tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN February 23, 2018 12:00am-1:00am PST
we use so why do we pay touters thave a phone connected. when we're already paying for internet? shouldn't it all just be one thing? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you can get 5 lines of talk and text included at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. choose by the gig or unlimited. and now, get a $200 prepaid card when you buy an iphone. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfnitymobile.com. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. it's 11:00 p.m. on the east
coast live with new developments tonight on a story of sex and politics that's making headlines all across this country. missouri's governor indicted today on a first degree felony charge of invasion of privacy. the whole thing stems from allegations that the governor used a photo of his naked mistress as a form of blackmail to keep her from talking about their affair. his name is greitens. mr. greitens admits to the efair but denies blackmailing her and now the republican governor has a mugshot. and his political future is hanging by a thread. his lawyer saying the statute that greitens was charged with has never been used like this in the state's history. we're going to break down the story for you. i want to get straight to cnn's national reporter and that's mj lee. eric greitens, interesting, this whole thing about him. what do we know about the indictment? walk us through the scandal.
>> yeah, don, well, this is a political bomb going off tonight in the state of missouri. this is what we know. we know that the governor has been indicted in st. louis for an incident going back to march of 2015. involving a photo that he took, according to the indictment language, involving full or partial nudity without the knowledge or consent of the person that he was taking the photo of. and the indictment says that he then transmitted the image in a manner that allowed access to that image via a computer. now, this is obviously a lot of technical legal language, so let me just remind you of the back story behind this incident. remember that last month it was revealed that the governor had an extra marital affair back in 2015. in which the ex-husband of the woman that greitens allegedly had this affair with, what was reported is that he had some recording of conversations that he had with his ex-wife and the
ex-wife, the woman who had the affair with the governor, described an incident, a sexual encounter in which she was at his house, the governor's house, and she says in this reporting that her hands were taped and she was blindfolded and that it appeared that he, greitens, had taken photos of her and then essentially blackmailed her, saying you better not speak of this or mention my name, otherwise your photo will be everywhere. now, as you mentioned, don, greitens did acknowledge having this extramarital affair but he was clear, he had adamant he did not partake in any kind of blackmail. and now we know from this indictment at least this photo that was taken is now a part, a big part, a central part of this indictment. and just an important reminder, too, that at the time when this story broke, greitens' lawyer denied, explicitly denied, and i remember e-mailing with him back
then, that the governor took the photo. but then interestingly as more time passed, greitens, when he was asked whether he took photo, he wouldn't answer the question. so i just think that's an important thing to keep in mind. and for now, don, he is sounding pretty defiant. which is the stance that he has taken over the last couple of weeks. he says that he made a personal mistake but he did not commit a crime, and essentially calling this a politically-motivated indictment and his lawyer says that he plans to file a motion to dismiss all of this. >> all right. thank you very much. mj lee, i appreciate it. i want to bring in now albert watkins, he's the attorney for the ex-husband of the woman who accuses the governor of blackmail. also robert patrick, federal courts reporter for "the st. louis post dispatch," which is a cnn affiliate. thank you both for coming on. robert, i'm going to start with you. greitens' campaign on fighting corruption. is this the first ethics issues
he's faced? >> no, he's had a lot of criticism over his fund-raising, his political fund-raising because of sort of the dark money that has gone into his campaign and nobody knows the source of it. so, i mean, you know, until a month ago that was -- that was the source of a lot of his criticism. there had been rumors of this other stuff. the reason that we're here today. but it had never been confirmed. >> yeah. so, albert, you represent the former husband of the woman with whom the governor admitting to have an affair. what is hi reaction to today's indictment? >> he doesn't care. my client has never cared about the governor. he doesn't care if he stays being the governor, quits, gets, impeached, indicted, acquitted. he wants the governor and all the governor has brought with him in his rear view mirror and he's hoping that today is the beginning of a new start without the governor's dalliance hanging
over his head and the head of his children. >> so let's talk a little bit more about it. because the indictment says the governor took the nude photo without consent and he's being charged with transmitting it? >> the indictment appears to reflect that there is a transmittal of this image that has given rise to the charge, and that in large part poors to me to be the basis for the charging of this crime as a felony versus as a misdemeanor. >> do you anticipate additional charges against the governor? >> i don't know. i would say that given the reports that are going on about his dark money, about his utilization of an app to delete, potentially delete state-related communique. due to the fact that there is a pending attorney general's investigation going on in the state of missouri, given the reports about a federal investigation going on about fund-raising issues, my guess is
