Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin  CNN  March 13, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PDT

11:00 am
they were way off. i think we have to remind them that, you know, if this is what you're basing your vote on, you know, you have to look at the historical context in which that information was provided. i think that's an important, you know, aspect to how they do it. i think there's going to be a ton of factors that people rely on as they do this. >> reporter: i have a followup. i may be confused about the wiretapping, your answers, in terms of the president's response. the president was the one who tweeted this, right, and said that he had learned something. so can you just establish for me, because i'm confused, the president did discuss what it is that he had in mind when he tweeted with the department of justice before the department -- >> no, i'm not going to get into what the president knew or didn't know prior to it. i think we've already commented on this multiple times. >> reporter: how would the department of justice have any idea -- >> i don't know. this was a request made of the house intelligence committee, not to us. i don't want to get into starting to parse what we knew
11:01 am
and what we didn't. that request did not come to us. it went to the department of justice. >> reporter: congressman steve king said we can't restart civilization with somebody else's babies. does does the white house have any reaction to that? >> i will definitely touch base with the president and get back to you on that. hallie. >> reporter: you just said what the president meant when he tweeted about the wiretapping was, and you sort of explained it. you also said the tweet speaks for itself. when do you decide when a president's words or tweets are open to interpretation and when they stand on their own? >> i'm sorry. can you further explain what you're asking? his tweets do speak for themselves. >> reporter: you interpreted it for peter, you said the president didn't mean -- you said when he said wiretapping he meant surveillance. >> he literally had it in quotes. >> reporter: so you're interpreting the tweet for us, it sounds like. >> in some cases i ask him what the quotes mean. >> reporter: did you ask him? >> i did. >> reporter: what did he say?
11:02 am
>> they were in quotes, referring to surveillance overall. >> reporter: he cited other reports in his conversation with you? >> he did, yes. >> reporter: is that what he was basing that tweet on? >> as i just mentioned, it was a good try, i've already been clear on that. >> reporter: i want to go back to the health care issue. just yes or no, are cbo numbers legitimate or not? >> that's not my determination to make. no, no, it depends -- hallie, it depends on. hold on. hallie, you guys have like an nbc thing. let me answer the question. i think when you look at harvey that number is, whether it's budget projections or whatever, there's a track record that goes along with whether or not the projections in certain areas, unemployment, budgetary numbers, whatever, are what the track record is. all i'm suggesting to you clearly is the numbers the last time they did health care, it was wrong.
11:03 am
that's a fact. it's important for people to understand the differences. eamon. >> reporter: there are two possibilities with preet bharara. one is the president made a commitment to him in november and the other is that he didn't. preet bharara came to the lobby at trump tower and said the president made that commitment. did the president make that commitment to preet bharara? >> i don't think at the end of the day it matters. the department of justice asked every attorney general from the last administration to submit their resignation. >> reporter: it matters in the sense that the president made a commitment. if he made a commitment, why did he change his mind? >> again, as i mentioned earlier, he called him to thank him for his service last week. he followed in the best practice of the last several administrations and asked everybody to step down. and i think that's the appropriate thing. >> reporter: i have two questions. the first, i think especially in light of what has happened in the room here today, the
11:04 am
president tweeted this morning that much of the media is being rude and that we should be nice. >> that's nice. >> reporter: my question is, is it our job to be nice? and do you think we're nice? >> thank you, veronica. i will just leave it at this. i think i've been asked for my personal opinion several times. that's not my job. i don't get up here to speak for myself. i speak for the president. i think that he has been very clear that he doesn't believe some of the behavior and the reporting has been appropriate. and to hallie's point, i will let the tweets speak for itself. >> reporter: second question, this is about you. the interaction you had at the apple store this weekend. what would be i guess your message to individuals who want to maybe -- i see that, you could argue aggressive, if somebody doesn't want to be aggressive and has a question for you, what would be your message to a regular citizen that has an issue? >> ask it.
