string of details about what authorities found which paints a picture of a radicalized, premeditated killer. they want to know more about the man on the screen. if you know more, call the number at the bottom of the screen. brynn gingras, what was in the complaint? >> reporter: a lot of it coming from the suspect himself, what he's told investigators in the hospital and it's very clear from this complaint that he wanted to inflict mass casualties. he told investigators he wanted to perform this attack last night, on halloween night, because he thought there would be more people on the streets. we also know from him that he wanted to not only drive on the west side highway but continue his rampage along onto the brooklyn bridge hoping to kill more people. >> i also understand that we're finding out this isn't the first time that this radical islamist

rented a truck. >> reporter: that's right. he wanted to carry out an attack about a year ago but then he actually rented the truck two months ago, took it out nine days before this attack even happened, drove it around, tried to get a feel for it and then actually rented the truck to actually carry out this attack. we also know from this truck that he wanted to put an isis flag on it when he carried out the attack but then decided against it thinking it was going to just cause too much alarm to people. we do know, though, he asked investigators if he could hang an isis flag in his hospital room. it was very clear then to investigators that he has no remorse. anderson? >> there was other evidence found at the scene? >> reporter: yeah. a lot more. we learned from this complaint that there was a bag inside this truck and inside that bag there were knives. he told investigators that he wanted to reach for that bag but couldn't when he got out of the truck right after this crash

happened yesterday afternoon. also in that bag we know that there was a stun gun. we also know that there were two cell phones. one of those cell phones carried about 90 videos, isis-related, also thousands of isis-related images and another cell phone had a number of searches, one of them being halloween in new york city. i want to give a little more detail for you, anderson, about the note found inside that truck. it was very clear to investigators that it was written, it was -- that this attack was carried out for isis because in the end of that note, he said it will end -- it will endure, rather, is what he said and that is direct reference to isis, according to investigators. >> brynn gingras, thank you. we also heard from ryan nash. >> although i feel we were just doing our job like thousands of officers do every day, i

understand the importance of yesterday's events and the role we played and i'm grateful for the recognition we have received. i just want to thank my family and friends for their support and all of the responding officers who assisted me. >> officer ryan nash, one of new york's finest. i want to bring informer fbi senior official phillip mudd and former cia analyst and newest cnn national security analyst. you were on the fbi's joint terrorism task force. in terms of where they are at now, what are they facing in terms of what is ahead? >> i think they're trying to find out if he's connected to others in the united states or outside. they are trying to find out if this attack is inspired by isis. it seems like it's inspired by isis or maybe directed by isis or people who are connected to the organization. >> overseas or domestically?

>> yes. first of all, the red flag is the fact that he's an uzbek. we've been seeing more than 1500 join in iraq and syria joined isis in iraq and syria from uzbekistan. also, from his region in central asia, that includes uzbek and so many other countries over there. the former soviet republics could use more than any other region, more fighters than any other region to the islamic state. so there's a lot of things that investigators now will be looking at, both domestically and internationally, to see if there is any connection with isis or if this attack is just inspired by isis as we've seen before in so many different attacks in the united states and, frampgly, in europe. >> phil, in the last hour, a former dni james clapper said the fact that this guy was taken

alive is a potential trove of information and also could help understand long term what drives people in the radicalization process. >> it can but you ask the fundamental question. where is this going to get us in the long run. we've been looking at this for 16 years. once you understand how this happens in a democratic society, he's radicalizing by looking at free speech material. he's looking at material online. and then he goes to rent a truck and people are going to say, why can't you find somebody like that? we can study this all we want and i'm not sure we're going to find answers that are satisfying. so when you look at the question of what radicalized him and what's the value of an individual who stays alive after the attack, my answer is just where ali was, it's not the radicalization process. i want to know if he identifies people, places that might identify the next person. what happened over the next year, i'm not sure that's going to prevent another attack. >> the fact that this person had 4,000 isis photos, 90 videos on