his hands are full and what charges may or may not in the future be brought, quite frankly, is anyone's guess. nobody would have guessed that this would have given rise to 50 shades of greitens. >> what kind of contact have you had lately with the fbi about governor? >> i can tell you that there is an elevated degree of interest on the part of federal law enforcement authorities that have i think served as the basis for what i will call quality contact on a regular basis. >> interesting. robert, so the governor says he is the victim of a reckless liberal prosecutor using her office to score political points. does the prosecutor have an ax to grind with this governor? >> well, she's never expressed any animus towards him. i mean, she is a democrat, he's a republican, but there are a lot of people -- there are a lot of personnel in her office that
-- of all political persuasions and the grand jury was the body that handed down the indictment. so, i mean, i guess you'd have to talk to the grand jury members about their political affiliations. >> albert, greitens was accused of threatening your client with the photo. why isn't the allegation mentioned in the indictment? >> i don't know. it's not appropriate for me or proper for me to assess, gauge or calibrate what may or may not have gone through the minds or hearts of those on the grand jury. i can tell you that i represent the ex-husband of the woman who was the -- of the governor. it's really, really important that we keep in mind that even though the governor is the highest seated officer in this state, he is still a criminally accused defendant. and much like any other criminally accused defendant, he's entitled to the presumption of innocence until such time he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. he's also entitled to confront
his accusers. what's interesting, though, is that he has a duty to the people of the state of missouri, and one of the duties that he has failed to discharge is to be open, transparent and forthcoming. despite being asked very straightforward questions about, hey, did you take a photograph? >> yeah, but your client recorded a conversation between himself and his former wife where they discussed the photo. is that legal in missouri and will that factor in as evidence? >> answer is simple. yes, missouri is a one-party consent state, so all it takes is one party to a tape recording to permit the admissibility and render it legal for that tape recording to have been made. same with phone conversations that emanate from missouri and are received in missouri. only one person's consent is required to have that be a legal recording. >> what's interesting to me, robert, news of the affair came out right as the campaign was announced. how did that play out in the race? >> well, the news of the affair
just came out a month ago. i mean, there were rumors -- there were rumors before that, but it hadn't really been public. >> to s.o. so it wasn't confirm the people were talking about it? >> yeah. >> the political class certainly was discussing it. >> so did then -- the general public didn't know about it? they didn't get wind of these rumors? so it wasn't a factor for him as he was campaigning? >> no, in fact, my client engaged my firm at the very outset of things in september of 2016 solely for the purpose of suppressing the story because he wanted to protect the image of his children's mother in the eyes of his children. >> mmm-hmm. >> and he paid handsomely to make sure that as many people that knew about the story did not run with the story, including political operatives, including national media members, including local newspapers. the goal and objective was not
to put minors in harm's way. and it wasn't until january of this year, after a very -- a high feeding frenzy in december, that my client realized this was a story that could not be suppressed any longer. it was coming out. news outlets had been working on this story for over a year and when that was realized, the goal and objective then was no longer to suppress it but manage it and mitigate damage. >> okay. so what about his political future? according to our reporting, our reporter, he appears to be wanting to hang on. again, saying it's an ax to grind. what about his political future, robert? any talk of impeachment? >> well, i think the -- i think it's a little premature for the legislature -- well, to know that at this point because this all really just happened a few hours ago. you know, i don't think it's good for someone's image to have shots of them going in and out of criminal court.
but it's really up to the legislature to decide what they want to do with this. at least prior to the conclusion of the criminal case. >> i have been advised that a committee has been announced and tomorrow we'll be formally disclosed as a matter of public record to move forward with the indictment or the impeachment process. >> robert, albert, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> my pleasure. when we come back, new charges against paul manafort and rick gates. is robert mueller putting the squeeze on the former trump campaign officials to get more information? it's time for the 'ultimate sleep number event' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. does your bed do that? right now, save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed. ends sunday. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.