11:05 am
i interact with individuals all day long. 99% of them are pleasant, even people who may not agree with our philosophy or programs or whatever. but it's a free country. and the beauty of it is people can act how they want, no matter how that's interpreted, as long as they stay on the right side of the first amendment, we're good. francesca. >> reporter: you said when the president said wiretapping, he meant a whole host of surveillance types. so we can be critical clear, what surveillance types was he referring to? what would you consider part of that range? >> i think there's a whole host of tactics that can be used to monitor somebody, either through wiretap or other ways in which you can surveil somebody. >> reporter: monitoring his clls, what else would you include? >> there's a whole host of things that fall into that
11:06 am
category. i'm not sure how you took it, but i think there is a wide range of ways in which somebody can be monitored or followed up on. if you contacted, you know, one of the law enforcement agencies, they will provide you with a whole host of ways. thank you all. be safe tomorrow with the snow. thank you very much. take care. stay safe. >> and off he goes. i don't know if we'll see him tomorrow. who knows, with the snow? thank you for being with me, i'm brooke baldwin. there's a lot to get to. we've been watching the white house press briefing. we'll talk wiretapping, some of the kellyanne conway comments recently. we'll talk health care. some of the news that he made, the confirmed visit with president xi from china at mar-a-lago. let's get through it. with me now, jeff zeleny, m.j. lee, donald rattigan, and cnn chief political analyst gloria
11:07 am
borger. great to see all of you. we'll walk through all of this, there was a lot. let's begin with multiple questions asked about, you know, the allegations from just about ten days ago from president trump saying the obama administration wiretapped him. today's deadline today for the doj to provide evidence. here is sean spicer. >> reporter: when should americans trust the president? is it phony or real when he says that president obama was wiretapping him? >> again, let's get back. there's two things that are important about what he said. i think recognizing that it's -- he doesn't really think that president obama went up and tapped his phone personally. >> reporter: what does he think? >> there is no question that the obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election. that is a widely reported activity that occurred back then. but the president used the word "wiretap" in quotes to mean broadly surveillance and other activities during that. that is, again, something -- it is interesting how many news
11:08 am
outlets reported that this activity was taking place during the 2016 election cycle and now we're wondering where the proof is. it is many of the same outlets in this room that talked about the activities that were going on back then. >> we do have jeff zeleny, jeff, you're a senior white house correspondent, you were in the room for the question. and the answer, and just a little bit of context, the question on the phony or hoax or fiction was because of last friday and the great jobs news and the economy and based upon what president trump has said in the past calling those numbers phony, now he's saying no, these are very real and i'm going to take credit. now to the question can we or can we not trust the president, what do you make the sean's response? >> reporter: i think we're hearing the beginning of a walkback from this administration on that explosive tweet from the saturday before last. we heard sean spicer say new things today, particularly that the president did not personally mean that president wiretapped. that's the first time that sean spicer has said that. he also was talking about
11:09 am
surveillance in general, broadly. he said that the president had it in quotation marks, wiretapping. so this to me, brooke, sounded like the beginning of some more explaining. and again, they said they were not going to talk about this at all until the investigation was complete. well, in fact sean spicer has been talking about this a lot. but to me, brooke, it sounded like the beginning of a rationalization or a walk back. i don't know if you could hear me, i tried to ask that question at the end of the briefing, are they walking this back. again, for the second time in as many weeks, or third time i should say, sean spicer did not take cnn's questions during this briefing, which is of course his right to do, he can call on whoever he would like, but that is the question, brooke, are they walking this back a little bit. we do expect to potentially hear something from the department of justice later today, if they provided that house and senate intelligence committees with any information. that is why this is a deadline today. again, the press conference here
11:10 am
talking mainly about this, when the white house has health care issues of its own and is looking toward that cbo score this afternoon. >> jeff zeleny, excellent, thank you so much. gloria, i see you nodding yes on jeff's point on it being a walkback from the administration on the wiretap. you say yes. >> yes. i mean, we're parsing more than words now, we're parsing quotation marks, when he said "wiretapping" in quotes, what did he mean by that? and i do think you have an administration looking for an explanation for the president and what the president said and what the president tweeted. >> sean spicer said he was clear. >> i think they're trying to muddy the waters. at the same time they're saying the president was completely clear. because he wasn't. and, you know, does wiretapping pertain to surveillance more broadly? well, we don't know the answer to that.
11:11 am
did obama order donald trump personally wiretapped? well, now they're raising questions about whether that was what the president meant, even though he said that if obama did it, he was sick, right? i mean, it seemed to be directed at obama. >> don't you think whether it's the wiretapping, whether it's the credibility of the government agencies, i mean, the list goes on and on, that to analyze any of this outside of the context of the fact that this is an administration that was brought into power based on their inexperience and incompetence. they were chosen for the fact that they are inexperienced and incompetent as a rejection of government. >> i wouldn't say incompetence. >> my opinion is incompetence. at the very least i would say broadly america those these people because they were not the establishment, they were not the bush family, the clinton family,
11:12 am
the dnc. everything has to be seen through that lens. when you try to analyze them using any level of intelligent analysis, intelligence, it's utterly confusing because they're not behaving in a way these normal, on purpose. >> on fact, though, today is deadline today, i'm looking at you, m.j., today is deadline day for the doj to provide this evidence to the intel committees. what if there is no evidence, then what? >> at this point even republicans will acknowledge as much, it appears that pump said something without actually having the facts to back up that claim, and that's why we're seeing someone like sean spicer in this troubled position. you think about how trump allies during the campaign and now that he is in the white house have tried to defend him when he has taken this route, and often it is to say, well, you know that this is how he speaks stylistically.
