tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN May 31, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
two braeeaking stories tonight. word that fbi director james comey will testify before congress and say that the president pressured him on the russia collusion. and possible top contact between a top trump associate and russia's ambassador. if it did take place, it's another example of this incident happening. what have you lesh arned? >> democratic and hill sources and intelligence officials briefed on the investigation tell myself and my colleagues, jamie and shimon, that congressional investigators are examining whether attorney general jeff sessions had an additional private meeting with russia's ambassador during the presidential campaign. investigators on the hill are now requesting additional information, including schedules
from sessions, a source with knowledge tells cnn. they're focusing on such a meeting took place on april 27th, 2016, at the may flower hotel in washington, d.c., where then candidate donald trump was delivering his first major foreign policy address. prior to the speech, they be senator sessions and russian ambassador sergey kislyak attended a small vip reception with organizers, diplomats, others in addition to congressional investigators, the fbi is seeking to determine the extent of interactions the trump campaign team may have had with russia's ambassador during that event. this is part of its broader counterintelligence investigation of russian interference in the election. neither hill nor fbi verdicts have yet concluded whether a private meeting took place. they also acknowledge that it is possible that any additional meeting, anderson, was incidental. >> has attorney general sessions responded? >> we got this statement a short time ago from the department of justice. i'll read it in full. it says, "the department of
justice appointed a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. we will allow him to do his job. it is unfortunate that anonymous sources whose credibility will never face public scrutiny are continuously trying to hinder that process by peddling false stories to the mainstream media. the facts haven't changed. then senator did not have any private or side conversations with any russian officials at the mayflower hotel," anderson, that's their full response. >> so they're denying it categorically. if true, it would not be the first time that sessions failed to disclose a meeting with the russian ambassador. >> that's exactly right. during his confirmation hearing january 10th, sessions testified he, quote, did not have any communications with the russians, end quote, during the campaign. he said the same in a rain statement submitted to the senate judiciary committee. but when reports emerged in march that the two -- that he did have meetings with kislyak during the campaign, one at the republican national convention in july and one in his senate office in september, sessions conceded that the meetings happened, but insisted they were
part of his senate duties and had nothing to do with the campaign. nonetheless, he was forced to recuse himself from the russian investigation. after that revelation, sessions was asked again at a news conference on march 2nd whether there were any other meetings with russians besides those two. here was his response then. >> have you met with any other russian officials or folks connected to the russian government since you endorsed donald trump? >> i don't believe so. i -- you know, we meet a lot of people, so -- >> senator, from those two meetings you discussed with the ambassador -- >> i don't believe. >> reporter: later that week, when sessions updated his sworn testimony to the senate judiciary committee, he acknowledged those two meetings with kislyak, but did not mention any encounter at the mayflower hotel, anderson. but clearly those answers not entirely sufficient, as we know, the hill and the fbi are looking into this. >> jim sciutto, thanks very much. again, this came at the end of a day that began with another shoe drop in the russia probe.
we learned that fired fbi director james comey will testify publicly before the senate intelligence committee. we learned when he'll testify, although we don't know the exact date. and most importantly, we learned what he is expected to say, later today, we learned who the house intelligence community wants to hear from. cnn's jessica schneider joins us with all the details on that. so the house intel committee issued a number of subpoenas today. who'd they call? >> reporter: anderson, seven new subpoenas went out today. and here's exactly how they break down. four of them related to the russia probe. those were issued to president trump's personal lawyer, michael cohen, also former national security adviser, michael flynn, as well as their business entities. those subpoenas are for documents that both men have been reluctant to turn over. now, the three additional subpoenas related to unmasking, that's, of course, the unveils of identities in -- of americans in intelligence reports, and all of these subpoenas relate to the unmasking request made by obama officials, including former cia director, john brennan, former national security adviser, susan
rice, and former u.n. ambassador, samantha powers. so in aural, seven new subpoenas going out today, anderson. >> and the subpoenas, the house intelligence agency suspects some came directly from chairman nunes, but nunes recused himself from the russia investigation. >> we know that he did step aside from the russia probe. but it turns out, chairman nunes still has subpoena power. and that's actually stirring a lot of concern within the committee. chairman nunes can, in fact, unilaterally still issue subpoenas and one senior house intelligence aide tells us that the unmasking subpoenas, three of them, likely came from nunes himself, without any consultation with the democrats. and like i said, this has stirred up some controversy. ranking membership talked about it a few days ago, saying he wanted the full committee vote on all subpoenas, but it doesn't look like that happened. >> next week, we're expecting to see former director comey testifying before the senate intelligence committee. do we know what to expect and what day that will take place?
