tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN April 13, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
intelligence and other european agencies intercepted communications between trump associates and russian officials during the campaign and passed them on to u.s. officials. we will bring you the very latest on all of this. let's begin with the military targeting isis in afghanistan. i want to bring in cnn chief national security correspondent tim sciutto, and lieutenant colonel rick francona. the mother of all bombs. largest nonnuclear bomb the u.s. has ever used in combat. the president is calling it a success. let's take a look first. >> you look at what's happened over the last eight weeks and compare that to what's happened over the last eight years. you'll see there's a tremendous difference. tremendous difference. we have incredible leaders in the military, and we have incredible military. and we are very proud of them. this was another very, very successful mission. >> it's important to note here this is the second major
military strike by the trump administration in a week. >> that's exactly right. the mother of all bombs, the nickname, actually an acronym for massive ordnance air blast, a bomb designed to explode before it hits the ground, but then destroy underground structures, tunnels, et cetera. it's huge. biggest under a nuclear bomb. let's be clear, it's about 1,000th the size of a smaller nuclear weapon. so this is not close to a nuclear weapon, but it's a big conventional weapon. and beyond destroying underground structures, one of the functions is to really demoralize enemy forces. it shakes the ground like an earthquake for miles around. that's one of the functions here. does it measurably change the battle against isis in a country like afghanistan where there are many places to hide? no. but a show of force. i don't think, don, you could
discount the possibility that this is a message intended not only for isis there, but for other countries that have underground military facilities. think of north korea, perhaps, right, where there's discussion of a possible underground nuclear blast. not that you would use this particular weapon against it. but again, a show of force for that theater. but i think also for around the world. >> let's continue our conversation and talk more about this bomb. the u.s. military has had this nearly 22,000-pound bomb since the early 2000s. this was the first time that this moab, mother of all bombs has been used in combat. was this the right bomb for the right targets for the tunnels in eastern afghanistan? >> it was exactly the right bomb. i was in the pentagon when this thing was developed. we kiddingly called it the mother of all bombs, because this was about the time we had baghdad bob saying we were about to have the mother of all battles. so the air force came up with this term. it is the perfect weapon. general nicholson chose this weapon for the facility.
this is an area for dropping this bomb. it's rocky, hilly, has a lot of gorges. the overpressure will collapse those tunnels. it doesn't penetrate the ground. they have another bomb much larger than that one to penetrate if you need to to get underground. it has a concussive effect and collapses the tunnel. this is a bad guy area, to be sure. this is giving the afghan forces and the americans in the area problems for over a decade, this province area. this particular bomb, this gbu-43 as it's called, replaced another one from the vietnam era called a daisy cutter. you know, when you're talking about a commander, i'm going to channel some of my former combat commander status on this, you literally look when you target areas, it's something called a joint munitions employment manual. it's a guide for your targets to
say, this is the target, this is the kind of situation we have, what kind of weapons should we drop on this, this is a perfect kind of thing. it's a tactical system, though, and we shouldn't get all breathless about this being something that president trump ordered. because this was something commander on the scene wanted to drop in this area. >> interesting you should say that. because the president wouldn't say if he green-lit using this bomb. here's exactly how he responded when asked. >> everybody knows exactly what happened. and what i do is i authorize my military, we have the greatest military in the world and they've done a job as usual. we have given them total authorization. >> colonel, i need to tell you that sources are telling cnn that general john nicholson, commander of the u.s. forces in afghanistan, signed off on this. but the white house was informed of the plan ahead of time. here's the question, realistically, a bomb with a nickname of mother of all bomb. something this big, the largest nonnuclear bomb ever in combat,