11:13 am
you can't say this is a stylistic think when there's a difference between saying something that's backed up factually or not backed up factually. >> we get back to the "don't take him literally." but he's the president of the united states, we have to take him literally. >> words matter. >> words matter. the question asked to sean was, did the president direct the department of justice to answer the inquiry by congress? and sean's answer was no. so if you want to get to the bottom of the truth, you know, you really want to get the truth out there, you might have thought that the president would have said, you know, let's get this -- >> again, it goes to, we all sit here, not just we on this set but we in america, and look at the information as if it has merit and as if it has fact, because -- i'm not saying it's incorrect to do so. he is the president of the united states. but the people who actually are on the switch with the power and the person who is on the switch with the power is not nearly as serious about information as you or most other people in this country are. >> and i think we really need --
11:14 am
>> that is a fact. >> hold that thought. because beyond the president, you have aides, you have the kellyanne conways of the world who have come out, lobbed grenades into these controversial waters, the allegations of wiretapping. this newspaper, "the bergen record," she spoke to them and spoke to us on cnn on "new day." listen to this. >> one of the things that seems to be dogging him at least this past week is the wiretaps, the allegation that trump tower was wiretapped. do you know whether trump tower was wiretapped? >> what i can say is there are many ways to surveil each other, unfortunately. >> do you believe -- >> there was an article this week about how you can surveil someone through their phones, certainly through their television sets. any number of different ways.
11:15 am
microwaves that turn into cameras, et cetera. we know that that is just a fact of modern life. >> it was about surveillance generally. >> he didn't ask you about it generally. you may have answered it generally but you were asked specifically. >> chris, i'm not inspector gadget. i don't believe people are using their microwave to spy on the trump campaign. however, i'm not in the job of having evidence. that's what investigations are for. >> you answered it to a specific question about this, and it seemed to be an effective way of putting more doubt on a situation. that's what it came across as. that's why i wanted to talk to you about it. >> maybe to you, and maybe to other people who don't necessarily want donald trump to be the pump. but to other people, they see it as what it was, talking about news articles and talking about surveillance generally. >> she was flat out asked about this particular wiretapping. she wasn't talking about surveillance in general, a, that's fact. b, "i'm not inspector gadget"? what? >> and as a spokesperson for the president, it actually is your
11:16 am
job to provide the kind of evidence, if the press, the public feel like the president has spoken and has not provided the kind of facts to back up his claim. and i was going to say before, i think it is time that we move past sort of dissecting, well, the president said this on twitter or these comments were made in quotation marks. twitter is actually the purest form in which the president delivers his message to the public and to everyone else. and so i think the 140 characters actually go a long way. >> that's a good point. >> sean spicer also said it was widely reported that there was this kind of surveillance going on during the campaign. i may be wrong, i'm going to go and research this afterwards, but i don't remember that being widely reported. did we report on surveillance during the campaign of the trump campaign? either in microwaves or not in microwaves? i don't recall that. i'm going to have to go back and check that one out. >> check the videotape. we're waiting for numbers for
11:17 am
this health care bill to figure out how many pennies, nickel, and dollars this is going to cost everyone. he was asked about this health care bill and it being scored. here is what sean spicer said. >> reporter: when he says something, can we trust that it's real? >> yes. >> reporter: or should we assume that it's phony? how can we believe it was real when you just told us it was phony? >> i did not tell you that. >> reporter: on friday, the president said the numbers were phony then but they're very real now. how can we -- >> there's a -- >> reporter: that he won't later say -- >> hold on. the difference is the president was talking then and now about job creation. the number of jobs, the issue that he brought up in the quote that you're talking about was the percentage of people who are unemployed. and there is no question that no matter how you look at this, whether he's talking about 4.7 or 4.8 or whatever the number is, that number fluctuates by how people calculate who is in the workforce. peter, let me answer the question. >> reporter: you're not
11:18 am
answering it. >> the number of people who are unemployed varies widely by who you're asking and how you do the analysis of who is in the workforce. the number of people working and receiving a paycheck is a number that we can look at. secondly, when you're asking about the validity of the cbo report, again, i refer you to the cbo itself. the number they issued that would be insured in 2016 was 26 million people. the actually number is -- excuse me, 24 million. the actual number is 10.4. that's not a question of our credibility. it's a question of theirs. >> reporter: can you say affirmatively that whenever the president says something, we can trust it to be real? >> if he's not joking, of course. every time that he speaks authoritatively, that he speaks, he's speaking as president of the united states. >> reporter: even that more than 3 million americans voted illegally? does he still believe that? or was he joking? >> we've heard this before, ahead, strategy of the cbo discredited, they're biased, they're the hometown team.