>> reporter: sources are telling me comey will likely publicly recount his run-ins with the president. likely to happen next week, not sure on the date. but when he does get up there to testify, the most intriguing details may come if james comey recounts his february 14th meeting with the president, where the president allegedly asked him to drop the fbi's increasing michael flynn and flynn's ties to russia. sources, of course, have told us that comey wrote this all down. it's you be clear if comey would read from it or how exactly his testimony might unfold, but we do know he wants to held his story. and in addition, comey has met with special counsel robert mueller to work out the parameters of his testimony. and we know that comey will likely sit down with mueller again for a formal interview afterwards. so anderson, right now looking at that possibility of testimony, some time next week, not exactly clear on the date, though. >> all right. jessica schneider, thanks very much. let's get perspective from david axelrod, matthew rosenberg, and carl bernstein. david, how big of a deal would
it be if then senator sessions did in fact have another undisclosed meeting with the russian ambassador? >> well, "if" is an important word, but if that were the case, it would be a very big deal. because, remember, the rationale for him not disclosing the previous meetings were that they wanted, particularly the one in his senate office, happened in the course of his duties as a senator. that he routinely received foreign diplomats. this is a meeting off-campus, one on one, and it's another thing that he didn't disclose. and anderson, the bottom line is, if you have nothing to hide, you don't hide anything. and there is stealth that pervades this entire story from the president on down, and the attorney general has been guilty of it, as well. so this would really add a log to the fire. >> matt, i mean with, if this meeting did take place, and again, it's an if, we don't know, it would seem to raise more questions about that argument that sessions made to david's point, that this was, you know, that he didn't disclose this during his confirmation hearings, two other meetings, because he was acting
as a senator. >> absolutely. and it's a huge if. but i think it's also important to remember that michael flynn, the former national security adviser, was fired and the white house reason was because he misled vice president pence about conversations or the nature of conversations he'd had with ambassador kislyak. so, you know, if jeff sessions is now found to have had another meeting and was not -- we don't know what he's told people inside or outside the administration, but it does raise that prospect, that you've already fired one senior member of the administration from misleading people outside the administration for this. would you fire another? >> carl, again, this just being looked at. we don't know if this meeting took place. it could just be a moot point. the white house could say, if it does turn out there is a meeting, the attorney general has already recused himself from anything to do with the russia investigation. >> the point is, we need plausible explanations from the president of the united states, jeff sessions, general flynn,
jared kushner, about a cover-up. the fbi right now is trying to penetrate what it knows is a cover-up from the president of the united states through his family, his son-in-law, through sessions, through others. doesn't mean that they've obstructed justice, necessarily. but the fbi is operating on the premise that the president of the united states and those closest to him are engaged in a cover-up. what they want to know, what we want to know in the press, what the congressional investigators in both parties want to know is, what is being covered up. is it financial gained by jared kushner, by trump, by others? or no financial gain? is it some kind of secret arrangement to bring about the policy desires of russia, whether witting or unwitting. they have a cover-up they are trying to unravel and they're getting no help from the white house -- >> how can you say it's a cover-up, unless it's known -- >> because a cover-up does not mean an obstruction of justice.
