this is cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. it is 11:00 p.m. here on the east coast. we're live with new developments on the russia investigation.

president trump's lawyer filing a defamation suit against buzzfeed for publishing the infamous trump dossier that included salacious details. that as senator feinstein releases closed-door testimony of a man whose firm paid for the dossier. he testified that the former british spy who wrote the dossier worked at the fbi because -- wrote to the fbi because he believed there was a crime in progress. so much for the strategy of the president and republicans who have tried to paint it as a partisan political attack. let's bring in laura coats, ken cuccinelli and john flannery. good to have all of you on. thanks so much. laura, you first. cnn is learning tonight that the president's personal attorney, michael cohen, has filed a defamation suit against buzzfeed for publishing the dossier. buzzfeed says, it's the subject of active investigations by congress and intelligence agencies. what, if any, impact could that

have the investigation? >> this is a very strong claim. in the sense that donald trump is a public figure. and the reason they had an extensive citation about all the people who have quoted their work is because you have to show actual malice and uncorroborated statements and the reckless disregard for the truth if it's published. and if you had some reason to believe it was not truthful, you you have to pay the piper. here with all the corroboration, and the mention of other intense agencies, really helps their argument, they had a first amendment right to write this. in terms of the investigation, you are seeing a pattern here where the president of the united states is trying to

distance himself from anything that implicates either his campaign or tends to undermine his reputation in the community. that's a very separate statement in the court of public opinion, than one in a court of law, however. >> michael, senator feinstein defied her republican colleagues and released transcripts of glen simpson's closed-door testimony. simpson is co-founder of fusion gps, the firm that was hired to do the opposition research on candidate trump. it was simpson who hired former british intelligence officer christopher steele to do that research, and steele compiled the dossier on trump's possible russia connections. so what stands out to you in the transcripts if you've had a chance to read them? john? >> oh, i'm sorry. excuse me.

what stood out -- i thought you didn't go to me. >> i was like, that's a heck of a delay. >> well, michael jackson has a better way of doing it than i do. the sense i got from it and the most important thing i thought was how he described -- simpson described that they were reporting on a crime that was unfolding. and they thought they had nothing else they could do about it. and simpson had to think about it and he went over it with steele, and steele felt the strongest that he had to tell the fbi about it. and what they talked about was the specific crime that concerned them, which was intercepting electronic information, e-mails and databases and so forth, in violation of criminal law. and so it also looked like, and what they were concerned about was, that they were compromising a presidential candidate. that is, that they were getting

information that they could use against him. and they were thinking of trump. and the way we look at it now, is that trump was making a deal using that information for his own election in exchange for what he might do for russia. and they also talk in that about the money going back and forth. and the associations with the mob in america and the mob in russia. so there's a lot of good stuff in there that anybody should look at carefully. and i did have a chance to read the 312 pages, and there's a lot of it that is wasted objections in my opinion. but simpson is very clear about what he did and why he did it, and the nature of the supervision and the independence, if you will, that steele had in conducting his investigation and reaching his conclusions in six different memos before the election and one after the election. >> so, you're smiling, waiting to get in. let me read this because i know you want to respond here. the testimony, though, seemed to indicate that the fbi believed

some of what steele had told them in the dossier. saying this, my understanding was that they believed chris might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the trump organization. our jim sciutto is now saying that's george papadopoulos and when going out for drinks with someone. do you think that the fbi saw steele as a incredible source, undermines the president's assertion that steele was a fake spy whose dossier is part of a sweeping political witch-hunt? >> well, i don't think -- you're accepting that on face value. i don't think that's established. chris steele says that's the fbi's perspective. but so what? chris steele also went to the fbi at a time when gps was being paid by the dnc and hillary's lawyers. so the timing is awkward to say the least, in terms of credibility, and i think that

also with the first question we started with, that you addressed to laura about michael cohn's suit. as she said "the new york times" standard is very high for defamation cases. but michael cohn is not in the position of donald trump. and he's named in there. so to see a defamation case come outside of the parameters of the political arena, go into a court where truth is a defense, is going to be interesting, to say the least. and i think it may be more elucidating than some of the things going on in the political arena. and if you're running one of the investigations in either the house or the senate, not robert mueller's and you have something like senator feinstein releasing an otherwise private transcript, then what do future witnesses do? do they talk less?

