tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN March 4, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PST
he's asking for a democrat to force an emergency on him sooner or later brut he cant work his manlic and find a way to get the votes. this moment is going to tell us a lot. i hope we're surprised. i hope the outcome doesn't meet our lowest expectations. we all know it's way past time to show that we cebe better than how we are right now. is this the moment that righteousness will come? we'll see. all right. how about a bonus hour of cuomo prime time. democrats coming after the president in a waw we have not seen before. casting a wide net over trump world. what are they looking for? how far do they plan to go? we have a key law mocker here. what can he tell us? and wasn't today the day the white house was supposed to get back to the oversight committee on security clearances? and missed it? what could they be trying to
hide? and devastating developments out of alabama. death tolls rising, massive tornados tore through homes. i hope you're seeing the pictures and thinking about the needs there. the chairman who launched the trump world investigation says impeachment is a long way off but are they laying the groundwork right now? >> our goal is to told the administration accountable for the obstruction of justice, the abuse of power and the corruption. we have to find out what's been going on and lay out a case. >> look, we have the head of the democratic caucus on earlier. i dont see how they launch a probe like this and saw it's got nothing to do with impeachment. yes yes, they have constitutional oversight but
seems to be an inflation. but we'll soo. they want records involving the president's communication with vladimir putin. are they going to get to talk to the interpreter? aren't any notes. welcome back to "prime time" sir. so deal with my spectism is. where does this go except making a case for impeachment? you'll get information but if it's not going to lead to prosecution, impeachment is the e only path for accountability, isn't it? >> it is if they continue to say they can't indict a sitting president. the new york attorney general can indict a sitting president. he may have problems he hasn't looked at as far as the justice department, prosecution or his ability to pardon himself or whatever. he won't get that in new york
state. the cong wress will look seriouy at all the facts and see if they come to a level like in watergate to where the republicans ended up going to nixon and saying it's over. you need to resign. the republicans control the votes in the senate. and to get this president to be removed by impeachment, republicans at least 18 of them would have to vote for impeachment and right now they are aclites to president trump. you have a few people like rand paul showing courage integrity and susan collins and ms. murkowski and there might be one other. we're going to have to produce facts that force their constituents to do what is the right thing to do for america the rule of law. >> with nixon, you had a felony. you had his connection to the burglary, the cover up with the tapes. so when they went to him and say which way do you want to go down? he saw the writing on the wall.
you're no water near that. so how do you bal thance the interest of oversight without over playing your hand? >> doing what woor arer doing. requesting documents and we have outstanding consultants who have background and knowledge of some of the information we've already. and then have hearings to have the public know what is there. we dont know what we'll get from the mueller report. he expects nor indictments. i think mr. graph might be right about what he's thinking is going to come. we have to wait and see whether it come said from mueller and if mr. bar let us see part if not all of the report. if he can't indict the president and maybe done things that there maladministration, which is what
the founding fathers meant as impeachable ofen impeach offences, they have to see that. it's a catch 22. and that's not going to stand. we're going to have to fight in court if he doesn't release him. he might release him. >> we'll see what the level of disclosure is. but this is going to take a long time. how do you sustain the momentum as weeks turn to months to many months? the people are going to have expeck taugzs. one of the problems with oversight is the farther you go, the more you've got to be able to deliver. >> well, the people want to see information and year going to have information. there's so much the trump administration has done, so much krupgsz. and that's one of the things we want to do besides affordable health care, and education and
jobs and infrastructure is to clean up the corruption out there and the trump administration has complete -- you started with it airplanes and then the interior secretary thinks he comes in on a horse. >> isn't an election the way to earesolve this? >> people will want to know what he's done and hidden from the public, his taxes, understating his assets and the different was he's used the system to make his businesses sucksisful. just like this past week advertising his golf course and sawing that's good for our relationships with the united kingdom. golf course doesn't imp prove relations unless he only cares about the profits he makes from it. >> now let me ask you why you want taget the interpreter and
what you're looking for between the president and putin. why do you want it? >> well, there's a reason why he didn't want the public to know what he said, a reason he destroyed the notes. and everybody suspects there's a relationship unholy between trump and putin. and they talked about sanctions being lifted, if they talked about -- they could have talked about old times and said we talked about this earlier and you said you were going to have the sanctions lifted. they might have gone into history and they might have gone into sanction, article 5, maybe saying we wouldn't support if you went further in ukrain. we don't know what they said. but whatever he tds, he didn't want people to know it. and then he said he believed putin. eve
