as you mention congress, to reckon with how women and men and gender i am balances, how they are reckoned with in the context of work. >> so, i want to talk also about your interview. jeffrey tambor, one of the actors of arrested development. he was accused of sexual harassment by a fellow cast member. he denies that claim.

so, it was a remarkable scene that played out during the interview. here is a piece of it with the cast of arrested development that has been getting so much attention and we'll talk about it on the other side. >> it is a very amorphis process, this [ bleep ] thing. it is a breeding ground for atypical behavior and certain people have certain processiones. >> that doesn't mean it's acceptable. >> i just realized in this conversation, i have to let go of being angry. he never crossed the line on our show with any, you know e sexual whatever. verbally, yes, he harassed me, but he did apologize. i have to let it go and i have to give you a chance to, to, you know, for us to be friends again. >> absolutely.

>> it's hard because obviously jason says this happens all the time in like almost 60 years of working. i've never had anybody yell at me like that on a set and it's hard to deal with. i'm over it now. i just let it go right here for "the new york times." >> and so jason has apologized for the way he conducted himself in that interview because -- i was floored when i read this, that he was essentially sitting there, jessica walter is across from him saying, no, actually this doesn't happen all the time, this isn't normal, this isn't how it's supposed to be. and jason says this happens all the time. >> we certainly weren't the only one that thought that. what is telling to me, i asked a question to jeffrey tambor, he had given quote to the hollywood reporter a week or two before i've yelled at assistants, i've yelled at directors, i've yelled at such and such. in the middle of asking the question, jessica walter chimed in with jessica walter. and i didn't even have to ask

the question. she chimed in. it seemed to me that she really wanted to talk about it. and it was very striking that her narrative was incredibly different than the narrative that jason bateman was putting out there. it wasn't just jason bateman. tony said we've all had our moments. what was clear from jessica walter, her perspective, this was not just a moment for her. it was clear to me, especially after the interview ended that this was not -- i don't know how much of an arrested development fan you are, we picture cast as this kind of family. everything is kind of hunky-dory. what was clear to me after the interview was that everything was not hunky-dory. in fact the next day david cross gave an interview. i want to say it was to the gothamist. elliott shock hat went up to him after and expressed how uncomfortable she was with how the interview went. i think it goes to show you the emotions are still very raw over, again as i said, harvey weinstein in many ways opened the doors for us to have these types of conversations. >> yeah. donna edwards, it strikes me that what we're talking about

here is the normalization of certain types of behavior and the refusal or shift away from those behaviors being normal. you were in congress and i don't want to put you on the spot, of course, but we've had private conversations about what it's like to deal with these kinds of harassment issues, kind of day in and day out. it seems as though whether it's in hollywood or in the context here in politics, there are people who felt like oh, this is just normal. this is every day. it's fine. and people are now being able -- women in particular -- to draw lines and say, no, that's not fine. that's not normal. >> it is. you can also see how difficult it is still that even when you're trying to point out that it's not normal, that there become then the protectionists who say, well, you know, it is. and so i think what you saw in congress, you know, the senate passing its sexual harassment bill, the house having already passed one, we'll see if those come together. but it is a way to say to all women and to employees in the house and these others who are cultural institutions that this

is really not acceptable. you know, i look at the hundred women that have accused harvey weinstein. it's not like it's just a handful. and the stories seem remarkably similar that the me too movement has gone well beyond hollywood and crossed over into any number of places now. >> yeah. during my conversation with senator james lankford, i asked him to respond to some recent comments by one of his republican colleagues about the morality of president trump. senator jeff flake gave a commencement speech. he said, quote, our presidency has been debased by a figure who has a seemingly bottomless appetite for destruction and division. he goes on to say, our article 1 branch of government, the congress, is utterly supine in the face of the moral vandalism that flows from the white house daily. what is your response to that? >> pretty good vocabulary for jeff to be able to throw that out there. it's been no grand secret that jeff has been incredibly frustrated with the president, doesn't like his style.

i have been one that have said several times i don't consider the president a role model for my kids. i don't want my kids to speak the way he speaks or make some of the choices and has been the challenge for quite a bit of time to say, how do you balance this out between policy and personal behavior in the way he has his own unique style. i don't speak that way. i don't tweet that way. i don't interact with people that way. i don't treat my staff the same way he treats his staff. but that is who the american people selected and that's who we're going to be able to work with. >> do you think that people should consider the character of a person when deciding to vote? >> what's interesting when you say that, the me too movement that's happened, i think for the first time in a generation has caused americans to think, does it matter who says my news, does it matter who is in my movie or in my television show, does it matter who is in politician and politics and what they say in your personal life. it's what you do professionally that matters. the me too movement has awakened people. people's personal lives do matter.