do they come at all? they certainly would be presuming that there is no such thing as private testimony, if one senator can simply release it. so i think that may change the dynamic for the witnesses, not in a way that the ordinary public will see, but it may slow the flow of information into the congressional investigations at least. >> laura, before you respond to that, because michael cohn is saying that the allegations raised against him and there's a statement, but i don't have the transcript of it up on the screen. you want to put it up? he said, let me be totally clear that the allegations raised against me in the public square and raised largely by buzzfeed, fusion gps and others in the press are based upon misinformation, unnamed and unverified sources. their actions are so malicious, despicable and reckless, one can only presume their motives were intentional. then he was saying he was named 15 times in this thing.

it's not all misinformation and i have to be honest here, unnamed and unverified sources, but that is his response. laura, what do you say to that? [ all speak at once ] >> i'll let you get back in. >> excuse me. >> ken, let laura first. >> my name's laura, not yours tonight. i'll be right back you. >> it's your name every night, laura. >> wouldn't that be nice? in reality, we're talking about michael cohn and the issue is new york city versus sullivan and the standard about actual malice and a public figure. it began with dr. king and it began with a law enforcement official who didn't like his name in the paper. and so you have that issue that has never been about simply a president as the only standard or person who can be used to have that public figure. but what he's trying to suggest here is no different than say, what a roy moore has suggested or anyone else we've looked at in the press recently, who has tried to target the press'

sourcing as why the information is libellous per se. meaning what you've written about me is so damaging to me, reputation wise and otherwise, that there's nothing else i can presume other than your intent. that's not how the law of defamation works. the presumption of intent doesn't hold all the relevant water. what should stand out to people here are two things. number one, really, this takes away this idea that this was somehow a partisan motive if the testimony is to be believed. and i say that to suggest that here you have in evidence of something that somebody did not do in the trump campaign. donald trump jr. also had the opportunity to hear information and go to the fbi, and he did not. and it seems as though, according to the testimony, the dossier was intended to be presented to the fbi as a means

of protecting the presidential candidate of the united states, not to defame him entirely and not to condemn his campaign. and also, the actual audience that they went to was the fbi, not the clinton campaign. now those two things should suggest to people that there is not perhaps the partisan-based motive that everyone has attributed to it now. >> go ahead, ken. >> the dossier was paid for by the dnc and clinton lawyers after the washington free beacon handed it over. it was passed along. and if you're following the money, that's where the money was at the time steele went to the fbi. so, had the fbi jumped out and done anything publicly or publicly identifiable quickly, then it could have been an issue in the presidential campaign. and when steele is going in june or july to the fbi, that may well have been the hope. now, on the good side for steele, if you want to paint him in the best light, he was concerned.

he saw problems and he's an intelligence agent and he can put himself in the position of the other side and imagine what they might do and use this with. so there's a wide range of possible outcomes to this -- >> but, ken, i do have to say, just so we get the timeline right. current and former officials with direct knowledge of the investigation say that the federal inquiry did not start with mr. steele's dossier. early parts of which did not reach counterintelligence investigators at the fbi until august. it was after june and july, after the bureau's inquiry had already begun. but the officials have said that the dossier added material and buttressed what american law enforcement and spy agencies were gleaning from other sources. so that is from "the new york times." stick around, we'll continue our conversation. when we come back, i want to know what you would ask the president if you were robert mueller. the great emperor penguin migration. trekking a hundred miles inland to their breeding grounds. except for these two fellows. this time next year,

we're gonna be sitting on an egg. i think we're getting close! make a u-turn... u-turn? recalculating... man, we are never gonna breed. just give it a second. you will arrive in 92 days. nah, nuh-uh. nope, nope, nope. you know who i'm gonna follow? my instincts. as long as gps can still get you lost, you can count on geico saving folks money. i'm breeding, man. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