everybody knows -- he knows it, but he's the only person that doesn't admit it. >> because with the president it's about personal advantage and it's bad for him because it somehow delegitimized his win. but let's put his psychology to the side. the rule for oversight will be the only know what you can show. questions are serious but so will the proof have to be. thank you very much. this conversation is open ended. whenever you believe there's something people need know about, we're a call away. >> thank you, crus rhris, and it going to bring you a sick pack. >> beer from louisiana from a guy from pennsylvania. tonight is a deadline for those answers to why the president did what he did with security clearances for his son in law
these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a oo. all right. we see what the democrats are doing. they're flexing their oversight muscles. 80 people got letters requesting documents from the judiciary committee. his businesses, and the list goes on. where does it lead? let's bring in former house intel chair, mike rogers. always appreciate it. certainly a mentor and will be tonight. am i off by saying we own olee know what you show. they're booting me back but is it a fair point? >> i think ruts arvery fair point. it looks like they're throwing
up on the table. hoorbz rr the problem with the waw they're approaching this thing. 80 different folks subpoenaed, it feeds into the trump narrative that they're after anything they can find and the comments have been we haven't find anything we can't wait for a speedy trial and a really good hanging and all of that feeds into this weird narrative of are are they really after him? and that confusion only benefits the president. they have some areas of which oversight is exactly appropriate. let's focus on it verses the scatter shot hoping something sticks. i think it's a mistake of strategy andgying to allow the president to say i got all the lawyers and it's so hard and confusing. i'll get back to you in a couple of years. >> do you see abuse of power as a legit avenue or something else
as where legitimate oversight meets? >> they're going to have to do a better job for me. as the united states government, republicans, democrats, whatever marty you are is going to after something for any individual for any reason. either you're running for auflsz or under fbi investigation. they have the responsibility to do it right. it can't be a political motive involved, which is hard to do in a congressional investigation. but you're going to ruin people's reputation. all of the 80 people that got subpoenas, maybe all of them did nothing wrong. i think they have to be more judicious. saying you've profited on "x" and "y". making that charge from an official from the u.s. government carries weight and standing. shut up, do your investigation and show us what you found and
if you didn't, then don't drag these people through 24 mud. that part i don't like a lot and i think there's plenty of targets for them. but the way thier lar doing it, think about if it was you or someone you know's family. it can't be politics as usual and we've grown to accept all of this. i'm not condemning any party. and that's what's were withying me about where politics has gone unamerica. we can't uses the force of gumptm bears or degrade or give folk as black eye. >> that's what we're seeing on so men ea levels. the democrats are largely going to be looking into the past. but we've got stuff going on right now. i want to remind people what the president's daughter said about an important issue. if the reporting is right, what she's about to tell you is really problematic. >> there were anonymous leaks
about there being issues. but the president had no involvement pertaining to my clearance or my husband's clearance. >> what were the problems early on? >> there weren't any other than a back log of close to a million clearances across government. >> now ivanka might not know what the president is doing if he did what the eare porting suggests, which is he took the decision away from the intel guys and said i'm going to do this. the narrative was she was pesterring him to do this. we know the last thing was false, that the only problem was a back log. no. the problem was kushner had to keep amending his statement and that triggered a lot of different red flags than you'dby more familiar with than i as someone who can did as much intelligence work as you did. if the president took the
decision and his daughter is putting out this statement >> i think it's very plausible that she walked unnot understanding this office. they went from dead stop, not volved in politics to sitting in the white house with complicated on a good day for people who study it. so i'm willing to give that purse an pass. what kblb concerned about is if you short circuited the process for these clearances, that's a problem. because we used to be on folks all across the government saying you have to follow the rules. and you are getting a clearance from the united states gumpt protect u.s. government secrets. and that's what i don't like about that if in fact that's true. listen, if they're going to do the oversight and i believe that she says it, i believe it, then this is an easily provable event. i wouldn't try to drag my feet
on this if i were them. and that end oof the day, the president can grant a security clearance if he wants. >> 100%. rufrtsz just why lie about it? why lie about it? >> that's the other issue. >> that's always the issue. it's about how much it matters in a given situation. thank you so much. hey, thanks. the president said he wouldn't get involved in something else also. he said he wouldn't get involved in one of the biggest media mergers in history and he did why you think he did it. did he cross a line? let's take it up in cuomo's court next. wll
that rocking chair would look grahh, new house, eh?e. well, you should definitely see how geico could help you save on homeowners insurance. nice tip. i'll give you two bucks for the chair. two?! that's a victorian antique! all right, how much for the recliner, then? wait wait... how did that get out here? that is definitely not for sale! is this a yard sale? if it's in the yard then it's... for sale. oh, here we go. geico. it's easy to switch and save on homeowners and renters insurance. ♪ ♪
want more from your entejust say teach me more. into your xfinice remote to discover all sorts of tips and tricks in x1. can i find my wifi password? just ask. [ ding ] show me my wifi password. hey now! [ ding ] you can even troubleshoot, learn new voice commands and much more. clean my daughter's room. [ ding ] oh, it won't do that. welp, someone should. just say "teach me more" into your voice remote and see how you can have an even better x1 experience. simple. easy. awesome.
