i use herpecin l.re, it penetrates deep to treat. it soothes, moisturizes, and creates an spf 30 barrier, to protect against flare-ups caused by the sun. herpecin l. i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. we welcome our viewers around the world and the united states. #wheresthememo. where is the memo after the president promised we'd see the democrat's response to the nunes memo? it is still under wraps? how come? an a second white house aide stepping down after accusations of spousal abuse. he's one of dozens lacking full security clearance. plus the winter olympics have

begun in south korea with both countries marching under the unification flag. now the stunning news that kim jong-un's sister has invited south korea's president moon to pyongyang. has trump's bad cop behavior actually helped diffuse tensions? during the shutdown battle, rand paul accused both parties of grand standing. while abandoning their core principles. he's right. so why do voters remain so loyal to their home team? you will hear a convincing theory from annie duke, former poker champion and celebrity apprentice. and plus after outcry over his relatively lenient sentence, the judge now facing a recall. but was he actually wrong? first, last saturday, my mother told me she enjoyed my program but she said i couldn't follow your commentary on that russian business. that is what the white house banking on, that few of us will

read in and comprehend what it is all about. it is what they did in the lead up to the release of the nunes memo about the russian probe and steele dossier and now they are trying to do it again last night's announcement that they're not releasing the democratic response in contradiction of what they said when it was a memo that suited their interests. what a shame that now even intelligence is subject to our partisan divide. in my opening commentary here last week, i said show us everything. meaning not only the notorious four page nunes memo, but also the ten-page debated democratic response. transparency demands no less. the committee apparently agreed with me. after the release of the nunes memo, its members voted unanimously to release the democrats' response. but now the white house has said no. in a friday night news dump, dan mcgahn said that the justice department had identified portions of the memo that, quote, would create a specially

significant concerns for the national security and law enforcement interests. that sounds compelling. unless you stop and consider that the fbi had issued a statement saying it had grave concerns about the release of the nunes memo, yet that didn't stop the white house. here is what is really going on. the nunes memo didn't live up to the hype. it was ultimately an embarrassment to all those who promoted it when we couldn't see it. and in all probability that will be made even more clear if the democratic response sees the light of day. before the release of the nunes memo, the president was in a great position politically speaking. republican members of the house intel committee gave interviews in friendly outlets painting a dire picture of what the memo revealed while saying they couldn't speak to its specific contents. that left no opportunity for anybody to challenge their assessment. and of course the lack of ability to cross-examine did not

deter. they promoted the idea that it undermined the russia probe. the memo itself promoted that type of thinking. and in its introduction, it claimed to evidence a breakdown of the legal processes established to protect americans. but that is not what the memo showed. it sought to politically resurrect the importance of carter page, an individual the president and his campaign had gone to great lengths to diminish. the key claim was that page was surveilled initially based on a fisa court order obtained without court knowledge of who paid for the underlying intel. but it is not clear that the investigator former british spy christopher steele knew who was funding his intel gathering. more importantly, carter page was on the radar of the fbi long before the political rise of donald trump and the russian probe began three months before the initial fisa request regarding carter page.

the point is that the russian probe was begun before and independent of page. the entire issue requires a deep dive into the weeds and that is what the white house is counting on. that you won't do the homework. and that their enablers will boil it down to a misleading sound bite or tweet. they were able to do that before the nunes memo and now they want to turn back the clock. i want you to do this, go to my website and vote on this question. we'll give the results later this hour. do you believer the white house's reason to hold back the memo was for concerns over security and law enforcement? one of my first guests says he was stunned when his reporting was mentioned in the house intel committee memo released by republicans, michael isikoff is back. and tom fuentes is here, former assistant director of the fbi.

it's our reporting that was cited in the nunes memo. what should be the democratic response? >> it is actually not a surprise to me that the white house didn't release this memo because from everything we know, the democratic memo is about the context for that fisa application. all the other stuff it mad beyond the steele dossier that gave them suspicions about carter page and his ties to the russians. and if you read the transcript that was released yesterday of the house intelligence committee meeting earlier this week, there is references to a human source overseas, there is references to signals intelligence picked up by the nsa. that stuff is highly classified. the justice department and the fbi would have had valid reasons to object to that being released.

