tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN June 1, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
break news. president trump and hillary clinton waging a whole new war of words tonight. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. apparently they didn't get all of this out of their systems during the campaign. we will tell you what the former and current adversaries are fighting about tonight. hint. it rhymes with musha. plus sources are telling cnn investigators into whether jeff sessions had another private meeting with the russian ambassador during the campaign. more on that in a moment. and what's the real story of tiger woods arrest on suspicion of dui? the former golf super star says he had an unexpected reaction to
prescription medications. see what happened on the dash cam video. cnn exclusive reporting, new interest being raised into a trump campaign speech in russia last year. jim sciutto joins us now with the latest on that. what are you learning? >> republican and democratic hill sources all briefed on the investigation tell myself, jamey, and shimon, that congressional investigators are examining whether attorney general jeff sessions had an additional private meeting with russia's ambassador during the campaign. investigators on the hill are now requesting additional information including schedules from sessions a source with knowledge tells cnn. they are focusing on whether such a meeting took place april
27, 2016, at the mayflower hotel here in washington where then candidate donald trump was delivering his first major foreign policy address. prior to the speech then senator sessions and russian ambassador sergey kislyak attended a v.i.p. session with diplomats organizers and 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 counter-intelligence investigation of russian interference in the investigation. neither the hill nor fbi investigators have yet concluded whether a private meeting took place. they acknowledge it is possible don that any additional meeting might be described as incidental. >> has sessions respond? >> he has. the department of justice response, i'm reading it in full appointed special counsel to assume responsible for this matter. we will allow him to do his job. it is unfortunate, the statement goes on, that anonymous sources whose credibility will never face public scrutiny are continuing to peddle false stories to the mainstream media. they have stated jeff sessions did not have an meetings at the
mayflower hotel. not withstanding, clearly that answer not satisfying as yet to the hill. and fbi investigators still look into that. >> if this all turns out to be accurate it would be not be the first time that jeff sessions filed disclose a meeting with the russian ambassador. >> no. that's one reason this raises new questions. during his hearing he testified that he did not have any further communications with the russians, end quote. he said the same in a written statement submit odd to the senate judiciary committee. when it surfaced he had two meetings one a at the republican national convention in july and one in his senate office in september session conceded the meetings happened but insists they were part of his senate duties and had nothing to do with the campaign. nonetheless, sessions was forced the recuse himself from the russia investigation. after that revelation, sessions was asked 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. you know, we meet a lot of people. so -- >> from those two meetings you discussed with the ambassador? >> i don't believe so. >> now, later that week when sessions updated his sworn testimony to the senate judiciary committee he acknowledged those two meetings with kislyak, but don he did not mention any encounter at the mayflower hotel. >> all right, jim, thanks for that. i want you to stick around. i'm going to bring in michael, david gergen, and eric, cnn's investigative editor. good evening everyone, welcome to the panel, welcome to the program. david gergen, your reaction to
this new reporting about attorney general jeff sessions? >> i think we have to greet it cautiously. see whether if he met him, if it was in a social setting four or five people standing in a circle chatting before a speech. that seems to be pretty harmless and forgettable. on the other hand if they had a private session and went to a private room in the hole somewhere that's suspicious. and jeff sessions has been hurt on these questions what he has been willing to say and not say and backed into a corner and all the rest. he said he was going to recuse himself from this whole proceeding. after he volunteered to do that. then he got direct in the comey firing which was in direct violation of the recusal promise. it is a mixed record. but on this particular element i think the thing that's interesting to point out as jim sciutto just did is that republican lawmakers are asking these questions, too. it's not just democrats. >> interesting, and you are
correct about that. let's talk about james comey, eric. you have reported tonight on the former fbi director's upcoming testimony. what can you tell us? what can we expect to hear? what won't we hear? >> well, what we're hearing today is that comey and bob mueller who was appointed a few weeks ago as the special counsel, have been talking and have reached an understanding that will allow comey to testify and to testify publicly before the senate intelligence committee. that had really been a bit up in the air since mueller was named because there was -- there was concern that mueller might not want public testimony, which could in come way taint or compromise his own criminal investigation. our understanding is that comey will not talk about the substance of the russian collusion investigation itself which obviously is the centerpiece of this investigation. but will be allowed to talk about and is eager to talk about the interactions, these tense