would that happen without the direct signoff of the commander in chief? >> i think so. that's what sources at the pentagon are telling us. we were talking about this elier today. the president has authorized the theater commander and also the commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan to employ these weapons. i think the general was very clear on this, this is a tactical weapon, not a nuclear weapon, not a chemical weapon, this is a tactical weapon. we could have dropped 1,000 -- sorry, 20, 1,000-pound bombs for the same force. or we wouldn't have this conversation. it doesn't require that high of a level of signoff as the general said. the j-men tells you what the effect the munitions will have on the target. you use that guide, this is the target, this is the effect i want to have, this is the weapon to do it. it is the perfect weapon for this one location. >> the senior administration official saying they don't approve every strike, and that, quote, this administration has moved further away from dictating military strategy from
the white house. what about civilian control of the military? >> well, that's a question, listen, the commander in chief is still the commander in chief. i don't know there's been a dramatic constitutional change here, but you're seeing what appears to be a relaxing of the process. the obama administration was famous, perhaps notorious for how many hoops the military had to jump through to approve strikes. that was -- i expect a lot of time in the pentagon and that was often a frustration there. on the flip side, though, the reason behind that was a desire to minimize civilian casualties, and to be fair, if you look in the last several weeks, there have been a number of strikes -- listen, this happens all the time. it's risky to drop bombs in areas wherever you're doing it. you have a number of strikes in the last several weeks, a bomb in mosul, friendly forces struck in syria in the last 24 hours. you had the use of this weapon. so there is evidence, maybe not conclusive yet, but there's evidence that the military has
more leeway to use weapons, and i'd ask that the generals here, and the lieutenant colonel francona to see if they agree, it appears they've been given more leeway to push the limits a bit. and increase that risk of collateral damage. >> a shake of the head. i think they agree with that. >> i'm not buying that, don. i've got to jump in. having been in combat, knowing what commanders go through to get strikes and knowing the constraints commanders live under when striking targets, there may be fewer rules in terms of the processes. but they're still going to look very closely at collateral damage. you don't want the death of innocents on your conscience. the other thing is, the comment by the president saying, we've done more in the last eight weeks than we've done in the last eight years.
that to me is insulting. there have been a lot of people fighting hard in many theaters, just because there's been a couple of big bomb drops and tomahawk strike in syria, we're saying we're doing more in eight weeks than ever before. that's just wrong and it's incorrect. >> don, just so i can interject as martin knows me well. i certainly don't mean to intimate that generals are suddenly not concerned about civilian casualties by any means because i spend a lot of time with the military and i know the care they go through in the command centers to do that. if we look at the evidence, it just raises a question that is worth asking. we do know that there was frustration with the decisionmaking process under the obama administration. has that changed? we'll have to see. >> quickly to the colonel, can you wrap it up for us? >> i keep asking that question. i talked to a lot of people at different levels in the chain of command. and i get the answer that, no, the rules haven't changed. so they say it hasn't, but it sure looks like it has. i'm not exactly sure. i take jim's point. >> all right. we'll continue to investigate. thank you, colonel. thank you, jernl. jim, i want you to stick around. i understand you have breaking news tonight on the russian
investigation. you and our cnn colleagues came out with new reporting about the trump campaign and russia. what can you tell us? >> i'll tell you, you may remember, cnn was the first to report some weeks ago that u.s. intelligence had captured repeated conversations between advisers and associates of the trump campaign, and russian officials, and other russian nationals known to u.s. intelligence. the nsa intercepted those. british intelligence and other european intelligence agencies picked up similar conversations. again between russian officials, others known to western intelligence, and people associated with the trump campaign. so it's significant, not just one intelligence service picking up this back-and-forth, it was our allies. the uk, and others who were then seeing it, seeing it as significant enough to then share with their partner the u.s. it adds into this bigger
picture, which is, we know still the subject of an active investigation of the fbi, and house and senate intelligence committees, what do these communications mean. and one open question has not been established yet, does that indicate there was some sort of cooperation or collusion between some people in the trump orbit and russian nationals as they were interfering in the u.s. elections. that's not established yet. but the communications are material to that investigation. >> so we are not aware of the nature of any of these communications and what they reveal about the trump team, just to be precise here? >> we don't know the content of the transcripts. just the fact that they happened. the frequency with which they happened. and that european intelligence agencies considered them important enough that they shared them with their american allies. >> the british intelligence agencies, do we know if they were specifically targeting