so we shouldn't necessarily sort of assume that this was being done for political reasons. the problem was the original decision to release the first republican memo which the fbi's issue was not that it was revealing classified information, is that it was incomplete and misleading because they knew you couldn't include all this other stuff that was highly classified. so we're left with, you know, more confusion, you know, i'm with your mother on this, i mean it is a muddled situation. and, you know, even those immersed in it are no more educated about what the basis for that fisa warrant was in an we were before all this memo fight began. >> hey, tom, here is something that troubles me. last week it was the fbi saying they had grave concerns if the nunes memo were released. last night the white house relied on the justice department

expressing concerns in different language that sounded awfully similar. to me as an outsider, the justice department and the fbi, i thought you were all one in the same. what kind of a divide does in evidence? >> i'm not sure about the divide, but what i would say is from the beginning, director christopher wray of the fbi didn't want the first nunes memo released because he said by omission it would lead people to have a false impression. so he didn't say that it would divulge sources and methods, but what he was basically saying is the defense required to address what the allegations are in the memo would require releasing sources and methods. now you have a democratic memo and you have this back and forth does the president have a double standard, he lets the republican memo go public, the other one not.

and we don't know for sure. because we don't know what the underlying basis. now, to go back to your original premise or statement that people should do their homework, they can't. what he would need to make an accurate decision would require the use of a lot of classified material and it is just not going to happen. and the problem i have with this is the committee has a mechanism to conduct these investigations, top secret security investigations, and then if they find wrongdoing, make the appropriate referral because they can't prosecute. all they are doing is making public show of all of this, refer it to the office of inspector general who has responsibility to investigate wrongdoing on the part of any employee of the department of justice, bureau of prisons, the attorneys in the judicial district, et cetera, that is the way to do that. and i'm not trying to defend the fbi here. i'm saying the fbi is not in the position to be able to defend itself because it can't use that material.

but if a serious confidential secret investigation is conducted and fbi employees or agents or doj employees improperly acted, it would be a felony if they committed a fraud against the fisa court and in my opinion they should be prosecuted and if necessary go to prison if that occurred. but it needs to be a proper investigation where all of the information can be analyzed, not this back and forth battle of three paige memos. >> michael isikoff, the spin on the nunes memo is that the fisa court initially in the first of those four orders relied on a guy who had an ax to grind, christopher steele, who you have interviewed who was funded by the clintons, by the dnc, by some group of individuals antagonistic to donald trump. might we see in the democratic respond if it is forthcoming that there was more presented to the fisa court in that first order in terms of allowing

surveillance of carter page? isn't that what this potentially is all about? >> right, and not potentially. i think that is what the democratic memo is all about. that's what we've been told, that is what members of the committee have said. problem is we haven't been able to see it. there are steps that the committee could take that might illuminate to some degree some of this. for instance, there is the back and forth about what andrew mccabe then the deputy director of the fbi testified to about how much weight the steele dossier had in that fisa application, the republican memo said that it could not have been -- it would not have been sought had it not been for the steele dossier. democrats say that is a mischaracterization off what mccabe said. the relevant excerpts could be declassified and released. that would not seem to implication classified sources and methods. so that is one step that could be taken here.

but to get to the bottom of the whole thing it would require a full examination of all the classified intelligence. one point worth remembering, the fisa warrant on carter page was renewed three times. so in order for that to happen, the fbi would have had to have made representations to the court that it was getting fruitful intelligence from that warrant and, you know, that is something that we haven't seen either. but it would be important to know. >> the point being that that hurdle would have needed to be cleared on four different occasions, not just once. thank you. i wish we had more time. i appreciate you both being here. reminder, i want everybody to go to my website, to smerconish.com, answer the question do you believe the white house's reason to hold

back the memo was for concerns over security and law enforcement? we'll have the results at the end of this program. what are you thinking now? tweet me and i will read in real time. for example, of course it was for security reasons. the fbi and doj told the committee to change it. but looking at your poll, all the sinister democrat base wanted to blame it on trump. blame it on schiff. the jerk wanted to trap your president. i love how he's my president. he's all of our president. i think transparency demands we see it all. maybe we never should have seen the nunes memo. maybe it shouldn't have been written. perhaps it was written for a partisan reason. but now that it is in the public domain, fairness demands we see the response. that's my position. one more via twitter if we have time. the nunes memo had grave concern because it was incomplete and misleading. the schiff memo has security concerns. totally different issues. and requires totally different responses. be smarter. i'm trying.