it means an attempt to hide the facts from investigators and from the people of the united states. there's no question that's going on, and the fbi investigators will tell you that, people in congress will tell you that, people in the white house will tell you that. it doesn't mean it's illegal. that remains to be seen. but if there was not a cover-up, why wouldn't the president of the united states say to his counsel, in the white house, i want a white paper issued on all of my dealings as a businessman with russian and my son-in-law's dealings with them, with my campaign's dealings with them and let's get this behind us and get on the business of the country. we haven't seen anything like that. >> matt, we should point out, the white house says they are fully cooperating. >> the white house says they're completely cooperating. i mean, i think we don't know what happened with the attorney general, if he met the russian ambassador in april at the mayflower. that's still a source of speculation. but we have seen over the last few months a pattern where the
white house says nothing happened and it turns out something did happen. or i know from personal experience, we spoke to the white house about a meeting that mr. jared kushner and michael flynn had with the russian ambassador in december in trump tower. and kind of said, oh, yeah, that happened. and we found out a few weeks later, actually, there was a second meeting arranged with the ambassador. and then, jared kushner met with the russian banker that they left out of that conversation. so a lot of sins of omission or attempts to move on from things and not answer question. does it look like a cover-up? at times, yes. we don't know that. >> let's be clear, the banker he's meeting with was very tied up with the kremlin and his bank was sanctioned by the u.s. government. and you know, the question that's lingering out there or one of this is, well, were sanctions discussed and is that why jared kushner wented a
private channel dmiradministeret by the u.s. but by the russians to have back channels. but it is absolutely true that the president can lift the veil on a lot of this, simply by making the kinds of disclosures that have been the norm since nixon. for example, his tax returns. he could release his tax returns for the last ten years and other details about his businesses that would give people confidence or not that he didn't have these obligations or connections to people who are related to russia, if not russian. and he hasn't done that. and every day that passes that he doesn't do that, he's adding to the suspicion that there's something there. >> it would be very helpful to see, to see, as well, the kushner company's tax returns and whether jared kushner or his family's organization has loans that are outstanding to russians, ethno-russians, et
cetera, or have been seeking them. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you. just ahead tonight, two vastly different views of how unusual it was if jared kushner proposed using russian facilities to secretly communicate with moscow. a former cia briefer joins us. and coming up, hillary clinton's speaking out with the sharpest language yet on her election. of more than 15 key nutrients. one a day 50+. you wto progress.move. to not just accept what you see, but imagine something new. at invisalign®, we use the most advanced teeth straightening technology to help you find the next amazing version of yourself. it's time to unleash your secret weapon. it's there, right under your nose. get to your best smile up to 50% faster. visit invisalign.com to get started today.
[ barks ] radio: scorching heat today, staywalter!ut there! stop suffering with hot ac. cool it yourself with a/c pro. in just 3 easy steps, enjoy the comfort of 2 times the cooling boosters from the #1 selling coldest air. nothing cools like a/c pro. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic
to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. a new perspective tonight on a question that's been out there since we learned about jared kushner's meeting with the
russian ambassador since edecember. how typical was the meeting or not was the hoip they wanted to set up. was this simply business as usual? last night, jeffrey lord said there was nothing novel about it, equating kushner as robert kennedy. >> i would say that jared kushner is the robert kennedy of the trump administration. and i would disagree with maggie about back channels and secret channels, because they can be the same things. in the kennedy era, quite specifically, the knowledge of this was limited to the two brothers. one was the president and one was the attorney general. they kept it out of the state department. they kept everything away from everybody. >> former presidential briefer, david priess, suggested otherwise. he's the author of "the president's book of secrets," and he tweeted that it was, quote, true that jared and rfk are the only two regular family recipients of daily potus intel docs in his 55-year history. false in all other ways. he and jeff join us tonight. so in what ways is the
comparison between robert kennedy and kushner a false one? >> there's a large difference between the two men. robert kennedy before he took over as attorney general for the united states had served, well, on a couple of senate committees, staff, he had served in the justice department, had experience with the government. is then, of course, he was the attorney general of the united states. he was one of those people in the smallest circle around the president helping to make national security decisions. that is a very different position than we've seen with jared kushner, who had literally no government experience before coming in, had not assumed a role as a senior aide, because the administration wasn't in office yet. the only similarity there really is, is that one you mentioned, which is that both of them were brought into the president's inner circle of the top-level intelligence document, the top tier daily intelligence product, that only the president and those he designates to receive it get to see every day. that and their age is really the only similarity they see. >> jeff, how about that? >> the real comparison i wanted to make is the bond between
