tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN May 6, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
9:01 pm
but we all know we're paying too much for it. enter xfinity mobile. america's best lte, with the most wifi hotspots combined for the first time. when you're near an xfinity hotspot you're connected to wifi, saving on data. when you're not, you pay for data one gig at a time. use a little, pay a little. use a lot, just switch to unlimited. it's a new kind of network. call, visit or go to xfinitymobile.com.
9:02 pm
good evening, there are looming questions tonight on whether robert mueller will testify to congress and the american people about his findings in the russia probe with conflicting messages from the president plus the attorney general missed a deadline to turnover the full unredacted mueller report. we'll get to all of that but breaking news on another move that's a pattern. the treasury secretary steven mnuchin is refusing to give six years of the president's tax returns to house democrats. let go to jim acosta at the white house. what is the reasoning mnuchin is giving for denying the president's tax returns? >> he fired off a letter off to
9:03 pm
capitol hill to the ways and means committee chairman saying this is an unprecedented request and raises serious constitutional questions and on those grounds the treasury secretary is saying you're not getting the president's tax returns. this is probably one of the least surprising stories of this year, anderson. the white house, the president's private legal team have made it clear they are not going to willingly turnover the president's tax returns and i talked to an administration official earlier this evening that said at this point it appears the justice department quote is prepared to litigate on this matter if the chairman takes it to the courts, which is the expected next move, anderson. >> not surprising, the president's been trying to keep his tax returns out of the public's sight for the last three decades. >> that's right. the president's legal team has gone as far to block major banks
9:04 pm
like deutsche bank up in new york from cooperating, that would involve turning over the tax returns. they have drawn a line in the sand over this, they are not going to do it. the question is how far house democrats will go and of course, they are making the case that this is one of the building blocks in their case, this administration on a variety of fronts whether it be the less redacted or fully unredacted mueller report robert mueller testifying and so on. they see this white house as stonewalling this administration as stonewalling at every turn. >> there was back and forth if mueller will testify or not. i understand you're getting new reporting on that. >> that the right. there is discussions going on inside the white house and administration and the president tweeted that robert mueller should not testify, this was a departure from what the president was saying last friday when he was saying it was up to the attorney general william barr and william barr when he testified said this would be fine with him. according to the source familiar with all this who i spoke with a short while ago, the view inside the white house is that the president was just expressing
9:05 pm
his opinion when he made that statement and that tweet over the weekend that he's not necessarily issuing a directive or an order to his administration to block robert mueller from testifying. essentially with the president saying is he views this investigation is over and that it's time to move on but anderson, interesting there are sources inside administration familiar with this matter essentially saying the president was letting off steam there, not necessarily signaling at this point that he's going to block the special counsel from testifying. >> thanks. the president not standing in the way as jim said as consistent with what attorney general barr is saying about mueller testifying. listen. >> robert mueller remains a justice department employee as of this moment. will you permit him to testify publicly to congress? >> i have no objection to bob mueller testifying. >> what about bob mueller? should he be allowed to testify? >> i said publicly, i have no on objection to him. >> no objection to attorney
9:06 pm
general barr both times. i spoke with congressman david cicilline about this. congressman, what's the current status of mueller appearing in front of your committee? >> discussions are underway. there has been no agreement reached or commitment made but the committee hopes the special counsel will appear on the 15th of may. the american people have a right to hear from him as does the committee. >> you said discussions are underway, is that between the committee and the department of justice or with robert mueller? do you expect the white house will try to stop him from testifying because as of right now, he's still an employee of the doj. >> well, if you remember, the president initially said when asked that question whether he would stop mr. mueller from testifying, he said that the up to the attorney general and the attorney general testified publicly he had no objection to mr. mueller coming before the committee and the president immediately changed his mind and said mr. mueller should not testify. it's unclear whether the president will attempt to but i think it very important that mr. mueller come before the judiciary committee to walk the committee and american people