his phones, would any of his interactions with that type of propaganda online have been a flag foretell generals officials? >> i this i it depends on whether he had been on the radar prior to this. ali could answer this better than i could but if he's looking at information that is directly connected to a target, the intelligence community is interested in, he could have floated onto their radar but where he had kept under wraps, basically the united states and radicalized here it's likely that he was never obvious. >> nada, the fact that isis has now suffered greatly on the battlefields in iraq, in syria, that they are reportedly on their heels, in many senses, does that mean that they are less likely or less capable of encouraging people online or are the online -- i remember in past cases there was an online recruiter in raqqah and somalia. but does the battlefield losses,

does that impact their ability to reach out online? >> well, it could have impacted their ability to generate more propaganda. i mean, they have a slew of it online at this point that anybody can return to and find but this would impact their ability to generate new propaganda, new tactics, new techniques that somebody else can use to actually foment this kind of attack. now, i don't think necessarily that it's going to withdraw the numbers of people who would actually do something like this. especially somebody radicalized domestically. but i think it could have an impact on the amount of propaganda. >> ali, that term lone wolf is often thrown around. >> right. >> is that an accurate term for some of these people? >> you know, for the most part, it's not. because eventually there are some people who knew about what that individual -- >> people talk? >> people talk. you know, people sometimes ignore it. he has connections with others. i know that they were looking

for another uzbek and i think they were able to locate him. so there's always something. it's becoming more of a known wolf rather than a lone wolf because any time somebody does something in the u.s. or even in europe, we know he was on some radar and that gives you just an indication about the pressure law enforcement and intelligence services are under. you have more than 1200 isis fighters that actually went back to their home countries. they returned. that puts significant pressure on services all across europe and in the uk alone there is more than 425 so when they are focusing on people, they focus on an individual who has just returned from syria rather than focusing on an individual who is watching videos on youtube and unfortunately, the guy watching the videos on youtube conducted the terrorist attack. >> it's not just a problem overseas for intelligence services. there's been cases in the united

states of fbi running undercover informants against potential islamic radicals for years and ultimately the person doesn't do anything for several years and they finally at a certain point have to say, do we continue this undercover operation with great resources and then there's the chance that the person acts. >> radicalization is not illegal. the question is, when does somebody decide to commit an act of violence, that's a decision they make inside of their own head and when did they begin executing that decision to undertake an act of violence. you can be up on somebody electronically, e-mail, phone, et cetera, up on somebody in the human form, that is, an informant into somebody. if they don't make a mistake, the intel business lives off vulnerabilities and mistakes. if they don't get in the wrong chat room, how do you decide when someone transitions from what's legal in the united states, i like isis, that's legal. to what's illegal, i'm going to

conduct an act of violence on the west side highway that's going to kill eight people. that's really difficult to figure out in a country of 330 million people. >> in terms of the investigation, does it make much difference whether he was directed by isis or whether he just watched, you know, propaganda videos online or was talking to other radicals in the u.s. and went about doing this? >> you know, i'm not really sure that it does at this point. there's enough propaganda, enough information for him to pull from. you know, isis just submitted propaganda last year instructions on how to do a vehicle attack with enough propaganda they talked about a note to leave similar language as to what he left and whether somebody was helping direct him is maybe not totally relevant in this case. it can be significant if the individual is planning something that is larger that they are not as familiar with. an attack like this does not take a lot of sophistication to pull off. >> nada, ali, phil mudd as well,

thank you. we're going to turn to the eight men and women who lost their lives. we want to honor their stories. also, the justice system in america, a laughingstock. we'll talk to the panel about that ahead. - [announcer] what if the vacuum head was reborn?

shark has added a rotating soft brush. so while deep-cleaning carpets, you can also grab large particles, pull in piles and directly engage floors. duo clean. invented by shark.