11:19 am
is that what they're doing here? >> i think it's less that. listen, when anybody is sent into a room to do a business model, an economic model, a budgeting model of any kind that predicts the future, you could be a pension fund manager, a ceo, you can be a cbo officer, you are functionally limited to a certain amount of information, and a certain number of assumptions. and those assumptions are always vulnerable to second-guessing after the fact. and so of course whether it's a cbo number or any other number, it's always going to be a little bit useful by giving you a model of what could happen. but it's not that useful because no one has all of the information, and everyone is depending on a certain number of assumptions, which makes it easy for a politician who wants to use the cbo number to advance their agenda to use it in that way and makes it easy for a politician who wants to discredit the cbo numbers to discredit it, and in reality
11:20 am
it's all sort of lost in the murkiness of the assumptions of an economic model. >> but there's a difference if you say 5 million people are going to be without health care insurance versus 20 million people. >> that's what this is about, how many people will lose coverage. >> again, the order of magnitude is much more valuable than any precise number. >> right. this is really not about whether the cbo is credible, whether they will be saying something that is factually accurate, or, you know, sway it in one direction or not. it is really about the fact that republicans know, whatever number comes out either later today or later this week, they know that the numbers are not going to be good and they're preemptively spinning this to say, it doesn't matter if the numbers say that millions of people will lose coverage because that will be the result of people no longer being mandated to buy insurance. >> we're deep in the weeds on this health care coverage and this bill, and i mean, bless you for doing that, by the way, but i mean, this really is about
11:21 am
donald trump had this campaign promise, you will all keep your coverage, right, and this is about promises kept and about how many people will lose out because the individual mandate will be gone. >> that's right. i think the quotations to watch out for going forward is trump saying everybody will have insurance, second, tom price, the head of hhs, saying over the weekend that nobody will be financially worse off as a result of this gop obamacare plan. >> those will be the two reverberating. >> just very quickly, i have a little bit of sympathy to both the republicans and the democrats, going back to the beginning of the obamacare health care reform. we're dealing with trying to reform an employer-based private health insurance system that dates back to eisenhower. instead of stepping into the 21st century when there are so many interesting ways to resolve health insurance which has to do with patients and doctors and individuals, i'm disappointed both in the democrats and the republicans now and for the past
11:22 am
four or five years for their refusal to step beyond the private health insurance employer-based system to move to a more interesting debate. that's my complaint for the day. >> filed and noted. >> my answer to you would be, i agree with you, but have you heard of medicare? >> of course, it already exists. >> and so medicare is such a building block in this country. >> it's so easy. >> if you were to do what you're saying, kind of zero-base it and start from scratch, you would have to look at everything including medicare. you just can't do that, because people have paid into social security, into medicare, and so we're kind of stuck in that are you the. >> we are. but the end game is, we spend more than any country in the world to get what we're getting, on and on. there's a certain point where we have to redefine what it means to have health care.
11:23 am
and health care comes from doctors and nurses, not from insurance companies. >> on the issue at hand, we should be seeing the cbo number. >> look for the order of magnitude. >> either this afternoon or early evening. thank you all. next, congressman steve king says, quote, we can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies. now he's under fire. he's doubling down. hear his explanation and speaker paul ryan just responded. ancestrydna can reveal your true irish roots, even if you never knew they were there. with a simple dna test, you can discover if you're irish,
11:24 am
or one of 25 other ethnicities. save 10% through sunday. as after a dvt blood clot,ital i sure had a lot to think about. what about the people i care about? ...including this little girl. and what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i asked my doctor. and he recommended eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. yes, eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. both made me turn around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily
11:25 am
...and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis the right treatment for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you. knows how it feels to seees your numbers go up, despite your best efforts. but what if you could turn things around? what if you could love your numbers? discover once-daily invokana®. it's the #1 prescribed sglt2 inhibitor that works to lower a1c. invokana® is a pill used along with diet and exercise to significantly lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. and in most clinical trials, the majority reached an a1c goal of 7 percent or lower. invokana® works around the clock by sending some sugar
11:26 am
out of your body through the process of urination. it's not for lowering systolic blood pressure or weight, but it may help with both. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause you to feel dizzy, faint,lightheaded,or weak, upon standing. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections,changes in urination, high potassium, increases in cholesterol, risk of bone fracture, or urinary tract infections, possibly serious. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis, which can be life threatening. stop taking and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms or if you experience symptoms of allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take invokana® if you have severe liver or kidney problems or are on dialysis. tell your doctor about any medical conditions and medications you take. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. it's time to turn things around.
11:27 am
lower your blood sugar with invokana®. imagine loving your numbers. there's only one invokana®. ask your doctor about it by name. so when the former ku klux klan leader david duke tweets, quote, "god bless steve king," it's a safe bet the republican congressman from iowa has some cleaning up to do. steve king under fire for tweeting this in support of far right dutch candidate gert bilders, quote, we can't restore our civilization with somebody
11:28 am
else's babies." that was a tweet that infewer rated all kind of people including republicans. one republican congressman tweeted, quote, steve king, do i qualify as, quote, somebody else's baby, with the hashtag #concernedgopcolleague. congressman king came to cnn and spoke out this morning. >> these people are either all equal or they are not, in your view. a muslim-american, italian-american, german-american, like you and your blood and your roots, they are either all equal or not in your mind. what is your answer? >> i would say they are all created in the image of god and they are equal in his eyes. if they're citizens of the united states, they're equal in the eyes of the law. individuals will contribute differently, not equally, to this civilization and society. and certain groups of people will do more from a productive side than other groups of people
11:29 am
will. that's just a statistical fact. >> with me now, ana navarro, cnn political commentator, and andre bauer, former lieutenant governor of south carolina. anna, you're up first. when you first saw that tweet, what did you think? >> steve can be the pathetic little racist he always is. this man has been in congress 14 years. this is his only call to fame, to be a racist, to be constantly making these kind of denigrating remarks, be it against mexicans, against immigrants. he's compared mexicans to dogs. he has said that hispanic immigrant youth come in with calves the size of cantaloupes because they're smuggling drugs. this is what the guy does. this is the only thing he knows how to do. you can't pa he can't pass legislation. he can't write legislation.