brothers is different between a father and a son-in-law, but it is still, in this case, a rr serious bond. and it became quite clear, as the kennedy administration went on, that the president relied on his brother in all kinds of manners, including this manner that we've been talking about of a back channel representative of the president. >> isn't the fact, the reason that there are anti-nepotism laws largely part because of the relationship between the two? >> yes! correct. you're absolutely right. and lyndon johnson couldn't stand him. >> the point you were making about the jared kushner and robert kennedy comparison is that, in fact, this isn't all a strange thing, that he did this secret channel discussion with the russians. well, i'm curious, jeff, would you feel the same if president obama or president bush or president clinton before him had used a family member to go to the russian embassy and ask them about a secret channel using russian communications? would you have the same reaction? >> first of all, other presidents than president
kennedy had this kind of relationship -- >> but, wait a minute, a jeff, if you're telling me -- jeff, you're honestly saying -- jeff, you are honestly saying that if hillary clinton won and during the transition, she tasked chelsea clinton with meeting with russia's ambassador and russian businessmen in order to set up what they're describing as some sort of a back channel, that would be okay with you? that wouldn't be screamed from the headlines? >> anderson -- yes, there would be. there would absolutely be screaming headlines. all i'm simply saying here is that presidents are going to trust whom they trust. and there have been a number of presidents in american history, andrew jackson, martin van buren, franklin roosevelt, john adams and his son, john quincy, who used family members in exactly the way or varying ways that jfk used bobby kennedy and that donald trump is using jared kushner. >> no modern u.s. president has used a direct family member to receive top-level secret intelligence and then to go into a foreign embassy, and according to the reports, request to use
the secret channels within that foreign embassy to communicate, outside of all normal other channels, before they'd even been set up. there's no comparison for that going back to john adams. >> so you're saying to me that when jfk used his brother to deal with what's his name, georgie bollchikov with the russians, there was something wrong with that? >> it was certainly not a normal manner of proceedings, but that was building on communications that was going on to establish two different channels. in this case, you're using apples and oranges. >> bob he kept the state depart out of the loop, quite deliberately. barack obama used a senate staffer as a senator when he was a presidential nominee to do this. he had no business doing that. if that's the view, why wasn't he -- >> the point of contentious is going before the administration
has set up a front channel to establish some kind of a secret channel using a foreign government's communications lines. that's not what we're talking about in all these other examples you're bringing up. >> we're going to have to leave it there. jeffrey lord, david priess win appreciate you both being us. >> thanks, anderson. >> just ahead, next, i'll talk to another panel about what it would mean beyond our borders if president trump decides to withdraw from the paris climate accord. what message would it send to our allies. i'll be right back. think again.
this is the new new york. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov i decided to see if there was a way for design to play a...
...positive role in what was going on in the world. there's a jacket that's reflective for visibility... ...a sleeping bag jacket, jackets that turn into tents. i usually do my fashion sketches on the computer. i love drawing on the screen. there's no lag time at all. it feels just like my markers. with fashion, you can dress people and help people. it's really cool to see your work come to life. working on my feet all day gave me pain here. in my knees. so i stepped on this machine and got my number, which matched my dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic inserts. so i get immediate relief from my foot pain. my knee pain. find a machine at drscholls.com.
it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most. a full night of presidential tweeting. the latest on climate change reads, "i will be announcing my decision on paris accord thursday at 3:00 p.m., the white house rose garden, make america great again." if the president withdraws as expect expected, many will see it as an example of his america first action. in a "wall street journal" post, hr mcmaster wrote, the president embarked on his first foreign policy -- on his first foreign trip with a clear--eyed look that the world is not a global community, but an arena where nations, non-governmental actors
and businesses engage and compete for advantage. at every stop on our journey, we delivered a clear message tour friends and partners. where our interests align, we're willing to work together to solve problems and explore opportunities. the op-ed carried the headline, america first doesn't mean america alone. here to discuss, john kirby, fareed zakaria, and jeffrey lord. fareed, if the president does decide to back out of this accord, what does it mean moving forward for the u.s.? the u.s. was an early force behind this accord and i think the second only to china in terms of emitting greenhouse gases? >> it seems to me it operates at two levels. one is, what does it mean for the environment, for u.s. energy policy? and there, i think the tragedy is that the united states really over the last ten years, partly because of government policy, partly private sector, has become a dominant player in the green energy space in alternative energy. this is a point elon musk keeps making. there are now so many more solar jobs in america than coal