a. president trump has a favorite news network and spoiler alert, it ain't us. the president personally asked one of his top aids to have the doj stop buying time from time warner, which is what we used to call our parent company. joining me two heavyweights. grirts to have you both. laura coates make the case that what you learned today in "the new yorker" that president did this for bad reasons. >> you have the idea starting with why would a vertical mother-in-lawer, where you have a content distributor actbively buying a content producer. normally you get that if you have two competitors in a horizontal merger.
and one person has set prices and leverage and hurt consumers. from the get go if was always an odd thing to pursue. ed a that to the contemporaneously the objections of the time warner, you have 21st century fox and disney merging by rubert murdock who continues to be a confident and close ally of the president. one would think similar mergers, acquisitions would have the same support. but not so when it comes to the president's personal prenchs. this has been reiterated by the appellate court, lower court. it was motivated politically, which is not how it should ever be done. >> well, the president did very openly talk about this merger in the campaign. so i can't say his opposition to it was new post election.
though i do agree that the antitrust case filed with a vertical integrated merger was novel. and the reason it had significance beyond just the one case is a potential for it to effect particularly pet companies like google and facebook depending on how they would proceed going forward in the future. because they present some pekullaters. but they reyesjected the department of justice's position -- >> and pointed out that there was suspicious to the motivation. the reporting with garby koen saying that president was saying i want this stopped. i want this stopped. reporting also suggestists koen told then chief of staff we're not going to do it. do you think the president should be saying this type of thing? >> well, you talking about koen
or the presidents? >> should the president -- >> should he be saying stop this merger? i don't think the issue is whether the president takes a position on the merger. i think it's the why that is of more relevance and that may be harder to pick apart. but again i think he made clear in the campaign that he was going to take this position. do i think that was good idea? well, no. i look at antitrust as a very hands-off approach and i think he was being aggressive and inappropriately. >> it's all about the why. every time he said it, when you look at it contextualy, he was tikd off at cnn. >> he didn't just mention in the campaign. he also issued a press release from the campaign saying president trump would never allow this particular merger to go forward. and the answer is quite simple.
should the president ever weigh in on an antitrust when he's not motivated by consumers but instead by a vengeance and ax to grind? absolultly not. if he's supposed to be a conservative or republican, which by the way are normally those who would look at this as a lay za fair and say threat markets and the economy do as it sees fit. allow it take place. when you insert your snfl to this, not in the interest of the american consumer or international consumer, but because you don't like the conitant that is being provided through the distributors and content producers. that is continuing the dilemma of the president of the united states looking at the enemy of the peep 8, the press and those who distribute the actual news itself. >> should your party stand up and say mr. president, don't abuse these powers in this way.
just because you can, doesn't mean you should. it's too obvious, too flagrant. stop. >> i think it's always been true anytime a president gets outside of the boundaries of their power, it shouldn't really matter but of course it matters what party you're un. and you're seeing some of the pushback on the immigration emergency vote. my own words for it. though that's going to prevail because the president will be able to veto it. so ethere isn't universal agreement with the president on every issue. but will say this. on different issues, you see different republicans providing the pushback and that's appropriate. they believe different things and at different times they either agree or they don't. but i think it's a clear sign there are still plenty of republicans willing to express their own position regardless of what the president has to say.
