legal expert, jeffrey toobin, joins me from new york, along with the german mep and ally, angela merkel joins me from brussels. plus, joy for women at the wheel in saudi arabia, as the country finally lifts its ban. and worry also about the long road ahead for full equal rights. the saudi princess joins me from los angeles. >> good evening, everyone. welcome to the program. i'm christiane amanpour in london. stranded by politics, stranded by anti-migrant fervor in america and europe, those hoping for a better life are in limbo. at the u.s.-mexico border the trump administration's plan remains vague when it comes to reuniting migrant children with their parents. the president now says migrants should not be afforded due process. while in europe, two vessels carrying hundreds of migrants are adrift in the mediterranean, a graphic symbol of we don't want you and the power of populism threatening the leadership of the german chancellor, angela merkel and threatens rule of law and human rights in the united states. to drill down into these fraud issues, i'm joined by guests from both sides o

jeffrey toobin knows more about the supreme court than 99.9%. states want to pass restrictive abortion laws. the states will get to vote on those. and we know where the 25 people people the president chose stand on that. so what can democrats do about this? maybe the question isn't what can they do about this? what will they do about this and how do republicans feel about how all of this is played out? will they just own the fact that it was raw power that put them in this position? the new united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com let someone else do the heavy lifting. tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. so you barely have to lift a finger. or a wing. tripadvisor. it all started when donald trump tore thousands of immigrant children away from their parents. we the people challenged him in court and in the streets. then trump was forced to admit that his policy was wrong.

here for more, jeffrey toobin and former fbi supervisory agent josh campbell who working for comey in 2015 and 2017. let's start with this extraordinary exchange, josh, between they were lovers and fbi colleagues, peter strzok and lisa page in august, 2016, this is after the hillary clinton investigation ended. page writes "trump's not ever going to become president, right?" and strzok replies "no, he's not. we'll stop it." the inspector general writes it's not only indicative of a biased state of mind but applies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidates electoral prospects. this is antithetical to the core values of the fbi and the justice department of justice. >> this is a damning report. no question. it was done thoroughly by an independent body whose job is to police those who have these powers. that said -- and i'm the first to admit that lisa page and peter strzok i think have caused more damage to the fbi's

with me is cnn chief analyst jeffrey toobin. nice to have you here and all of a sudden at the toof many lists. what is flores settlement? >> the short version is that the courts have held with the agreement of the parties that children cannot be held for longer than 20 days. >> right. >> and this creates as you see on the case started in 1997, but it's evolved through many iterations and last year the court establishes a rule there cannot be children held for 20 days. this create as problem for a new approach that the president has outlined because he now says children and parents have to be held together. the question arises what has to happen after 20 days because children can't be held after 20 days according to this agreement. but does that mean they're going to separate the parents an children again? all tern tifbly, are they gong to release the parents as well. the trump administration certainly doesn't want to do that. so in the executive order there is a directive to the department of justice that says try to get this de

we'll see what happens. >> jeffrey toobin, your reaction?nging endorsement of his attorney general. no, look, it's widely acknowledged as the president has tweeted repeatedly and told people privately that he detests the fact that sessions did not tell him that he would recuse himself from the russia investigation, thus leading to the appointment of robert muller. this is yet another example of something we have never seen under previous presidents, this continual taunting of his own attorney general. what's particularly chilling about this is that at the same time he is not, you know, supporting his attorney general, he is doing things like he did yesterday where he was calling for the prosecution of debbie wassermann schultz's low level aide who was being investigated in connection with the e-mail scandal. you know, it is important to remember that in the united states of america, historically, we don't have presidents calling for criminal investigations of political adversaries. this has something that has been outside the realm of possib

jeffrey toobin is back with me.udge here, loved to use exclamation marks throughout his opinion but he made it so clear that this was not even a close case. he knocked down the government's case against this merger at almost every juncture. you had a former doj attorney put it this way, calling it a de defining antitrust enforcement case. why does it matter? >> unless there's a surprise stay that's done by theppeals court, so at&t will takeover cnn and other channels and that's going to spark a wave of media consolidatould effect other industries as well. a lot of business were waiting for this ruling to see what the climate would be like like -- >> like comcast. >> you say what it means for fox as early as today. it might be a silly example, but i think it rings true. when i'm watching, right now i watch on my phone and tv d it doesn't know where i left off and there are flaws that at&t may be able to help improve and at&t owns your phone service, your phone and more content and may be able to improve the experienc