we create machines that make every experience more real. because the best feature of a pc gaming machine is the power to make you forget it's there. get $200 off at dell.com/gaming. ( ♪ ) get $200 off at dell.com/gaming. i love hanging out. with my friends. i have a great fit with my dentures. i love kiwis. i've always had that issue with the seeds getting under my denture. super poligrip free. it creates a seal of the dentures in my mouth. even well fitting dentures

let in food particles just a few dabs of super poligrip free is clinically proven to seal out more food particles so you're more comfortable and confident while you eat. super poligrip free made even the kiwi an enjoyable experience try super poligrip free. ♪ before the first charge was read today here in new york against the alleged truck attack killer, the terrorist, the president was sending signals that the prosecution would somehow be different and by

comparison would be better than in past cases. he took the opportunity toe the it now stands. let's listen in. >> we need quick justice and we need strong justice. much quicker and much stronger than we have right now. because what we have right now is a joke and it's a laughingstock. and no wonder so much of this stuff takes place. >> so you heard the president say what we have right now, talking about the justice system, is a joke and a laugh g laughingstock. keep that in mind as we hear sarah sanders denying what the president said. >> why did the president call the u.s. justice system a joke and laughingstock. >> that's not what he said. >> he said the system of justice -- >> he said the process has people calling us a joke and calling us a laughingstock. look, i think, as i said, he's

simply pointing out his frustration at how long this process takes, how costly this process is and particularly for someone to be a known terrorist, that process should move faster. that's the point he's making. that's the frustration he has. >> there's that. also, sarah sanders' announcement that the white house considers the alleged killer an unlawful enemy combatant. i want to bring in the panel, kristen powers and phil mudd. >> i think generally his entire reaction to this hasn't been appropriate. >> how so? >> well, attacking senator schumer and we can get into that later. it wasn't even accurate. even if it was, going after a u.s. senator trying to blame them for a terror attack is inappropriate. there are problems with the u.s. criminal justice system. it's not that justice moves too slowly, though.

that is just not the problem and i think we can talk about the fact that a lot of people of color don't get treated as well as they should in the criminal justice system but it's not that we need to get rid of our processes that protect people who have been accused of crimes so i'm not even sure what sarah sanders was talking about, that the process was moving too slowly. i don't know which process is moving too slowly. >> well, i would agree with you that the process is moving slowly but there is a problem with our criminal justice system. john mccain pointed out and many of us have pointed it out for a long time, when someone commits an act of terrorism in the united states, particularly not a united states citizen, they should not be treated like a normal criminal. they should be treated like an enemy combatant, they should be interrogated not under the protection of miranda and i think a lot of folks are concerned about that, that we're not doing what we need to do to combat the terrorist activity and by treating this person as an ordinary criminal is just -- >> do you think they should be

sent to guantanamo? >> i think that's another issue. i'm not sure that's the most effective way to deal with this. but the idea that we treat an enemy combatant, which this person truly is, the same way we'd treat someone who committed a murder -- >> they don't have to be mirandaized. >> you can interrogate without miranda warnings to protect public safety. as to the senator's point and to the president's point, to say that we'd be better off treating this guy as an enemy combatant, i think there's a misunderstanding as to what that means because they are soldiers in wars and they get treated under the geneva convention as prisoners of war and then they are repataki tree eightiriated they came from. i would like to see him go to

jail. that's how an enemy combatant is supposed to be treated. >> i have to say, i hadn't seen his words on it, the backdrop i see is we have federal judges striking down his constitution role as the person who sets immigration policy. so when he says justice isn't happening fast enough, we now know this guy drove his truck onto these people and killed them. the system is being bogged down by a combination of judges who think they are in charge more broadly than they should be and the aclu and others using a system. so his point is, if you're an american, you're going to watch the new york marathon this weekend and when you see those guys cross the finish line and gals, you're going to think of boston four years ago and you're going to want someone to say, let's get this guy and put him away and not mess around. >> the boston marathon bomber is on death row. >> that was a good one. that is fine.