confrontations that he had with the president, which have come out through media reports the last few weeks, including the request from trump in a valentine's day meeting on february 14th that he let go of the mike flynn investigation, in other words, dropped the investigation. and a separate conversation where he allegedly asked comey if he could be assured of his loyalty if he were to stay on as fbi director. so those are conversations that are at the heart of the -- sort of the secondary investigation into possible obstruction of justice. and those we understand comey will be testifying about. and will essentially corroborate the media reports that have come out in the last few weeks. >> the media reports that have been said that are fake or either conspiracy theories. michael, the words that you used
to describe comey's testimony are extraordinary and momentous. what's the key question you have? >> first of all, i do think we are on the eve of what could be some of the most dramatic testimony we've seen in years. i'll defer to david and others on this, but for historical precedent to have -- assuming comey is going to testify as has been reported, to have a senior u.s. government official basically go before congress under oath and call the president of the united states a liar, i think you would have to go back to john dean and watergate testimony to find historical precedent. the thing that interests me most, though, is my understanding is that as of this -- as of now, the committee still doesn't have the contemporaneous memos that comey wrote after these meetings with president trump. and that is very powerful
evidence that could either corroborate the account he's going to give or could fill in blanks and could possibly be used to raise questions about his testimony. so i -- you know -- as i understand it, the fbi still has not given them up. it's not clear that they are going to and, that is -- >> let's ask. jim sciutto. do they have those memos yet? is that accurate? >> no, they don't, apparently. we don't know if that's because the special counsel is in effect taking over, right, and saying that they need it for their own investigation. it is a fair question. and michael makes a good point. so that the sworn testimony becomes an important record. >> go ahead, michael. finish your thought. >> just to finish the thought it may be -- i mean, some people are surprised that mueller is
letting comey testify in public if obstruction is one of the issues he's looking at. normally a prosecutor wouldn't want a key witness's account being out there in which the target in this case the president could know everything he has to say. but it could be that mueller is letting him testify but holding back the memos, not allowing the memos to be released so that he would have a arrow in his quiver down the road. just to continue the watergate analogy it's almost as though, you know, when john dean testified the president's tapes had not yet been public. in fact we didn't even know they existed. but they later got released and then corroborated john dean's account as opposed to the white house's account. >> that was my question, will comey's testimony be reminiscent
of john dean's testimony during watergate? >> yes, very much. i agreed with every word michael just said, i do think, don, there is speculation about whether president trump will invoke executive privilege and try to prevent comey from testifying. i think it would be a terrible mistake. but there is the argument that would be in his power. i think it would give the impression he is trying to hide something and ultimately it's going to come out in the testimony in front of the fbi. but the critical thing here, and michael was certainly pointing in this direction, is that if there is ever going to be an impeachment effort, it may start with a question, was there obstruction? and this testimony is going to either build that case or diminish that case. we don't know. obviously, it points in the direction of building that case. and that's what -- if the democrats were to ever get control of the house while president trump is in office, they are going to want to use
this as their foundation. so it has really important impact. and it will also influence public opinion, especially if there's drama and if there's a rather clear pattern of the president really trying to get rid of this piece, get rid of this testimony about flynn, i want this all gone. >> yeah. i have to ask you, eric, about more reporting that you have and get your response to this, about this tweet this morning from the prest about carter page. he said now it's reported that the democrats who have excorporated carter page about russia don't want him to testify. he blows away their case against him. and now he wants to clear his name by calling the misleading testimony from james comey witch-hunt. what was the story. >> for months and months the white house distanced itself as
much as it could from carter payment. he was a nobody. a hanger on. the president had never even met him. now the president is really doing a bit of a flip-flop and invoking carter page is an important figure in this in trying to debunk the charges from democrats that there is something to the russian collusion investigation. obviously, the presidencies -- now sees carter page as ammunition which for a long time he was -- he was a potential enemy. >> thank you, panel. i appreciate it. when we come back, that sizzling war of words between president trump and hillary clinton.
talked to could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided. >> guided by americans. >> guided by americans. and guided by people who had, you know, polling -- he dumps that on me on october 28th and i immediately start falling. but what was really interesting, since the mainstream media covered that as i say like pearl harbor, front pages everywhere, huge type, et cetera, i inherit nothing from the democratic party. it was bankrupt. it was on the verge of insolvency. its data was mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong. i had to inject money into it. >> hmm, so i want to discuss now with matt lewis, margaret hoover, kevin mattis as well as mar maria cardona.