joining me on the phone is our chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. you and i talked about this case a lot when the court took it up, the significance of this case on the merits, and then also the facts that justice kennedy came down the way he did and he wrote the majority opinion. >> well, this is an enormous defeat for the gay rights movement. because the question now is what are the limits in terms of religious people when they're allowed to discriminate. here we have a cake baker who says i don't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. well, what about the restaurant owner who says i don't want to see a gay couple because it violates my religious principles or a hotel owner who says i don't want to rent a room to a gay couple because it violates my religious principles. the issue here was, as presented to the court, was that cake baking is such a unique, create ive task, an occupation, that it was essentially like forcing a novelist to write a novel. it was like forcing a painter to paint a painting. that is the limiting principle that the

here is what jeffrey toobin said what is on the line with the vacancy on the supreme court. >> roe v. wade is doomed. it is gone because president trump won the election. you will see 20 states pass laws banning abortion outright. just banning abortion because they know there are now going to be five votes on the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade. >> areva, is roe v. wade done? >> women hope roe v. wade is not gone. what donald trump continues to say whoever he appoints to the supreme court he will use as a litmus test the ability to overturn roe v. wade. liberals are bracing for an appointment of a judge who has expressed through opinions they written or through conversations that they will, in fact, overturn that vote on roe v. wade. there are other cases that this court may have to consider. including immigration. we see cases have been filed in the federal district court with respect to trump's immigration policy on the southern borders. those cases work their way to the top of the judicial system of the supreme court. we have the presidential power with respect to the mueller

. >> joining us is jeffrey toobin and professor allen dershowitz. he has a new book coming out, the case against impeaching trump. is it problem at pick the president according to his counsel now did in fact dictate that letter about the trump tower meeting? >> it is enormously significant for two reasons. first of all, by putting out a false statement, it is more evidence in an attempt to obstruct justice. to interfere with the investigation by putting out false information. perhaps even more significant is that it relates to the collusion investigation, you know, alan and others have spent a lot of time saying there's nothing illegal about collusion. any sort of relationship between trump campaign and russia was perfectly appropriate. if that's the se, why did theid about his campaign's relationip with russia? if he thought it was all appropriate, he should have just told the truth. because he knew it was wrong, he showed consciousness of guilt by lying about what went on. >> professor dershowitz? >> absolutely inappropriate. to collude with a for

we have jeffrey toobin and david gregory. the memo that the trump team seems to be hinging their argument on, that the president cannot be indicted is from 2000 from the department of justice. let me read it to you. the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would be unconstitutional because it would impermissibly interfere with the president's ability to carry out his constitutionally assigned functions and thus would be inconsistent with the constitutional structure. so that i understand. that's not settled law. but that is -- that spells it out. from 2000. in other words, they didn't invent this. this is 18 years ago when they said a president can't be indicted. >> that's right. there is an earlier department of justice opinion from the 70s with the same conclusion. that's not the shocking part of what the memo says and what rudy guiliani has been saying is. to me the shocking part is the argument that he can do whatever he wants without impugnity for anyone. he can fire anyone. he can pardon himself. th

just ahead, i'll talk with both the professor and his former student, cnn chief legal analyst, jeffrey toobins are low-down little scoundrels. draw the line with roundup. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield and target weeds more precisely, right down to the root. roundup. trusted for over 40 years. ♪ most people come to la with big dreams. ♪ we came with big appetites. with expedia, you could book a flight, hotel, car, and activity all in one place. ♪ but he has plans today.ain. hey dad. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. a hilton getaway means you get more because... you get another day in paradise. get a sunset on a sunday. get more stories to share. get more from your summer getaway with exclusive hilton offers. book yours, only at hilton.com >>> it seems president trump watched a certain law professor saying the upcoming inspector general's report on possible fbi mistakes in the clinton e-mail investigation proved the

i'm joined by cnn political director david chalian and cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin.esident wanted to get a lot off of his chest this morning, gentlemen. he really talked about an array of topics. particularly when it comes to pardons, david chalian. he made some news when he said he was thinking about pardoning muhammad ali. let's listen to what he said. >> he was not very popular then. he certainly -- his memory is very popular now. i'm thinking about muhammad ali. i'm thinking about that very seriously. and some others. and some folks that have sentences that aren't there, but i am thinking about muhammad ali. >> so shortly after he made that comment, muhammad ali's attorney released a statement saying we appreciate president trump's sentiment, but a pardon is unnecessary, the u.s. supreme court overturned the conviction of muhammad ali and a unanimous decision in 1971. there is no conviction from which a pardon is needed. sort of like thanks but no thanks. >> i think it is safe to say this didn't -- this thinking of muhammad ali probably didn't go through a proces