- [narrator] whatever event you're planning, custom ink has customized apparel to make it extra special. (bright music) at custom ink, we make it easy for you to create custom t-shirts and other apparel for all of life's events. get free shipping and on time delivery guaranteed. go to customink.com to get started today.
special counsel mueller ratcheting up the pressure on president trump's inner circle. new charges filed today allege former trump campaign chair paul manafort and his deputy rick gates laundered $30 million and failed to pay taxes for almost a decade. let's discuss. cnn contributor john dean, former counsel for the nixon white house and ken mcallian, a former federal prosecutor. these charges, john, they're unbelievable. the sentencing for these new charges levelled against manafort and gates could be as high as 30 years in prison. so it appears that robert mueller is launching a massive squeeze play on these two men. is that how you see it? >> well, there is an interesting document that was filed today as well in the district of columbia. this indictment came down in the eastern district of virginia,
but they filed a status report in the district of columbia with that case. because there are now two pending criminal cases against these guys. that status report revealed that they filed this action in virginia because they didn't have venue in the district of columbia and the parties -- none of the defendants would agree to it, so they got a separate indictment on them. it kind of hints that they might not have gotten it had they cooperated. >> so, ken, would mueller even consider a plea agreement if he didn't know he would get important information in return? >> well, the -- a plea agreement was on the table, at least with regard to gates. it doesn't appear that he's going to take it at this point. but i think mueller is really solidifying and has solidified a very solid if not air-tight case against both manafort and gates
at this particular point, and i think they're prepared to prosecute. it's a very strong case. and at some point it could be down the road after convictions, manafort and gates will tell us and will tell mueller's team what they know. the information they collected as the chairman and the deputy chairman of the trump campaign. >> john, is muller trying to tie -- to tie in the various financial crimes that he charged manafort and gates with to the original question of collusion and russian involvement in our election? is he trying to tie this all together? ers. >> that's hard to read. because while the indictment does spell out two phases or two different schemes with the last one ending, the second one that was charged today in 2015 or 2016, it doesn't look like it's directly connected in any way to the campaign. so i think this is just something that they discovered in the course of the investigation.
what is interesting is that it's clear that manafort had deep financial problems at one point, but when he joins the campaign, suddenly he's getting great sums of money, millions of dollars. in loans that he was unable to accomplish before. that was part of the fraud. >> ken, these documents filed by mueller's team are incredibly detailed and they're very thorough. you were involved in an early lawsuit against manafort for financial crimes. what stands out to you about this case and are you surprised at just how deep this goes? >> well, it's extremely detailed, but i think as john indicated, it really ties back into the money laundering that manafort and gates engaged in. they got upwards of $30 million representing the pro-russian regime of viktor yanukovych in
the ukraine. they also got tens of millions of dollars from deripaska and other russian oligarchs. and it was those connections, it appears to be clear and we think it's clear to mueller as well, that it's those connections with the russian oligarchs, with russian and ukrainian money that attracted donald trump and his campaign to hire manafort and gates as their campaign leadership. it not only had to do with the political campaign, but also the trump organization at that time was looking to solidify and expand its financial base, the finances for the various projects, and even while the campaign was going on, mr. trump and his team were still looking
to build that elusive hotel in moscow. manafort and gates really opened up a whole new world of contacts for them. so gates and manafort have significant information. eventually they will, i think, even if it's after a conviction have to cooperate and talk about the financial dealings which they're aware of between the trump organization, trump and this russian and ukrainian money that was pouring into the trump organization at the same time that the campaign was proceeding. >> john, president trump had previously been miss missive of a pardon for the people close to him who had been tied up in mueller's investigation. i want to play this. this is what he said in december about michael flynn. watch this. >> i don't want to talk about pardons for michael flynn yet. we'll see what happens. let's see.