here we go. it's 2016 all over. first i want to get your reaction to hillary clinton speaking out on the russia meddling, why she says she lost the election, and also speaking out about president trump. what do you think? >> look, she asked something at the very beginning of that clip she said something i think that's very important that almost nobody has picked up on. it's what might the collusion have been. i've always thought, like why would russia, you know, look, russia obviously tried to meddle in our elections. but why would they need trump to help? doesn't make sense. russia is smart. they have got spies. they are very sophisticated. why would they need to collude? hillary is arguing there that what potentially happened is that the mercers have this company that does micro targeting and data, that they may have colluded with russia to provide them with information that would help them target voters in places like michigan and wisconsin, to push them to vote for trump or not to vote for hillary. >> uh-huh. >> that would be -- and that's a huge -- it's an allegation, yea.
and there is no proof of it. but that is what she was alleging. i think that's a pretty heavy thing, big charge to make. >> kevin madden, because, you know, this investigation into whether -- you know, collusion. i don't think there is now doubt, everyone knows or believe has the russians interfered with the election, but whether there was collusion and how it affected the election, this is sophisticated stuff, especially in the social media and internet age. it's not the way it used to be as some would think in the 1970s, '80s, '90s or even the early 2000s. >> it is. it's a pretty sophisticated audience to it at the rico conference. and i think that's the heart of what the investigation is by the special counsel is to find out about what potential collusion there was and how it was done. >> can that be why it's taking so long? some people say it is taking a long time.
maybe it is, maybe it isn't. >> possibly. i'm reminded of that anecdote about mcgovern when he was asked how long it took for him to finally get over his election loss. and he was -- he reminded the questioner, he said i'll let you know when it's happened. i mean -- >> that was three decades later. >> right. hillary clinton is not over this yet. and it will be a very, very long time before she does get over it. >> mit romney -- and you worked with him. they still. romney still may not be over it. >> at this stage after the 2012 election i was walking around my house in my robe muttering to myself. and i was only the spokesman. >> i don't think it helps her party or the democratic party or the issue to keep talking about it or point fingers. nobody wants to hear from hillary clinton right now. the special counsel wants to
move on, the country needs to focus. all she does is continue to polarize it. i think it's clear that it reads sour grapes. >> i get the gist of what you are saying but there are a lot of people who want to hear from hillary clinton. >> maria is one of them. >> wesleyan university, those folks wanted to hear from her as well. you are saying it's not helpful to the democrats for her right now, that's what you are saying. >> thanks. >> am i right. >> yes. >> go ahead maria. >> i don't think necessarily that that's true. first of all hillary clinton has earned the right to say whatever the hell she wants at this point, right? >> do you think it's helpful, though? >> she owes nothing to nobody, right? it is clearly helpful to her. this is how she wants to talk about this at this moment. let's remember that she has taken responsibility for every decision that she has made in her campaign. i'm sure we will be reading more about this -- >> she just blamed the democratic party for not having all the data. >> well -- and by the way she's not wrong. not wrong on that. >> that's not taking
responsibility. >> yes, well, but we will hear more in her memoir about this. this is leading up to her talking about her memoir which is about to come out. >> i remember during 2016 -- >> here's the point. >> yeah. >> i think that the conversation about what happened with russia is helpful because it is of the moment. right? this is something that everybody is talking about. that we are in the middle of these three investigations, that the trump campaign and trump himself can't help but put their foot in their mouth every time they bring up russia. >> okay, okay. >> i think in that respect, absolutely it's something she should continue to talk about. it was a huge factor in her losing the election. i have no, no question about that. >> okay, kevin go ahead. >> i was going to say i just remember during the 2016 campaign story after story after story about the dnc data juggernaut and how it was so much more sophisticated than the republicans. i think that's why these remarks
today out at this conference made so much news. >> here the thing. i asked kara swisher about that earlier. her response to me was come on don what are you still on, dial up? a lot of things can change in eight years. especially eight years, and four years. and simply the technology had moved on from the obama -- in those four years from the obama administration. >> it was a juggernaut in 2012. there's no question about that. but yes things do change in four years. we unfortunately did not keep up with those changes to the extent we must have. >> margaret i'll give you the last word since i put words in your mouth. >> we all feel for hillary clinton. i'm not sure i have much to add. i guess what i'm trying to say to maria is sure democrats want to hear from her. but the problem with all the folks who voted for trump, that 39, 40% floor of his that's so solid behind him, if they hear hillary clinton talking about this they continue to just tune it out. they don't believe there is a russia problem. they continue to say there is not a single piece of evidence that points to collaboration
with russia. right, we all know that. we have heard that. her getting involved continues to politicize it rather than keeping it in the hands of a special investigator and bipartisan efforts of congress that that will eventually have credibility with a majority of or more of a majority. the moderate edge of the opposition that supports trump on the other time. >> quickly, please, we'll come back on other side of the break. quickly please. >> those moderates of the 40% supporting trump, nobody will be to change their minds. not mueller, not democrats, not republicans, not the hill. not anybody. no matter what they say. we all know that president you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters,
we all know that president trump tweets in the wee hours of the night. but this one was a doozy. quote, despite the constant negative press, covfefe, allow sean spieser to explain. >> do you think people should be concerned the president then posted somewhat of an incoheerpt tweet last night and then it stayed up for hours? >> no. >> why did it stay up so long. >> i think the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant. like -- >> two things here. my panel is back, by the way. the press briefing not being on camera, doesn't that look sketchy?