just ahead, i'll talk with both the professor and his former student, cnn chief legal analyst, jeffrey toobin why we've been doing this...forever. my dad has roots in the mountains of northern mexico. home to the strongest runners in the universe. my dad's ancestors were african bantu. i bet they told the most amazing stories. with twice the detail of other tests... ...ancestrydna can show dad where he's from- and strengthen the bonds you share. it's only $69. give it to dad for father's day. it's only $69. money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. who's already won three cars, two motorcycles, a boat, and an r.v. i would not want to pay that ins

actually jeffrey toobin is reading the opinion for us right now. so this is a key moment for the administration because this third -- this third iteration clearly very different than what was originally put forward. >> well, and if i could just turn to the opinion itself here, where chief justice roberts really addresses the issue, which has been so much at the heart of this, whether the president's really bigoted words during the campaign affect the outcome of this case. and if i can just read a couple of sentences from the opinion here, i think you can see how the court dealt with that question. he said, plaintiffs, the people challenging the executive order, argue that the president's words during the campaign strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance in violation of our constitutional tradition. but the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements, it is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibili

. >> joining us is jeffrey toobin and professor allenershz. di inact dictate that letter about the trump tower meeting. >> it is enormously significant for two reasons. first of all, by putting out a false statement, it is more evidence in an attempt to obstruct justice. perhaps even more significant is that it relates to the collusion investigation, you know, alan and others have spent a lot of time saying, if that is the case, why did the president feel obligated to lie about his campaign's relationship with russia if he thought it was all appropriate, he should have just told the truth. because he knew it was wrong, he showed consciousness of guilt by lying about what went on. >> professor dershowitz? >> absolutely inappropriate. but there is a difference between inappropriate and criminal for something to be crimin criminal, it has to be in the criminal statute book. i don't think that a president necessarily has the power to pardon himself. it is clearly on a blank slate. nobody should be saying either that the president clearly has a pow

also with the cnn chief legal analyst, jeffrey toobin.ant to start with the president's dweet and we'll work backwards. be careful what you wish for, is that a threat? >> i didn't know of the president's tweet until you brought it to my attention. let me tell you about a tweet of my own which was a few hours ago. i'm concerned somebody's going to get hurt. i find what maxine waters said to be appalling. you might disagree with these individuals, i certainly do, but they are public servants, and if the shoe were on the other foot, and if someone high ranking in the obama administration had been rejected from a restaurant under similar circumstances, i think many of the people today calling for those actions would have been appalled. and rightfully so. i'm for consistency. also, i want to say what a great hand the president has just been dealt politically. on top of that horrible tweet last week from peter fonda, robert de niro dropping the f bomb, samantha bee with the c word, all it does is create a piling on of elites. >> no, sure, it's

relief and remission within reach. >>> get back to the panel and jeffrey toobin, i want your reactionhe story in "the washington post." you've done reporting on this yourself, that during the presidential campaign, the national inquirer supposedly would routinely send their reports before publication to donald trump's long-time personal lawyer and fixer michael cohen for approval and review. based on the reporter you've done on the "national enquirer," what is your reaction? >> well i read a profile of david pecker, the chief executive of "the national enquirer" and he openly told me that he used "the national enquirer" to help donald trump get elected and if you look at the coverage -- all through 2015 and 2016, it was relentlessly favorable toward donald trump and very hostile to hillary clinton earlier ted cruz and his republican rivals. i did not learn that there was this actual showing of stories in advance but as far as i could tell, there was no need. because the pieces were so favorable that why would they need to bother. donald trump had a long history with the nationalen cho

you heard jeffrey toobin there saying, you will know what these judges would do on roe v. we will not in the public because they will be coached up to say nothing just like we see in every confirmation process. fair criticism? >> people have been saying for 36 years, going all the way back to 1982, with the nomination of sandra o'connor that roe v. wade would be overturned. so -- 36 years later one of out of nine justices on the court said he would over turn row v wade. thomas. >> clarence thomas who during his confirmation years basically saying, i never really thought about roe v. wade before, then got on the bench and had definite ideas. continue. >> people thought sarah other connor would overturn roe v. wade and she didn't. anthony kennedy. david suter. we know as much as about john roberts and gorsuch. as we knew about kennedy. i think there's a little bit of hysteria right now. i hope the confirmation covers a wide range of issues. we ought to have a debate on constitutional interpretation across the board. >> well, you can debate it if you want. it's the men and wo