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 may be more trump staffers preparing to leave the west wing, but what will that

mean for the russia investigation? back with me now, my panel. john, you get to talk the most. those two, they completely -- >> they were good. >> what did you want to say quickly? because i want to move on to the staffers leaving the white house. >> quickly what i want to say is that we lose the perspective that, why is this libellous action now at the same time we're re-examining the transcript of mr. simpson's testimony? and if mr. cohn was so upset about that, it doesn't bother him until now from january of last year. so i think this is an another by a person who you would think as a possible subject of investigation. >> do you think it's coordinated? >> yes, i do. look at the timing. >> guys, there's a one-year statute of limitations.

virginia has a one-year statute. >> why didn't he do it in february or march? why is it today? you know, come on. >> honestly, there are lots of people who wait until the end to see how much information they can gather before they can file a suit. >> and until today, how many people in the world were thinking about him as opposed to the president or anyone else who could be damaged by that report, because they haven't gone online to look at it, have any idea that he's in the report. >> i think the statute of limitations runs out tomorrow or this week. i'm going to ask you another question. and there's probably that big pause between my first question to you -- >> i was contemplating the beauty of the question. >> cnn is reporting that top white house aides have been told to make a decision by the end of the month, whether they are departing or staying through november mid terms. one of the most senior names on the potential departure list is white house counsel don mcgann.

he's not the only -- not only the president's counsel, he's a potential witness in this mueller investigation. what impact would this have on the investigation, do you think? >> well, could you have more chaos in this white house no matter who is there? the amazing question is why some people still stayed there. would you want this on your resume? i think there's a lot of reason for people to leave, and we have openings all across the entire executive branch of the government, positions not filled. and judgeships not even suggested, notwithstanding what qualities they may have. this government is entirely unstable, not just because the investigation, but because of every other element of the government that they can't implement, including this show earlier today in which the president doesn't even know enough about the elements of the deal about daca and what the republican leadership want. >> everything is -- i have to read this off my phone. i'm lazy to get new reading glasses. this is from sarah sanders.

the president's team is working tirelessly to support an agenda that is making america great again every day. there has been no directive on staff departures and any suggestion otherwise is ridiculous fake news. what do you think of that, laura? >> well, it's obviously the m.o. they're going to go with. and what's going to be publicized. but to be fair, the dragnet at the mueller investigation and frankly the court of public opinion is cast quite widely around everyone associated with the white house. even don mcgann who is white house counsel, which means he's the counsel for the office of the presidency, not its occupant, finds himself cast in that dragnet and caught up in it when there's conversation, perhaps in that "fire and fury" book or other places, that he may have directed or been trying to massage and grease the wheel of jeff sessions not to recuse himself. so i expect there to be a lot of people who are reluctant to remain, even if they are, themselves, dedicated to public service, because frankly, i'm sure it will be expensive to be a part of this administration as

time goes on. >> you want to weigh in on this? i have another question that you don't want to. >> well, i must not be hearing you -- >> i think he's done for his job, i think he's done a very goods job. he has a difficult boss, to be the lawyer for the office for. but he's done a good job. >> but the question is, the question is, though, what happens with the investigation if he does leave? >> this president creates tumultuousness within his own office and staff. but general kelly has brought more order than existed under reince priebus. i think don mcgann has done a good job for a white house counsel. so there are bright spots here that are helping the president along. and look, they've got 3%-plus economic growth. how much of that credit you want to give to the president -- >> the question was, if don mcgahn leaves, what impact does

it have on the russia investigation? that is the question. >> if you're going to make the lawyer a witness and then he leaves the office and i see no indications of that yet. but then you create complications because now you have a new white house counsel, you've doubled the number of people in the position, and there's no way of getting around the white house counsel having to be a traffic cop for an awful lot of this information. no way around it. >> john, i've got ten seconds left, and i have to get this in. the president has denied anyone in his campaign had contact with russia. that has proven false. michael flynn, george papadopoulos. they all pled guilty to lying to the fbi on the russia matter. does it seem possible that trump was left in the dark about all this? >> no, i don't believe it's possible at all. i think he's a control freak. take what he did with his son's meeting on june 9th, when they were preparing the statement. you asked what questions you would ask. you sat through a description describing what happened on june