members of the trump team? >> that's a good question. as you know, donald trump accused britain -- accused president obama of using britain, tasking british intelligence with spying on trump and his campaign. that's not how this happened. and i've spoken to european intelligence. this is what's called incidental collection. the europeans just like the americans are regularly monitoring the communications, particularly of u.s. adversaries overseas. that certainly includes russia. sometimes when they're monitoring those communications, they pick up on the other end of the line an american. or they pick up russians talking about an american. when that happens, the u.s. takes notice certainly, but so do our allies. this is a case where incidentally they picked up these communications and said russians are talking to trump associates, et cetera. we felt it was important to share with you, and you look at it and decide what you're going to do with it. >> why didn't our u.s. intelligence agencies, why did
they not capture it? or maybe they did. >> they did. with ereported that earlier. >> is this duplicate? >> u.s., british and other european intelligence agencies picked up on it. it wasn't just one, it was several. >> are these duplicates? the same communications being captured by british, by european intelligence agencies, u.s. intelligence agencies and others? >> it's possible some are duplicates. you have to imagine, and some of this is the nature of cooperation between these countries, where, for instance, the five eyes program, sharing of intelligence between the u.s., upand other allies. they will task certain countries, intelligence services, with focusing on certain parts of the world. britain, part of britain's responsibility is focusing on russian communications. so the british might pick up things that the u.s. would not. >> jim, i have a short time here, but how might in affect the investigations going on now. >> we don't know yet. i spoke with a source close to the senate intelligence investigation. they said, if these conversations are relevant to
our investigation, we're going to take a hard look at them. >> jim sciutto, thank you. appreciate it. when we come back, a closer look at the investigation and what this could mean for the trump administration going forward. no one's the same without the game of football... like @pigskinsusan15, who writes, "now my boyfriend wants to talk on sundays. just so many words." your boyfriend's got it bad. maybe think about being single until the start of the season. my dad called them up and asked for "the jennifer garner card" which is such a dad thing to do. after he gave his name the woman from capital one said "mr. garner, are you related to jennifer?" kind of joking with him. and my dad was so proud to tell her, "as a matter of fact, she is my middle daughter". so now dad has the venture card, he's earning his double miles, and he made a friend at the company. can i say it? go ahead! what's in your wallet? nice job dad.
we asked people to just go about their day to try a new feature from match. so, click on missed connections right there. crossed paths with brad near 9th street.. that's my favorite brunch place! he's cute! looks like he goes to my gym. so i see emma here and i passed her three times today.. six times today.. four times! you didn't know. now i do. what do you think that means that you keep crossing paths? we're going to the same places. yea you are. that we like to do the same things. that we would agree on where to go for brunch. match. better ways to make a real connection. start for free today. ♪
breaking news. sources telling cnn british intelligence and other european agencies intercepted communications between trump associates and russian officials during the campaign and passed them on to u.s. officials. let's discuss it here. robin wright, joint fellow at the u.s. institute of peace, and woodrow wilson center. jim sciutto was just reporting foreign intelligence officials passed along information to the fbi and the c.i.a. about trump associates contacts with russia. what do you think? >> i think we're getting the same picture from a number of sources over a number of days. and it all points to, frankly, one of two possibilities. either the trump campaign was an extremely disorderly, chaotic,
and somewhat corrupt affair with a lot of grifters, free lancers, you know, trolling in various ways, and interacting and intersecting with all kinds of strange characters, including people associated with russian intelligence, the russian government, or there is some actual connection and collusion. but it does seem strange, if you think the first, that there was an actual collusion, the number of times that trump association -- the trump campaign, associates, affiliates seem to have had some kind of contact or bumped up against some kind of russian, somebody watched the british, the fbi, if this is a coincidence, it's a remarkable coincidence. >> robin, some of this came from the british, you'll recall, that the president created a diplomatic incident when he claimed that the british had tapped his phones in trump tower, at the former president barack obama's request.