>> this is only day one of this thing. and charges have already been leveled. >> americans know this system goes too slowly. >> guess who's in charge of the prosecution. >> right. >> the president. >> exactly. >> the head of law enforcement in america. >> that's what he's saying. >> why doesn't he speed it up since he's running the prosecutorial system. >> also, for all of us who love the constitution and care about the constitution, isn't this process enshrined in -- >> no, not at all. it's due process. >> the system taking months and years and judges being out of control is not enshrined. >> due process. >> due process but not the current version. >> what we have seen from the people who have been charged from terrorism acts, they have actually gotten justice. they are in jail or on death row and quickly. so i don't know what he's talking about when he says the process -- it doesn't make sense given the facts because the people who have been charged with terrorism in the past have

gotten justice. no one has been off the hook. >> the record of convictions in courts for terrorism suspects is actually far better than out of guantanamo. >> but the american people are watching their country invade -- they've elected this man president because he said he would build a wall, make us safer and he has federal judges saying things like i'm going to tell you -- >> i agree with that, on the issue of immigration and the frustration that the president has with the court system, delaying his immigration policies and potentially the impact in america of doing so. that is a separate issue than what we're talking about here. and so i'm not going to argue that the criminal justice system is slow. i don't agree with the president's comments that the criminal justice system is laughable. i do believe that -- and i do disagree that we should not give people who are in this country

who are not citizens and who are enemy combatants and i'd open the question as to how we treat citizens who have aligned with a foreign power to attack this country as to whether we give them the same constitution rights as an ordinary system and i would say we should not. >> nfl season, i have to throw a penalty flag. whether you're a republican or democrat, constitution -- i'm not a constitutional lawyer. i want to see a terrorist in jail and the key is thrown away. let's do a side by side. hundreds and hundreds of prosecutions post- 9/11 in federal courts of prisons, high degree of conviction, speedy trials, cheaper than guantanamo and as you heard today, some of the convictions, including the charges against the individual today, that's a life or that's a death. he may face the death penalty. so you have convictions, successful convictions and terms. can i speak? >> excuse me, mr. politician, the practitioner would like to speak. >> go ahead z a.

>> and by the way -- >> furthermore, can you point to a significant threat, including in cases that involve central figures in the bin laden organization in any trial in the united states? let me give you, in closing, the comparison and contrast in guantanamo. fewer than 20 convictions, they take forever and they cost everything and you want to tell me, forget about politics that if success is defined by a long time behind bars, speedy trials and hundreds of prisoners, a better success is fewer than 20 for millions of dollars outside of the american system. >> we'll continue the conversation -- >> that's the problem. it's not a success. it's how much information you're getting and the availability of that information that you can't get in the criminal justice system because they're protected by rights and that's the fundamental difference. >> they did get a lot of information from this guy. >> and they did from the boston bomber as well because they can question under emergency doctrine and not give miranda

warnings. we're going to hear something that sarah sanders said about the diversity immigration visa program, that people come to the united states randomly with no vetting. that's just not true about the no vetting. we'll talk about that in a minute. 16 shades pulse with lush comfort. non-drying. never flat. it's addictive. matte addiction. new color riche matte. from l'oreal paris. coaching means making tough choices. jim! you're in! but when you have high blood pressure and need cold medicine that works fast, the choice is simple. coricidin hbp is the #1 brand that gives powerful cold symptom relief without raising your blood pressure. coricidin hbp.