9th, and then you gave and wrote a statement that said it was only about russian adoptions. i mean, there's no place to hide from the truth here, because there's been so many leaks and statements and testimony. we don't know who's cooperating. and mcgann is in a very difficult position, because i believe he was involved in at least one revision of the letter firing comey. so it's just an impossible situation. the investigation is, i think, submerged the white house as a viable governing entity. >> very colorful group that i have on, and i mean that not just literally. the yellow, the green. >> mine is called chartreuse, thank you very much. >> chartreuse. and a red bow tie, could be burgundy. >> al gore paid $15,000 a month for fashion advice like this. [ laughter ] >> see you next time. >> bye. the president defending

himself by comparing himself to ronald reagan. wait until you hear what reagan's son has to say about that. he's going to join me next.

president trump hosting a bipartisan group of lawmakers at the white house today for negotiations on immigration. the session, nearly an hour long, was televised. a source telling cnn that was done on purpose to counter questions about the president's fitness for office. i want to talk about the trump presidency now, with ron reagan jr., the son of the former president, ronald reagan. he joins me via skype. thanks so much for joining us. we appreciate it. you know, after the explosive description of president trump's white house from michael wolff and the president pouring gas on the fire, we've been having a national discussion, ron, of mental fitness for office. what's your impression of the president's fitness for office? >> i have been saying since he was nominated, perhaps even before, that this is a man who is unfit for office.

this is not a psychological diagnosis. i'm not particularly interested in what pathologies he may or may not have. it's a question of character, of personality. his behavior is erratic, impulsive. he doesn't seem to be really familiar with issues. he attacks people lower than him on the food chain, punching down. he has behaved in a way that i would describe as treasonous regarding the russia investigation and he may be guilty of criminal activity. i would say that his mental status is up for question, but i don't say that as a psychiatrist or a psychologist. i'm not interested in that. i'm a human being. i can watch another human being and say, there's something wrong. and there is something wrong. >> you think the character issue is in some way worse? because you're saying that the bigger problem for you is that you think he has character flaws and maybe there is something wrong cognitively, but that's not for you to judge.

do you think the character issue is a bigger issue? >> well, there's clearly something -- i'm not concerned about, as i said, about his pathology. i'm concerned about his behavior. his behavior is troubling. it is erratic, it is impulsive. he doesn't seem to be familiar with the job he's been called to do. he says things -- he's dishonest. he says things that are untrue all the time. he claims now all of a sudden, apparently, that that voice on the "access hollywood" tape wasn't him. even though he acknowledged earlier that it was. this is the sort of behavior that you might call delusional. and again, i'm not saying that as a psychiatrist, just as an observant human being. >> let me ask you about your father. because you have some experience -- you may have some

experience with this. your father was diagnosed with alzheimer's years after leaving office. in the wake of the revelations in wolff's book, he compared himself to president reagan, tweeting, now that russian collusion after one year of intense study has proven to be a total hoax on the american public, the democrats and their lap dogs, the mainstream media, are taking out the old ronald reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence. actually, throughout my life my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. what's your reaction to him making such a comparison? >> there's really no comparison to my father. listen, presidents have maladies at times. lincoln was depressed. woodrow wilson had a stroke. eisenhower had heart attacks. kennedy had addison's disease. richard nixon, who's probably the closest analog to trump, apparently in the throes of watergate was becoming somewhat unhinged, according to people who were around him. my father was diagnosed in 1994 with alzheimer's-related