they say this communication was picked up during incidental collection during routine surveillance of known russian targets. that's different. just as it happened with the u.s. that's different, right? >> absolutely. and the deniability of the evidence becomes ever harder. the pressure now will grow on congress to investigate even deeper. you know, the layers of this keep adding. and there will be more and more questions. over the past week, the administration has seen that the focus shifted from foreign policy, syria, afghanistan. but long-term, this is something that will haunt the administration. i think at some point it has to either come clean, try to help facilitate answers. because i think the american
public really wants this issue to go away. >> haunt how why? how? >> pressure them? >> how will it haunt the administration? >> i think the idea that some of its personnel were engaged with russia will come back to haunt this administration. particularly given the kind of tensions we have with russia that were apparent this week when secretary of state rex tillerson visited moscow. his meeting with vladimir putin and the foreign minister. this is a time that they're trying to sort out a number of very significant issues. and to have this haunt the administration, i think is going to be very difficult. >> you know, i think part of what robin is saying, it feels to me the trump administration does not have a strategy to deal with this. you don't get the feeling that they have figured out, okay, this is a problem. and here's what we are going to do. here are the two people who are the point people for this. here's all the -- they're going to answer all these questions.
they're going to do their own internal review. they're going to have some statements to make. instead what you get is this is drip, drip, drip of information, reporting, congressional inquiries that keeps coming in. and as robin was saying, what it does is it keeps diverting the narrative from anything that the trump administration wants to present. and of now and then, yes, the syria strike will divert it, but then you get back to the next -- >> going like this, right? not a straight line. because the original tweet was something that is completely different to what this has evolved into, not a natural evolution. >> yes. you would think somebody in the white house, chief of staff frankly should be tasked with saying, how are we dealing with this, what is our response to it, who is the point person, what is the internal investigation? you know, some kind of political and communications strategy. and instead, you feel as though there's nothing other than an
occasional defensive tweet from the commander in chief. >> i think they realize that it is a weakness. >> still, you've got to have a strategy for weaknesses as well as strengths. >> do you think that the british intelligence, european intelligence, robin, would give us everything that they have? i tried to sort of get jim sciutto to break this down specifically. were these duplicates? was this new communications? will they give using that they have? >> they haven't given it to me, so i don't know. but i expect they provided a good bit of information. and i think there's a sense in the international community that they want to see this issue resolved as well. this ewant to see how deep these connections go, and what it means. i think there's a discomfort generally among many of our allies about what happened in this election. because the europeans also face the same kind of issue with the russians in terms of their meddling in, for example, the french or german elections. and so there are a lot of questions that play out among our allies as well as in washington. >> does this mean that other
world leaders would know about these contacts and the nature of them, robin? >> absolutely. you have to believe that whether it's angela merkel in germany or theresa may in britain, that a lot of them know exactly what their intelligence agencies picked up and what may have been happening, what interference the russians have engaged in when it came to the united states. and i think this is, you know, we talk about a new cold war with the russians. there's a lot at stake on this issue. it's not just what happened in the run-up to our election. this is what broader russian intentions are, how it's engaging, how much we can engage with them. so the stakes are huge on this issue. >> yeah. and of course, the narrative now is being twisted. that's really -- can we have a free election in this country without --
>> and can any democracy. >> absolutely. stick around. when we come back, more on the mother of all bombs. we'll break down what message the blast could send to other countries that president trump is targeting. listen up, heart disease.) you too, unnecessary er visits. and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable. we're talking to you, cost inefficiencies and data without insights. and fragmented care- stop getting in the way of patient recovery and pay attention. every single one of you is on our list. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done.
hidden in every swing, every chip, and every putt, is data that can make the difference between winning and losing. the microsoft cloud helps the pga tour turn countless points of data into insights that transform their business and will enhance the game for players and fans. the microsoft cloud turns information into insight. e*trade's powerful trading tools, give you access to in-depth analysis, and a team of experienced traders ready to help if you need it. it's like having the power of a trading floor, wherever you are. it's your trade. e*trade
so you'rhow nice.a party? i'll be right there. and the butchery begins. what am i gonna wear? this party is super fancy. let's go. i'm ready. are you my uber? [ horn honks ] hold on. don't wait for watchathon week to return. [ doorbell rings ] who's that? show me netflix. sign up for netflix on x1 today and keep watching all year long.