>> so is a pardon for manafort and gates even theoretically possible? >> well, it of course is theoretically possible, but whether it's practical or not, you could well be charged with obstruction of justice in connection with a pardon. it depends on the timing. george bush i, for example, pardon peopled who appeared to potentially threat him in the iran-contra matter but yet he disposed of that case very easily and it was never charged. so, you know, this is just a very open questionable area that the president has a lot of powers that it can also be easily abused. >> john, let me ask you about this. paul manafort responded to these new charges. says paul manafort is innocent of the allegations set out in the newly filed indictments and he is confident he will be acquitted of all charges. the new allegations against mr. manafort once again have nothing
to do with russia and the 2016 election interference/collusion. is he signaling here that, you know, hey, i've got your back here, looking for a pardon from the president? >> well, i -- you know, i can't get into donald trump's mind, but -- >> that was from mueller. that's a mueller spokesperson. >> right. as to whether he -- >> manafort, excuse me. >> i think manafort would like a pardon and i think he's holding out. maybe that's why gates never did crack a deal if he thinks he's going to get a pardon too. they're playing a dangerous game. >> go ahead, ken. >> one of the things that should be kept in mind is that these are tax indictments as well as bank fraud and i think we can expect either from new york prosecutors or virginia prosecutors state charges as well, which will take manafort
and gates outside of the pardon power of the president. so manafort and gates now have to wait and expect really a third shoe to drop on them, which may well be state charges, which will take them outside of the scope of a presidential pardon. >> wow. thank you, gentlemen, i appreciate. when decome back, president trump said he is considering gun control measures while at the same time praising the nra. so will he take action or will he side with the nra and how will the rest of the republican party react? my name is jeff sheldon,
and i'm the founder of ugmonk. before shipstation it was crazy. it's great when you see a hundred orders come in, a hundred orders come in, but then you realize i've got a hundred orders i have to ship out. shipstation streamlined that wh the order data, the weights of , everything is seamlessly put into shipstation, so when we print the shipping ll everything's pretty much done. it's so much easier so now, we're ready, bring on t. shipstation. the number one ch of online sellers.
go to shipstation.com/tv and get two months free. of de pere, wisconsin. his life is... pretty comfortable. rick blomquist thought he had comfort all figured out. but then, he laid on a serta and realized his life was only just sorta comfortable. i've been living a lie. the new serta icomfort hybrid mattress. not just sorta comfortable, serta comfortable. purchase an icomfort mattress and get a free boxspring or up to $500 off an adjustable set.
head of the nra delivering an angry and uncompromising speech today to a friendly audience just a week after the florida massacre. i want to talk about this now with cnn political analyst john avlon, author of "washington's farewell" and cnn political commentator margaret hoover. a former white house staffer for president george w. bush. good to have both of you here. >> good to see you. >> let's talk about this speech. it is cpac, right? conservative political action conference, underway. and the ceo of the nra wayne
lapierre spoke. here is what he said. >> as usual, the opportunists wasted not one second to exploit tragedy for political gain. sal alinsul alinsky would have proud. the break back calls for more gun control laws and the breathless national media eager to smear the nra. think about that. in the midst of genuine grief and a very understandable passion as millions of americans search for meaningful solutions, what do we find? chris murphy, nancy pelosi and more cheered the on by the national media eager to blame the nra and call for even more government control. they hate the nra. they hate the second amendment.