thank you very much. >> jeffrey toobin, back to you.y reporting across the rust belt, so many union workers and folks that work in these factories have told me that they don't think it's fair that they have to pay in to these fees if they are not supportive of it or part of the union, et cetera, but they were mandated, how significant is it for the time when we've already seen the decline of unions in this country? >> it's a real blow. this has been a long, long-running fight at the supreme court. the union's argument has always been, look, you as an employee of this company are the beneficiary of the contracts we negotiate. we are doing your bidding. you are obligated to pay in. that argument was rejected, but remember, poppy, this is another 5-4 conservatives winning decision like the travel ban case yesterday, like the abortion free speech yesterday. three opinions in two days, all of which illustrate how successful it was that mitch mcconnell would stop barack obama from appointing merrick garland and saved that from donald trump. m

i want to bring in jeffrey toobin and david chalian. generally speaking, i want to shift to the politics because i think that's where we are today. before we get there, it was just 24 hours ago you predicted that he was going to retire. >> do we want to play that tape? >> jeffrey, i want you to explain the magnitude of this so we understand why there will be this political debate. the magnitude of this retirement, what it means for the country going forward. >> the only reason why abortion is a constitutional right in the united states is because anthony kennedy serves on the supreme court. without anthony kennedy, and with one of the 25 justice, half a dozen to a dozen states will ban abortion in the next year or so. they will pass laws saying no abortion in the state of texas, mississippi, south dakota, states that have passed laws like that before. those laws will now be upheld. abortion will be ulle legal in quite a significant part of the united states soon. that's just one practical aspect. if you are a gay couple who wants to be

jeffrey toobin here with his take, next.s an organism so small no one thought much of it at all. people said it just made a mess until exxonmobil scientists put it to the test. they thought someday it could become fuel and power our cars wouldn't that be cool? and that's why exxonmobil scientists think it's not small at all. energy lives here. liberty mutual saved us almost $800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. liberty did what? yeah, they saved us a ton, which gave us a little wiggle room in our budget. i wish our insurance did that. then we could get a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey, welcome back. this guy, right? (laughs) yes. ellen. that's my robe. you could save $782 when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. >>> for the second straight day, white house press secretary sarah sanders refused to answer how she got the story so wrong about the meeting in trump tower with don jr. and russians and the misleading statement the president dictated about it. >> once again, i'm not going to

. >>> i want to bring in jeffrey toobin. face of it, it looks like a setback, if not a big defeat for the trump justice departme department, what is your take? >> i would say it is a setback and a big defeat for the trump justice department. this is a scathing and total rejection of the government's theohathis merger would violate anti-trust law. we have not yet had access to the full 70-page opinion of judge leon but he went through each of the government's theories of why this merger would lessen competition and be bad for consumers and in each case he rejected the government's -- contention this would be a bad merger and a usual part of his opinion was him saying to the government, look, don't even bother appealing bec if you appeal, if you get a stay, you will kill the deal evenf you lose -- the appeals court sides with at&t and time warner. that the procedural will take over for the substance. so he was saying, look, admit you lost, and let thi deal go forward. you can sue later, he said to the government, to break up th

but big picture, jeffrey toobin and i want your analysis because you've seen the cases unfold.ot about where the robert mueller investigation is heading. >> right. and the simple message here is that they are putting every bit of pressure they can on paul manafort to plead guilty and cooperate. to flip. to testify and tell the investigators what they know. this -- this indictment is worse than just another indictment. because this claim that he approached these witnesses and tried to get them to lie to investigators, it is also the basis for the mueller team's effort to -- to end his bail. to revoke his bail. and next week, there is going to be a hearing at the same time that manafort is arraigned. the mueller team will go to the judge and say, look, this guy should not be out on bail because he's obstructing justice while he is out on bail and that is something judges look very unkindly on. they don't have to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt and i would say paul manafort's freedom is hanging by a thread at this moment and it is even more pressure to plead guilty if you are

joining us now is jeffrey toobin and brian stelter.ernment says they're considering next steps. this is certainly a huge setback for the president, for the department of justice. are there next steps for the department of justice? i mean , the judge said that basically their suit had absolutely no merit. >> there's just one possible next step, which is asking the court of appeals for a stay. that is to put the decision on hold. putting the decision on hold would probably kill theeal because there's an expiration date to the deal, which is june 21st. so i think the justice department may yet file this last ditch effort, but it really es look like they have lost this case and lost it in very convincing fashion. >> it's interesting, though, the judge said in the ruling that the government shouldn't try tp. >>e did, and it really -- that's very unusual, and it indicates just how totally repudiated the justice department was here, and it really raises the question of why this case was brought in the first place. i mean, as we all know, you