there is no transparency, when you do the thing like the watergate tape and you show just the audio. am i the only one who thinks this? >> pretty soon it will be -- >> it's weird. >> it's not just weird. it's bad. the point of having cameras on is you can see the person, read facial expressions. the 45 muscles in your face that tell you 150 different emotions. it's important to see somebody, whether they are happy, ebullient or sweating under their collar. although that audio told us all we needed to know. >> it did tell a lot. >> but you can understand why spicer is doing it, right? you can understand that for trump a guy who spent his entire career on marketing, all he cares about, surrounding himself with the babes and the flash and the glam and the gold trump signs, right? the person who is on camera every day defending him is actually representative of the most stayed sort of washington swamp culture that he wanted to drain.
it is not flashy. not the trump brand. it is the most off-brand representation of him. the only thing spicer can do to protect himself from a ridiculing boss is take the cameras off. >> you know what else he could do, margaret, to protect himself? quit. >> quit. >> yes. quit the job. you know, i used to say i feel bad for the guy. but no one is holding a gun to his head and making him stay where he is. his colleague quit. good for him, it was probably the pest decision that mike dubke has ever made. >> kevin, can you explain what covfefe -- well, there were a handful of people who knew what he meant. i have to tell you i thought the best explanation came from my own mother, who is 70 years old who said he did what i do, he fell asleep, he sent something nonsensical, trailed off, why can't you just say that? >> nothing will surprise me anymore. what surprised me is we even made a whole news cycle out of
this. >> it's funny, though. >> it is a typo. here's what is crazier is that the news cycle was extended because the white house didn't say it was a typo, a mistake. >> and it would have been done and over. >> it would have been done and over. and margaret's right, the reason you are on camera with a briefing is because you have confidence in your message and active ly promoting your white house and your agenda. right now this is a press shop's under siege and they are not interested in providing more footage and more b roll for, you know, cable news coverage every single day. >> matt, so there's a catch 22 here. you could see it either way. the president should be more careful with his language because everyone pays attention, which i think is worse for him that we shouldn't actually pay attention to what the president says. >> i think eventually we will have the courtroom sketch of sean spicer. [ laughter ]
>> no, look, words matter. and what presidents say, whether it's a tweet or a speech, people parse those, and they really matter. and this president has degraded the notion that words have meaning. >> yeah. >> but president trump himself has made twitter as important as it is to him, right? he is the one who has changed the meaning of twitter. you live by twitter, you die by twitter. what he tweeted was actually concerning because if he did fall asleep, then they should say that. i'm sure there were a lot of people on twitter, i actually saw this who were wondering if the guy had a stroke. by the way, if he did fall asleep, there is only two words i can say to describe that. low energy. >> oh, boy. maybe he got distracted got a phone call and hit the button. who knows. i thought it was either a typo or something silly happened. it wasn't a big deal, but you are right kevin, it did --
>> should have said that. >> fell asleep for five hours. >> yeah. oh, well. >> covfefe. >> covfefe. margaret, you are funny. >> it shows that transparency is not the default position of it's like they are trying to hide something all the time. even something stupid and offense. >> when we come back, president trump hires a personal lawyer to deal with the russia investigation. imagine being his lawyer and trying to stop him from tweeting. plus new dash cam video of tiger woods' arrest. >> are you okay?