i'm concerned that they are literally walling off the intel committee, a partition is going up in the intel committee between democratic and republican staff. that is how bad polarization and partisanship has gotten. hence my concern that i'm seeing the fbi and justice department being used seemingly at odds on the release of this intel. used to be that our partisan differences, you know, they stopped on matters of say national security. up ahead, historic back stage moves as the winter olympics opened last night in south korea. kim jong-un's sister invited south korea's president moon to pyongyang. which would be the two sides most significant diplomatic encounter in more than a generation. so is president trump's bad cop technique actually working? for 17 years running. but some people still like cable. just like some people like banging their head on a low ceiling.

drinking spoiled milk. camping in poison ivy. getting a papercut. and having their arm trapped in a vending machine. but for everyone else, there's directv. for #1 rated customer satisfaction over cable, switch to directv and get a $200 reward card. call 1.800.directv

i use herpecin l.re, it penetrates deep to treat. it soothes, moisturizes, and creates an spf 30 barrier, to protect against flare-ups caused by the sun. herpecin l. even though north and south korea are still at war during the opening ceremonies at the olympics, athletes from north and south korea marched behind the blue and white unification flag. and on the sidelines, kim jong-un's sister invited south korea's president moon to pyongyang which would be the two sides most significant diplomatic encounter in more than a generation.

so after all the fears of hostileties getting worse, is the trump administration's bad cop/good cop policy actually working? joining me now is a portfolio manager for east asia at the cia and currently the chair of korean studies at the brookings institution's center for east asia policy studies. let's review what has happened here. south korean president moon postponed military exercises with the u.s. and then kim responded by sending athletes, they marched under a unified flag. now the proposed meeting of the two korean leaders is out there. and all of this amidst korean testing of its most powerful nuclear device ever, which begs the question is president trump's bad cop routine to the south korean good cop routine if you buy my analogy, is it actually working? >> i don't know about the good cop/bad cop routine. i don't think it was orchestrated in that way. if you judge by the national

security strategy, it is north korea and the rest of the world. so i think the trump administration's preference is for the moon administration to be very cautious in moving forward with north korea. this is a big deal. north korea under kim jong-un who came to power in december 2011 has been fortress to north korea. so this invitation is a big deal especially since kim has yet to meet a foreign head of state. >> read the tea leaves. do you think this is being orchestrated, is there a definable policy behind closed doors between south korea and the united states or are we seemingly at odds with these latest developments? >> i think vice president's participation at the olympics i think was good. i think it was great he was showing support. but i think it was also clear that the u.s. wants to make sure that south korea stays on the same page on maximum pressure.

maximum pressure so far has been weighted heavily on the military strike options. and on sanctions. without the engagement part. so president moon has to maintain a delicate balance here. on the one hand, he wants to maintain or improve inter-korean relations, but on the other hand he has committed himself to maximum pressure and engagement. >> do you think the bellicose nature of our president trump's tweets has had a positive impact, meaning the more he refers to kim as little rocket man, the more kim is contacting the south koreans and they are saying hey, this guy trump is really an intangible, maybe we should have some conversation some dialogue unlike the last several years? >> right. i think the fire and fury talk and the locked and loaded conversation has really in a way spooked both sides, both north korea and south korea. north korea i think part of the

reason for the olympic outreach is to try to take the toned down tensions in the korean peninsula because i think that they might have taken the threat seriously to warrant this outreach. and for the south korea side, the moon administration, senior officials from there including the president have been very vocal about making sure that military strikes, u.s. military strikes, do not happy without south korea's consent, which is a rare public rebuke or criticism to make sure that the u.s. does not do anything unilaterally. so i think the unintended consequence of the robust and strong and forceful language from president trump has ironically driven the two sides together in this way. >> i know that in your prior work at the cia, you were responsible for the preparation of portions of hundreds of pdbs, presidential daily briefs. so i think you are the perfect person to ask this question. how well do we really know kim? how detailed is the profile that