9:07 pm
through the report to his findings to explain the context of the decisions and judgments he's made. >> so the president's assertion mueller testified would be in his words a redo for the democrats, i mean, is that what this is about? >> not at all. look, this is an investigation which resulted in a 400 and some odd page report presented to our committee that first of all establishes a sweeping and systematic attack on the russian government and then ten specific instances of obstruction of justice by the president of the united states who tried to impede, interfere or stop this investigation. mr. mueller lays out this evidence and really calls upon congress in the final part of the report as the only place that has the responsibility to conduct oversight and to hold the president accountable and to ensure that no one is above the law. it our responsibility. this is not a redo. this is the beginning of our work and our responsibilities to conduct congressional oversight. >> in terms of the judiciary
9:08 pm
committee voting to hold barr in contempt to provide the complete mueller report, the doj says it's willing to keep negotiating with the committee in good faith. are you willing to do that? is the committee willing to do that? is that offer enough to hold off a contempt vote? >> chairman nadler has been very accommodating. he's tried in every way to accommodate the attorney general to invite him to provide the report to try to accommodate his concerns and he did not appear or did not present the full report as the subpoena required and the chairman of the committee noticed a contempt report for this wednesday in response to that notice. mr. barr has written to the chair of the committee requesting a meeting on wednesday afternoon to discuss some kind of accommodation. the chairman will have to consider that request and decide whether or not it's a good faith effort to actually provide the report and the supporting materials or just an effort to delay the inevitable. the chairman is committed to
9:09 pm
ensuring that we get the materials we need to do our work. that means the full report and all the supporting materials and the committee chair is incredibly accommodating and patient in trying to ensure that we get what we need to do our job. >> what is getting the full unredacted report and supporting documents, what would you hope to glean from that that you can't learn from the report as it is? >> well, the report as it is damning and very concerning and presents evidence of very serious misconduct, obviously. we also need to see the other materials, the supporting documents, what has been covered up, other investigations referenced and the grand jury proceedings that required us to go to court to get those materials. we need to collect this evidence and the committee has a responsibility to see it and to study it and to make informed judgments and the attorney general ought to be willing to help us in that process and not be impeding our ability to collect evidence. >> appreciate your time, thank you. >> my pleasure.
9:10 pm
>> let's get more perspective, joining me is former white water independent counsel robert ray and cnn legal analyst and laura coats. >> i think on mueller's testimony maybe the best place to lead this is why don't we let robert mueller decide short of subpoena, he could take one of two positions and both are potentially reasonable. one is i said all i intend to say and it's in the report. alternatively, there is more that the american people should have. i tend to kind of agree with senator sue collins, who i have a lot of respect for when she says the american people well may need context here and should hear from the special counsel, something that the attorney general has made clear that he is not opposed to and the white house seems to be sending the signal that it's up to the attorney general and i guess my view of this is if bob mueller
9:11 pm
wants to appear before the american people and in congress, he should be afforded that opportunity to do so and if he doesn't and he wants to step aside and say hey, listen, i've said all i intend to say, i said it in the report, it was passed onto the attorney general and it's within the attorney general's prerogative, we'll leave it at that. that's where i come out. >> kerry, we live in the time where the president can tweet something one day and the next day have it reported he was expressing his opinion and didn't mean what he was actually going to do anything about it. >> yeah, so the difficulty with that is that we don't know whether the president's words and statements are actually actionable and it's relevant in this context because then we don't know if he's actually giving an order about whether or not he's going to assert some sort of legal privilege over the special counsel's testimony. it doesn't seem like it. it seems like they are trying to walk it back and of course, the attorney general said he has no objection so that seems to be the legal advice.