industry jobs. there are, you know, the number of winds jobs is rising dramatically, much more dramatically than the losses in industries like coal. so we would lose a lot of that energy and initiative that is really making the united states dominate these clean, increasingly cheap sources of energy for the future. the second piece is, what does it mean for the united states as a global leader. and this is, in some ways, perhaps the larger issue. whenever the world has confronted this kind of global challenges, you know, where we have china pollutes, it still hurts us. if somebody dumps pollution into the sea, it still affects the fish everywhere. who will lead? who will set the agenda? who will bring the world together? it's been the united states for 70 years, and it's been incredibly beneficial to the united states, because it means that the rules of the road are written with american interests and ideas firmly in mind. so, backing out of what is really the signature global cooperation agreement right now sends a signal that the united states is sort of retiring from
world leadership. >> jeff, is that the signal it sends to you as a supporter of the president? the u.s., i think, would only be, other than nicaragua and syria, would only be the third country to reject the accord? >> anderson, in listening to my friend, fareed, i really do think there is a serious divide here on the issue. speaking to you here from pennsylvania, which is coal country, among other things, people are not willing -- i mean, nobody is opposed to solar, but they want to know why they can't have jobs in the coal industry. why they can't have the kind of jobs with fracking and these other things. and this also goes very distinctly to an ideological issue. the issue where a lot of conservatives feel this is the united states giving up its sovereignty. and handing it over to, you know, through an international treaty, quote/unquote, and losing control here of their own -- of america's destiny. of whatever it is we choose to
do, we're no longer going to be allowed to do it. there really is that streak here. and i've heard this talked about repeatedly, as this issue goes along here. so i can only say, there is a deep divide on this. >> look, the united states is part of many global treaties. you always have the ability to opt out, you can pay penalties for it, we're part to have the free trade agreements all over the world. the basic idea here, jeff, is we're 5% of the world's population. if we want to have 25% of the world's economy, which is what we have, we have to buy, sell, engage, cooperate with the rest of the world. and that means there have to be some rules of the road. we have -- so far, we have got to write them, which has been an incredible benefit. if we walk away, those guys are all going to keep trading. the chinese are not going to stop growing. it just means the united states won't be at the heart of it. we won't be setting the agenda. >> admiral kirby, where do you stand on this? the affirmation of the paris
agreement is not only about the climate, it is also about america remaining the global leader. which is the point fareed was making. >> i want to piggyback on fareed and talk quickly about national security, but he's absolutely right. if we see the territory here to china, we can pretty much count on the fact that the standards that will be undertaken under the paris agreement so far won't be as transparent and people won't be held to the same level of accountability as if we underwrote those rules and stayed engaged. it's not about giving up our sovereignty, it's quite the opposite. the more we stay engaged, the more we can help control the agenda going forward. as for jobs, every million dollars, according to the world bank, that's invested in clean and renewable energy, creates two to three times as many jobs in this country as does for every $1 million invested in coal and natural gas. the jobs are not going to be in coal going forward. the future is renewable energy. and i think we need to be making sure that we're leading that effort. on national security, secretary mattis, his own defense
secretary, has said that climate change is a national security challenge. in july of 2015, the pentagon put out a lengthy report, talking about the very severe complications for our own national security, if we don't do something about man-made climate change. >> jeff, do you agree that the u.s. does, i mean, have to engage with the world in terms of, you know, international diplomacy and accords. and to that argument of giving up sovereignty, isn't any kind of engagement or deal one makes internationally, can't you argue the same thing, that that's giving up sovereignty? >> i think you have to compete, anderson. and it's very interesting. you get to the notions of, are we competitors or is this the community. i think there is some considerable belief that if we go down the community road, suddenly we've got all kinds foesks, n folks, not unlike the brexit situation in europe, where a lot of folks felt they had conceded control of their country to
brussels, and they didn't like it. and i think that sentiment is afloat here, very much so. >> admiral kirby, jeff is referencing a "wall street journal" op-ed from jerry mcmaster and general cohn, that the world is not a global community that nations compete for advantage. >> i think both are true. i frankly don't buy the argument that it's not a community and it's just an arena. it's both. obviously, there's competition. obviously, there are selfish national interest that every nation institute pursues. but we are also a community. we all have to live on the same dirt, we have to breathe the same area. we should all be invested in the future of the planet. i also do want to acknowledge that jeff's valid point that we do need to listen to voters. we do need to pay attention to those in certain industries in this country who feel like their voice hasn't been heard and are worried about their future. that's understandable. but one thing i would ask them to remember, the emissions agreements are all voluntary. what's uniform is the way they're going to be held to