the cia possesses on the north korean leader? >> cia and the intel community as a whole i think is a great organization, great institutions that work together very well. and i have first hand knowledge of the way that we cooperate on the analysis. that said, north korea is one of the hardest targets if not the hardest because north korea under kim jong-un has been fortress north korea. the two significant observations come from a sushi chef and from dennis rodman. so we have to be very adaptable in looking at the north korea problem set and to make sure that we are working together especially with our allies, for south korea, especially to work on the north korea problem. >> if we had more time, i would want to pursue who is more

reliability, the sushi chef whichever or dennis rodman. we'll save that for another conversation. thank you. let's see what you're saying. i think these are from facebook. what do we have, catherine? you're giving trump too much credit for north korea/south korea talks. trump is not that smart. he doesn't need to be smart. i think it begs the question, to be fair to the president, have those bellicose tweets of his caused certain such that they are having dialogue unlike anytime in the recent past? why else all of a sudden are they having conversation unifying their olympic teams and now saying that there will be a meeting between moon and kim? another one. what else do we have? do we really want a unified korea? wow. james, that is a great question. because who will be the dominant player militarily if in fact that comes to pass? what a great insight from you. still to come, lately both

parties seem to reverse themselves on several issues yet most voters still swear allegiance to them. why is that? you're about to hear a compelling theory from poker champ annie duke. (announcer) dance to your own beat this valentine's day.

purchase $699 or more at helzberg diamonds and get a free megablast waterproof speaker with built-in amazon alexa. a $339.98 value. they were the best team in the world.s. we were about to pull off the greatest upset in american sports history. but we were more than american... i never realized we were from all over. italian, middle eastern, jewish, turkey, iran.

that's what makes america what it is. we all came together as one. that's what made us champions. new year, new phones for the family. join t-mobile, and when you buy one of the latest samsung galaxy phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. yahoooo! ahoooo! plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included. spectacular! so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. whoa! join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free. all on america's best unlimited network.

so the president just tweeted and my hunch is he was watching the opening commentary of this program. because it was in direct response. the democrats sent a very political and long response memo which they knew because of sources and methods and more would have been heavily redacted whereupon they would have told them to redo and send back. here is what i would say to that. that should have been anticipated when you made the decision to release the nunes memo.

of course it was going to spur this tit for tat. especially where the takeaway that you wanted people to have from the nunes memo is that carter page was surveilled only because of information paid for by your opponents and that wasn't known to the court. so if in fact the fisa court knew more than that, when they allowed the surveillance of page, the democrats want to put that in the public domain. i fear i'm losing my mother again with this explanation because it requires a deep dive. i just hope other americans will spend the time doing so. all right. wind your clock back about, i don't know, 25 years. and imagine this as the lead in a major american newspaper. quote, congress passed a bipartisan spending deal that would blow through the caps imposed by the budget control act. they will unlock 300 build in new spending which comes after

last year's $1.5 trillion tax cut and in other spending news the white house plans to spend $1.5 trillion on infrastructure that would require $200 billion in government funding. now, reading that in a bubble, which party would you assume controlled the government and was growing the debt? democrats, right? critics would say they are spending like drunken sailors. but right now republicans control the white house, senate and house of representatives. and that was the lead of the "new york times" story after the gop senate and house voted on a budget deal to keep the government if you could say did she government functional and increase deficit spending. in an essay from my website, annie duke noted pick an issue, watch the parties draw an unmoveable line in the sand and quietly look back just a few years and notice the parties have switched sides. she is right and here is the kicker. while the parties have switched sides, voters have not. whether the issue is trade, deficit spending or respect for

law enforcement, we are witnessing major shifts in party positions without a corresponding voter realignment. it used to be that people joined political parties because of their principles or at least that's what they say. today it seems party affiliation is determining your principles, not vice versa. and that's what rand paul was noting when he took to the senate floor in opposition to the deal. >> when the democrats are in power, republicans appear to be the conservative party. but when republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party. >> and not just that, republicans have been the party of law and order since at least the summer of '68. now it is the gop led by the president that is condemning of the fbi and the investigation of a special counsel. on bill clinton's watch, many expressed moral outrage over the intern scandal. and democrats do the same thing.