dementia. i mentioned and others have mentioned that in the later stages of his presidency, he seemed to be struggling with short-term memory lapses and things like that. could that have been a result of the early stages of alzheimer's? possibly. because we now know as a medical fact that dementia, a late-stage symptom of alzheimer's emerges after about ten years with the disease. simple math tells you then that he must have had the disease in its early stages when he was president. but that's an entirely different thing than what we're witnessing right now. president trump came to office unfit. he did not develop a malady at some point that rendered him unfit. he is unfit, and that is for all to see. we're not used to talking about presidents this way.

it makes us all a little bit uncomfortable. but we have to get used to, i think, the reality of what is happening and face it forthrightly. this is not a normal man, normal president, in this white house now. and it's a danger to the nation. >> well, i think it's interesting, because when it comes to -- i'm not saying that this president has any of those symptoms or if he's dementia or whatever his fitness is, but when it comes to mental issues, we have such a stigma with these issues and i think as americans, as people, we should take that stigma off and be able to discuss these issues, just as you said. it is uncomfortable, but it doesn't have to be. many raise questions about your father's acuity. when he was in office. there's an op-ed on cnn.com, it says that he underwent

psychological and physical testing every year he was in office. and doctors never found any sign of mental deterioration. but did you ever see signs that might have been early indicators of alzheimer's? >> when we headed into his second term, i noticed that he, to me, and i'm somebody who knew him extreme well, he just seemed slightly slower than he used to be. but remember, it was a man in his mid 70s by that point. he'd been shot and nearly killed. it would not be surprising if he was just slowing down a little bit. but he did not have dementia while we was in office. and i'm not saying that donald trump has dementia. again, that's a medical determination that i'm not qualified, nor are you, to make that sort of determination. frankly, again, i don't care if he has some sort of malady or pathology. i'm not worried about that.

i'm concerned with his behavior, how this man is acting, and he is not acting like a normal, grown-up president of the united states. >> your father underwent psychological testing as i just said in the question before. every year -- you don't -- >> no. he had a physical every year, but i don't think he had psychological testing every year. i never heard that. >> so the reagan library says that, but you don't think that every year he -- >> this is the first i've heard of that. >> do you think every president should undergo a physical and psychological testing when they're in office? >> well, it would be a good idea to have a physical every year. i think we get the into some troubling territory, though, when you start talking about psychological examination. who's going to perform that psychological examination. they have a duty to protect the privacy of a patient in that case, as a psychologist. what should they divulge about a person's psyche? again, i don't want to make it a psychiatric issue with donald

trump. it's a behavioral issue. >> a lot of talk today about building the wall and about d.r.e.a.m.ers. how would your father, do you think, have treated these issues, ron? >> well, when he was governor of california, my father signed what amounted to an amnesty law, which legalized many of the undocumented workers who were picking a lot of fruit and lettuce and things in california, and vital to the economy there. i suspect he probably would have done the same thing. there was not a racist bone in my father's body. you cannot say the same for mr. trump. he is fond of characterizing people in terms of their ethnic heritage and race. and excusing white supremacy and the like. that's not at all my father. >> i have to talk about a possible run by none other than oprah in 2020. with all the chaos of the trump administration, another celebrity, is that the answer

for democrats? >> i have nothing against oprah. she's a very intelligent, successful woman. i'm sure that she could handle the job much better than our current celebrity president is doing. but i think it would be a mistake for democrats, or really political party to assume that just because donald trump lucked his way into the white house, that it's a good idea to start electing as president people who really have no experience in governing, or governments. >> last but not least, steve bannon resigned as executive chairman of breitbart news today. they say he resigned. some say he was fired. apparently shoved out after his comments from michael wolff. how the mighty have fallen. what are your thoughts on that? >> well, my thoughts are that steve bannon was never really as mighty as people thought he was. he doesn't strike me as a particularly bright guy. and the fact that he was hanging around with a guy like donald trump doesn't say much for him either. so i was never terribly

impressed with steve bannon. >> ron reagan jr., thanks so much. >> you bet. thank you. when we come back, much more on steve bannon being ousted from breitbart. what's going on inside the conservative news organization? i'm going to ask a breitbart insider. that's next.