9:12 pm
being given to the president. it's a bigger problem for his presidency, particularly in his commander in chief role that we actually don't know and other officials in government don't know if the president's words have meaning if when he says something or when he writes something or he tweets something is if it's actually actionable. that is actually a real national security problem and it's bad for his presidency. >> yeah, the last person who words you want to have -- the first person whose words you want to have meaning is obviously the president of the quite. if the attorney general decided he didn't want to allow mueller to testify, even if mueller wanted to, the special counsel's boss, he is the special counsel's boss in the justice department, he could stop him from doing it, couldn't he? >> he could. of course, remember, he has been on a power trip of sorts as we've seen through his testimony making every one clearly aware he is the actual employer of sorts and that he is the final word because the confidential
9:13 pm
report once handed over to barr was actually his baby now. he could say listen, you've done all you're supposed to do here and you essentially did not come to the one determination you were supposed to on one area of obstruction, therefore let the report speak for itself. my concern is not whether or not he actually will appear to testify. it's likely that he will. it seems very clear from one of his letters to bill barr he does not like anyone else to be his mouthpiece if he feels he's being misconstrued. the issue for me is whether it will be meaningful. to the extent bill barr has attorney general has concerns about the report coming out or aspects of it related to grand jury material in the like. if those are not going to be discussed or the process decided to take over the obstruction part of it, then it may not be as meaningful and productive as congress would like. >> quote, the report sounded an awful lot as being comey-esk. i will not charge this person
9:14 pm
but i'm going to criticize him on the way out the door. it steps outside of the role. is this a reason why mueller should testify to give his opinion? >> i was speaking in the context that the president references about one sentence in the report which was the, you know, this is not an exoneration sentence and trying to make the point that's not what prosecutors do. they don't pass out exoneration cards at the end of a criminal investigation and have a choice about whether or not they believe charges are appropriate. either, yes, they are in which case you proceed to indictment before a grand jury or no, you don't in which case there is a declination. so leaving exoneration aside i have no brob with tproblem withe of the redacted mueller report and the only remaining issue appears to be this question, which is a complicated one about the potential release of grand jury material, which is the only remaining portion that congress doesn't otherwise have access to.
9:15 pm
>> is congress -- >> you know -- >> go ahead. go ahead. >> i was going to say, anderson, one of the things i keep hearing about is this binary decision. that is actually true most prosecutors have the binary choice to prosecute or decline to prosecute and not actually provide information. what most prosecutors do not have against them is an office of legal counsel opinion that says there is a policy that may actually preclude you from reaching either of those binary choices but feel free of an investigation nonetheless, grand jury subpoena power nonetheless. but reach a conclusion anyways. as bill barr mentioned, it was a prudential matter and fully investigating and also that comey effect of presenting -- prejudicial material. the choice being excluded from robert mueller which is a reason
9:16 pm
he should be able to testify. >> you got to take a quick break. we'll have more. i want to get everybody's reaction to the open letter signed by hundreds of former prosecutors that worked in republican and democratic administrations. they say the president would be facing multiple charges stemming from the russia investigation if he were not president. tonight, top concern for democrats president trump loses the 2020 race by a slim margin, will he contest the results and refuse to leave the white hous ? we'll talk about that head. -- ahead.
9:17 pm
9:18 pm
9:19 pm
a sharp and growing rebuke for president trump coming from more than 500 federal prosecutors who have signed an open letter saying the president would have been charged with obstruction of justice had he not been president. back with our panel. kerry, do you believe this? these federal prosecutors, "a," is it appropriate for them to do this and do you agree with them that the president would have been charged had he not been a sitting president? >> so i do worry a little bit it will be perceived as prosecutors engaged in political activity so i think there is a risk there but the letter, i agree with the findings of fact if one looked at the facts as laid out in the report it would constitute a
9:20 pm
case of obstruction. i think the report, the letter serves two important purposes. one, it contradicts the attorney general's finding which he found after the special counsel didn't make a finding. it contradicts the attorney general's finding there was no evidence of obstruction as the facts were laid out in the report and second, it contradicts this really corrosive argument, administration and surrogates are making and that's a conduct described in the report is part of his core executive functions and that's a dangerous argument and that the perhaps what was motivating these prosecutors who normally, former prosecutors who normally would not engage in this type of activity. >> to look at these facts and say a prosecutor cannot possibly sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice, the standard set out in the principles of federal prosecution runs counter to logic and our experience. what do you say to that? >> i don't agree with them that
9:21 pm