account and measured. but the emissions targets are all voluntary. so the president doesn't have to rip ul the deal. he can take another look at it and maybe change the emissions targets. that's a way of exerting sovereign. the >> admiral kirby, thank you. fareed zakaria, jeff lord, as well. >> coming up next, hillary clinton speaking out again about her election loss, suggesting something was up between russia and the trump campaign. you could spend days weeding through financial documents to refinance your home. or, you could push that button. [rocket launching] skip the paperwork and get a mortgage solution in minutes. lift the burden of getting a home loan with rocket mortgage by quicken loans. [whisper: rocket]
cool it yourself with a/c pro. in just 3 easy steps, enjoy the comfort of 2 times the cooling boosters from the #1 selling coldest air. nothing cools like a/c pro. how if guests book direct ater, choicehotels.com and stay twice they'll get a $50 gift card? summertime. badda book. badda boom. got you a shirt! ...i kept the receipt... book now at choicehotels.com
turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing. just moments ago, the president tweeted about statements hillary clinton made today about the election. crooked hillary clinton now blames everybody but herself. refuses to say she was a terrible candidate. hits facebook and even dems and dnc. just moments later, secretary clinton replied on twitter. quote, people in covfefe houses shouldn't throw covfefe. that statement will make sense in just a little bit, when you see the ridiculist, it's all about covfefe. secretary clinton is speaking out. she was at a tech conference, covered a lot of ground, russia, the elections. listen to what she said. >> the russians, in my opinion, and based on the intel and
counterintel people i've talked to could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided. >> guided by americans. >> guided my americans. and guided by people who had, you know, sppolling and data information. >> so who is that? >> soy hope we'll get enough information to be able to answer that question. >> but you're leaning trump? >> yes, yes i'm leaning trump. look, i take responsibility for every decision that i made, but that's not why i lost. so i think it's important that we learn the real lessons from this last campaign. i get the nomination, so i'm now the nominee of the democratic party. i inherit nothing from the democratic party. >> what do you mean, nothing? >> i mean, it was bankrupt. it was on the verge of insolvency. its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. i had to inject money into it.
>> this is the dnc, you're saying? >> the dnc to keep it going. >> so lots to discuss with paul begala and jason miller, the senior communications adviser to the trump campaign. paul, hillary clinton is saying that her decisions are not why she lost. do you really think that's accurate? there's the deplorables comment, wisconsin, having a private e-mail server. aren't those reasons she lost and all decisions she made? >> she clearly made mistakes in that campaign. by the way win advised the super pac that supported her. i made mistakes in this, too. and that's not true that's not why she lost. barack obama, the greatest politician of our generation, totally blew the debate against mitt romney in denver in 2012. every politician makes mistake. i can't remember any of them, but i think donald trump made a few. what historians will remember about this election is not that hillary made mistakes, it's that the russians intervened. they hacked our election and then the fbi director, perhaps reportedly duped by the russians, interfered in the
election in the closing days, which is what detailed it, there's data on this. it doesn't exonerate me or hillary's campaign from the mistakes we made, but it is true that what tilted the election was the interference from outside forces, from russia and the fbi director, mr. comey. >> jason, i want you to respond to that. and hillary clinton said, i was the victim of a very broad assumption that i was going to win. i don't know if you think to say the word victim there, but how do you respond to paul? >> victimhood on fleek. we're at the point now, where, raise your hand if hillary clinton hasn't blamed you for the reasons why she lost. i think her comments today really speak to two things. number one, this whole entitlement mentality we're seeing right now from the democratic party, where secretary clinton exasperating, i inherited nothing. look, this isn't handed to you. the second part to this is also the republicans put together a much better operation. whether it was brad parscale who
developed president trump's campaign and data analytics and operation or reince priebus who got very nice praise from former secretary clinton in her remarks today who developed the rnc platform, we just put together flat-out a better operation. and look, to the whole point that paul was saying about the russian involvement or supposed vof involvement in the election, look, unless secretary clinton had a scheduler named vladimir or a speechwriter named sergey who said, why don't you go out there and calling millions of peel irredeemable and millions more deplorable, then i think that's absolutely silly. >> jason, you said, supposed involvement by russia. do you think all the u.s. intelligence agencies are wrong? that russia was involved in the hacking of the dnc and releasing the e-mails? >> well, the former cia director made a very important point last week, and said that the russians had been trying to influence our elections for decades. so i don't think you can go and say that magically, they broke through in this election. and we still haven't seen one