and now to our chief legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. kennedy of course, republican appointee.conservative. but you know, he was the key swing vote going the other way on same-sex marriage, abortion, roe v. wade, is everyone on this list more reliable to be a guaranteed conservative vote on all issues than kennedy? >> every single one of them. that's why they were picked. we're going to hear a lot about their qualifications. about their you know, openness to new ideas. the whole reason they were picked by the federalist society, but the heritage foundation. is to they would be known as hundred percenters. they're going to vote to overroe versus wade. of course it's going to be overturned. that's the whole point. of nominating. the conservative movement wants justices named to the supreme court. every one of them -- the agenda of exing out kennedy's record on gay right, abortion right, affirmative action and duplicating his record in the many areas where he was quite conservative. >> who do you think it's going to be? >> i don't know at this point. >> we're going to know more as

get over it. >> jeffrey toobin? oh, we can't hear you. do you have a microphone on?now i hear you. go ahead, my friend. >> oh, well, i'll start from the beginning. i think comey made some terrible, terrible decisions during this investigation and i think hillary clinton was deeply damaged by it. i think the report is clearly correct in the sense that i don't think comey behaved with bias. i don't think he was trying to elect donald trump president, but i think he did the wrong thing and i think hillary clinton paid a major, major price for it. i don't blame comey for defending his conduct in the "new york times." he's certainly within his rights, but i think the inspector general has the better of the argument about whether it was right, as phil said, to denounce hillary clinton in the course of announcing not charging her, and especially within a few weeks of the election, reopening the case. i think that will haunt his reputation forever. >> for the rest of his life. >> this i.g. report resoundingly demonstrates there was no prosecutable case against mrs. clinton a

. >>> let's bring in brian shelter, our senior media correspondent and jeffrey toobin. hing decision by this federal judge, jeffrey, not only ruling in favor of the merger but also warning the government, don't think about a stay or an appeal. >> you know, this was such a fiasco for the justice departme it raises the question of why this lawsuit was brought in the first place. conservatives, republicans generally done believe in stopping mergers. the only thing we know about the origin of this case is that caidate trump and donald trump denounced this merger in advance and also indicated, as we have heard many times, thate hates cnn and, thus, really raises the question of whether this case was a vendetta ordered by the white house against cnn's parent coany. the judge in the case did not allow evidence on that question. journalists certainly have the opportunity to ask that question. the issue of why this case was brought remains very much alive. >> brian, you are getting a new response from time warner, our parent company. what can you tell us? >> this is the strongest

. >> jeffrey toobin and josh green join us now. if you nancy pelosi and john avalon and andrew cuomo this morning after you say oh, my, what's going through your head? >> that's probably the g rated version of what they said. you cannot take your primaries for granted if you are an establishment democrat, even if you're doing the political work you think you need to do, are you good fit for your district, do you have the energy and enthusiasm. grassroots behind you because the energy in the democratic party is with the sons and daughters right now. it means nancy pelosi, while she's probably pretty well positioned within her party, the energy is to the left and this candidate who beat joe crowley. he was no longer a good fit for the district. she did run on authenticity, working class roots and sense of community and she's an inspiring figure in congress going forward. >> she didn't just run on her identity and i think it's important to talk about the issues that she ran on. she ran on medicaid for all, expanding health care, not o

jeffrey toobin, chief legal analyst is with us. background on this, if you look at the oral arguments you had justices on all sides of the political spectrum questioning the government's limits here, right? you had sotomayor saying she feared this would be a dragnet sweep. you had kagan saying 24/7 track people. you had roberts questioning the same thing. the outcome, what does it tell us big picture? >> this is one of the wonderful cases where the supreme court takes a document written in the 18th century, the united states constitution, and tries to apply it to this, which james madison really probably did not have in mind when he was writing the fourth amendment. and it is a 5-4 decision, very closely argued, each of the four dissenting justices wrote a separate opinion, very unusual. what chief judge -- chief justice john roberts who wrote the majority opinion said, look, if you -- if the government can determine where you were at every second, based on following where your phone was, they need a warrant. they're not saying the