it is completely clear that this is so, first. second, i don't know anybody on the list whoever had the responsibility of making decisions both to investigate and the decision about whether to prosecute a president that includes i'm not on that list, ken starr is not on that list, bob fisk is not on that list and anybody else i can think of that had that responsibility that concerns the best interest of the united states are involved. and third, you know, i think it's also completely beside the point. i don't know how you separate this investigation from the fact that it does, in fact, involve the president of the united states. no other person in our system has the ability to hire and fire an fbi director to choose his prosecutor whether special counsel or otherwise or to insist that he have an attorney general who has not been recused. all of those facts have to be evaluated in context when you're
9:22 pm
considering application of obstruction of justice statutes to presidential conduct. >> just a point of clarification, there is a member who was on ken starr's team who was on the letter. >> yeah, he worked for me. >> laura, in terms of back and forth, will democrats really achieve anything? at least in the short term by holding him in contempt or is it more of a symbolic move? >> well, unfortunately, the ideas of contempt can seem symbolic to people if you have these courses of action. they can pursue the criminal attempt that require one of the 90 plus u.s. attorneys whose boss is bill barr whose boss is the president of the quite to -- united states to actually bring those charges against that person. the other idea is going through the civil courts to do so in the federal district court. we've seen that happen in the obama administration and we saw it in the bush administration and we've seen the subsequent president have to actually take hold of the matter and resolve
9:23 pm
it, obama and of course trump also resolved both matters. the length of time and the litigation but normally people are frustrated about that. i will say on one aspect of the letter if i may, anderson, the idea again that to go back to that four-page summery letter that bill barr wrote, in it he actually stated along with rod rosenstein they did not contemplate that opinion not to actually prosecute a president. so the reasons why i think he was talking about those issues about how it would be a matter to actually consider, that's the the idea of why it's so surprising it was not taken into account in the four-page letter and also not talked about later on. part of that letter was to resolve that discrepancy that made your eyebrows raise and to say if it actually was an important aspect of it no one has had this experience but for a slekd handful of people then why did rosenstein and barr not contemplate it initially?
9:24 pm
>> i spoke to cohen he sits on the judiciary committee. he said they could go as far as having the sergeant at arms apprehend barr and possibly jar -- jail him. it seems ludicrous. >> that's political. pyrotechnics, antdson. can we please worry about more important things like maybe national security and the fact we have three carrier groups in the persian gulf and a revolution in venezuela and we'll have somebody in congress talk about what the theory powers of congress are to hold somebody in contempt and apparently, it doesn't end there. what i see this is is a last gasp towards impeachment that will fizzle out quickly once the politics of this become evident and that is what i'm concerned about. i think, you know, it something to be concerned about when you start to have former federal prosecutors weigh in on something where it's obvious what is going on here is a last ditch effort to try to bolster the impeachment argument. so that's where we are. >> robert ray, appreciate it.
9:25 pm
up next, more on the breaking news from the top of the program, the treasury secretary saying he will not provide congress with president trump's tax returns. we'll look what could be the next step in the stand off. ♪ book now and enjoy free unlimited open bar and more. norwegian cruise line. feel free. one-of-a-kind women weg call "mom."e with an engaging new experience... ...ancestrydna can help her uncover her history... ...to tell a story as unique as she is. order a kit for mom (or dad) at ancestry.com ...on a john deere 1 series tractor.. because changing your attachments... whether it's for this job... this job... or even this job... should be as easy as...
9:26 pm
9:28 pm
more breaking news on president trump's taxes, treasury secretary mnuchin will not turn over the tax returns. mnuchin was asked about it last month and here is what he said then. >> as i've previously said, i want to acknowledge we have received the request as i said before, we will follow the law, we are reviewing it with our
9:29 pm
internal legal department, and i would leave it at that. >> you might call that a non-answer answer. perspective from david gergan and jim himes. does this request for the president's tax returns lack legitimate legislative purpose as mnuchin now claims? >> nothing could be further from the truth and i mean, it's really an interesting case because as you know, anderson, there is always a dance under every president over how fast you produce documents over some investigation congress is doing or whether you send somebody in this case, you know, in this president's case the attorney general. in this case, this is zero ambiguity. the law, and you can look at it, the law says that the irs shall, with no conditions, no nothing, shall turn over whatever returns are requested by three people and the chairman of the ways and
9:30 pm