we're back now. we've been talking about the breaking news on the investigation into the trump administration and russia. now to the other big breaking news story. the u.s. military dropping what is called a mother of all bombs in afghanistan. the first time a weapon of this type has been used in battle by the pentagon. back with me now, fareed zakaria and robin wright. how surprised are you that 12 weeks into this presidency that we dropped one of the largest bombs that we have on afghanistan, other than a nuclear bomb? >> well, it doesn't surprise me in the sense that i don't think it represents some kind of dramatic change in the political or military strategy. it does seem from what one can tell the military was right that this was a particularly appropriate bomb given what they were facing, which was a lot of tunnels, and it was difficult to get at this stuff. but i think it does raise a
bigger issue that i bet you many americans and people around the world who watch this program, you know, were reminded of. 16 years after 9/11, we are still fighting a war in afghanistan. the longest war in american history. 8,000 or 9,000 american troops. >> is that why general hertling was so offended by president trump saying we've done more in eight weeks than in eight years? >> i this i so. you can drop a lot of these bombs. what is the political strategy, what is the political objective? >> syria, afghanistan. >> exactly. the only way we're going to achieve a measure of success if we have some kind of political settlement on the ground. that there's somebody there who has legitimacy and power and take it over. otherwise, 16 years from now, we will still be talking on this program about dropping these bombs. >> so that's strategy. does it send a message, robin wright, and the president was
asked about this earlier, about north korea as well. here's the president. >> i don't know if this sends a message. it doesn't make any difference if it does or not. north korea is a problem. the problem will be taken care of. >> okay. so no strategy mentioned there except the problem will be taken care of. to fareed's point, how will north korea, iran, and other countries view this action? >> well, i think that this bomb was actually dropped because of the conditions on the ground. what opportunities they were provided by whatever -- wherever the isis fighters were, whether it has repercussions militarily or psychologically in north korea, iran, syria, iraq, maybe. but, you know, i don't necessarily think that that's going to be decisive. i think a lot of these places will have their own strategies, and continue. what north korea does in the next couple of days launching a sixth nuclear test. i just came back from iraq, and i think the thing that haunts all of us in covering these wars
and have been for decades, is that there is not a strategy beyond dropping bombs, to find a way out of these wars, to end the military environment. all of the military experts you've had on the show will certainly agree that, yes, you can go after and use whatever weaponry, sophisticated weaponry you have to kill or intimidate the enemy. but at the end of the day you have to have a strategy, a complementary, parallel strategy that comes up with a means to whether it's find peace in afghanistan, after six years, in dealing with the taliban. when i was in mosul in iraq, you know, there is a sense of how you provide military security for mosul, but there's no plan for the political governance in a way that will make all the parties on the ground feel that they are invested in the process. and they don't want to sign up for the next iteration of al qaeda or isis or whatever is next.
that there are these big questions that nobody's answering, the trump administration most of all. you know, the obama administration, the bush administrations both grappled with these issues. never got in eight years with each of them to that incredible nexus of political, or diplomatic and military operations. and there's a deep concern that for all the bombs that have been dropped in the past week, the trump administration is as far away if not further away from that as well. >> i want to ask you, fareed, lindsay graham said he hopes america's adversaries are watching and know there's a new sheriff in town. >> we've been doing this for a while. in fact, president obama dropped more -- did more drone strikes, i think, in his, you know, first two years than george bush had done in all eight years of his presidency.