here now to dissect this friday night discussion maggie haberman and cnn's chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. jeffrey, the president says he's down to a list of five. he claims there are two women on that list. now, we don't know for sure who they are, but if you look at the list of 25, you get some ideas. and the most commonly mentioned two names i see are amy coney barrett and joan larson. does that sound right to you? >> it does sound right to me. they have a lot in common. both in their low 40s, very young. joan larsen served on the michigan supreme court for many years. amy coney barrett has now served for basically any time at all. she was just confirmed to the circuit court of appeals. she has a somewhat contentious confirmation pr confirmation process where she was challenged by senator feinstein of california for her involvement with catholic legal organizations. senator feinstein wound up having the worst of that exchange. a lot of people perceived her remarks as somewhat anti-catholic. although, of course, she denied it. they have very little public record, but both are known to b

i want to bring in jeffrey toobin who is here with me as well.t do you, how do you see this ruling of the supreme court today? >> the majority looked at this as a case about the presidency, about the power of all presidents. and treated this executive order as if it was something as an i am m-- immaculate conception. it doesn't say anything about muslims, it refers to these seven countries. and the supreme court said in light of that, it's perfectly permissible. the decenters, said who are you kidding? this is the muslim ban in a tutu. basically prohibiting muslims to come into the united states. and drew on the comments that you said earlier. this is why it matters who is on the supreme court and who appoints people on the supreme court. the four democrats in the minority saw it one way and the five republicans in the majority saw it one way. >> i mean, there are many muslim majority countries that are not part of this travel ban, pakistan, indonesia, there are a lot of muslims in india, two non-muslim countries in this ruling, north korea and v

. >> jeffrey toobin, brian stelter, thanks very much. >>> breaking news, cnn just got records from puertoo related to the deaths from hurricane maria. we'll have a report from san juan next. directv now gives you more for your thing. get all the good stuff about tv without all the bad stuff. yes! you can still stream your favorite shows. yes! with no annual contract. wait, what? it's live tv. yes! with no satellites. what? and no bulky hardware. no bulky hardware! isn't that great news? yes! nooooo! nooooooooooo! try directv now for $10 a month for 3 months. more for your thing. that's our thing. visit directvnow.com until her laptop her sacrashed this morning.eks, having it problems? a siness advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. this week get boise case paper for only $29.99 at office depot office max.

. >> joining me now is jeffrey toobin, and gloria borger. i heard you say earlier that within 18 months abortion could be illegal in as many as 20 states. >> i said abortion will be illegal. this is a conservative project since it came out in 1973. if you look at who was behind the judicial selection process in the trump administration, the federalist society, the heritage society, they have been moving towards this movement. every single one of them is well to the right of anthony kennedy. states read the newspapers, they know in texas, in mississippi, in south dakota that the supreme court is changed so they are going to pass laws prohibiting abortion and dare the supreme court to strike them down and it is not going to happen and we are going to be a different country sooner rather than later. >> professor turley, do you share jeff's opinion on that. and what other major issues could be altered. >> i never encountered jeff's inner eye, and he is able to see such things, that is particularly apocalyptic. it could come about and could not.

jeffrey toobin says we'll see a woman's right to choose overruled. that's not going to happen.ustice roberts is not going to vote for that. lou: let's turn, if we may, to this extraordinary moment in which fbi agent peter strzok is behind closed doors. this is the man who was at the he center of the russia collusion probe, the mid-year exam probe, the jargon that the fbi used for the hillary clinton email scandal. and he's also on the bob mueller special counsel staff. this is a guy i can't even imagine why he's walking around -- it looks like he ought to be in jail somewhere. >> i don't believe in criminalizing political differences. but he shouldn't be a member of the fbi. when he says we are going to stop the election of the president, that sounds like collusion. that sounds like interference with an election. i tried to stop the election of president trump by voting for hillary clinton and contributing her campaign. but for an fbi agent to say we - say we are going to stop it and we'll have an understand policy. i don't know why he's testifying behind closed doors. if it's

cnn's jeffrey toobin joins us now.ows more than most about ami and its inner working, i wonder what you make of this latest "wall street journal" story. >> it's not surprising that law enforcement would be interested in this subject. but it is also not clear whether any crime was committed by anyone here. david pecker, who was the ceo of american media, is a very close friend of donald trump. and when i interviewed him for "the new yorker," he was very open in saying we use "the national inquirer" to help donald trump get elected president, we were supportive of him. he was less clear on what the basis was of the $150,000 payment, because he didn't say it was a catch and kill story. he didn't say that they bought the story in order not to -- in order to suppress it, to help the trump campaign. he said they had other interests in karen mcdougal to do fitness reporting. that i think was somewhat more questionable. but whether donald trump, david pecker, michael cohen, anyone committed a crime here, is far from clear to m