means committee and there is precedent for this. that same law was invoked. so it's fascinating to me that mnuchin is saying he can't lawfully do it because the truth is you don't need to be a lawyer to do this. you can't lawfully not do it. >> david, clearly, even if the congressman is correct and the law is on the side of those who want the tax returns, steve mnuchin knows how the president feels about this and is clearly, you know, legality aside, doing what the president wants to do. >> absolutely. the president doesn't have to say a word to him. mnuchin knows what's expected. first of all, i so much agree with congressman hines. the law is plain on its face. it's a law that goes all the way back to the 1920s after the teapot scandal, one of the most infamous and from now on the irs shall provide tax returns upon written request the chairman of the house weighs and means committee. so what we don't know and is whether in fact the -- i assume
9:31 pm
what the trump administration is going to say is that that law is unconstitutional they will fight it in the courts and they will also drag this out. clearly, the stonewalling is all about trying to take as much as possible and put it all the investigations that last way past the next election 2020, november 2020 and let them be resolved then. that's what the white house is trying to do. >> congressman a long court battle is where this seems to be headed. is it a win for administration? isn't it all to a certain degree about them being able to kick the can down the road? >> well, that's obviously their strategy here and so that raises a couple questions. i mean, to all of us, and i include my republican colleagues, they need to decide whether they will support this strategy. it wasn't that long ago, two or three years ago they were investigating president obama and of course, the usual dance obtained in some cases the obama administration didn't produce
9:32 pm
stuff as fast but eventually they did. republicans need to decide are they going to validate this strategy that makes ineffective congressional oversight that will once again at some point in the future conduct oversight. i don't hold a lot of hope out for that but that the where you open the door to things you were discussing earlier, congress has its own authority through processes like inherent contempt and the pursestrings, there are tools congress can use to motivate the executive to do what every other president has done in 240 years, which is submit to the oversight of the co-equal branch of government known as the congress. >> the thing is, david, if congress doesn't get the tax returns, it's not going away. whoever ends up being the democratic nominee is sure to use this against the president throughout the campaign, no? >> yes, and the democratic candidates, the top half dozen have provided their tax information.
9:33 pm
only joe biden hasn't but is expected to soon but there are a couple of other things the democrats could do to fight this off. one is and it's already underway in the state of new york is to have the state of new york officially adopt a law that his state tax returns have to be furnished and that's -- that process is moving along. the other thing anderson is some states are thinking about and i think some are going to act on the idea of having a law before the 2020 elections which says that in order to be on the ballot in the state, you have to release your tax returns. that could also force the president's hand to release the turns before the 2020 elections. >> congressman, do you think this looks good for democrats or does it run the risk of looking like their priorities are out of whack and essentially going after the president for the point of going after the president. >> well, i guess i think a couple things. number one, the president didn't
9:34 pm
produce his tax returns in 2016. that didn't keep him from being elected. i don't think this is a winning political issue in 2020. number two, i have severe doubts whether states should be allowed to layer on qualifications for the president of the united states. i mean, if we open that door, god only knows what states will decide they want to do in order to put somebody on the ballot. look, anderson, we're forgetting something, this is much bigger than what we're talking about here, this is a huge question for everybody in this country, which is are we going to be a nation of laws? you can believe that the president shouldn't have to produce his tax returns voluntarily, you can believe that the congress is harassing the president of the united states but the law could not be more clear here and so this is really the
9:35 pm
fundamental issue is are we allow the president to blatantly ignore the law? >> david garrigan, congressman, thank you. would president trump go quietly after the 2020 election if he lost? would he contest the results in that scenario? possible hints about a strategy and big day for prince harry and the duchess of sussex meghan markle. they had a boy. what's his name? are there pictures? that's coming up. i have one kid in each branch of the military. it's so important to us that verizon is supporting military families. that's how i stay connected with them. (vo) the best network is the one that gives you more. like a special price for military families and $100 when you switch. that's verizon. [ chuckles ] so, what are some key takeaways from this commercial? did any of you hear the "bundle your home and auto" part? -i like that, just not when it comes out of her mouth. -yeah, as a mother, i wouldn't want my kids to see that. -good mom. -to see -- wait. i'm sorry. what? -don't kids see enough violence as it is? -i've seen violence. -maybe we turn the word "bundle" into a character, like mr. bundles. -top o' the bundle to you. [ laughter ] bundle, bundle, bundle. -my kids would love that. -yeah.
9:36 pm
it's not small. but it's not just big either. it's the kind of big where you'll never have to ask, "should i scooch up?" it's big that looks at a sunroof and wonders why it can't just be most of the roof. it's big that's better because we built it that way. the spacious, 121 cubic feet of cargo space ford expedition. the spacious, 121 cubic feet of cargo space welcome to our lounge. enjoy your stay. thanks very much. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ find calm in over 1,000 airport lounges worldwide. it's another way we've got your back. the business platinum card from american express. don't do business without it.