president obama was comfortable using drones, bombs, special forces. i think the real challenge is not the military. the united states has never lost or gone astray in these engagements because it has lacked military power, firepower. you know, we've won every battle. >> that's political rhetoric. >> no, the problem is, what do you then do? how do you then stabilize the situation? because if you don't stabilize it, you leave and the bad guys come back. and it's that dynamic -- think about iraq. we went in, smashed a lot of stuff, but we weren't able to create some kind of political dynamic that was stable and successful. same in afghanistan. it's been better than iraq, but that's the difficulty. you know, i wonder whether donald trump will come to realize this. because his national security adviser, mcmaster, is actually one of the world's experts. how do you actually stabilize a
place politically after you've bombed it. the bombing -- the u.s. does it very well. does it better than anyone in the world. did it well under obama, well under bush, it will do it well under trump. what do you do after the bombs. >> nation building? >> it is nation building. trump has been opposed to that. mcmaster and petraeus and people like that believe that's the only way to stabilize. you say, trump won't do it. except this week, he reversed himself on six different things, maybe that will be the seventh thing had ereverses himself on. one of the investigations trump associates ties with russian officials. what one of trump's former policy advisers is now saying about his own communications with russians. ray's always been different. last year, he said he was going to dig a hole to china. at&t is working with farmers to improve irrigation techniques.
remote moisture sensors use a reliable network to tell them when and where to water. so that farmers like ray can compete in big ways. china. oh ... he got there. that's the power of and. so, any interesting guys here tonight? no, not tonight. maybe they were here and you missed them? boom. crossed paths with dave? he was here? how did you do this? i didn't do it. match did it! check out new missed connections on match. start for free today!
tv's "the big interview," and david axelrod. good evening, gentleman. your reaction to jim sciutto's reporting about british passing on this information? >> we can't know until we know what the facts are. that brings us to the imperative need for an independent bipartisan commission to look into this. with the republicans in control of the congress, it's unrealistic to think that any one of the investigations of congress will go beyond a certain point. but this is part of what somebody earlier called a drip, drip of the story. this story is not going away for donald trump. the significance of what we learned tonight, how little we lend, is that it continues. it's going to haunt the trump presidency until and unless the story gets out and the story is, well, trump has no culpability anywhere. that runs hard up against the wall of, if there's nothing there, why is the trump administration seeking so hard to change the subject, change
the narrative? they keep trying to bury this story, which fuels the idea there must be something there, because otherwise they wouldn't work so hard to bury it. >> that's a good question, think, david, is what does it mean for the white house that there is apparently information out there about these contacts. that information presuably known to leaders across europe. >> yeah. you know, i wonder who in the white house knows where all these tentacles go. and is there someone who's -- fareed said earlier, i think, that there ought to be someone in charge of this story. >> he did. >> but even internally, i wonder if the president, i wonder if the people around the president know where all these tentacles have gone. let me just say one thing about this, though. the reason why this is so insidious, and so dangerous, other than the implications of the hints of collusion between
his team and the russians to subvert the elections, which is deeply disturbing, but even if none of that were true, the fact is now when the president speaks on matters that involve russia, you saw it this week, he took a huge turn in terms of how he discussed russia. and rather than looking at the merits of what he was saying, people naturally were asking, well, is this a way to try and establish independence from russia? then you had his son out there saying as much. saying, well, now people can see he really isn't in the thrall of russia. sean spicer made similar comments. you politicize a very fraught global relationship. it's really in the interest of the country to get to the bottom of this. even wherever the bottom leads.