steve bannon stepping down from his leadership role at breitbart news in the wake of the firestorm over his comments in michael wolff's bombshell book. i want to talk about this with a former breitbart spokesman and cnn political commenter alice stewart. breitbart news announcing today steve bannon is, quote, stepped down from his role as chairman of the right-wing news site. this is from bannon. says, i am proud of what the breitbart team has accomplished in so short a period of time, in building out a world-class news platform. what's your read on this? was bannon forced out? >> without question.

it reached the point of no return, where bannon lost in the span of one week, the perception that he had influence with the president of the united states, the financial backing of the billionaire mercer family and now his platform at breitbart. they didn't want to lose all the funding. they decided bannon was an untenable issue diminishing asset to keep hold of. they really didn't have a choice at this point. breitbart and bannon, trump made it clear, it's him or me, and everybody stood with president trump. >> did bannon's exit because he lost the support of the mercer family? >> certainly, without a doubt. here's what happens when you're a figure like steve bannon. you may disagree with his policies and how he went about executing them, but let me just tell you this, in my view, he's extremely smart, he's extremely well read. he's someone who was really

strong on the nationalist, populist movement and did a great job in identifying that and rallying that base and latching on to donald trump and helping in his way, putting the president in the white house. but the problem is, when you go out and you say disparaging things about the president and his family, and you don't walk that back or apologize for it, for a few days, you get on the outside with the president. and the takes away your funding by encouraging the mercers to take away the money and then he gets ousted from breitbart, you have no money and no message, it puts you in a bad spot. >> do you think he regrets calling donald trump jr. treasonous and other things he said in "fire and fury"? >> sure. and he said as much as that, in walking that back. but this is a case when this happens and you say things like this, i think it was a huge mistake for anyone in the white house to even entertain the thought of this wolff author writing a book.

this is what they get what they do that. but here's the case of bannon getting ahead of his skis, getting a little too out there with regard to the media. and he goes from, really with this movement being a trail blazer with donald trump, to being on the receiving end of a flame torch from donald trump. and it's a case of the bigger they are, the harder they fall. and the interesting thing will be to see how bannon recoups from this. i think we have not seen the last of him. he made a commitment when he left the white house, he'll continue the movement. but it remains to be seen without the money and without the platform to engage voters and to recruit candidates and get the message out, it will be difficult for him to continue to do what -- >> well, he certainly has lost the microphone and he didn't drop it. he lost it. a source tells cnn that everyone seems stunned. so have you spoken to anyone at breitbart? was bannon a popular figure still internally there? >> no, i think that the only

person who really liked the way that bannon did things was probably breitbart reporter matthew boyle, and he's a lunatic. so that tells you, there was no groundswell effort to try to keep him, no under-swelling of reporters and editors, trying to get to the breitbart editors, hoping bannon would be saved. he's a figure that i think, generates a lot of anger and resentment because he's a bully. i watched him every day for two years, don. bully the crap out of everybody at breitbart. demean them, yell at them, curse at them. just treat them like human garbage. that's not the type of mentality that inspires loyalty from anybody. i think there are a lot of folks at breitbart today who are going to wake up tomorrow breathing easier, happier. the ceo and the editor in chief, they are in some level thrilled that the bannon problem has been put to bed and they don't have to deal with his shenanigans, antics and temperament anymore. the problem that breitbart now

has, what are they going to be? they now have no identity. and they've lost all their sponsors. >> it's a heck of a position to be in. i gotta run, but it's a heck of a position. as i said earlier in the show, how the mighty have fallen. thank you. when we come back, a new ruling on daca goes against the trump administration. i'll talk to a man who quit the president's national diversity council because of his decision to rescind daca. 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.