11:30 am
all he can do is make incendiary remarks. that's the only thing that makes him relevant or gets on tv. because he has no other accomplishments. he's an embarrassment to the republican party. i congratulate the gop leaders who have come out today, paul ryan, and denounced the racist and disgusting things that he's said yet again. >> you're right, but andre, i understand you see it a little differently. >> what's great about this country is everybody is entitled to their opinion. and you don't have to agree with them. i think it does provide interesting fodder for a debate. you can't build a country without immigration. the fact that our population is shrinking, we've got to maintain a healthy workforce and a healthy economy. so let's have the conversation without immediately jumping and calling everybody a racist. let's listen to their perspective and be respectful of each other. we all care about where our
11:31 am
country is going. we just have a different idea what vehicle we take. >> do you see this, anna, as up to debate? >> you know, andre is completely entitled to think that steve king is not a racist. i think he is. a pathetic racist. i think this is the only thing that sets him apart in the entire congress. he has done this over and over again. when he's calling for things like homogenous civilization, when he's saying somebody else's babies, of course those are dog whistles, of course that speaks to racism. that speaks to division. you know what that speaks to? the aryan race, we've heard that type of rhetoric before. as a republican i will denounce it. my babies, andre's babies, are as american as his babies may be, that congresswoman ileana ros-lehtinen, marco rubio, ted cruz, they don't look like him. they don't act like him. they don't think like him. they are just as american.
11:32 am
because what makes us american is our love of country, our pride in this country, our work ethic, all those values we have in common. america is not going to allow itself to be divided by pathetic little racists like steve king. >> andre, help me understand, she brought up the calves the size of cantaloupes comment, questioning, quote, where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization, talking about whites. help me understand what you agree with in these words. >> well, let me first say, i don't know representative king. as i get older, i try to be more fair and reasonable, to listening to others' perspectives. i may not agree with them all the time. i don't say that i agree with representative king's viewpoint. but i think think it is getting very slippery that any time someone discusses something that may not be what another person agrees with, we immediately jump
11:33 am
to throw the race card out there. let's engage in the conversation, see what his perspective is, see why he feels this and see what he thinks we should do differently to move our country forward when you talk about immigration. >> i can't put words in anna's mouth but i think she's basing this just based upon all these things that congressman king has said in the past and therefore has arrived at, you know, how she feels not just -- it's not a one-off thing, am i right, anna? >> look, you know, brooke, as i listen to this conversation, this weekend, saturday, i was at the smithsonian national museum for african-american history. i saw exhibits there of how slaves were treated, how black people were treated, just because they were a different color. they are now a proud part of america. and i think that we have to be active, proactive. we have to have no shame and no silence in denouncing people who want to divide us by color, by creed, by gender, by race,
11:34 am
because we can't go back there again. so, you know, andre, if you don't want to see what he's saying as racist, that's certainly your prerogative. i think most of americans can hear loud and clear what steve king is trying to say. all i want to say is that he is not representative of the republican party and he's certainly not representative of the america i know and that has embraced me and so many others like me. >> ana navarro, andre bauer, thank you both very much for your opinions. we need to move along, i'm told there's a news conference under way on this new documentary that's been screened at south by southwest in austin, the story of michael brown, the teenager who was shot and killed after some sort of altercation in a convenience store. new video has come out trying to paint a fuller picture. let's go to the news conference. >> ready? over the weekend there was a pretty pathetic attempt at a
11:35 am
video production regarding the fatal shooting of michael brown in ferguson. that was released at a fair somewhere in texas, i believe. contained in that was a very poorly edited snippet of a security video taken from the store in ferguson, shortly before, about 12 hours before michael brown returned to the store and shortly before he was shot. that has generated some inquiries and questions from the public and the media regarding the content, the source, the origin of that particular video. the video is indeed security footage from the market that night. on august the 14th, the county police during the investigation were advised that michael brown had come into the store somewhere around midnight, and according to the employees talking to the police that day, had attempted to steal
11:36 am
something. they also indicated that it had been captured on the security video. so we secured a search warrant to obtain the hardware and the hard drive, everything's downloaded on the hard drive or recorded on the hard drive in this entire system. that search warrant, we got possession of the equipment on august the 15th of 2014. the particular video was downloaded in its entirety and we'll have a copy of the entire thing for you as soon as we're finished here. but it starts at about three or four minutes before mr. brown and his companions pulled into the parking lot of the store. and it ends about two minutes after he and his companions you don't have off the parking lot. it shows four different angles, two from the parking lot, one from each side of the parking lot, one from inside the store, looking from front to back, that covers the customer side of the
11:37 am
counter along with the back of the store where the coolers are. and then the fourth one is from behind the counter, looking towards the counter itself. in a nutshell, what that shows is that mr. brown entered the store, entered by himself, and arrived with other people who never got out of the car, went back to the cooler, got a couple of cold drinks out of the cooler, went up to the -- there is no audio with this, by the way, but went up to the counter, clearly ordered or asked for a couple of boxes of cigarillos. the clerk put those in the bag along with the drinks that he had. mr. brown put something on the counter. there is a discussion clearly going on there. everything is in the bag. mr. brown and the clerks were examining whatever it was he put on the counter. mr. brown had a discussion with them, picked up the bag, started to walk out of the store.