they hate individual freedom. >> john? >> they hate individual freedom. >> by the national media, is fox news cheering on nancy pelosi and chris murphy? they're part of the national media. >> last time i checked, yes, but somehow they always get an exemption. that was an extra crispy speech by wayne lapierre. he's basically accusing the kids of parkland reading from a saul alinsky playbook. the dog whistle there they're being scripted. they're anti-american. they want to overturn personal freedom. that kind of rhetoric. when he talks about millions of americans want to find meaningful solutions, the nra has got to step up but they're n easing people who disagree with him. >> margaret, what you're listening to and seeing at cpac, is that the republican party you knew? i don't know if it's beyond that when you consider what's going on with the country. what do you think? >> sadly what's happened with
the conservative movement, it started in the 1950s as an intellectual movement and an intelectal legs to a movement -- >> somehow that going. >> redevolved into a react, okay? you see sort of a gathering of people who represent really fringe elements of what used to be what i think was a really great political movement and moment in american history. i just want to say, look, wayne lapierre has -- has spoken insensitively, harshly. >> for decades. >> embraced fringe elements of some of these arguments, but he also makes points that resonate with a lot of americans, a lot of gun owners and people who aren't gun owners, right? it is not just a matter -- we all know these are nuanced issues. it's not just taking semiautomatic weapons away from people. states have a role. the fbi was at fault here. i don't know who is taking responsibility in the fbi for
the major failures here. i mean, when wayne lapierre says that 38 states have not populated their registries of all of the -- with all the felonies of people who have created crimes with guns and put them into a federal registry, you can't then rely on a federal registry, you know, wayne lapierre also points out some 80,000 felony convictions have not been prosecuted. >> look -- >> there are -- there are fair points that he made regardless of the fact that you find him a hyperpolarizing figure in american politics. >> he feels the need to wrap it up in fundamentally unfair rhetoric. it's not insensitive, it's intentionally divisive. the nra wants to say, look, the problem with our laws is we're not enforcing gun laws enough. that's a reasonable pointless. background checks haven't been accurate -- then i assume the nra will take a leadership role in pressuring members of congress to vote for universal background checks. guess what? that ain't going to happen. >> what is interesting here is that you have this real shift, right? you have donald trump saying,
okay, well, we'll be willing to give around edges. we'll do bump stocks, direct the attorney general to do serp things. what you really could do is in this polarized political environment. legislation may be a nonstarter. direct resources to the atf to prosecute the crimes. >> you could give restrictions on certain weapons. bump stocks is done. >> that requires legislation. you can't direct the attorney general to clamp down on the second amendment. >> you can say to your base we need to do this. this is something we need to do. listen, the democrat president, you know, that is other and they claim was muslim, he's not going to do it. this person has credibility with the supporters of the nra. >> and this is not immigration. they could do it. he could. >> he could do it. >> politically, he could -- >> listen, i'm not going to drive a formula one car on the street because it's not street legal. why should i have a military-grade weapon? that should not be street legal.
>> why do you hate the second amendment? >> i don't hate the second amendment at all. >> of course. that's my point. >> listen, let me just state this, i don't hate the second amendment. my father had guns. my stepfather had guns. any of my family members, especially women, who live alone. i want them to have a gun. do i want them to have an ar-15? no. if they come in the house, they're going to blow all the plumbing and the electricity in the whole whole. it makes absolutely no sense. >> self-defense, shotguns. or laws have not kept up with the pace of technology. the issue with an ar-15 is it is a weapon of war. >> it's not about a conversation, you guys. that requires passing legislation. all of us know if we're dealing in a world of practicality that you're not going to get legislation passed because democrats aren't going to vote for that. >> you do have a point. >> 2013. voted against the semiautomatic weapon ban. >> the failing of that was not because of the democrats.
>> why can't he start the conversation? >> any -- you've seen the shift. >> why can't some in the republican party admit that the guns are the program rather than saying it's this, it's that, a mental issue, all these other things, except for the mechanism used to kill people. >> do i need to tell you guns don't kill people, people kill people. >> guns kill people. the issue is the maximum capacity. donald trump has made a couple of steps in the right direction on this. let's see him lose his juice with the house to see if he can get anything done. we'll take some progress over none. >> the sad reality is that the conservative right and the people who -- they're dug in on guns. >> so is the left. >> that's where i'm going. democrats don't want to work with this president. so what is going to change? what does it all matter? unless there is some deal? >> what we need is real leadership, frankly. if the president were to exert some seriously leadership that is directed and disciplined. >> i've got to go.