>> i see different groups be with the president and others quiet. and the quiet is my concern. compelling. thank you very much to you both. going to be a long froed tornado survivors. i've been in the east, covered the east. there is nothing like them when it comes to how they can change someone's life. survivor who joins us with her incredible story on her how her fammy escaped with their lives and now what? next.
tonight people all across lee county alabama are coping with terrible loss. 23 people have lost their lives because of sunday's it deadly twist. three kids. we still don't know. the county is holding out hope for survivors amid the debris. but i'm telling you there's so much ground to cover, it's so difficult, it's going to take time. among thoz who narrowly escaped is 72-year-old earnesteen.
she was found in the middle of a debris field that was once her home. here she is facetiming with her grandson. >> thank you, lord. you hear me, boy? you hear me? tell god thank you. >> thanking god that she at least is alive. imagine what you would do if you were in her shoes. earn esteen reese's daughter. thank you for getting the message about what your family went through. how is earnesteen? >> as you can see in the video, she's been strong throughout it all. even in the middle of the dev station, she's maintained her faith and currently in the hospital. but she's stable. at this point that's all we can
ask for considering the loss. >> thank gautd for that. please send our regards. so you live next door to mom? >> yes. >> twister's coming. you understand this reality. you're in a mobile home. what were you expecting and what did you experience? >> i wasn't in the mobile home at the time. due to my mother pfrs illness i was at her home. my husband was at our mobile home. we got the alert. he was already inroute walking to my mom's brick house. and he got inside and i told my son and my husband to get in the bathroom. i went to go help my mom whose limited mobility to transition her to her rolling walker chair. the roll about. and i used that to get her to the bathroom at that moment. and i went back to her room to
get the oxygen tank. it said 75 mile-per-hour winds. we can make it. we've been through strong winds, hurricanes. and i knew a minute later the power went out. i shut off her oxygen machine and grabbed the oxygen portable and went to the bathroom. as soon as i closed the bathroom door and connected the oxygen i could hear the roaring and at that moment is when you heard the house being torn apart. seconds after that everything started pressing in on us because we were in the bathroom. we were together. we all got pushed down flat. we were like dominos on top of each other. my son was on top of me and said mom i don't want to die, i don't want to die. i said son, pray your way through. and i was looking at my husband and i was like mom, are you okay? >> she said i'm just praying.
call on jesus. just pray your way through and i kept saying the same thing. son, hold on. and at this point the wind is still moving. you can see it debris going all around us. it's just unreal. it's not anything i would have imagined for me, my family in a million years. not for our area, not for our community. it'sdeavor stating. and that was the first tornado. >> that was the first one. >> and that's one of the things is are the structures ready? is the infrastructure ready? there's nothing that moves with the swisness and lethality of a tornado. i've seen what it can do. you have your lives, each other. thank god you're lucky for that. i know this community is skram 3w8ing. is there water right now? i know you're staying with family. tell me.
>> we haven't been able to assess our damage. but we really haven't been able to get to our area to know personally what all the needs are. there's several community members that are pulling together and locks that have been set up don't know them all right now to really say but i know etle are outlets that there being created right now. prayers, the community will need a lot of help to grow and regrow. we've lost family members, i've lost family members, close friends. oall of my neighbors around me, it's a lot. i'm just hopeful we can get past this because we were all a tight knit community. our area is a real loving community. and i'm just counting on that faith that will keep us strong and we'll make it through.
>> i'm so sorry for your loss. i i'm sorry to have to meet you this way. but part of the power of prayer is that people will feel the need. and they'll feel the connection because they are before the grace. so many in this country could be in your situation and hopefully there will be help to get you back on your feet as soon as possible. you have our number to stay in touch. please let me be able to update and show people you and your loved ones are in a better place and send our regards to ernesteen and againium rar sorry for the loss. >> i will. yes. thank you very much. >> i'm telling you the community, the need is going to be great. and we say it all the time remember our connections to one another. i will keep you in the loop. i promise you that. comments by freshman democrat have their own party once again contemplating a public rebuke.
talk is cheap. it do to yours what you wanted tuse do to steve king and what they did do. year going to take it up in a great debate next. when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com.
otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.
they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!
