that special cnn heroes that will air later on this month. that's it for us tonight. we thank you so much for watching our coverage, our special coverage continues now. jim sciutto and pamela brown, they will be live for you in washington. i'm don lemon. make sure you have a great weekend. this is "cnn breaking news." >> this is a cnn special report, the russia investigation. we are following breaking news this evening on the most consequential move yet by the special counsel, reaching for the first time into president trump's inner circle. i'm pamela brown. >> i'm jim sciutto. tonight fired national security adviser michael flynn is cooperating with investigators after striking a deal and pleading guilty to repeatedly lying to the fbi about his contacts with russia. we are putting the pieces together this hour with our correspondents and analysts who have been leading the way on this story. michael flynn is the first senior white house official to be charged, to be flipped

apparently, and now poised to be a star witness in the russia probe. among the big questions tonight, what is flynn telling robert mueller's team and how damaging could all of this be for the president and those closest to him, including his son-in-law jared kushner? sources tell cnn that kushner directed flynn to reach out to the russian ambassador last september in one of several conversations that flynn lied about. court document also show that prosecutors are making a case that flynn and other trump advisers coordinated contacts with russian officials, contacts aimed at influencing international policy before the president took office. tonight a senior white house official tells cnn a presidential pardon for flynn is absolutely not under consideration. a source close to the administration is warning that the president and his aides are in denial about the severity of the russia probe and that the flynn deal should be a red alert for them. we're joined with our panel

of reporters here who have been covering this story very closely from the beginning. pam, you've been covering this story from the beginning as well. really a momentous day in this investigation and for this administration as well. >> that's right, because michael flynn is the first official that was in the white house to be charged in the investigation, and so what happened today really brings the focus on the others in the white house, too, how this might impact them. gloria borger, the big question, how does this deal threaten president trump? >> we don't know the answer to that yet, but what i can say is, first of all, we know that flynn has flipped. so this takes mueller into the oval office, into somebody who was in the west wing, and he has cooperation from somebody in the west wing. the white house has always said that it was misled by flynn about his russian contacts. so now we have to ask the question, is that true? were they misled? of course it gives us a whole new view of the time the president went up to comey, pulled him aside, told other people to leave the room and

said, "you know, why don't you let this thing go." now you have to ask the question, why did the president do that? was it just because he thought flynn was a good guy and had been an early supporter, or was there something else there? >> you look at the statement of offense here. it is very detailed about these conversations. >> right. >> the white house position has been from the very beginning, the president didn't know about this, flynn was freelancing, et cetera. in fact, you look at the statement of offense and it describes flynn not only keeping the trump transition informed but senior persons in the trump transition directing him what to do with these conversations. >> right. and we know from our own reporting back in december when some of the stuff was happening, jim, we know that senior people inside the administration, inside the transition were managing not only this issue with the u.n. security council and the israeli settlements

which was a big deal for the transition, but the contact with sergey kislyak, the russian ambassador. people ask is it possible the president did not know this, which is what he said? we know he took the initiative to make phone calls on the israeli settlement situation. that doesn't tell us this is a president that's sort of out of touch with what was happening with his transition, with what was happening with his incoming national security adviser. from everything we know the president was very much involved in all of this, and we know from his public statements that he doesn't think it was a big deal. so, you know, i don't think that we can say that he was completely unaware. >> yeah, you bring up his public statements. of course it brings to mind twitter and some of the tweets in the same time frame. for example, when flynn spoke with kislyak, the day after that he tweeted, great move on delay by v. putin, of course vladimir putin. i always knew he was very smart. in march the president tweeted, mike flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch-hunt, excuse for big loss by media and dems of historic

proportion. what does it tell you about president trump and what he may have known? >> it raises the question of what he did know. one of the things i want to know is did the president continue to have communication for michael flynn, for how long, and how recently has he spoken to the former national security adviser? we know the president for one kept in contact with a lot of these deposed -- these officials who are no longer part of the administration, part of the campaign. he continued to talk to paul manafort afterwards, to talk to corey lewandowski. did he talk to michael flynn afterwards? that tweet about praising vladimir putin after putin did not retaliate of sorts after the sanctions were imposed has to beg the question, someone must have told him about these conversations right beforehand, otherwise, you know, it really defies logic. >> this is a very small transition.