9:37 pm
9:38 pm
remarks over the weekend some saw has warning signs if president trump were to lose the election would not be inclined to accept the result. it started with a tweet by evangelist jerry falwell jr. that he calls reparations two additional years added to president trump's first term because of a time stolen by this corrupt failed coup. the president echoed that sentiment on twitter about an hour later. quote, despite the tremendous success that i've had as president, including perhaps the greatest economy and most successful two years of any president in history, they have
9:39 pm
stolen two years of my/our presidency, collusion delusion that we'll never be able to get back. the word stolen certainly raised eyebrows after house speaker pelosi said should he narrowly lose if there is a close contest, pelosi said he would poison the public mind and challenge the races and say you can't seat these people. we had to win, imagine if we hadn't won, oh, don't even imagine so as we go forward, we have to have the same approach. with me now is cnn political commentator steve cortez and analyst kirsten powers. do you think there is any valid concern from speaker pelosi that the president might try to challenge the election results? >> as a reasonable thing to be worried about, he's obviously somebody who sees democratic voter fraud around every bush.
9:40 pm
he's, you know, has all sorts of imaginations about what hasn't happened and has and hasn't happened in elections when it comes to crowd size and another things like that. i think that he looks for these areas that, you know, maybe say like she said like might be close and could try to really stoke the idea that something unfair had happened that there had been some sort of fraud, some sort of voter fraud that hardly ever happens but that he and republicans love to fan the flames to make everybody think that this is basically happening everywhere. >> steve, the president already claims that millions of illegal votes cast by illegal immigrants of california and that's why hillary clinton won the popular vote in california. is it farfetched thinking the president might challenge 2020 results if in fact he lost? >> look, it's incredibly farfetched. i can't believe we're talking about this quite frankly. i saw this a lot on msnbc over the weekend.
9:41 pm
people that claim every single trump voter is a nazi, something he said about 63 million americans and pushing this conspiracy out there. to me, it's absurd we're talking about he would, he might, he shall. it's all supposition. i suppose that it's possible the president will do this. what is really going on? this is about character assassination. it's about trying to smear him. it's just the same as calling him a racist. let's say he's an authoritarian. >> you have jerry faldwell junior talking about the president should get two more years because of an attempted coup. the president has said there was an attempted coup against him. so if he believed there was an attempted coup -- >> well, there was. >> really, really? >> oh, my god. >> there absolutely was an attempted coup against him. this is part of the paradox is that, you know, you and many on the left are accusing the president of having these authoritarian -- >> i'm not on the left, but go
9:42 pm
ahead. >> okay, of having authoritarian tendencies when, in fact, if there are actually state -- well, the supposition of the question is that he has authoritarian tendencies. >> he says that millions of illegal votes were cast in california, and there's no evidence of that, he formed a commission about it that had to disband because they couldn't find anything. so it's not like made out of whole cloth. he's talking about a coup, and i'm surprised you're talking about a coup as well. >> okay. okay, look, when our national -- when the national security apparatuses of the united states are weaponized for political purposes i define that as a coup. when you have the top echelon of the obama doj and fbi using national security as a pretense to spy on a campaign -- that is absolutely a coup. >> first of all, webster's dictionary would disagree with
9:43 pm
you. okay? nothing that has occurred comes anywhere near being a coup. let's talk about the fact that the president thinks that he's been robbed of two years. bill clinton was under investigation for what started as white water and ended up, you know, into this crazy, you know, situation, going through his sex life, was for five years, okay, so please spare us this idea that somehow he's been robbed of something. bill clinton managed to work with congress, you know, pass legislation, be a president during all of that and didn't act like anybody was owed something. the second problem is invoking reparations. reparations is to repay black people who were kidnapped and enslaved, and brought to the shores and built literally our entire economy and our entire country. so invoke reparations over something like that is literally, that's the biggest
9:44 pm
outrage of what's happened today. i don't know how you can defend that. >> kirsten what you're doing is combining the two smears, not only is the president a racist he's also authoritarian. >> you're the only person who's mentioned authoritarianism. he retweeted something saying that he should get an extra two years as reparations. reparations -- >> it's a joke. >> oh, so slavery's funny? >> no, who mentioned slavery. you're injecting slavery into it. >> what do you think reparations are for? >> the word reparation has meaning outside of only slavery, there can be reparations for all kinds of things. >> you just said it was a joke, which means -- >> it was an -- >> it's actually referring to slavery reparations, and that's what the joke, i guess, is. >> not remotely. no, don't put words in my mouth, anderson, i'm not saying that at all. >> how is it a joke then?