just to satisfy people about what actually happened. >> if there's no there, it's easier to show there's no there there and move on rather than having it hang over your head. this news, mr. rather, comes as trump campaign foreign policy adviser, carter page, who was monitored by the fbi, providing conflicting story about his contacts with russian officials. this is what he said to abc news. >> in any of these conversations with russians, either in russia or back here in the united states, did you ever suggest to any of them that president trump, candidate trump would be open to easing sanctions on russia? >> absolutely not. >> never? not once? >> i never offered that, no. nothing along those lines. absolutely not. i mean, it may -- i don't remember -- we'll see what comes out in this fisa transcript. >> you know what you did. >> i don't recall every single word that i ever said. but i would never make any
offer, or intimate anything that -- >> it sounds like from what you're saying it's possible you may have discussed the easing of sanctions? >> i have no recollection, and there's nothing specifically that i would have done that would have given people that impression, george. >> but you can't say without equivocation that you didn't discuss the easing of sanctions? >> someone may have brought it up. i have no recollection. if it was, it was not something i was offering or that someone was asking for. >> what do you think? >> i want to know the facts. i will say, as a general proposition, when someone says under repeated question very often, i don't remember, that sometimes is a sign they don't remember, because they don't want to remember. i'm not accusing him of anything at all. again, don, we need to know what happened here. it's not a partisan political matter beyond a certain point. we know the russians were involved in some ways in trying
to affect the political -- the presidential election. >> the intelligence agency said that. >> we need the facts. the facts need to be put in front of the american people. it's not a matter of preaching about it. that's why i come back to the absolute necessity of having a bipartisan special commission to look into it. and that's going to take a lot of time. >> david, getting specifically back to carter page. you saw that interview. let me get your response. what did you think of his answer? >> well, look, carter page is not looking for my advice, but if i were to give him advice, i'd say, stay the heck off of television, man, if you can't answer questions. the fact is that he looked equivocal. he looked guilty in that interview. he knows whether or not he had a discussion with any russian representative. >> let's see what comes up in the transcripts? i'm paraphrasing there.
>> yeah, really, translated, that sounded like, i don't want to answer this too specifically, because i need to know what they have. but for the life of me, i don't understand why he's out there. he's not helping himself. >> he's been asked multiple times who brought him on to the trump campaign. he won't give a name. who do you think is responsible? do you have any idea? >> listen, this won't shock you, don, but i was not privy to the intimate details of the operations of the trump campaign. you remember, i mean, there was a human cry about the fact that trump had no foreign policy advisers. and in desperation, once he threw out a few names, in which carter page was one of them, it's not clear exactly what the relationship was. i don't know who assembled his foreign policy advisers. i don't know what his relationship, for example, with paul manafort was. i don't know any of that. i suspect those conducting
investigations right now know more about this than any of us. >> we'll continue on with this conversation and talk about this mother of all bombs dropped on afghanistan today. why the previous administration didn't use it. and some talk about steve bannon as well, and his possible waning influence in this white house. it's league night!? 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico! goin' up the country. bowl without me. frank.' i'm going to get nachos. snack bar's closed. gah! ah, ah ah. ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪
♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. ♪ no, i'm scheduling time to go oto the bank to get a mortgage. ugh, you're using a vacation day to go to the bank? i know, right? just go to lendingtree.com. get up to five loan offers to compare side by side for free. wow, that's great. wait, how did you get in my kitchen? oh, i followed a raccoon in through your doggie door. [chittering] [gasps] get a better mortgage on your schedule. not the bank's. lendingtree. when banks compete, you win. just think of him as a big cat. [chittering] with rabies.
i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member
has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
all right. i'm back with my panel now. mr. dan rather and mr. david axelrod. dan, can you weigh on this other breaking news we have tonight. the united states dropping this nonnuclear bomb on isis' tunnel complex in afghanistan. candidate trump said he would bomb the you know what out of isis, he said. is this president delivering, you think? >> i do. first of all, the commander in afghanistan, general nicholson, a great commander, he should have a leeway to use whatever weapons at his disposal. >> you think it was him to make the decision? >> that decision had to go somewhat up the ladder. i'm puzzled by the president not acknowledging if he did sign off on it or didn't sign off on it. saving american lives, even one