special counsel robert mueller turning up the pressure on paul manafort and rick gates with dozens more charges just a few hours ago. i want to talk about this now with chris winle, the author of "the gate keepers: how the white house chiefs of staff define every presidency." and cnn political commentators dan fever and alice stewart. hello to all of you. first, how significant are these charges against the former campaign manager paul manafort and rick gates. first for you, chris? >> well, i think it's very serious. the latest tweets you see from trump over the last 72 hours show they're more and more desperate. i think he knows that the walls are closing in. i interviewed steve bannon for the new chapter of my book and bannon was typically unfiltered and one of the things he said was that whether or not there is collusion here, you really have
a murderer's row of 19 prosecutors with subpoena power, money laundering experience, and on the other side you have two guys with yellow pads of post-its. manafort is the regime, rick gates is the made man and papadopoulos is the wise guy in the social club in brooklyn. if they flip, there is no telling where this could go. i think donald trump is beginning to realize that the walls are closing in. >> dan, the white house has said this all happened a long time ago, long before the trump campaign. does that necessarily vindicate anyone in the trump orbit? wasn't he supposed to hire the best people, have the best team ever? >> right. it raises real questions of judgement about the decision to hire manafort. people in and around washington knew he had been in bed with very sketchy people, dictators, people sort of on the margins of democracy. so it was a very strange choice
for trump to pick manafort, who had really not been involved in presidential politics in the united states for almost three decades, i believe, and so i think it raises questions of judgements and it just is another brick on the load for this white house. you have the mueller investigation. you have the problems with kushner and his background investigation. you have papadopoulos. you have carter page. now you have gates and manafort. that all -- it makes a very difficult job in the white house even harder. >> alice stewart, what message do you think the special prosecutor is sending? >> first and foremost is tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but, you know, keeping in mind that all of this manafort and gates charges up until this point have been, as you've indicated, about nefarious financial activity they did well before this campaign and they're going it pay the price for that. but the key with this now moving forward is that all signs are indicating that mueller and the team are trying to get information about what they know
about activities that happened when they were on the campaign. and whether or not they may cooperate. and flip and provide information. so i think that's where the concern lies with what information they're willing to give up in order to save their hide with their financial dealings. the question remains whether or not president trump will offer any pardons for any of these people and how that will benefit them. but that in and of itself would look damaging for the president if he were to do so. >> chris, i also want to talk to you about this reporting about this deepening divide between the chief of staff john kelly and the president's son-in-law jared kushner over security cleans. right now kushner's operating under a temporary security clearance, but the new rules put in place by kelly, right, could limit his access to that material. how is he going to solve middle east peace if he can't look at classified information? but is this ultimately a battle, though, you think kelly could end up losing? >> well, you know, at the end of the day, i think john kelly is
smart enough to know that jared kushner isn't going anywhere, ivanka trump isn't going anywhere. chiefs of staff have always had to deal with very delicate issues of family.james baker had to deal with nancy reagan, although there was never any issue of security clearance. so i think trump and kelly will find a way to finesse this. i think it's easy for that edict to simply go away or trump to overrule it. i think kelly may be in the doghouse but i don't think he going anywhere any time soon. >> this is a new quinnipiac poll. it says 62% of people say it is inappropriate for jared kushner to play a significant role in the white house. 24% say it's appropriate. there have been questions from the beginning about kushner's experience. is it time for him to step back, dan? >> well, look, i had the same job kushner had. he actually sits in my old office. and it is -- anyone who was -- who had lied on their security
clearance forms as many times as kushner did one have been thrown down the chute a long time ago. even if he were to stay and kelly were to adhere the rules he said he would adhere to. no longer have information to classified information. he cannot do his job. it is impractical to be senior adviser to the president, let alone a senior adviser to the president tasked with two of the most sensitive national security issues, middle east peace and leading an economic dialogue with china. it's simply impossible. think about this, every morning the chief of staff has a senior staff meeting in their office and kushner will have to stand up and leave every time classified information is brought up in that meeting. he will have to leave every oval office meeting. it is simply impractical for him to stay in this job. i suspect he will stay there but he won't be doing anything worthy of a salary from the taxpayers. >> what do you think, alice? >> i think dan knows better than most people on the face of the earth the ability to do this job