9:45 pm
>> i'm saying it's a joke that he deserves those years back. it's clearly an exaggeration that he deserves those years back as reparation for having those -- for having to deal with the mueller probe. it has nothing to do with slavery and nothing to do with race. >> it actually has everything to do with it. steve, hold on -- >> you're doing right now what exactly i'm talking about. >> he says in the tweet now i support reparations. he is clearly referring to the conversation that's going on in this country right now about whether or not there should be reparations and the conversation that's happening right now is about slavery. okay, so don't try to act like that's not what was it was in reference to. >> leave it there. kirsten powers, steve cortez -- >> i have no idea that was remotely what it's in reference to. i'm saying, that's important for this country, we cannot -- if you want to take on the president and beat him in 2020, take him on on his record and policies, not on smears and supposition. >> we don't work for the dnc, i
9:46 pm
don't know what you're talking about. that's not what we're talking about here. we're not talking about how to beat donald trump. we're talking about what happened today. >> let's leavie it there. still ahead, the baby announcement heard around the world. prince harry and meghan markle are the parents of a baby boy. all they told us. details in a moment. it's the idea that if our mothers were diagnosed with cancer, how would we want them to be treated? that's exactly how we care for you. with answers and actions. to hear your concerns, quiet your fears, lift your spirits. that's the mother standard of care. this is how we inspire hope. this is how we heal. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.
9:47 pm
cancer treatment centers of america. let's see, aleve is than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. leave no man behind. or child. or other child. or their new friend. or your giant nephews and their giant dad. or a horse. or a horse's brother, for that matter.
9:49 pm
9:50 pm
hour after the dutchess had gone into labor. now in a break from tradition the royal couple posted about the birth on their instagram page and revealed details including the baby's weight, 7 pounds 3 ounces. still don't know the baby's name but the new dad is incredibly happy and over the moon. he could not stop smiling as he spoke to reporters outside of windsor castle. >> megan and myself had a baby boy early this morning. a very healthy boy. mother and baby are doing incredibly well. it's been the most amazing experience i could ever possibly imagine. >> well, the prince also hinted we may get to see the baby on wednesday. so is it true this baby will have dual citizenship? >> yes. it's automatic. at the moment megan hasn't gotten her british citizenship. she has the follow the regular rules and protocol. it could be fife years or so. it could be another five years
9:51 pm
or so before megan is officially british. so yes the baby will have dual. >> and names, when does that happen? >> it can be a couple of days to three weeks. >> have they already named the baby and we don't know about it and we don't know? >> they probably named it or come up with a couple of close contenders but they're going to be keen for this to die down. for them to have privacy. we're expecting the photographs of the family together on wednesday and it will likely get a name then. >> they're also really trying to kind of extend the boundaries of what is off limits to reporters. they haven't already done a lot of traditional things that others would. >> they're establishing their need for privacy. everything around this, even the birth announcement at buckingham palace, that's a very traditional maneuver but normally it's signed by the medical team that assisted. this one wasn't. there was a newspaper report put out suggesting that the baby was born in a hospital. buckingham palace is refusing to
9:52 pm
comment. >> they haven't even said where the baby was born? >> no. those will come out on the birth certificate to eventually we'll know but this is harry and megan saying this is private personal information and we'll share what we want to share. >> also to see him so happy and i mean, i don't know the guy but you can't help but see the joy he's feeling. >> it was infectious. >> he is sleep deprived and been up all night already but just the sheer joy. >> i don't think he should be complaining, at least not the megan. >> no, she pushed out a 7 pound 3 ounce baby but you could feel the euphoria coming through. >> i will say i feel very tight to prince harry because he waved at me. >> he did. he looked right up at you. >> you saw it. >> i witnessed it. >> you have to sign an affidavit. nobody in my life believes it. >> i have a picture of it. >> the picture i have is grainy. i'm told that we have it. do we have it? no. oh. >> here he comes. >> that was the aftermath.