11:38 am
one of the clerks said something to him or more. he returned, put the bag back on the counter, continued the discussion with them, and then took something off of the counter itself and walked out of the store. the clerks then, as the entire video shows, the clerks then took the cigarillos out of the bag, put them back onto the rack behind the counter. another clerk took the cold drinks back to the cooler and put them back in the cooler. that whole video was examined early on, we were well aware of it, of course we issued the search warrant in order to obtain it. it was determined early on, this is not new, everybody knew about it, it was determined it was neither relevant for material to anything that occurred later that day, around noon in the store, or on canfield drive. as i'm sure you recall, i indicated we were putting everything in front of the grand jury that would have been admissible at trial had there
11:39 am
been an indictment. there clearly wouldn't have been admissible. so that was not presented then to the grand jury. which means then it wasn't released. it's important to note that the conversation that police had with the store employees is documented in the police report, which was released on november 24th. their application for a search warrant, the discussion about getting a search warrant for this information, is also in that same police report. and ultimately a description of the content of the video is in that police report. all of which was released on november 24th, 2014, as part of the release that i made that night after the grand jury returned its verdict. so in answer to the question, this is not new information. it's certainly not a surprise to anyone. it's certainly not relevant or material to anything that
11:40 am
occurred, as i said, later in the day around noon at the store or shortly after that on canfield drive. so that's pretty much the extent of it. we have copies of the entire video. and i think that's very important, number one, it's documented in the report, so it's not as though this was hidden away somewhere, as this fellow with his video project was trying to say, actually did say. it's documented in the police report. if you look even at his pathetic video, it shows the police report where he got the information. so it's all there, it's been there since december or since november of 2014. it's available, it's not edited, it is from start to finish, from a few minutes before he arrived at the parking lot up until a few minutes after he leaves the parking lot. those will be available. we'll try to get it up online
11:41 am
for -- >> reporter: do you think the video, the way it was released in the documentary, was fair and accurate or did they edit out portions or put a spin on it? >> tell you what. take a look at what this fellow put into his documentary and take a look at the real video and you answer the question. it was clearly an intent to distort this and turn it into something it isn't, to get back to another big lie, pretty clearly what went on in there, there was no transaction. there was certainly an attempt to barter for these goods. but the store employees had no involvement at all in that. they didn't accept -- no, they didn't do that. when he left, they put everything back on the counters where they longed and went about their business. >> reporter: last question from me, in light -- >> you have been listening to st. louis county prosecutor, he was just talking about the newly released surveillance video that's raising new questions about the 2014 police shooting
11:42 am
death of michael brown. that footage that he was referencing was from the south by southwest festival in texas, a documentary called "stranger fruit." it appears to show brown inside the same store he was accused of robbing several hours later. the video apparently takes place overnight, several hours before any altercation began, and later that day, police responded to a call for a sick person and then a robbery. moments later, that's when police officer darren wilson encounters michael brown. an altercation happens and then brown is shot and killed. let me play a clip from this documentary and then my interview with the filmmaker and michael brown's father. but just a heads up to everyone, transparency here, i taped this interview just before my show, about an hour before this prosecutor came out. >> i couldn't believe what i had read. michael was in the store the night before he died. at st. louis county, they saw
11:43 am
the videotape and didn't tell us. >> there was some type of exchange, one thing for another, that these people know each other well enough that this is the relationship that they have. >> joining me now, jason pollock, the documentary filmmaker who uncovered this never before seen surveillance video of michael brown and michael brown sr., michael brown's father, is with us as well. thank you for taking the time today, i appreciate seeing both of you. mr. brown, i have a couple of questions for you, but just, jason, the video, i know this is not what you say that the whole film is about, but we have to talk about this video. >> sure. yes. that's why we put it out. >> i got you. for people who have not seen your film yet, walk me through what you believe the video shows. >> okay. people keep saying this in the media, what i believe. i don't think it's what i believe. okay? it's what any rational person
11:44 am
sees when they see this video. that's why mike brown is the number one trending topic in the world. this isn't jason's opinion. >> i got you. so you tell me what the video shows. >> okay. so the video shows, and first of all, let me be very clear, we first -- i first discovered a page in the st. louis county police report which we show in the clip that has gone viral, and the page, which has been around the whole time, and anyone in the media could have found it, says that the police saw the videotape of mike brown walking into the convenience store on august 9th at 1:13 a.m. and i show the page in the video. but what they don't tell us is what actually happened in the store in their report. they make up this thing about nothing happening. so then we got the video, which
11:45 am