we have some breaking news we have to report to you right now. a federal judge in california has ruled that daca must remain in place for now, blocking the trump administration's attempt from last september to bring an end to the program. that coming on the day the president held a televised immigration meeting with top democrats and republicans at the white house. i want to bring in now the president and ceo of the chamber of commerce. what do you think of what this judge has done? >> well, i understand the commitment and the impetus

behind the judge's ruling. but the reality of it is that a solution will not be found by either a judge or a president. the only permanent solution that can be found must be found by our congress. and i am very enthused over what i've witnessed today. you know, i've had the wonderful opportunity to work with leaders like john cornyn and jeff flake and henry quahar, all whom were part of the conversation this morning. and i'm very encouraged by this bipartisan approach to find a permanent and workable solution on behalf of these 800,000 young people in this country. >> i want to let our viewers know you were in today's bipartisan meeting, right? >> i was not in the meeting, i want to clarify. i had the opportunity -- >> you spoke to several people who were there. >> that's right.

i'm very encouraged by what i'm seeing. there is a bipartisan approach to trying to find a solution. >> they're reporting back to you they think the negotiations are going well? >> yes, that's what i heard. and again we look at this from an economic perspective. i'm not a politician. i'm a businessman. but when you look at this issue besides the obvious social aspects of it, there's some economic and commercial interests of this nation that must be taken into account, and these are the kinds of leaders that understand that. they understand that these 800,000 have a 91% employment rate better than native born americans. they have been heavily vetted by the american government. >> before we run out of time, let me ask you what effect do you think this judge's ruling if any, will have on negotiations

to a permanent solution? >> i am encouraged by what i'm hearing from the front lines. >> you don't think it'll upset the administration? >> i don't think so. i'm hopeful that these young americans, these 800,000 contributors to the american economy will be protected by the actions of this bipartisan group that's looking for a permanent and workable solution on behalf of the american people. >> i don't want to be rude but i want to get as much in because we're getting close to the end of the show here. >> if you had to boil it down, is president trump the reason why you're running? >> president trump is one of the reasons. because i understand what he's going through.

and i'm going through the same thing, believe it or not. people going after this person here. so i understand it. and there's a lot of link between what's going on there and what's going on with me, and i'm not done talking about that. so i want to do something to try to not just help the president, to help the people of arizona because i represent arizona. but also help my country. i still have some life left. >> so as you know arpaio is known for his hard line stance on immigration, often controversial tactics. what do you make of a senate run? >> you know, i can only tell you that my friends again like jeff flake and john mccain, both from the state of arizona, they know better. these are real republicans, real conservatives but compassionate conservatives that understand the contributions that the immigrant community has made not only to arizona but to the

entirety of the american country. these are the kind of people that we need to be looking to for resolution -- >> so what you're telling me is you don't think he has a chance? >> i hope he doesn't. i hope the people of arizona know better like people like john mccain and jeff flake have served, i think they set the standard. >> i really appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me, don. >> that's it for us tonight. thanks for watching. i'll see you back here tomorrow. with its historical ance records...test ...you could learn you're from ireland... ...donegal, ireland... ...and your ancestor was a fisherman. with blue eyes. just like you. begin your journey at ancestry.com

it's a like, a dagger?a worm! a tiny sword? bread...breadstick? a matchstick! a lamppost! coin slot! no? uhhh... 10 seconds. a stick! a walking stick! eiffel tower, mount kilimanjaro! (ding) time! sorry, it's a tandem bicycle. what? what?! as long as sloths are slow, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

judge says the white house must keep the program to protect dreamers. how will that affect government funding talks with next friday's deadline looming? >> the national security advisor. the white house counsel just two of the officials who could exit the white house. the president struggling to find staff amid this constant chaos. >> and deadly mud slides in california, areas devastated by wildfires now left to clean up after another natural