shred of evidence or one voter that's been moved, supposedly, by any outside -- >> so you do not take it as an article of faith that the russians actually are behind the hacking of the dnc? >> i think the reductions most certainly tried to meddle in the election somewhat. but there hasn't been one single voter who's come forward and said they were moved or swayed by something some supposed foreign entity, or has there been anything put forward that said the campaign coordinated with a foreign entity in any way. but going back to the topic here with secretary clinton, for her to go out there and blame everybody else, except for herself, here's the bottom line. president trump was a better candidate. that's why he won. >> paul? >> i'm just aghast. i'm appalled. we know -- we have all 17 intelligence agencies who said, russia hacked our election. and they timed the leaks of john podesta's e-mails, hillary's campaign chairman, to watch one
hour after the "access hollywood" tape came out, where mr. trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. there was an ongoing effort by the russians to harm hillary and help trump. this we know not from me, this we know from our intelligence agencies and the fact that jason, who's a good man, can go on national tv and pretend that it's otherwise, or that our president still pretends that it's otherwise, is preposterous. look, it's going to happen to you next time, brother. it is. the russians are not through monkeying around with freedom. and the fact this has been the most successful foreign intelligence operation, that even the fbi director fell for it, we all ought to be appalled by it. i think it's really, really ashamed that the trump folks don't understand at best they were the unwitting beneficiaries of a stolen election. >> and at some point secretary clinton will have to look her in the mirror and say, i lost the race. >> believe me, she's dope that plenty of times. but you have to look in the mirror and say, the russians helped me.
>> why do you think they did it? >> we've got to leave there. paul begala, jason miller, thanks. just ahead, more breaking news. new dash cam video of tiger woods' roadside sobriety test. you want every night. enter sleep number and the semi-annual sale going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store... oh, and right now, save $200 on our queen c2 mattresses now only $699. ends sunday. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you. a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home... ...with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection, which could lead to hospitalizations. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo,
neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day, so you can stay home. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
to take advantage of this offer on a volvo s90, visit your local dealer. to take advantage of this offer on a volvo s90, there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. now i can start relaxing even before the vacation begins. your vacation is very important. that's why booking.com makes finding the right hotel for the right price easy. visit booking.com now to find out why we're booking.yeah!
tonight, our gary tuchman is in michigan at a gop congressman's town hall. the state went red for president trump in november. not everyone in the state is a fan of the president, surprisingly, not even the republican congressman. gary tuchman reports. >> reporter: michigan republican justin amosh, one of the more conservative members of the house of representatives, but attacking donald trump at a town hall full of mostly democratic constituents, talking about two bills he wants to pass. >> one was for release of the president's tax returns and the other one for an independent investigation with respect to russia. >> reporter: responding to a reporter's question, the congressman is previously agreed that donald trump could face impeachment proceedings if allegations that he tried to impede the former fbi director, jim comey, are true. and in the congressman's district in western michigan, people who voted for both trump and amosh this past november are certainly well aware of the
split between the two men. >> are you comfortable with your congressman, your republican congressman, saying that? >> yeah. yes, i think i am. >> isn't the district's largest city, grand rapids, where a former president of the united states grew up, there's considerable >> you think it's okay that the congressman has brought up the issue of impeachment? >> oh, sure, yeah. because it's out there, it's not like he invented it. >> reporter: nearby, march's doughnut den is just over the district line but many of congressman amash's voters come here. dave thinks the congressman should be more low key about the "i" word. >> i don't think he's thinking it all the way through. he should not talk about it until he has actual facts. >> thanks for being here today. >> reporter: the congressman also recently told reporters he trusts the former fbi director more than the president. >> who do you trust more, james comey, the former fbi director, or the president, donald trump? >> i voted for donald, so, i'd say him. >> reporter: joyce johnson also
voted for the president, but -- who do you trust more, the former fbi director, james comey, or the current president, donald trump? >> well, comey. >> reporter: comey? >> comey, yeah. >> reporter: how come? >> because i just feel that he knows what he's doing. i think he knows what he's doing more than what the president has done now. >> reporter: fact is, here in justin amash's 3rd district which is part of donald trump's united states of america, many republican voters are torn. who do you trust more, the former fbi director, james comey, or the president, donald trump? >> well, i'd have to say donald trump at the present time, but -- >> reporter: if you had to buy a car from james comey or donald trump, who would you choose? >> probably james comey. >> reporter: after the two hour, ten minute town hall ended, anderson, i asked the congressman if he wanted to e lab wa elaborate about his grounds for impeachment comment or comment about james comey being more trustworthy than donald trump.