is corroborated and authenticated by the st. louis county police department, because their page proves that it existed before we had it. >> let me just jump in, jason, i know you're in the weeds, and i appreciate your passion, but for people who have no idea what you're talking about, right, we all covered this story, we saw that one piece of video that was put out there, but your point is there is this whole other piece of video which in your opinion totally changes the narrative. i want you to tell me in that video what do we see. >> okay. so basically at 1:13 a.m. in the video, you can clearly see michael brown walking into the store, and by the way, at the top of the left hand corner of the video, you can see the time code and you can see the date. and it's corroborated and it is the exact same time as the st. louis county police report. so michael brown walks into the store. you see him then make an
11:46 am
exchange. he trades a little bag of weed for two boxes of cigarillos. it's about $20 of an exchange. and we've asked many people in the community, this is very common, bartering at the store. the store is bartering with people all the time. i've been told by many people you can buy weed in and around the store and all the night guys know about it. so michael is not a drug dealer, because of this video. and we are tired of listening to bigoted people say that when they see this. so we see the trade take place. the weed goes over the counter. we know it's weed because then they pick it up and smell it. one guy smells it. he hands it to the other guy. he then smells it. and i hope you're playing this moment so people can actually see this. >> of course we are. >> the whole thing is there. >> we've got the behind the counter shot, everything. >> the behind the counter shot is the shot we wanted to show the world. that shows the exchange. we didn't want to show the front camera shot because you can't see it. so you see the behind the camera
11:47 am
shot. the weed hits the counter. it's taken. it never comes back on the counter again. what comes back on the counter is you see the guy take two boxes of cigarillos, the clerk puts them into the bag himself, hands a bag with product to michael brown over the counter. so don't tell me that he stole from the store if they handed him a bag that they created themselves over the counter. anybody that sees this with their eyes can see what's actually happening. >> right, which is part of the issue, because let me just jump in, again, i'm at a 30,000-foot view, initially when the story was covered and the st. louis pd put out the video from several hours later and there were allegations of a strong arm robbery and him being aggressive with the cigarillos, your point with the video is to show the full picture. mr. brown, when you see your son in this video that the world is
11:48 am
now seeing, what do you see? >> everything that i had believed in the beginning, you know. it's some things that i have seen already, that you all are just not seeing. so, you know, it justifies itself. >> how long have you known the video existed? did you know it existed when you filed the civil suit? >> no. >> mike can't really talk about the case too much. >> okay. >> we want to protect that, obviously, because it's ongoing. but the video is the video. and it's corroborated by the police. the time code is there. >> got it. >> whatever they're saying about it is obviously not true. john belmar is giving a statement that he didn't know about it. chief belmar, it's in your report. either you don't read your report or somebody's lying. the real question now is, who knew about this video, when did they know about it, who did they talk to, who covered it up, who wrote the wrong report, and how high up the chain does this
11:49 am
actually go. >> jason, is it possible that there is even more video that we haven't seen? do you know? >> i bet you that if we looked at convenience store video from the nights before, that we would see other people in the community trading other things that are probably way worse than weed at that store. and let me say this. you guys issued several sunshine requests to the ferguson police and you were given not what you asked for. you were given half a video. you asked for the videos and you were not given them. and i don't know if that's a law break right there, but this seems like suppression of evidence. this seems like legitimate new evidence. i don't know if the grand jury saw this video. we definitely didn't see it. the world didn't see it. which shows they were trying to trick us. >> i understand these are serious allegations you're leveling and i'm not sitting here representing the store, but i'm just trying to get the full picture.
11:50 am
part of the fuller picture, and you know where i'm going to go, the store is accusing you of editing the video, manipulating the video -- hang on, let me just finish -- this is what the attorney from the store says. >> i know what he says. >> let me tell everyone else who is watching. "i can now confirm that the uncut video shows the clerks throwing bag back to mike brown. the filmmaker edited it out." jason, go ahead. you're shaking your head. >> bring it on. bring it on, jay. bring it on. and i think this store -- let me just say something. the store is being as immoral as possible, because what they could have done in this moment is own up to what they are doing. being shady with the community. those three gentlemen in the video have known all along. the store is owned by the older
11:51 am
guy who is there during the day. the night guys who were running all these games, they don't want to tell the grandpa guy what's going on. so he didn't know about the trade that had taken place. that's why we see the altercation during the day. but if you look carefully at the video that we've all seen, michael first walks into the store with his hands behind his back and politely leans in. all he was doing was going to get his stuff. the old guy didn't know about it. there were younger guys there but they didn't want to say anything in front of the old guy. and they're still playing these ridiculous games with jay kanzlor, the lawyer, and now they're playing ridiculous games with the whole world. >> hang on, jason. how did you get your hands on this tape to put in your film? >> we decided -- i got -- brooke, i got my hands on this tape because i decided to move to ferguson after this incident to do real investigative journalism, because i was tired of watching how the news was reporting this issue. and to get the truth about big
11:52 am