here to talk about it is harvard law school's allan dershowitz ad also jeffrey toobin joins well.e of michael cohen looking for a new legal team. there are various reports. >> i see them all working together. if you are worried about paying too much in legal fees, it is cheaper to coopera than to litigate. if you want a lawyer who is closer and more familiar with the southern district, t is also a likelihood that you want somebody who is admired and respected in the south district who can make a deal with you. i think the real problem is that he can't cooperate as much as he would like to because he can't disclose anything that is lawyer/client privilege. he can disclose things outside of the privilege. but he can't just walk in and say let me tell you anyth i know about my former client donald trump. the u.s. attorney's office would not ethically be able to accept that kind of information. but it looks toe that it is moving into cooperation or a flip. >> do you agree with that? >> 90% of the people who are indicted in federal court wind up pleading guilty. if he is indicted, chan

. >>> here, maggie haberman, and jeffrey toobin. the president says he is down to a list of five. two women on the list. we don't know for sure who they are. you get the names of the commonly ones we have seen is amy coney barrette and jo larson. >> both of them clerked for antony scalia. amy coney barrette, she was just confirmed to the seventh court of appeal. she had a contentious confirmation process where she was challenged by senator feinstein in her involvement with catholic legal organizations. senator feinstein had the worse of that. very little public record but both are known to be very conservative. both members of the federal society beyond that, just down the line conservative nominees. >> maggie, you never stop reporting. and you are still doing reporting sitting here. in your hearing that the president wants a judge or justice who went to harvard or yale, but neither of them went to harvard or yale. >> correct. that would apply to bret kavanaugh. you and i spoke about this early this morning that trump is paranoid when it comes to the bush family. and that is not a

. >> jeffrey toobin and anne milgram. >> the air force one statement is important.ust some tangential issue where the white house got caught in a lie. it is centrala mueller investigation. part itel t lyin about the investigation and lying about what went on with russia and the trump campaign. it is evidence, it is not proof, but evidence of possible obstruction of justice misleading investigators, misleading the public about what happened. and even more important, why this statement is important is that it suggests that the president knew that the relationship between the trump campaign and russia was wrong, was corrupt. so he lied about it and he chose consciousness of guilt. >> while he was president. >>rect. and you know, one of e things he said all along was there was no collusion and even if there was any relationship, it was perfectly legal. why is he lying about what went on at trump tower. >> and anne, obstruction of justice doesn't have to be successful to be a crime. >> that's right. you can obstruct justice ethouge a crime there and here, i think jeff is

let's get some perspective from jeffrey toobin and allen dershowitz. thanks for joining us. jeff you were inside that federal court today, president trump tweeted that it was very unfair. what's unfair about jailing someone who allegedly committed a crime who was out on bail. >> paul manafort walked in that courtroom not knowing if he will be walking out. and what the prosecution said was he was instructed as a, in his original bail application, you cannot commit more crimes while you are out on bail. he has now been indicted for witness tampering, while he was out on bail, contacting these witnesses and trying to get them to tell a false story and he has been locked up. it changes the complexion of the trial coming up. hugely different to be waiting in prison to go to trial and to be waiting in the luxury apartment in alexandria, virginia where he has been. and the pressure is going to ratchet up enormously. >> alan did he , could that be interpreted potentially as inappropriate in not illegal or unethical, a signal to potential subjects and witnesses? >> no. he has a perfe

jeffrey toobin, also i am struck as we're listening to the reactions here.e president's tweet from this morning, the statement from the white house, just how the administration and the white house had tied itself up in knotts for weeks and months to try to say this was not a travel ban, this is not a muslim ban. this is not what this was. the president is saying in his initial tweet, that's exactly what it is. the argument they may -- they kept insisting it's not directed at a religion. one of the major changes they made was they added north korea to the list of countries that where immigration was banned from. north korea of course is not a muslim country. obviously the four dissevening judges felt you had to look beneath the surface, but five judges were persuaded that was it an permissible use of presidential power. >> i'll take your word for it. >> always do that. let me put it that jeffrey, thank you so much. evan, thanks so much. jeff zeleny at the white house. >>> coming up for us, president trump has a new target in the growing trade ward. it's not a