>> and it was a small group of people meeting in mar-a-lago at that time. >> lying is not a crime. you can lie to the press and it is not a crime. >> part of the administration's defense, you know, during -- both during the campaign and during the transition was, listen, we were a small team, we didn't -- you know, we weren't washington insiders, we didn't know how all of this kind of stuff worked. >> but we were all the best. >> i don't know if mueller could use that as -- >> no, gloria, it goes to the point if they were so small as we know they were, how is it possible that the president, who is very involved and very much a micromanager would not know? >> right, i don't think you could say it is a disengaged president, which is what -- during iran contra what the reagan administration said about ronald reagan, disengaged. this is a president who is very engaged, and i think the question here is why. why so much emphasis on russia and why so much lying about this? why if you have nothing to hide, if the president has said, well, there's nothing wrong with it,

then fine. then why, you know, why not tell the truth? >> let me just -- why in terms of just for context, what is the implication? why does it matter if the president did know about all of this, evan? >> one of the things that the president has been very out there about is sort of saying that this is a witch-hunt. so the question that i think we know that as part of this investigation mueller has been looking at is the question of obstruction and whether or not there was an attempt by the president, by anybody around him to sort of obstruct the fbi's investigation into trying to get to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election, whether or not there was any coordination, illegal coordination between the russians and the campaign. so, look, i think that's a big open question here, and that is why it is important to know what the president knew and when did he know it. >> we do know that is a focus of robert mueller's investigation, do we not? >> yes, we know there's a group inside the special counsel's office that is dedicated to answering that question, of

whether or not -- what has happened. some of it in plain sight, right? i mean the firing of james comey, some of the public statements, whether any of that constitutes obstruction of justice. >> and how does what happened today perhaps fit into that? i mean does it? >> look, i think -- i think you can make the case that some of what is said here today tells you that at least some of the statements we've seen are not true. for instance, the fact that the president and the white house has been out there sort of portraying mike flynn as being on his own, as being some kind of free agent, that's not true according to these statements because according to the version of events that have been presented in court and accepted by a judge now, robert mueller is saying that flynn was reporting back and getting direction from people, a small circle of people. >> it is key, panel, and i was going to ask you about this, manu, is the timeline is very relevant here. flynn is interviewed on jan 24, 2016 by the fbi. sally yates two days later, then

acting attorney general, raises a red flag because he was apparent he had lied in that interview. and then, manu, it is a couple of weeks later when the president has a famous sit-down with james comey and says, "hey, layoff my pal michael flynn." >> yeah, and keeping him on staff, flynn, for a couple of weeks afterwards. >> exactly. >> despite having that warning, very blatant warning from sally yates. >> and only fired him because it became public in "the washington post." >> exactly. i think it is also because of what he told the vice president. i think the vice president is someone that mueller undoubtedly will be looking at, people on capitol hill will be looking at. he was head of the transition. he perhaps may have had some sense of these discussions that were going on. even if he was not named in that court document today, it does not mean he may not have been aware of some of the things that were happening here. that's one of the key questions that i think mueller is going to have to explore. >> you know, what this document today does is it sort of lets

you know where the tentacles go. it is the connective tissue. it says, okay, flynn whom is our guy now, flynn says he was not a rogue operator. >> right. >> and he did this either with the knowledge of or at the direction of people who were going into this administration, and that sort of opens a window on to what mueller might know. but there's so much more that he knows that we don't know. >> there's a lot of signaling, is there not -- >> yes. >> -- when you look at the statement of offense as to what issues mueller is pressing on here. >> but it is not just related to flynn, it is related to others. as you pointed out, we learned kushner was one of the people who was directing flynn to call kislyak, the russian ambassador. we reported earlier this week that kushner met with special counsel earlier in the month. looking back on it, it was portrayed as a way to button up the case against flynn. but knowing what we now know, gloria, do you think they could have been laying a trap for the president's son-in-law? a sense? >> they could have. i think jared kushner is well-represented, but i think that -- i talked to one attorney

today who is familiar with the way these things work and said, "look, they could have been playing them a little bit and laying a little bit of a trap." >> we just have to look at the statements that have been issued by people, you know, close to the white house who are trying to say that, look, kushner did not direct, and, look, that's the version of events that kushner gave when he met with the special counsel in early november, then that is a problem because that is not exactly -- that is not the version that robert mueller says he believes happened. >> contradicts it, yeah. contradicts it. >> presumably he has intercepts too that prove exactly what was said. >> he has evidence, he has e-mails, he has reams of documents. so he has a lot more information, and he had this at the time that he brought kushner in for the interview. >> clearly they wanted to interview kushner before this happened today. >> right.