committee assignments just like steve king. let's debate it. peter and aim ea are here. thanks to both of you. peter, you asked for the right to take care of the bigoted comments from steve king. they removed him from committee. should the democrats do the same? >> no, i don't think there's any equivalence at all. i think she made mistake by talking about groups as pushing allegiance to a foreign country. i know friends of mine in apac who have their own reason for pursuing the policies they pursue. she's fundamentally a believer in human rights and equality. if you look at the larger statement, her fundamental point was just as we care about the right and suffering of jews, we should care about the rights of suffering of palestinians. and that's the kind of debate
she's trying to create. why is it considered okay in washington to support israeli policy it deny them basic human rights. steve king is becausically a guy whose entire career has suggested that not as good as white christians. >> i invited the congresswoman on and i invited him too. but since then he hasn't accepted -- where is the mistake? >> her mistake -- she has every right to criticize apac. they're a organization that essentially sunorts israeli government policy no matter what they are and i think those policies are fundamentally to human rights for palestinians. the mistake she made was rather than simply criticizing the
policies to speculate about the motivation for the policy. >> amy, what's your take? >> i agree with you. she has said these things time and time again. and i think nancy pelosi has a problem on her hands. the democratic leadership and i do want her stripped of her committee assignment. she has a seat on the foreign affairs committee. but that's going to be left up to the democratic leadership. the problem i see is -- i mean i believe this is who she is. she hates israel. and no matter how many times she's forced to apologize, you remove her from the committee, you've said to her on the floor of the house, you're not going to change what's in her heart and therein lies the problem. and i think that's going to have to be dealt with when the election comes up in 2020. is this something the people want representing them uncongress?
do they want somebody who hates israel in congress? >> same fix that you were in with steve king. i think the same analysis applies to him equally so. but it took your party a long time to get around to it. so now i want to segway into acts of political bravery. this national emergency vote matters. >> it does. >> you guys would crush president trump if he were a democrat. you'd say it was a flagrant violation of separation of powers. the law wasn't minute to be used this way and he does not have the power of the purse and he cannot create that right. you're not doing that here. you don't have anywhere near what you'd need to stop. why? >> this is what i'll say to that is president obama did use these emergency powers a number of times and not one of them stood up and tried to stop it. and not only that the emergency power has to be reviewed every
six months and not once has any of these four republicans ever stood up and said anything about the review of them nor have they at any time talked about if the law is a bad law that grants a president the authority to do this, then deal with the law itself >> it's that law wasn't intended for this and the president knows it. that's why he said this is not an emergency. >> well with, chris, i believe you can call it an act of bravery or whatever you want to call it but at the end of the day the president was elected to secure the border. there's a national crisis going on. just the mount of heroin and fentanyl that there coming across the border, not to mention the human trafficking and other things that are going on across the border. so oejust the drugs alone are a problem and i think ruts arnational crisis. that's why this president was elected. if you look at congress's approval numbers, they're in the
tank. we've relied on congress too long to do something about it. so this president was elected and he's following through on that promise. >> i could take literally word for word. we've relied on congress to solve the problem to apply to any of the issues democrats really kaur about, some i would argue much more genuinely deserve the term emergency. klumt change for instance or gun control, right? when you start saying because congress hasn't dealt with it in the way the president wants to we're going to allow the president to start spending money even when congress hasn't appropriated it. i remember a time when republicans liked to call themselves constitutionalests in washington. thank goodness there's a few of them that believe that. but you don't. >> i want to make one thing clear. i did not president obama doing things through executive order and i preferred president trump not do it through executive
order. i thunk it's unfortunate that we're in a situation that they don't come together and deal with the situation because everything is political. and this is about our national security. i want to make it clear i don't agree with doing things through executive order >> if you don't deep a line in place, it will always be crossed. and that's what we're seeing. peter beinart, amy kramer, appreciate the debate. >> thank you. >> remember when everybody was asking whether trump ally roger stone could remain quiet after the judge slapped a gag order on him? well, we got the answer. ready for it? next. naysayer said no one would subscribe to a car the way they subscribe to movies. we don't follow the naysayers. ♪ ♪
maybe you could relieve some stress by calling geico for help with our homeowners insurance. geico helps with homeowners insurance? they sure do. and they could save us a bundle of money too. i'm calling geico right now. cell phone? it's ringing. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and condo insurance. get to know geico and see how much you could conventional wisdom says you can't make a 400 horsepower sedan, that's also environmentally conscious.