look at what they were arguing about in the 2013 budget shutdown, that it was wrong for the other party to hold the government hostage over a single issue, in that case obamacare. on this year's tax bill, the party that is always willing to spend suddenly became deficit hawks. obama pushed the u.s. to join the transpacific partnership even though it was against traditional democratic principles of protect going working class and now president trump has canceled it. the thing is the party in power is naturally going to end up with more examples of flip-flops because they got the stage. but the dems have done their share as well. you can even see this now in their outraged reaction to the trump white house's handling of e-mail classified information and a security clearances. hillary anyone? look, there is nothing wrong with changing positions based on circumexpedition and new discovery. but that's not what this is. this is tribal politics.

being for or against something largely in reaction to your opposition. joining me now, annie duke, the former professional poker player, decision strategist and consultants. you will remember her battling it out with joan rivers in a season of "celebrity apprentice" with now president trump. she is the author of a brand new book titled "thinking in bets." annie, why are people changing views but not their party? >> well, the question is what determines your identity. and is it more important that your identity is aligned with the political party which really becomes part of your tribe or are you going to protect your identity and your ideology and principles. there is lots of scientific evidence that shows that your identity is mainly that the one that you will protect is the party identity or your tribal identity and that is why you are willing to shift the policy so much. >> maybe it's always been this way, maybe we've lied all those years that we said my principles determine my party. maybe it's always been just like it is today, its just more exposed.

>> well, i think that that is true. i mean, when you have a conflict between -- you're, basically, adhering to your tribe or your political party, and your beliefs, you have to resolve that conflict some way. so we know that ideology on its own will drive your initial political identification. but studies have been done over many decades ago where you could show that for example if i show you a piece of legislation or policy on welfare, your ideology will drive what you choose. but as soon as i assign it to a party republican or democrat, then your ideology goes out the window and you just prefer the one that says republican or says democrat even though it doesn't adhere to what you say your ideology is. >> i tried to give examples showing that both sides, both parties, do this. do you think that they do it in equal measure? >> well, i think that both sides definitely do it. i think there is evidence that

if may be slightly tend more conservative. and that is just because if you look of the work of people like don hype, one thing we know is that conservatives value loyalty and authority a little bit more and people who tend to have liberal ideologies prefer the individual a little bit more. so you will see it from both because both belong to these tribes and the tribes will tell you what policies and also the tribes also help you determine what your moral campus is. and so you will see shifting around on sort of moral judgment as well. but, yeah, conservatives tend toward a little bit more respect for authority and loyalty. >> one question from the brand new book. pollsters took a beating in the last presidential election. voters said, oh, they all said that hillary would be the president and i've a new interpretation of that having read your book. you explain. explain nate silver and how you view what transpired.

>> i think nate silver landed in the end on about 65/35. in other words, clinton would win 65% of the time and trump would win 35% of the time. now, the way that the pollsters interpreted that is different than the way that the pundits interpreted that. so the pundits looked at that and said 65%, i'm going to tell people for sure that clinton will win. because pundits don't like to waffle. but 35% will occur about as often as monday, tuesday and half of wednesday. so in that sense the pollsters were trying to tell you that a trump win wouldn't actually be that surprising, it was really the pundits did that. and it caused problem because people think that the pundits and pollsters are the same and so now they start rejecting polls as evidence. >> you have explained my failures in prognostication for the 2016 cycle.

when it was 35% or whether it was 5%, the fact is it was not 0%. that is the point. >> right. as long as it is not 0%, we can't tell very much based on the outcome of one election whether nate silver is a good polster or not. if you look across his record, he's actually quite good. and let's remember 35% is a lot. i guess i would ask you, would you be willing to bet your life on a 65% chance of living? >> no, not my life. thank you. annie, the book is great. thank you for being here. i want to remind everybody to go to smerconish.com and answer the question could you go one at a time though? 10,000 people have already voted. and you crashed my website. do you believe the white house's reason to hold back the memo was for concerns over security and law enforcement? i cannot wait to see the result in that case. still to come, the judge who handed down what many call a lenient sentence in the sexual assault case of a stanford swim team member now faces a recall vote.

is that fair? is that good for the judicial system? we'll discuss.