>> you know, they already had the case essentially. >> they already had it. >> they had spoken to flynn, other witnesses. >> you have two trump advisers caught in lies, lies to fbi investigators, pleading out, george papadopolous, but you now have a second one. mueller looking at the possibility that others might give inaccurate accounts to the fbi as well. >> it raises question, and one is the flynn guilty plea a first step in building an obstruction of justice plea against the president. we're going to talk to someone in the house after a quick break. [vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette.

and her new business: i do, to go. jeanette was excellent at marrying people. but had trouble getting paid. not a good time, jeanette. even worse. now i'm uncomfortable. but here's the good news, jeanette got quickbooks. send that invoice, jeanette. looks like they viewed it. and, ta-da! paid twice as fast. oh, she's an efficient officiant. way to grow, jeanette. new. get paid twice as fast for free. visit quickbooks-dot-com.

and we are back with our special report on the michael flynn plea deal and what's next in the russia investigation. >> president trump potentially at greater risk tonight now that flynn is cooperating with the special counsel. >> we're joined by a democrat on the house judiciary committee, congress david cicilline. thank you for coming on. the first big question in the wake of the new also of this plea deal, how significant is it that michael flynn is now cooperating with the special counsel? >> i think it is incredibly significant. this is the former national security adviser to the united

states of america who has admitted lying to the fbi in connection with this russian investigation and agreed to cooperate fully as a condition of his plea agreement and to share everything that he knows. this is a very significant event. this has now brought this investigation into the white house, into the president's inner circle. this is very, very significant. you know, you have to ask the question, you know, why all of this lying about russia and russian contacts. that's the larger question. but i think this is a very, very important development. it's very sad in many ways that the national security adviser to the president of the united states lied to the fbi during the course of this very important investigation. but i think we're going to hear a lot more and i think this is a very important move because it now is really in the inner circle of the trump administration, a member of the administration, an important member. so we'll see what happens from

here. >> congressman, did what we learned today show to you that the president has been lying about what he knew about these conversations? >> well, i mean it is hard to believe that this very small group that was part of the transition -- and particularly michael flynn who was so close to the president from the very early days of the campaign, that he admitted in this plea agreement that he was reporting back to a high-level person in the transition. it is hard to believe that that information was not shared with the president of the united states, but we'll see. but the reality is you have to ask why is it that these conversations are happening between the new administration and russia, what's the urgency of trying to curry favor with the russians? remember, this is in the context of a platform -- the only thing in the republican platform that was changed was a more favorable plank toward russia.

the conclusion of all of our intelligence community that the russians in an effort directed by vladimir putin engaged in interference in our campaign with the express purpose of helping donald trump and hurting hillary clinton, and any number of trump officials who have lied about or forgotten to tell or reveal their dealings with the russians. so, you know, you have to remember the context of all of this, and you ask the question why. what are they hiding? what is this relationship with russia? when did it begin? what did the president know about it? what did he have to do with it? of course, most importantly, was there some relationship between the trump organization and the russians during the course of the campaign? >> one of the things we learned today was that there were members of the trump transition team that were aware of michael flynn's call with ambassador kislyak and the fact that sanctions were discussed. but listen to how vice president pence responded to the first reports that flynn spoke to

kislyak about sanctions. >> it was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. they did not discuss anything having to do with the united states' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against russia. >> so pence was the head of the trump transition team. do you believe he was really left in the dark about these phone calls? >> well, it is really hard to believe that. i mean he's the head of the transition. michael flynn is relaying this information to a very small group. a senior administration official that i think now has been identified as jared kushner, it is hard to imagine that the head of the transition team would not know about that. but, again, i think what we're going to learn during the course of this investigation is that michael flynn has a lot more to tell.

i think he acknowledges that in his plea agreement. i think we have the responsibility now to make sure that robert mueller can continue his work, that he has the resources he needs to continue this work, and that he's free from any political interference. of course, we've seen the president attempt to try to influence this investigation by asking director comey to sort of let it go as it relates to michael flynn. we've heard about phone calls that he made to senators to try tone courage them to put an end to this russian investigation. you have to ask what is he worried about, what is he afraid we're going to uncover, but we need to protect the integrity of this investigation and let robert mueller and his professionals do their work on behalf of the american people. >> congressman, i want to ask you because in may of this year, some search months ago, you said and i'm quoting you now, "if, in fact, the president attempted to impede or prevent an investigation and obstructed justice, that is a basis for removal of office, from office." did you learn anything today that rises in your view to that level, to the level of impeachment? >> well i think, again, it is a little early.