we're talking about what the president said about the justice system in the united states. here are his reminders today. >> we need quick justice and we need strong justice, much quicker and much stronger than we have right now. because what we have right now is a joke and it's a

laughingstock. and no wonder so much of this stuff takes place. >> does it hurt sarah huckabee sanders' credibility when she says, that's not what the president said, she says people are saying? >> i think i'm going to make you crazy when i tell you when i watch him speak like that, like he's done his whole public career now, our country is being invaded by people who are running over people on halloween. >> he said it's a joke and a laughi laughingstock. >> it is a joke. >> you agree it's a joke. sarah huckabee sanders said he did not say it's a joke. >> she asked about, does he say that the whole system is a joke. >> she lied about what he -- she was not accurate in his portrayal of what he said. >> my point is, the president

said and the country is looking up, a lot of us and saying thank goodness we have a president that's going to go after this. >> i want to play what sarah sanders said. >> why did the president call the u.s. justice system a joke and a laughingstock during his comments in -- >> that's not what he said. >> he said that the system of justice in this country -- >> he said the process. he said the process has people calling us a joke and calling us a laughingstock. look, he's simply pointing out his frustration at how long this process takes, how costly this process is. >> i mean, look, people misspeak all the time and stuff like that. i don't want to seem like we're playi playing goch yeah and stuff. >> she should have said, that's not what he meant. not, that's not what he said. we all know donald trump is not necessarily precise in the way he addresses issues off the cuff

and i can understand if she said, well, he didn't really mean that. he meant his frustration. >> if she said that, though, she would be in so much trouble because we know this is not a president whoever wants to be challenged about the things that he says when they're not true when in fact the majority of what comes out of his mouth are untruths or misguided -- >> i wouldn't say the majority. a lot. >> well, he was rated as the candidate who lied the most during the campaign. >> not the majority. >> but here's the thing. when he says things like, you know, it's our justice system is a laughingstock and it's a joke, he's talking down the whole country. >> no, he's not. >> yes, he is. and when you say americans look at that and feel proud, it's not the majority of americans. >> i just wonder what he compares this to because he keeps talking about strength and it's got to be fast and strong. egypt, it's fast and strong. i'm not sure -- i wouldn't want to live under the egyptian

justice system. >> and saudi arabia, too, right? >> that's why we have the constitution. >> you want someone to disagree with your point? you guys are missing what the president said. you're hearing him say a critique of the speed of the actual justice system from -- >> we're listening to what he says. >> we've watched this guy now for two years and he's saying some kids got driven over and killed last night and we're sick of this and we're sick of judges striking down the extreme vetting program. >> no, it's not -- >> district court judges -- >> district court judges are not the ones that are supposed to make those decisions. that's not a constitutional -- >> that's what the justice system is saying. >> otherwise they are in charge. >> anderson, the thing i thought was most disturbing about his statement was, first of all, he starts by calling the suspect an animal and then he says that our

justice system is a laughingstock. now, i looked back to see, you know, george bush after 9/11, what did he -- he wasn't considered to be particularly eloquent. he talked about the terrorists could shatter american's steel but not our resolve and said americans should move forward with peace and justice and now what does trump say? trump says they're animals and basically implies we should just take them out and shoot them like you do in some third world country. >> no, no, no. >> that's the implication. >> he has in the past, in front of a crowd of police officers, said you shouldn't be so delicate with them, don't worry about putting your hand on your head when you're putting them in the police car. these are suspects, not people who have been convicted of a crime so that was a joke and what he said today seems to echo that idea. >> you're saying he's consistent with how he talks about issues and american rejected the attempt -- we tried to say the guys who came in here

illegally -- >> ayou are somebody who loves the constitution and yet due process, you're tired of it. >> due process in the constitution. what we have today is too many judges that you think are in charge of the court in charge of holding things back. >> no judge has weighed in on this case yet. okay? the only thing that's happened in this case -- >> like you're writing a new part of the constitution. >> i'm going back to the constitution instead of going to the constitution she wants with judges in charge. a hawaii judge striking down the president's policy based on congress' law that they pass. >> that is not due process. you're just mad because you don't like the outcome. yes, absolutely. >> it's a policy that would have done nothing to stop this attack. and the other thing you said is we're being invaded by people running over with people with trucks. that's just a false statement. that's not -- i'm not denying that eight people died but

that's not the same thing as saying people have invaded our country and are just running over people. first of all, he didn't invade the country. let's just start there. and the reality is, statistically speaking, as tragic as this is, it's not very common. at the same time, we'll have probably 11,000ish people killed by homicide with a gun this year and you don't want to do anything about that, i'm pretty sure, and yet we will at the same time period tragically have eight people who have died and you want to shut the borders, basically. >> right. yes. >> we have to take a break. we'll continue the conversation next.