joining us now chief legal analyst many jeffrey toobin, david chalian with us. we will get to the immigration in a moment. this political earthquake overnight with the far left 28-year-old democratic candidate overturning joe crowley. we talked about the soul searching in the republican party for years. >> this is the party of bernie sanders. the energy is on the left of the democratic party. this could not have been a more stark wakeup call. this candidate ran a great campaign. a viral ad in which he didn't highlight the fact that she is a socialist but highlighted she was a grate fit for her district, running on themes of income and equality, and did so in a compelling way. joe crowley, not a great fit for the district as it stands. buff he has outspent her 10-1. he has not had a primary challenge in 10 cycles. she came out of nowhere. it is a message people in washington are waking up and taking note. the left is ascending in the democratic party. she represents a new generaticg. >> politics really is local. we spent so much time talking about what does the b

you heard jeffrey toobin there saying, you will know what these judges would do on roe v. we will not in the public because they will be coached up to say nothing just like we see in every confirmation process. fair criticism? >> people have been saying for 36 years, going all the way back to 1982, with the nomination of sandra o'connor that roe v. wade would be overturned. so -- >> clarence thomas who during his confirmation years basically saying, i never really thought about roe vchl wade before, then got on the bench and had definite ideas. continue. >> people thought sarah other connor would overturn roe vchl wade and she didn't. i think there's a little bit of hysteria right now. i hope the confirmation covers a wide range of issues. we ought to have a debate on constitutional interpretation across the board. >> well, you can debate it if you want. it's the men and women in the robes decide what they want to do. the idea of who gets put on there is shaped if there's any mister ya because of what the president has said. he said during the campaign, roe v. wade got to

jeffrey toobin, and jeff, we'll get to the celebrity apresen"ce apprentice"pardoned edition in a moment. but do you see similarithese as to paul manafort and others to hang tough? >> this was a guilty plea, the idea that this was somehow made up prosecution where barack obama's justice department and preek bharara prosecuted, he pleaded guilty, he knew he was guilty. it wasn't the most serious crime in the federal code, but it was a crime, as he acknowledged. but, you know, he's a hero to the right wing because of his unbelievably outrageous and false accusations against democrats of all stripes. so this was a way of ingratia ingratiating himself, the president continuing to ingratiate himself with his base, which is his right under the constitution. but this has never been done before. these sort of midterm pardons of people who are outside the justice department pardon program, it's -- we are -- this is another violence of the norms that other presidents have abided by. it's legal, but it's really -- it's very scary. >> jennifer, what do you make of the timing, and also the kind of th

he joins us now, along with cnn's chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin.son, attorney general ferguson, in announcing your intention to file a lawsuit, you call the policy rogue and cruel. what makes it unconstitutional, though, in your opinion? >> sure. thanks so much for having me on, anderson. i appreciate it. there's two buckets of claims here, which we often have as we have challenged the administration 27 times in court. statutory claims. it's our view that the administration is violating federal law. when someone seeks asylum and comes to port of entry at the united states, what we want them to do, what we're getting report ons is that united states officials are saying to folks, no, we're full, and sending them away. that does not follow our asylum laws or federal laws. due process, equal protection are important. executive orders signed yesterday does not grandfather in the more than 2,000 kids that have already been separated from their parents. federal law, constitutional law says there's a very strong desire to have families intact. the governm

but there is a -- and jeffrey toobin is right, they will litigate whether people that are gay will havethe only way andere common sense that ss acts the human rights are universal that we all believe in them. so we're pushing for progress. >> and i know you and i know how much you talk about your kids and your last -- can you give me -- are they all right that dad isn't around in the evening but you have them in the morning. >> they like that i'm not going to be there because i'm the homework czar. my existence at home is much more difficult than my existence on television. so family is always first. >> i know it is for you. >> congratulations on the wedding and we'll see as you st willing, that comes first in every single way. i make the sacrifices the way you do because that is how i show my family what my life is about and how i make them proud every day but they'll always come first. they are my jewels. christina made them and i pay for them. >> chris cuomo, 9:00 eastern here on cnn. thank you. >>> still ahead, what was this guy thinking? an off duty fbi agent does a back flip at a

. >> jeffrey toobin, you are our legal analyst.sserting he has the right to pardon himself. his lawyers arguing the sitting president can't be inindicted. are those real possibilities that they are preparing for? >> i think it is an uncertain legal question about whether a president can pardon himself. that has never been resolved. you have to ask yourself, why he is raising this subject. is there a guilty conscience at work? this is a bizarre subject for him to start tweeting about. at the same time, the issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted is a live legal controver controversy. the policy is that the president cannot be indicted. kenneth star when he was the independent counsel, he had a legal analysis that reached a different conclusion. that said a president could be indicted. it's never been resolved. the fact that the president is obsessing about these issues, can he pardon himself, can he be indicted, i mean, what's going on? it's just weird. >> look at this. the president's language about this mueller probe.