i think we saw some evidence of an effort to impede the investigation. directory comey testified that the president said, you know, can you let this go. mike flynn is a good guy, words to that effect, which he understood to be a directive to end the investigation. he didn't do it thankfully and he continued to investigate, but we've seen some evidence of the president trying to diminish the importance of this investigation, make little of it, reach out to senators asking them to end it and, of course, the conversations he's had with comey to try to put an end to this investigation. i think we've got to all be certain that the president understands he cannot interfere with this investigation, the special counsel has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this and find the facts, and the president ought to be restrained by his administration officials to do nothing to interfere with this important responsibility of robert mueller. i think what we're going to learn is that michael flynn has a lot to tell. he was part of the inner circle of this administration in the early days. he's required under this plea agreement to share everything and do it truthfully or he will lose the value of the plea

agreement. so i think the special counsel has a lot of leverage to make sure that michael flynn is truthful and accurate and shares everything he knows. >> all right, congressman cicilline, thank you for coming on and sharing your perspective. coming up next on our special report tonight, the thorny legal issues facing president trump and his team now that michael flynn is cooperating with robert mueller's prosecutors. we know life can be hectic.

that's why at xfinity we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now with instant text and email updates you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for. because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today. welcome back. we are following the aftershocks of today's momentous developments in special counsel robert mueller's russia probe. >> michael flynn, president trump's former national security adviser, now is cooperating with prosecutors after accepting a deal and pleading guilty to lying to the fbi. our reporters and legal experts

join us now to discuss. >> michael zeldin, not only are you a lawyer but you worked for robert mueller before. there appears to be denial in the white house. that might be an understatement. the president's lawyer ty cobb calling michael flynn a former obama official. he was the president's security adviser, a vocal supporter of then-candidate trump during the campaign, does it seem like the white house legal has a handle on how severe it is. >> i think ty cobb understands fully the significance of this. that was a true but misleading statement. he was an obama official but he's not under indictment because of his role in the obama administration. it is in this administration he's under legal jeopardy and ty cobb well knows that. think what the white house is trying to say is this is not collusion. it doesn't go backwards to the campaign. it goes only forward from the

transition, therefore we're home free. we will see whether mueller's evidence supports that view or not. >> of course, a big question is what information is he providing now that we've learned with the plea agreement he is cooperating. in a deal like this it begs the question, is flynn expected to provide evidence that could incriminate people up the ladder? >> right. so i think one of the most notable things about this particular plea deal is considering sort of the range of exposure that flynn might have on any number of possible criminal issues, and this is a pretty good deal, right. he is not facing significant jail time, it is not a significant financial penalty. that's an indication that he has a lot to share with mueller and that he's helping mueller net a bigger fish. now, the realm of people who qualify as bigger fish than the national security adviser on an issue of sort of public corruption, public legitimacy is a pretty small pool. i think all signs point to substantial cooperation and substantial cooperation to get someone up the chain. >> right, because it is one count of lying where it could have been many more.

>> one count that covered four lies. actually in the statement of offense, he also details three other lies that he didn't at least now charge for. i want to do some of the math here if i can with you, michael, with your legal background because robert mueller left a lot of potential years on the table, sentencing years on the table. i want to put up on the screen. we did a little rough math before the program here. if he chose to prosecute each of the false statements individually, that's five years apiece. that gets you to 35 years. failure to register as a foreign agent, that's mentioned in the statement of offense but he's not charging for that now. we know he failed to report foreign income for a speech he was paid for to go in moscow in 2015 at the rt gala. this is a russian television network viewed as propaganda by the u.s. we also know that he had some omissions from his security clearance forms. always you get up here, this is the outer end of what a prosecutor might pursue, but you don't leave those years on the

table, do you, unless you're expecting real cooperation? >> i think that's exactly right. that you don't leave 50-plus years unattended to unless the substantial cooperation that this witness is going to get you is, as susan's point saying to somebody important or to the core mission of the investigation. so it may not be that it is somebody above him in the food chain. it could be collateral people all around him at his same level, but get to this question of was there collusion, which is the heart of what mueller is there to investigate and/or whether there was obstruction of justice. there are a lot of people that this information touches upon. mueller calls people -- calls flynn a surrogate. we've heard that word surrogate a lot of times in the sessions' testimony. we also know that he was indicted or he pled guilty here