without that kind of clearance. >> who do you think is going to win, though? will it be the general or kushner? >> a, the president, and in turn kushner. think it was important for kelly to hand out this directive and have these rules in place. you can't have access to classified information with an interim security clearance. in light of the rob porter situation, he had to impose this directive. and the rules should apply to everyone. it doesn't matter who your father-in-law is. it should apply across the board. but his attorney abbe lowell and sarah sanders said kelly's directive is not going to impact how he does his job. that means reading between the lines the president is going to override whatever he says. after the president publicly called his his national security adviser. questions about where h.r. mcmaster may be headed to next. ♪ it's time for the 'ultimate sleep number event' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides
sources telling cnn that yet another top official may be getting ready to leave the trump white house. back with me now, chris winle, dan pfeifer and alice stewart. i want to talk about national security adviser h.r. mcmaster. there are signs he may be on his way out of the white house. sources tell cnn the pentagon is
considering potential,000 jobs for mcmaster following the latest smack down by president trump. he would have to find a third national security adviser in just over a year. the optics of that, chris? >> well, you know, just the latest example of chaos and dysfunction and an indication, too, that kelly has failed at his very narrow definition of the job, which was to make the trains run on time in the white house. now, my sources tell me that kelly's departure is not imminent and that he probably wouldn't want to go back to the army for a fourth star. but having said that, it's been an awkward relationship. there has been no chemistry between them. trump really chafed against the power point briefings that mcmaster used to try to give him. you know, he had no attention span for that. he finds him condescending. reminds me of gerald ford and
james schlesinger. who used to puff on his pipe and look down at gerry ford. trump hates that. he's on thin ice. >> now you're showing your age going back to schlesinger and ford, my goodness. alice, president trump publicly scolded mcmaster because he said russian interference in the election was incontrovertible. general mcmaster forgot to say the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the russians and that the only collusion was between russia and crooked h., the dnc and the demes. remember the dirty dossier, e-mails and the podesta company. i feel like i'm reading an opening monologue from a show on another network. is that appropriate? >> i think the president just wanted to clarify yet again his view on that. look, you know, mcmaster was talking about russian involvement in the election and didn't add on the fact that they did meddle in the election but it didn't affect the outcome and the president wanted to clarify if it wasn't clear that he
doesn't feel that there is any collusion and russia affected the outcome of the election. following up on that, reporters have asked sarah sanders and she says he's in good standing and the president has confidence in him. as we've seen with this white house, you're safe until you're not safe. as chris said, there has been some, you know, mixed feelings with regard to mcmaster's style and how he goes about delivering the briefing. so, you know, it remains to be seen. i hope if he is moved on to another place, i hope for his sake that it's a position where he can get a fourth star and really be seen as a promotion and we can find someone to take his place. >> i think behind the scenes that may be the -- >> right. >> what they're working out. dan, why are you laughing? >> just the idea that what offends donald trump is that h.r. mcmaster briefs him with information, it's just so -- that's not a galling statement. look, i'd say about this, don,
h.r. mcmaster is one of -- is a serious person in a white house filled with wholly unserious people. so it is alarming that he may be on his way out. he is someone who is not a partisan figure. he's not someone who teleported into the white house directly from a fox news tv set. he's someone with a real career and having done real work and real expertise. if he is on his way out, i certainly hope the next person in this incredibly important job is as least as qualified at h.r. mcmaster was. maybe he can find a way to give trump the information he needs in a less pa can'to pedantic wa. >> used to be that the generals were going to be the grown-ups in the rooms that somehow protected us from the incompetence and recklessness of donald trump. kelly turned out to be the opposite of that. re-enforced all of trump's most
it's league night!? 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. bowl without me. frank.' i'm going to get nachos. snack bar's closed. gah! ah, ah ah. ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides.
a deputy arrives and takes up a position and he never went in. >> florida officials reveal an armed guard on campus did not try to stop the shooting. the people that do carry, we give them a bonus. a little bit of a bonus. >> president trump looking far and wide for solutions to curb gun violence in schools. expect him to play to