directv has been rated #1 in customer satisfaction over cable for 17 years running. but some people still like cable. just like some people like banging their head on a low ceiling. drinking spoiled milk. camping in poison ivy. getting a papercut. and having their arm trapped in a vending machine. but for everyone else, there's directv. for #1 rated customer satisfaction over cable, switch to directv and get a $200 reward card. call 1.800.directv

you probably think you already know this story. and the widespread version goes like this. brock turner, a stanford swim team member, sexually assaulted an inebriated and unconscious woman next to a dumpster. two graduate students from sweden intervened. then despite a 12-page statement from the victim at sentencing, a superior court judge gave turner a slap on the wrist. a six-month sentence for which turner only spent three months behind bars. and was then set free. and now after nearly 100,000 santa clara county residents signed a petition, the judge is

facing recall on the june 5 ballot. serves him right, you are probably saying to yourselves. but is there more to the story? a retired judge of the california superior court, well-known advocate for women's rights, assistant dean at the stanford law school, and she thinks to recall judge persky would be a mistake. judge, how come? >> first of all i'm speaking out because judge persky is not allowed to talk about a case that is pending and the turner case is pending in the appellate court. this recall is wrong for a number of reasons. and there are a growing number of people men, women, rape victims, lawyers, judges, law professors who are opposed to this recall and i'm one of them. this recall is targeting a good and fair judge who did absolutely nothing wrong and has demonstrated no history of bias. this recall is a dangerous threat to the independence of

the judiciary. it is terrible for racial justice. and this recall is based on lies, it is based on distortions. >> give me something from the narrative that i opened this segment with that is incorrect or some other aspect of the case that you think has been misrepresented nationwide. >> well, two things. when you mentioned this case, people say you mean the rape behind the dumpster. there was no rape. and there was no sexual activity behind a dumpster. brock turner was convicted of three felonies that all arose from in this one incident. that happened in january 2015. the judge who sentenced, and it could have been any judge on the santa clara county bench, had two options. one is to sentence him to prison, the other is to jail. no judge on that bench would have sentenced brock turner to prison. none. why?

because he was 19 years of age, he had no prior criminal history whatsoever, there was no sophistication in the crime and both brock turner and the victim were highly intoxicated. this was not a prison case. so given that, the judge did what the probation officer, a female, recommended which was to sentence him to time in the county jail. the maximum of which would have been 12 months in jail. this judge imposed a lawful sentence. and the recall people have basically co-opted the "me too" movement to make this feel like it is a part of that and it has nothing to do with "me too." >> a stanford law professor who is leading the charge for the recall said that her problem is not that turner didn't get the max, but he didn't get the min. is she right? >> she is entirely wrong once again. >> the leader is not a lawyer. she's never passed a bar exam. she is never had a client, never

held a hearing, never represented a client on a motion. so understand the people who are against this recall are people involved in criminal justice reform as am i. what the judge could have done is impose a prison sentence. this is not a prison case. this was a jail case. what they're arguing -- it's not the judge. nothing wrong. they want there to be a mandatory minimum of prison and that has happened. the district attorney in our county who opposes the recall let led the effort to change the law in california. so the recall people got what they wanted. why are they now picking on a judge who has been on the bench for 13 years, not one complaint ever sustained against him, not a problem with anyone, and all of a sudden he is this awful judge? it's not true. they got what they wanted. there is now a mandatory minimum and yet they are still picking on this judge. >> a big final point. you made reference to the racial

implications. as far as i know, everybody in the underlying facts here is white. i think whether you're saying is that there are a lot of individuals, people of color, who are incarcerated or in the system somehow that could be impacted if in fact there is a successful recall of judge persky. it's not fair, i only have 30 seconds, but address that issue. >> they will be impacted. black and brown people are going to be impacted because judges, if this recall succeeds, they will be looking over their shoulders and testing winds to see if their decision when sentencing is going to be popular. and if they want to be lenient particularly in a sexual assault case, they're not going to do it, and most of the people coming into the criminal justice people are black and brown people in this county. this is terrible for racial justice. >> judge, thank you so much for being here. i appreciate it. >> thank you, michael. still to come, your best and worst tweets and facebook comments. what do we have, katherine?