to failure to remember, not just affirmative lie, but i failed to remember something. we heard that from attorney general sessions over 100 times in three testimonies. so there are things in here which signal other things that may be tentacles out into the ecosystem. >> so then, you know, shimon, who in trump's or bit should be most worried? >> we have talked a lot today about jared kushner, and that certainly seems to be a person whose name comes up a lot. he's -- though not named in thinks documents today, we've learned that he was the very senior official that was communicating with flynn about some of the -- some of his communication with russia. look, we also know there are other people that have -- that the investigators have shown interest and are supposed to go speak with mueller. hope hicks is one of those people, the white house communications director. she is very close to the president. these are some of the people whose names have surfaced, names

that have been of interest to the special counsel. i think as we've all been saying here, anyone who worked on any foreign policy, anyone who was on the sort of advisory panel, the foreign advisory panel, is probably in the crosshairs of investigators because time and time again we keep seeing people who were associated with the foreign policy, specifically with russia, are having problems. what is it that they were lying about? why is it that they all seem to be -- to have this pattern of not being truthful about russia? the other thing, israel has come up now too. we have talked about this today as well. now israel, what was going on with israel, these communications with israel that jared kushner was having, others were having, and that came up in court document also today. so, again, foreign policy is coming to play here. >> if i could ask you, jim acosta, white house official telling jim acosta tonight that

a pardon for flynn is definitely not on the cards for now, but the fact is of course that could change over time. legally could the president? does he have the prerogative to pardon a michael flynn, for instance? >> right, it is certainly an interesting question. the president has very wide-ranging pardon power. so the president probably could pardon flynn. it is interesting sort of how robert mueller has played this, right. certainly there was a proffer agreement in which he explains, you know, lots -- michael flynn explained lots and lots of facts. now he's pled guilty. imagine the president pardons him. mueller's team could still hold him to the agreement. if he has been pardoned he no longer has a fifth amendment right to not talk. if he pardons flynn, he could

still use the sworn grand jury or proffered testimony to get him to testify against all of the facts he has already revealed. this is sort of an interesting and pretty clever position they've now put flynn in the larger trump -- >> so the president could pardon flynn but still use flynn to potentially prosecute others is what you are saying? >> right. because as part of the plea agreements, you know, you proffer very, very detailed sets of facts, you know, in order to show exactly what your cooperation might look like. >> what your value is. >> oftentimes those are offered before a grand jury, so it is actually sworn statements. >> wow. so, of course, the question is, you know, you were talking about if mueller, mueller could bring him back. but is mueller safe? i mean, you know, the president has said he's not going to fire robert mueller, but then after something like this happens today, shimon, you wonder is that really going to be the case. >> you never know, right. we keep hearing there are people from inside the trump orbit he is not happy with mueller and how he could fire him at any day. that would just set off a chain of events that would be very difficult for the president to control. look, if he was to fire mueller, would it necessarily end this investigation? i mean i don't know. maybe, susan, you can probably talk about that better.

but here is one option and one thing people have talked about, is perhaps he fires sessions, brings in a different attorney general. that attorney general is not recused like sessions is in the russia investigation. so perhaps the special counsel mueller would now report to this attorney general who has been put in place by trump, which then gives trump at least some control perhaps of the investigation. but that would be even difficult. >> but the attorney general just say we don't need special counsel anymore if there is a new one? this is all hypothetical. >> yeah, i mean i think the answer is probably no. >> okay. >> but i think in the aftermath of the flynn plea that any effort to interfere with mueller's investigation has to be seen as abuse of power, and he walks himself down the archibald cox getting fired, richard nixon. to shimon's question, a new prosecutor is appointed, it is not like it goes away. >> remember when the president famously said, i relieved the pressure, i fired comey.