he said he did not want to elaborate but said we'll see the results of the investigation s then we'll zsdecide what to do. coming up, tiger woods, one of the most talented golfers of all-time, lately he's hit a rough patch. now there's this, dashcam video of his arrest in jupiter, florida, shows woods trouble walking, trouble trying to tie his shoe. woods was arrested monday. he passed a breathalyzer test and said he hadn't been drinking when the officer asked him. he did admit to prescription medication. in a statement, woods said he had an unexpected reaction to the medicine. the tweet that almost broke the internet, the president sends an unexpected midnight tweet, and the country goes completely covfefe over it. we're bringing back the ridiculist for this one. p3 snacks.
[ barks ] radio: scorching heat today, staywalter!ut there! stop suffering with hot ac. cool it yourself with a/c pro. in just 3 easy steps, enjoy the comfort of 2 times the cooling boosters from the #1 selling coldest air. nothing cools like a/c pro. thithis is the new new york.e? think again. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov
time now for the ridiculist. tonight we're talking about, i'm just going to say it, covfefe. late last night the president tweeted "despite the constant negative press, covfefe." i don't think we as a nation reached consensus on the exact pronuns case of covfefe. it's rich to rant about madeup words during a segment called the ridiculist, a made up word. we doch >> i went to an identifily
leag ivy league school. i'm very highly educated. i have words. >> the covfefe tweet, the presidential sentence fragment, one of the best words stayed up with no explanation for hours and hours and hours then as dawn broke, the president suddenly deleted it and wrote, "who could figure out the true meaning of covfefe? enjoy." the i totally meant to do that trick. super effective. the internet was already having its way with covfefe. turns out there two types of people who tweet after midnight, presidents and comedians. what were people tweeting? well, there was a lot of ask your doctor if covfefe is right for you. don't talk to me until i've had my covfefe plus other highlights. one was it's 5:50 a.m., and his tweet is gone. the sun rises and we all walk home in our party clothes. was it all just a dream? the wind whispered, covfefe.
back on this camera. on a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair, warm smell of covfefe rising up through air. another, when he saw only one set of footprints, it was then that i covfefe. i like that one. i don't what it means. if you think you're above covfefe, you're part of the profefe. i messed that one up. people joked sean spicer would say the tweet spoke for itself which was not far off. this was from today's press briefing which was not only off camera but in an alternate reality. >> do you think the people should be concerned that the president posted somewhat of an incoherent tweet last night and then it stayed up for hours? >> no. >> why did it stay up so long? is no one watching this in. >> no, i think the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant. blake? >> what did he mean?
>> blake? blake? >> what is covfefe? >> what is covfefe? hey, do you remember when dan quayle was shacmed coast to coat because he didn't know how to spell potato? the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant? come on. don't covfefe on the nation's leg and tell us it's raining. we don't know what really happened. maybe the president uses a secret word with a small group of people inside the white house when he doesn't want reince priebus to know they're talking about him, maybe he was writing a tweet complaining about his press coverage again and got distracted because he heard his name on television and fell asleep. there's a lot we don't know, but the president does. >> i know words. i have the best words. there's no better word than stupid. right? there is none. there is none. there's no -- there's no word like that. >> i got to argue with the president on that one. maybe there used to be no better word than stupid but not now. thanks for watching "a.c.
covfefe." time to turn things over. "cnn tonight" starts right now. breaking news. a new war of words between president trump and hillary clinton. this cis "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. you might have thought you heard it during the campaign but the president and hillary clinton are doing battle all over again tonight on russia. plus a cnn exclusive, sources say congressional investigators are now looking into whether jeff sessions had another private meeting with the russian ambassador during the campaign. more on that in just a moment. first i want to begin with the breaking news that brand new war of words between president trump and hillary clinton. the former democratic candidate with some strong words at the code conference today. joining me now, kara swisher, the executive editor of recode, and cnn's chief political correspondent dana bash. good evening to both of you. kara, i have to start with you, hillary clinton made a pretty remarkable charge today at your conference about russia's influence, and it has caused