american life, and doing something to defeat the enemy at that place, no problem with that whatsoever. the difficulty with afghanistan is what is the strategy? when do we know we get out? we've been there manafort oh it can be used as part of a strategy. but what's the goal in afghanistan? keep in mind the commander in afghanistan has been asking for more ground troops he's not been granted that. but bombs are noah strategy. particularly with the gurl la warfare in afghanistan we know in a broad general way they're not very effective in winning the war. they can be effective in a one off situation such as i believe happened in afghanistan with this so-called mother of all bombs. let's put an asterisk on the bottom of the page. the mother of all conventional
bombs. the mother of bombs are atomic. >> very good point ffrmt before you weigh in david i want to play what the president said about the bombing and get your response. yeah. we have the greatest military in the world they have done a great job as usual we have given them total authorization. frankly that's why they've been so successful. if you look at what's happened the last eight weeks and compare that to really what's happened over the last eight years you'll see there is a tremendous difference, tremendous difference. >> david as the former president senior adviser what's your reaction. not going to respond to that element of it. everything was terrible the last eight years a everything has been great for the last ten weeks according to donald trump. there is no point in reacting to that. i agree with dan on the use of the -- of the weapon. i assume that it was done for good military purposes. i don't ascribe any particular
political motives to the use of this weapon. it is interesting the president in that scrum with reporters seemed not to have -- he didn't want to answer that question as you pointed out. did he order it? what was his involvement in this? and he said well you know i trust -- essentially he said i trust my generals. and what's interesting about that is we all remember it wasn't that many months ago when he was telling everyone that he knew better than the generals. and it's one more instance in which he change his posture on his relationship with them, on what his role would be as president versus them in terms of setting strategy. my guess is this was a decision taken by the military for good military reasons. >> let's talk about the strategy and the people around him really because the "wall street journal" asked president trump if there will be changes to his inner circle in the coming
months. the president responded saying i don't intend to. he added he may change his mind from day to day. that's a quote. president trump has been distancing himself from chief strategist bannon recently. do you think bannon is driving the changes we're seeing now? do you. >> i'm sorry i thought you were asking david. i beg your pardon. well this is very strange. the answer is i don't know. who can know? but there is no precedent for what's happened here. never in the a modern presidency i don't think going back to george washington has there everen a president who -- who talked to a tabloid newspaper and dish -- what he did wsh -- said things about one of if not his main adviser. there is no precedent for that. >> i like steve, but he said -- but that was the beginning. >> now in most white houses if
that had been done, you would see -- you would say to yourself, bannon politicly is what the mafia calls a walking corpse. he is dead. but with donald trump who can say? but what's been lost with all the talk of tomkowiak missile and the mother of all bombs dropping the narrative in the white house there is a lot of back stabbing back biting, scrambling for position. the picture was painted from the outside that inside the white house they would turn on each other like the women in the television program desperate housewives they're turning on each other all over. who knows where it leads. but it can't be good news for bannon. >> i want to get your response i like steve but -- then another thing he said he was just a guy who worked for me what's your response to this quickly. >> just a guy working for you don't gets named chief
strategist placed on security council coequal status with chief of staff. he was obviously more than that. but the first 82 days haven't gone particularly well. bannon was associated with two of the biggest failure was was the travel ban and affordable care act failing. i think there were forces there whether general mattis, general mcmaster and some of the more globalist forces on national security who were interested in circumdescribing his power, flynn's power. on the economic front you have -- you have jared kushner wsh gary cohen his chief economic counselor, head of national economic counsel. they were going to try and previously over the nationalist impulses of steve bannon.
you have a president with no particular philosophy. >> yeah i got to go. >> see you flew thank you mr. axelrod thank you mr. rather i appreciate it. we'll be right back. you're in the match app. now tap on the new missed connections feature. it says i've crossed paths with kate six times this week. that is a lot of times. she's cute too! yea! how did i miss her? you didn't. match picked it up for you. check out new missed connections on match. start for free today!
in afrg nlts. cnn tonight i'm don lemon the weapon is massive weighing in at 22,000 pounds only used in testing until today. it is the largest nonnuclear bomb the u.s. military ever used. plus the russia investigation latest. sources telling cnn that british intelligence and other european agencies intersectioned communications twn trump associates and russian officials during the campaign and passed them on to u.s. officials. moments before a man dragged off united airlines flight he and an officer got into an argument and tonight we're going to hear what was said and talk to the passenger who recorded the encounter. let's begin with the military targeting iceness afg wants a massive bomb imt to grim former congressman. military analyst major general marks and concernle cedric lateen the a former dmt of homemade security official many thank you