as we reported, less than 24 hours after a deadly terror attack in new york city, the president used this to criticize chuck schumer. at issue is the diversity immigrant visa program which was established in 1990. the idea was to diversity the pool of people who can travel to the united states. they have low rates of immigration in the previous five years of immigration to the u.s. here's what sarah sanders said today about that program. >> the fact that we have a lottery system that randomly decides who gets the greatest opportunity in the world, one of the best things that we have in this country is the fact that everybody wants to be here and to give that away randomly, to have no vetting system, to have no way to determine who comes, why they are here and if they want to contribute to society is a problem. >> keeping them honest, sanders is incorrect when she says there is no vetting. there are education and work

requirements, financial requirements and, as with all immigrants, no one with a criminal background is allowed. you can argue the vetting is not tough enough but it's the same vetting that any immigrant gets. it's not true that there is not at all. just the facts. >> having said that, every immigration bill in the past several years, bipartisan and otherwise, have gotten rid of this program. so let's just be honest about it. this is not what everybody thought. put in by ted kennedy because he wanted more irish coming into the country, believe it or not and it's gone from europe to basically africa and you have this basic question, are these people who really want to be americans? do they have value structures that -- and so there's a bigger issue here with this but -- >> i'm not arguing that. >> -- this program needs to go and we should -- one thing we should do is if we can't pass

the big immigration bill, let's pass the small one. >> yeah, but before -- all of that is right but the white house didn't seem concerned with any of these facts and went out and impugning senator schumer. it became the law in the 1999 which was signed by president bush and was to encourage italian immigrants and it was bipartisan approval and they decided to get rid of it and it did pass the senate and the house and that's what happened. it was a completely bipartisan thing. to take a terrorist attack and turn it into an attack on a u.s. senator and it's not even factually correct. what she was saying, what the president said, it's just not true. it's not what happened. >> my big concern with this is that we're within 24 hours of this happening and i don't think the president or anybody should be out there -- >> right.

>> i'm going to be consistent, when the gun control folks come out of the woodwork two hours after there's a shooting and i say give it time here, let's -- >> you're saying it's too soon? >> it's too soon. i agree, we should have a debate on immigration. but not right now. >> i think that's exactly right. that's how he treated vegas but we now know it was for different reasons because saying something about immigration as soon as a terrorist act occurs, president trump knows that that is something that his base will love because they do. my fear is, as the only immigrant on this panel, is that he's going to continue to use the issue of immigration as a divisive issue in to scaring people that -- >> when you look back at past attacks, is it -- i mean, from my remembrance of this, it's not people coming directly over from other countries. i think there's been a handful

of those. it's mostly second generation people. >> there are issues here that are fundamentally separate. why do we let people in just because they happen to win a lottery? >> that's an arguable -- >> that is correct. that is not a national security question. if you look at the people that i typically would have followed when i was at the fbi coming over from the cia over to the hoover building, you're looking at people who are born in the united states and who become radicalized or people like this individual we've seen in the last 24 hours who moved over here seven years ago. i think we're going to find that he was not radicalized overseas. he was radicalized when he came here. so if you're talking about this bill, this issue of whether we should have people coming in on as a lottery, as an american citizen, i don't understand it. if you're talking about extreme vetting, that's another issue. how would a person who was not radicalized, whether from island or uzbekistan, who is coming in here, how would they crop up on an extreme radicalization radar? they are not going to because