>> right. >> not really. it didn't work out well. >> you wonder if comey would have done what mueller is doing now. >> i wonder if trump is capable of learning that lesson, firing comey, taking dramatic steps? don't underestimate trump's ability -- >> have to read up on your history of the saturday night massacre. >> right. >> can we return to one quick thing shimon raised, which is this question is this implicates foreign policy. we have talked about this before, which is there is this thing called the logan act which makes it a crime for a private citizen to interfere in the foreign relations of countries. that is exactly what happened here if you take the indictment, the information on its face. they intervened with egypt and with russia with respect to a foreign policy dispute between the obama administration and israel essentially. that's exactly what the logan act was there to prevent. it will be very interesting to see whether mueller either, one, is willing to bring a logan act

case or uses it as leverage to say, you violated the logan act, you want to test the legality of it, fine, get yourself a lawyer, spend a million dollars, and we'll see you in court. >> to be fair, very, very seldom prosecuted on a mere logan act. >> but this fits the four corners of that act. >> all right. >> we also have never had anything like this. so you can argue it is seldom used, never used, but we never had a situation like this. >> unprecedent. thank you all so much. and up next, the mood at the white house and how the facts we learned today shed new light on president trump's many denials of collusion or contacts between his team and the russians. >> can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with russia during the course of the election? >> well, i told you general flynn obviously was dealing so that's one person, but he was dealing as he should have been. >> during the election? >> no, nobody that i know of. nobody. >> so you're not aware of any contacts during the course of the election? >> how many times do i have to answer the question? >> can you say yes or no on it? >> russia is a ruse.

hi, i'm mike ditka. and i'm johnny bench. and we've spent our whole lives around professional sports taking hits and catching our fair share of aches and pains. which is why we use blue-emu's pain relief products. blue-emu products; non-greasy, deep-penetrating formula that works down into your muscles and joints and works its magic. it's comfort that won't leave you smelling like a football gym bag or an old catcher's mitt or a shower mat in the locker room. how about an old pair of socks after an extra inning game. blue-emu, it works fast and you won't stink.

continue to follow the breaking news tonight. a source close to the white house describes president trump and his team as in denial on the russia investigation. in the source's words, "totally in a bubble." >> we're told white house officials think the president will be exonerated by mueller's team very soon, however, our source says the trump team should be taking today's news about michael flynn's plea deal more seriously. this is like a red alert, the source said. our correspondents and analysts are joining us now to discuss all of this. you know, you go back, we learned a lot today in these court documents from this flynn plea deal, and it makes you want to go back and listen to what some of the administration officials said around the time, particularly president trump when he was asked in february about michael flynn's conversation with kislyak. let's take a listen to what he said.

>> reporter: did you direct mike flynn to discuss sanctions with the russian ambassador? >> no, i didn't. >> reporter: prior to your inauguration? >> no, i didn't. but mike -- no, i fired him because of what he said to mike pence, very simple. mike was doing his job. he was calling countries and his counterparts. so it certainly would have been okay with me if he did it. i would have directed him to do it if i thought he wasn't doing it. i didn't direct him, but i would have directed him because that's his job. and it came out that way, and in all fairness i watched dr. charles krauthammer the other night say he was doing his job. and i agreed with him. since then i have watched many other people say that. no, i didn't direct him but i would have directed him if he didn't do it. okay. >> all right. so you hear that. we find out today in the court documents, manu, that there were

members of the transition team, very senior members, who knew that kislyak and flynn spoke about sanctions. what do you make when you hear that, this is what the president said in february? >> he obviously did not think flynn did anything wrong by having these discussions during the time of the transition and the time in which the obama administration had issued sanctions against russia, right after -- in response to the russia meddling which, of course, the president has downplayed all along. it speaks to how the white house -- the president himself, sort of the affection and loyalty he has had for michael flynn. this president values loyalty above anything else. it is perhaps one reason why he did not want to fire michael flynn for some short period of time after sally yates warned he was susceptible to russian blackmail because he had some sympathy towards a figure very loyal to him on the campaign trail. so the president in some ways is trying to have it both ways, saying, i was in charge, i didn't direct him, but what he

is, that's okay. >> he didn't think it was a big deal either, and that's another reason why -- >> yeah. >> that was pretty impressive verbal somersaulting. he is defending, denying, defending, and back to defending. >> right, which leads you whether, in fact, he did direct michael flynn to do this. you could see he's sort of conflicted here about what he ought to say and what he -- you know, what should he say, what should he not say. he didn't want to -- he didn't want to throw flynn under the bus, but, of course, he was going to fire flynn. you know, he makes the point here that he fired him because he lied to mike pence. well, we now are raising questions about that. yes, that story was published in "the washington post." they reacted to that, but did the president know before the whole mike pence imbroglio in fact what mike flynn was doing. >> it appears a lot of people around the president knew about this.