judge cordell, he could have done the maximum. the minimum doesn't have to being followed. turner's regard for passed out woman is disgusting and he never even acknowledged it. hey, i would never defend the conduct of brock turner in this case. as an attorney, i am mindful of some of the arguments that the judge who was just here raised because i think people don't appreciate the implications. the ramifications of what this might do in making judges fearful of using discretion going forward. and who might be impacted in those cases won't be people who look like brock turner. i think that is one of the points that she was here to make. and finally, there is a reason why we don't elect judges like members of congress every two years. normally depending on the jurisdiction it is a ten-year term. in the federal system, it is a lifetime term. because we don't want them to be

subject to the whim of the electorate. this is the kind of case that our forefathers had in mind when deciding how long should a judicial term be. we'll give you the final results of the survey question from smerconish.com in a moment. do you believe the white house's reason to hold back the memo was for concerns over security and law enforcement? tens of thousands voting. woman: i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan.

it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd backed by 15 years of clinical studies. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. that's why i fight. (daniel jacob) for every hour that you're idling in your car, you're sending about half a gallon of gasoline up in the air. that amounts to about 10 pounds of carbon dioxide every week. (malo hutson) growth is good, but when it starts impacting our quality of air and quality of life, that's a problem. so forward-thinking cities like sacramento are investing in streets that are smarter and greener. the solution was right under our feet. asphalt. or to be more precise, intelligent asphalt. by embedding sensors into the pavement, as well as installing cameras on traffic lights,

we will be able to analyze the flow of traffic. then that data runs across our network, and we use it to optimize the timing of lights, so that travel times are shorter. who knew asphalt could help save the environment? ♪ they appear out of nowhere. my secret visitors. hallucinations and delusions. the unknown parts of living with parkinson's. what plots they unfold,

but only in my mind. over 50% of people with parkinson's will experience hallucinations or delusions during the course of their disease. if your loved one is experiencing these symptoms, talk to your parkinson's specialist. there are treatment options that can help. my visitors should be the ones i want to see.

time to see how you responded to the survey question that's smerconish.com. question, do you believe the white house reason to hold back the memo was for concerns over security and law enforcement? survey says.

. 13,980 cast, and it crashed so more than that. 91% no. 9% say yes. we'll leave it up. you can continue to vote all day long. quickly, tweets, what do we have? smerconish, no matter how much you try to find it, you are a trump hater. that's jim bowe. i assume there will be another one. show me quite opposite. so smerconish are you giving trump way more credit than he deserved having north korea. all right. i'm a lacky. more like dumb cop. whatever it is he is doing, maybe having effect on kim, all of a sudden at the table with south korean. i'm out of time. catch us on cnn.go and on

demand. directv has been rated #1 in customer satisfaction over cable for 17 years running. but some people still like cable. just like some people like

banging their head on a low ceiling. drinking spoiled milk. camping in poison ivy. getting a papercut. and having their arm trapped in a vending machine. but for everyone else, there's directv. for #1 rated customer satisfaction over cable, switch to directv and get a $200 reward card. call 1.800.directv moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis was intense. my mom's pain from i wondered if she could do the stuff she does for us which is kinda, a lot. and if that pain could mean something worse. joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop further damage enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common. or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores,

have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, my mom's back to being my mom. visit enbrel.com... and use the joint damage simulator to see how joint damage could progress. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 18 years. it's abor it isn't. ence in 30,000 precision parts. it's inspected by mercedes-benz factory-trained technicians. or it isn't. it's backed by an unlimited mileage warranty, or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned, or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through february 28th. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer.

we have one to two fires a day and when you respond together and you put your lives on the line, you do have to surround yourself with experts. and for us the expert in gas and electric is pg&e. we run about 2,500/2,800 fire calls a year and on almost every one of those calls pg&e is responding to that call as well. and so when we show up to a fire and pg&e shows up with us it makes a tremendous team during a moment of crisis. i rely on them, the firefighters in this department rely on them, and so we have to practice safety everyday. utilizing pg&e's talent and expertise in that area trains our firefighters on the gas or electric aspect of a fire and when we have an emergency situation we are going to be much more skilled and prepared to mitigate that emergency for all concerned. the things we do every single day

that puts ourselves in harm's way, and to have a partner that is so skilled at what they do is indispensable, and i couldn't ask for a better partner. the most trusted name in news. [ applause ] i'm van jones. this is the van jones show. i want to thank you for being here. look, on our show we are trying to find a way to bring back some decency and civility and sanity to a country that honestly seems to be losing all three. that's why i am so glad we have here tonight the living embodiment of all three qualities. megan mccain is in the house tonight. [ applause ] >> we have megan mccain. it's amazing t