associate suggested he'd been framed by the special counsel in a social media post. what does this mean? renato mariotti is here. renato, you take the he crossed the line position. i will defend. >> okay. well, let me tell you something. the judge indicated that he shouldn't comment at all. in addition to that instagram post he's also published a book that talks at length about the case. he's continued distributing the book afterwards. his lawyers have asked -- they made a motion to clarify to the judge. and i'll tell you, chris, when you make a motion for the judge to clarify a ruling, that's a very bad sign. and it's also a bad sign that they told the judge that it hadn't occurred to them to report this to her earlier. >> that's the defense. that's the defense. we didn't know that this counted. we thought you wanted us to stop talking about you and stop
talking about the specifics of the case. but the book is really only tangentially involved in the case and it's actually about other dynamics and even what we put, that this framing we believe is much bigger than just this one case. the media's doing it. the left is doing it. >> yeah, i've got to give you a lot of credit, chris, because you're able to say that with a straight face. and that is more than i could do in that circumstance. i would ask for the court's mercy in a circumstance like this. >> they already did that once. you can't do that because i already do d. that once. i already went to her once and said i'm sorry, i'm sorry, i'm sorry. >> you know, it's -- i think that's the situation that they're in. this is really twice, chris. the first time she gave -- she curbed in some circumstances roger stone's ability to speak. then he puts crosshairs on a picture of the judge. bad idea. >> yes. >> they have a long hearing.
she gives hmm a full gag order. now we're back with a book and an instagram post? it's easy to argue you overlook one thing. not two. i think he's in a very bad spot here. and the funny thing is he would have been okay if he left one of these things off. >> understood. but here's the last line of my defense. you hurt yourself more than you hurt me if you act on this ruling. if throw me in jail, you make me a martyr. what i'm saying is over the line. but the line is arbitrary. let's just get the case done. this is what i do. i'm a dirty trickster. that's how i describe myself. that's what i do. that's what stone calls himself. you throw me in jail, you make me a martyr. this isn't that big a deal. don't make it a bigger deal. you want to call my lawyer and say something about it, i think on something like this that wouldn't really count as ex parte with the prosecutor, but if you want the prosecutor to and all say you do this again
you're done, we're going to go to the judge, fine. but you lose by winning by enforcing this rule. >> yeah, i think judge jackson would say she doesn't care about winning or losing. she's here to maintain a judicial system that is fair and impartial and she's not going to let -- >> oh, come on. if it was renato mariotti's face with those crosshairs on it she wouldn't have acted the same way that she did when it was her face in the crosshairs. it's personal. and i understand that it's personal. but if you put me in jail it's personal too. and it's going to be on you, judge, not just on me. >> the federal judiciary tends to take a lot of umbrage over threats to the federal judiciary. i suspect the d.c. circuit court of appeals would also find her ruling to be justified in those circumstances. >> throw me in jail? does he go to jail? does my client go to jail? >> you know what? if stone doesn't go to jail this time, he's going to screw this up and he's going to be right back in the same situation a
week from now. at this rate. i think it's just a matter of time before roger stone ends up in custody. the question is whether she does it today -- or excuse me, tomorrow. or whether she does it, you know, a few weeks from now. >> got to respect the court. but you've got to respect the outcome of these kinds of decisions too. this is all -- there's a lot of politics. i'm not saying on the part of the judge. but i'm saying everything that happens has political implications. she's got to see about that as well. point is to make things better, not worse. renato mariotti, well argued. you had the better side of the case. but that's all right. so thank you for watching us. i appreciate it. "cnn tonight" with erin burnett, she's sitting in for d-lemon, and begins right now. what an upgrade. >> you know, occasionally. right? >> holy cow. >> all right. thanks, chris. we'll be here all week. and this is "cnn tonight." i'm erin burnett, in for the one and only don lemon, who is off today. the house judiciary committee launching a broad investigation into president trump.
taking a look at his administration, his campaign, his transition, his businesses, pretty much everything there is about the guy. the committee sending out letters to 81 people and entities. so that includes the white house, justice department, senior campaign officials, trump organization officials, the president's sons. tonight i asked the chairman of the committee what all this is about, what does he want to learn. >> our goal is to hold the administration accountable for the obstruction of justice, the abuse of power, and the corruption. our goal is to vindicate the rule of law, to protect the rule of law in this country. and that's our core function as a judiciary committee of the congress. and we have to find out what's been going on and we have to lay out a case to the american people and reveal it. >> lay out a case and reveal it. today at the white house while meeting with college football players the president brushed it all off. >> mr. president, are you going to cooperate with mr. nadler? >> i cooperate all the time with ev