9:53 pm
>> no, i've got it. he looked right at you. he waved. >> yes, he did. we totally shared a moment. >> that was it. >> hey, chris. >> cool, you really get deep into the feels about the new baby. >> i'm excited about him. >> you do. you really feel like there's a connection there. what do they call it in the baby game. when you vibe on people having babies. >> i have never heard of that. >> i think i read it somewhere when i was trying to learn how to be a parent. they don't give you a good book so you have to stumble around and have experience crush you like a bug. i love it. i love what it means as a first and i love that it's just good news. i hope they get to insulate themselves a little bit. >> totally. >> obviously they're in a bubble but it's beautiful. back here on earth, however, what we're dealing with is how
quote
9:54 pm
far this president can pervert the law for his own political interests. he's now using the treasury secretary and the ag. what will congress do? steve cohen is here. and we'll see what he wants to do about it. with that judiciary committee. >> he was talking about sending the sergeant of arms to lock him up. >> he was. in between bites he was. >> all right. we'll chao down on that later. up next president trump rounding the corner picking up speed crying foul on the kentucky derby and heading to the finish line in tonight's ridiculist.
9:55 pm
if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. look sweetheart, i'm not trying toand tell you what to do.e it's time to get engaged, ok? but...if you're really not ready for that... i'd love some earrings.
9:57 pm
course, of course. as you probably heard there was a little bit of controversy at the kentucky derby this weekend. the first horse to cross the finish line maximum security which was not named after the prison michael cohen checked into today was disqualified on a technicality and a horse named country house which probably was named after michael cohen's prison was named the winner and in keeping with this practice of having nothing better to do out came a tweet from president sea biscuit. the kentucky derly decision was not a good one. it was a rough and tumble race on a wet and sloppy track. only in these days of political correctness could such an overturn occur. the best horse did not win the kentucky derby. not even close. so as usual i don't know where to start. remember when they used to give mr. ed peanut butter so it would look like he was talking on tv? this is like if he had a twitter page and inhaled a jar of skippy.
9:58 pm
before we get to the political correctness part. the president of the united states seems to have a lot of time on his hands and he can't even stand some horses getting uninterrupted air time. he has to be apart of every news cycle. he can't help himself. look i know we know this already but let me get something straight, president trump is upset because the more popular candidate or horse, the one everyone expected to win didn't win because of an old tiny rule? is it just me or does this all sound vaguely familiar and like something the president supports in other non-equine situations? when it comes to twitter. especially on weekends or monday through friday. the president's saddle is a little loose, if you know what i mean, but still this part about political correctness baffles even the savviest of trump whispers. of course he probably thinks it's a gorgeous classy american
9:59 pm
made fabric getting screwed by tariffs but it's tough to see why this particular go to grievance was on his mind unless he learned black beauty was not only black but also arabian. to be fair it's not as if the president is unfamiliar with horses or at least where they hang out and the bonds they form. he's been there, in the muck and the straw, just him and his pal vladimir putin. >> i got to know him very well because we were both on 60 minutes. we were stable mates. we did very well that night. >> there are no stables at 60 minutes. i actually worked there. there's no piles of hay or even a green room. where president trump and putin would have muzzled main manes approxima and munched on carrots. the question now is does he have any support for his team? i'm going to say vice president prince is going to take a pass on anything involving jockeys. so as only president trump can explain what following rules has to do with political correctness.
10:00 pm
remember, rules are for losers so if the horseshoe fits, wear it on the ridiculist. that's it for us. the news continues. chris cuomo and "prime time". >> black beauty is not only black, she's also arabian. well done a.c. all right, all right. thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." this president is determined to oppose. he has his attorney general saying no to giving congress the full mueller report and now secretary of the treasury saying no on the president's tax return to congress. rule of law matters but how do you enforce? what does the saw say about any of this? we'll bring it into cuomo's court. and now we need to add mueller to the list. the president no longer wants
207 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CNN (San Francisco) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News ArchiveUploaded by TV Archive on