>> exactly. >> it wasn't just that flynn lied to mike pence or misled him or kept this information from him, it appears there's a whole host of other people that knew about this stuff. >> listen, we will have more to talk about right after this break. please stay with us. we will be right back.cham ho's faced thousands of drivers. she's a world-class swimmer who's stared down the best in her sport. but for both of them, the most challenging opponent was... pe blood clots in my lung. it was really scary. a dvt in my leg. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. my doctor and i choose xarelto® xarelto®... to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner... ...that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. here's how xarelto works. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective... ...targeting just one critical factor, interacting

with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures and before starting xarelto® about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. you've got to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from dvt and pe blood clots. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know.

and welcome back. truly monumental day in washington. former national security advisor michael flynn pleading guilty, admitting he lied to the fbi and now cooperating with special consul robert mueller's investigation. >> and there are many questions to be answered in the days to come. we want to go around the table one more time for some more thoughts. >> gloria borger, i spoke to earlier with the ranking democrat adam schiff. i asked him about the president in all this. in your view has the president lied about what communications his team had with russia? >> well, abundantly and frequently in just about every way. >> abundantly and frequently in just about every way. i mean there's a lot of proof here the president lied. it's not the first time. at what point do the president's

lies here matter? >> well, the special counsel right now is in the process of rolling up this case. and he's not there yet. and even if he were to decide that the president had lied, i think it becomes a political issue and not so much a legal issue. because there are questions and you guys know this better man i do, about what you can do. and whether they can't force the president to testify, right? >> i think the lies matter when the comes to building a case about obstruction, whether or not the purpose of these lies is to obstruct -- to throw sand in the eyes of investigators. because he's known now for months the fbi has been look at this. and yet he's been going out there essentially trying to mislead the public about what this was. he's called a witch-hunt. it's not. look, it does matter i think when you get to the point you can reasonably say to people this was not anything but obstructing and trying to

prevent the fbi and special counsel from getting to bottom of what is very serious issue. >> and what you're seeing here is two officials, george bop dopilous and michael flynn charged with lying to the fbi. what you're seeing is no lie is going to let you wigging out of this investigation in terms of robert mueller and his team are serious business. and the obstruction case is ongoing. and they're from all accounts going to cross every "t," dot every "i" before they wrap that up. >> and that has always been the one area of the investigation that's worried republicans that the collusion aspect. they're way more worried about obstruction because this is cut and dry case in piecing together russian officials and conspiracy, high levels of the trump campaign. when it comes to the way the president acted in trying to kill this investigation, his mind-set and the way he tried to end these probes on capitol hill

as well, clearly ending these investigations was front and center for the president. >> so you cannot force the president testify in this investigation? >> no, the problem here is you can certainly subpoena him and he can plead the fifth and say i'm not going to provide that kind of testimony. in the end as gloria said, this is going to be something that's going to be a political issue. robert mueller will conclude his investigation, will draw up all the facts that he's got prepared for and send it over to congress. and then the politicians will have to make a decision as to whether or not this is something that's impeachable, this is high crime, a misdemeanor that deserves the treatment that that entails. >> wasn't lying one of the articles of impeachment --

>> yes, but i think what we also still want to know is underlying all of this, what were the russians trying to do? and mueller may be getting closer to that through this investigation, which is if there was no collusion, if there was no conspiracy, what were the russians attempting to do by there -- with their contacts with people either in the transition and eventually in the administration. >> and that's been the thing about these documents, from papadopoulos to today's charging document, to learn exactly what they know about russia. >> and to think almost a year of the president being in office, this investigation is ongoing. it makes you wonder how much longer is it going to last. i mean i think we just seemly don't know the answer to that question, but of course we will continue to follow everything. thank you so much for joining us

this evening. and spending part of your friday night with us. the news continues next on cnn. you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you.

you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans,

they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

4:00 a.m. on the u.s. east coast. we're following the breaking news this hour here on cnn. arguably, one of the most successful moments for the u.s. president on tax reform and one of the worst days with a member of his inner circle pleading guilty in the russia investigation. i'm george howell at cnn world headquarters in atlanta. welcome to viewers here in the united states and around the world. first to tax reform. just hours ago, the u.s. senate passed a major overhaul of the -4s. tax code on a vote of