stories, you have to stop everything you're doing, move to the location, and figure it out. and that's how i got this video. and it took two years, and anybody could have done it, all this money, all this time spent on ferguson, to misreport it. and we wonder how donald trump got elected, a man who lies 60 to 70% of the time. the media could have done its job. >> okay. we're not going there with mr. trump. mr. trump is the president and we're talking about mike brown. hang on, hang on. >> it's all connected. >> okay. mr. brown, if i may, listening to jason and his passion and the fact that he essentially embedded himself, it sounds like, in ferguson to seek the truth, you are now, 2 1/2 years later, watching your son on loop again on the national news. what, if i may, final question, what is this like for you as a father? >> well, you know, this deal,
11:53 am
you know, i'm still broken, hurt, mad, you know, to think about the whole issue with this. i just want the public to know that he wasn't, you know, a bad guy. how bad they actually demonized his name and the family because of what they showed, they put out there. you know, i'm just happy that the public can see with their own eyes on what had happened and what had led to, you know, the ending. >> i really wish america would treat grieving families with more empathy and respect. this is a grieving father who did not need to be here, who is fighting for his son still, grieving publicly. let's think about that more. where is our conscious as a country? how did we let this happen? mike brown was a great guy. >> mr. brown, i appreciate you coming on. i am so sorry for the loss of
11:54 am
your son. and jason pollock, thank you so much. i appreciate both of you very much. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> so in the last 15 minutes, hearing two sides of a story. i have david klinger with me, author of the book "into the kill zone: a cop's eye view of deadly force." david, it's nice to see you again. we talked so much about this. you were in the weeds of this story in ferguson. you heard first, there was the first we all heard from the top cop in st. louis county, now you've heard from the filmmaker and mike brown's father. where is the truth? how do you interpret all of this? >> i think the first thing is, it's awful that mr. brown has to relive this. >> yes. >> and be back in the public eye. his son is dead. but i think that the best word i can come up with is
11:55 am
codswallowup. the film says nothing about whether it was appropriate for darren wilson to shoot mike brown. this is hours and hours before. it has nothing to do with anything. unless there's going i'm unaware of, darren wilson made a pedestrian stop, at some point thought maybe these people were involved in the call he just got. he hadn't seen any video, even the one that was released years ago in the wake of this. and the only thing that matters is, what does the evidence show about the shooting? and the united states department of justice did a very, very, very thorough investigation. and they determined that mr. brown assaulted officer wilson, tried to take his gun, and officer wilson fired a shot. michael brown ran away and came back and charged him. i really don't understand why anyone is spending any time talking about a video from some 12 hours before, other than the fact that this filmmaker is happy that i'm on and you're on and everybody is now talking about this. i've been fielding calls from
11:56 am
other news organizations today. and i don't get it, brooke. it has nothing to do with the issue of was it appropriate for michael brown to be shot by darren wilson. and the federal government has said yes, no crime was committed. and that's where it should end. >> right. and the criminal investigation is over, the officer walked. but the civil suit, which clearly mike brown sr. couldn't really talk about, that is still ongoing. and so -- >> sure. >> -- would this video at all affect that investigation? >> i have no idea how a plaintiff's attorney would want to bring this up to show something. but quite frankly, if there was a video that showed mike brown doing something awful, committing some violent crime, if darren wilson had no knowledge of that, it's completely irrelevant. similarly, if there was a video of michael brown doing wonderful things, darren wilson has no knowledge of this. it has nothing to do with the question of was it reasonable for darren wilson to shoot
11:57 am
michael brown. so i just don't get it, brooke. >> clearly, you know, that investigation is over. that's not a lingering question for police. but still, when you listen to this filmmaker and you listen to michael brown sr., it is still a lingering question for family. it's still a lingering question for the community. what do you, david, then, saying what you're saying, and i hear you loud and clear, what then do you say to those people who are now really just questioning the police investigation? >> well, first of all, what i would say is, once again, to mr. brown, he lost a son, that's awful. but this pollock character, it sounds to me like he is trying to trade in the tragedy that happened to mr. brown's family. and what he is trying to do is get as much publicity as he can. he dropped himself into my community and for two years tried to uncover the truth and all he can come up with is some video from 12 hours previously that maybe there is some
11:58 am
evidence that maybe there were shady dealings going on in the location where michael brown was engaged in an altercation with the owner. it has nothing to do with anything. and so if people want to come up with questions, fine. show me something that is relevant, directly relevant to the question of was the use of deadly force appropriate. that's the only thing that matters in terms of the concern about the legitimacy of what the police did that day. and that's the only thing that should matter. i just don't see how something from 12 hours previous has anything to do with anything. >> david klinger, thank you. >> thank you for having me, brooke. >> you got it. we'll take a quick break, a very newsy white house briefing in the last hour, we'll show you what happened, next.
11:59 am
12:00 pm
top of the hour, you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. happening right now, a first for the trump administration. 52 days in, the president is scheduled to hold his very first meeting with his cabinet. we'll bring that to you as soon as we have it. in the meantime, just a little while ago, the white house dodged repeated questions about today's big deadline. the deadline being this, the house intelligence committee is demanding to see by today any evidence of president trump's baseless claim that he was wiretapped during