people like me are going to say they've never talked to anybody or said anything and i'm not following 7 billion people around the world and i don't have a perfect picture of what they think. >> ed? >> one way to do that is you don't let people come from countries where the people are not subscribing to the american system that we have, a track record. that's what the president -- >> somalia, east asia. >> that's right. that's a good list. >> countries that include japan and new zealand? >> i don't know about that. that's why we elected a president to be in charge of that policy. >> wasn't uzbekistan a country that aided us after 9/11? >> people that are coming -- >> that's where he came from. >> if the people are coming from countries, what the president said and what he ran on -- by the way, back to your point -- that's not my job. >> that's a country that helps us. >> but here's what you

misunderstood, this election was fundamentally about the question of controlling the borders and letting people in. it's not about the past. it's about what we've seen happen to us and it has to do with the values and it has to do with criminals. >> all right. >> that's what has gone on. >> we need to take a break. lots of headlines on the russia investigation, including the president's close associates will appear next on capitol hill and we talk to adam schiff and we'll remember the victims of the terror attack. - [announcer] what if the vacuum head was reborn?

shark has added a rotating soft brush. so while deep-cleaning carpets, you can also grab large particles, pull in piles and directly engage floors. duo clean. invented by shark.

whentertaining us,es getting us back on track,hing? duo clean. and finding us dates. phones really have changed. so why hasn't the way we pay for them? introducing xfinity mobile. you only pay for data and can easily switch between pay per gig and unlimited. no one else lets you do that. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit or go to xfinitymobile.com. the russia investigation, we're learning new details. first, george papadopoulos was at more than one trump campaign meeting. the second meeting was with now attorney general jeff sessions but not the president. that revelation comes after sarah sanders insisted he only went to one foreign policy group meeting.

as all of this news unfolds, he spent hours isolated in his residence and they had to reschedule the meeting before his trip that begins on friday. house intelligence committee slated for the next two weeks that includes former trump aide keith shiller. he'll speak with investigators behind closed doors. earlier today i spoke with adam schiff about the latest developments on the russia investigation. congressman, what do you make of the fact that george papadopoulos was in two meetings with the campaign, not one as the trump administration had claimed? i mean, do you still believe he was a little more than a coffee boy as some of the allies of the president are claiming? >> no, i don't think that's accurate at all. this is part of a pattern that we have seen when any of these contacts are exposed, the trump campaign tries to dismiss the

innocence. jared kushner earlier touted as being so consequential in their campaign when it was revealed that he had reached out to julian assange in an effort to obtain stolen e-mails. once again, we saw the campaign so it's part of a broad pattern. they also tried to diminish the significance, of course, of the indictment of manafort and gates. >> you would still like to speak to manafort, to gates? >> absolutely. and i also would hope -- >> is that possible, even though -- because of the charges already? >> well, you know, there are the technical constraints of them being under house arrest. then there's more practical constraint that it's unlikely that they would testify and invoke the fifth. i'm hoping that when the case is resolved that at that point as a

part of any agreement that mr. mueller will require their cooperation not just with him but also with congress. >> i assume you'd like to talk to papadopoulos as well. >> absolutely. and he was on our witness list. he was already very much a person of interest in our investigation and apparently he's agreed to cooperate, but whether that's agreed to cooperate only with bob mueller or with us too is yet to be determined. >> your committee is interviewing former aide to the president and long time confident keith shirley yesterday. he was sort of the president's body man going back for years. what information do you hope he can provide? are there specific topics you hope to question him on? >> well, the majority apparently is the releasing our witness list. i'm not sure why because the agreement is to keep that confidential and allow the witnesses to disclose if they choose to. so at this point i don't want to confirm whether he is coming before the committee. but we do have a busy few weeks ahead of us. we're interviewing often multiple witnesses a day.