>> bill clinton's personal life mattered to a lot of people. certainly to republicans, evangelicals, prominent evangelicals who said you should look at his personal behavior and condemn him for it. those same people, many of them are saying this president, we should overlook it. >> what is interesting is the democrats said the president's personal behavior doesn't matter. it's flipped during the time period. i say the same thing i say now. a person's individual life does matter. it shows you evidence of what they're going to be like. if we can hold alltel of us to our higher standard it helps our families, our kmuntsz, we want our businesses to be ethical. we want our leaders to be role models. it is ace positive thing to say. i would love to say the people you see on television, people serving in politics are a role model for your kids and your families. >> has anything the president has done in office or anything you learned about the president's past behavior say with stormy daniels, these payments, have they made you reconsider whether you could support him in 2020? >> that shocked me.

it was pretty clear during the campaign there were moral issues and we have different life-style choices we have made personally. it's something that the president has been pretty outspoken on. he's not tried to be able to step out and say that he is a role model in those areas. he said he's more of a role model in business and do deal making. i get that. i have to be able to look at policies and what we're going to try to get done at the end of the day. same thing people had to do during the clinton administration, to be able to determine what are we going to actually get done for the american people. >> a.b. stoddard, i was struck in that interview, first of all, he did say and you heard him say right there, what i have to overlook this because i agree with this person on policy, but i have asked many of these -- many of those people i cover on the hill every day, do they view the person as a role model for their kids and they don't answer. james lankford did answer the question and he said no. >> he was honest and showed his discomfort with this challenge of trying to put his policy priorities first while having real trouble with the

president's character and whether or not leaders should provide a moral example and be role models. i thought it was pretty brave of him to say what he did. >> sopan, jeff mason, evelyn, everyone, thank you, we're switching out. we're going to get a sneak peek at the john mccain documentary. the president loses a major court case whether he can block people on twitter. the woman who filed the lawsuit joins us live in our next hour.

that was a look at the new hbo documentary, john mccain for whom the bell tolls. it premieres tomorrow night memorial day at 8:00 eastern. and joining me now is the codirector of that film and emmy award winning producer and film maker teddy k unh art. thank you for taking the time to be with us tonight. first i want to say congratulations on a beautiful film. i had a chance to see it at the capital when you screened it for mccain's colleagues. i want to show you a little bit of the interview that you did where john mccain is really reflecting on -- you can tell that he understands that he is reaching the end of his life, has been told that. let's take a look and then i'll talk to you about it. >> okay. >> you know these doctors keep talking to me about people who keep telling the truth and then they just give up and die. that you really want -- i keep

saying to them, just tell me, just tell me. that's all i want to know, you know? some say, well, it's not good. i say, well, it's just [ bleep ]. it really drives me crazy. but then i talk to other dr. friends of mine and say that most people, that's not what they want to hear. why wouldn't they want to hear it, you know? why wouldn't they want to spend a few more days here, you know? yes, honey, i'd throw the ball in a minute. >> was it explicit when you were shooting this film that senator mccain understood that he may not be around when it came out? >> definitely. i mean, look, we read all the press and the average life-span is 12 to 18 months with this type of cancer. so, i think that he knew that there was a good chance that this film was going to come out after he did die, but i think that he was in the middle of writing his memoir with mark

salter and he was already in a reflective place. and having this news of his diagnosis allowed him to be even more reflective. so to him, when we were walking around his ranch in sedona, he said there are two things i hope you can achieve. the first thing is don't shy away from my failures. i made plenty of mistakes. i am a human being and i hope this film will bring me down to the human being level and allow people to see me, warts and all. he said secondly and most importantly i want my colleagues to see that bipartisan ship has worked in the past and it needs to work again and they need to stop the fighting and work together. and he said, if you can achieve those two things, it's good with me. we spend a lot of time covering the mid-terms on this show, the historic wave of women running this time around. according to the cook political

report, in the 65 democratic primaries so far with one man,

they are some of the hottest videos on social media. today we're going to see one for ourselves and let you be the judge. it's . >> this one is for real and i'm so excited. it works on the appearance of crow's feet, fine lines and wrinkles. it targets all those problem areas. we have a video and all he uses is a small amount and that's how tes is. >> i did this to my father. we were at home. four minutes, 34 seconds, completely gone. >> this is the only product i have ever used that actually really works.

. ♪ happy birthday to you. happy birthday dear kasie, happy birthday to you. ♪ >> thank you. >> that does it for us tonight on casey dc, thank you and i hate all of you. i'm kidding. very nice. we'll be back with you tomorrow night. ack behind, but i'm not standing still... and with godaddy, i've made my ideas real. ♪ ♪

i made my own way, now it's time to make yours. ♪ ♪ everything is working, working, just like it should ♪

they say this is a once every thousand-year flood and we had two of them in two years. >> memorial day in maryland will be one for the history books as torrential rains cause flash flooding and damage on a wide-ranging scale. this as alberto slams several states in the south and now the storm shifts west and is gaining strength. the u.s. delegation is back in works for setting the ground works for talks with the north koreans. former president george h.w. bush is back in the hospital. we'll have the latest on his condition. then the amazing cleveland