frankly, i'm not sure that that kind of schedule is good for the investigation in the sense that sometimes we're still waiting for the documents to interview these witnesses on. but there's a concerted push to bring people in fast and furious i think in an effort to bring us to a premature conclusion. >> are you saying that the majority on the committee are kind of pushing things too fast? >> well, i notice an appreciable uptick in the pace and also unilateral actions of the committee. that is actions taken without consultation with the minority. and we have seen ample evidence of that with the new investigation of you're rain yum one with the subpoenas being issued by the chair that i think are a response to a call that steve bannon made a few weeks ago that the republicans need to bring these investigations to a halt and turn their attention and focus to investigating hillary clinton. so i think we are seeing in congress a response to what bannon is urge skpg what the president is urging. i don't think it's in the interests of our investigation and i do think it's an effort to

distract and place the focus elsewhere. i'm particularly disturbed, anderson, that the president and white house have violated justice department policy by intervening with the department of justice department in order to push toward this investigation of hillary clinton. it's yet another erosion of our system of checks and balances. >> that's pretty damning criticism that you believe it was a phone call by steve bannon, pressure from steve bannon that house republicans are responding to. >> well, you know, i think that mr. bannon may have been right when he says that he has more influence outside the building than he does inside the building. it's hard for me to escape the conclusion that this sudden interest in the uranium one investigation or traction is unrelated to the president continually urging, hey, republicans, do something literally all in caps the same week that information leaks that the people close to him may be under indictment. he's urging the republicans to do something.

but all along he's been urging them not to investigate russia but to investigate hillary clinton. and bannon the same way. and i think we are seeing the very tangible results of that. >> congressman shiff, appreciate your time. thank you. >> thanks, around son. >> coming up tonight, we'll tell you what we know about the eight people whose lives were cut short by a terrorist in new york yesterday. we remember them next.

tourists, lifelong friends

marking the anniversary with a trip to new york. a young man just starting a promising career. a woman traveling with her sisters and mom. a man on a quick bike ride between meetings. these are the eight people killed in yesterday's terror attack. tonight we remember them. it was a reunion of old friends who had attended the same poll technique high school in argentina. they were celebrating their 30th reunion with a trip to new york city and a bike ride along the hudson river. that's it, champion, one of the men exclaims. a few miles north of where the attack happened.

the men believed to be filming this ariel men la new toe would survive. five of his friends did not. in this photo taken before they boarded their plane to america, the ar general teenian victims are pictured standing arm in arm with their classmates. lee bre printed on their t-shirts, spanish for free. they were all killed. nicholas clooefs was the only native new yorker to have died in tuesday's attack, according to social media accounts he attended elizabeth irwin high school before heading to skid more college upstate. he just graduate last year with a degree in computer science and just returned to new york city to start a job as a software engineer. his life was just getting started. nicholas clooes was 23 years old. darren drake was the other american killed in the attack, a

32-year-old project manager worked at seven world trade center. he was on a bike ride in between meetings when he was hit by the truck, according to his father, who described him as the perfect son. >> i'm not even angry. i'm not. i'm not angry at all. i'm hurt. i'm absolutely hurt. >> drake was from nearby new milford, new jersey. he graduated from rutgers in 2007 with a degree in political science and went on for a masters in business administration from fairley particular inson university. he was well on his way to his second masters in science when he was killed. drake had also served as his local school board president. the superintendent of the district called his death senseless, saying darren was a good man with a soft touch and huge heart. the eighth and final victim was 31-year-old bell jun in a statement her husband called her a fantastic wife and the most beautiful mom to our two sons of three months and three years

old. he said this loss is unbearable. eight lives cut short. eight families forever changed. time now for don lemon and cnn tonight. breaking news on the russia investigation and the response from an angry president. this is cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. sources telling cnn president trump has been spending hours isolated in the white house, fuming about the indictments of two former campaign aides and the guilty plea from a third. predictably the president's main worry seems to be that mueller's investigation makes him look weak, so he is talking to the newspaper that he loves to hate, telling "the new york times" tonight, quote, i'm not under investigation. but his aides have been forced to postpone briefings on the eve of his long and difficult trip to asia. what could possibly go wrong? and it's probably no coincidence that that