mark geragos. good evening to all of you. tim i'm going to start by playing what the president secretary sean spicer said today when he was asked about the russia investigation. here it is. >> our job, we are focused on the president's agenda. going forward all questions on these matters will be referred to outside counsel, marc kasowitz. >> he was referring to the attorney that the president used in the past, in a lawsuit against you, which he lost. tell me about him. >> well, mark had no experience in lie bell law when they sued us. and there was a number of tactical errors during the case. i had very good attorneys. i was with the "new york times" at the time. i had "new york times" in-house counsel, david mccraw advising in the backgrounds but then i had three crack attorneys. and they ran circles around marc kasowitz' team. i think the issue that raises now is the president has leaned back into his comfort zone and hired somebody who has never defended someone who is the
subject of a congressional investigation and mired in a special counselor's role at the department of justice. and there's a real issue as to whether or not kasowitz is the right person for this role. >> a good question whether kasowitz is the right person because he has been an attorney of his in the past. michael cohn, another of his lawyers, and very close to the president has been subpoenaed, the white house counsel, don mcgahn has been criticized. what kind of a team does he need around him page paid? >> the most important thing is he needs people who he trusts. obviously if you are going to hire a lawyer to defend new a sensitive investigation or case you have to hire a lawyer who is going to do the right thing. even though he may not have the experience in something like this he at least has a relationship with the president, somebody that the president hopefully will listen to. >> when you hire an attorney,
the first thing they tell you is to stop talk. the president loves to talk, tell us everything he is thinking, even in tweets. sometimes it's contradictory. he contradicts himself. is the president in trouble? is he a terrible legal client? >> i don't know. he strikes me as most high-profile strong willed ceo types that i have ever represented. the advantage that kasowitz has that some of us who defend these cases or these clients don't usually have is that kasowitz has a relationship with him. usually when somebody walks into my office and they are the target or a subject of embroiled in an investigation, it's a one-off situation. here, this is not a one-off. so you have to build a relationship, you have to be able to gain their trust. you have to be able to show them what you can do. here you don't have that. kasowitz has got a large firm, and he can throw a lot of
resources at this. you know, i defended a myriad of these cases, including independent counsel, not special counsel but independent counsel cases, and i'm not so sure that washington, quote, unquote, experience translates into the best defense lawyer. my guess is if he starts to feel like he's got some kind of criminal jeopardy, that he will reach out to, and i can probably guess or name one of the two or three lawyers that he would reach out to. and at this point he probably does not feel that he has criminal jeopardy. otherwise you wouldn't go to -- marc kasowitz is a fine lawyer and he's got a fine firm but that's not going to be your go-to guy if you think you have got criminal jeopardy. >> is that a smart move for him? shouldn't he be hiring the best person whether he thinks it or not? >> well, this is the problem. perception is everything in washington, d.c. as you know. if he hires somebody who is known primarily for criminal
defense, then that's going to set off a whole wave of stories. and they are going to talk about that person's prior criminal clients. and as long as that's a slow news period that's going to be or generate others. here you have got kasowitz whose firm has the diverse pedigree or the diverse portfolio of everything ranging from defense of class action and prosecution of class action to civil litigation and things of that nature. they really have a wide portfolio of cases that they do. to the best of my knowledge, they are not known for, nor to do they have a long laundry list of criminal defenses they do. imagine if he hired ben brothman who famously defended dominic straws khan and others the number of stories that you would have today. i tell you one thing if he gets if he feels at a certain point
that they are gunning for him from a criminal standpoint he will probably pick up the phone and that's what he will call because at a certain point there is no substitute for that. >> tim, does it matter? i know that perception is reality in some cases. in this case, does it really matter what the public perception is? shouldn't you be hiring the best person regardless? >> i really think here perception is a secondary concern. he's already in jeopardy. the investigation has moved from just possible collusion with the kremlin in the election into the oval office by jared kushner around possible financial transactions and exchanges, public policy moves in exchange for financial help for a kushner skyscraper. that's jeopardy. and all these atmospherics around, well, when will they know they're in jeopardy or how may they handle it? there is also a serious investigation of it, and i think they have to take it seriously
from the beginning. >> page paid? >> i agree 100%. there is no mystery this is a criminal investigation. we have heard that the fbi is looking into russia's involvement in the last election. i kind of disagree with mark. if you wait to a certain point and all of a sudden scramble around and say i need a criminal lawyer now what message does that send? it sends the message that that the president has somehow become very concerned about his exposure. if you hire a good criminal lawyer to begin with, somebody that can help you navigate the entire process i think that's the safe thing to do. >> i have to thank tim and tim and page. mark stick around. when we come back, more trouble for tiger woods. the golf star arrested on suspicion of dui. tonight we are getting a first look at the dash cam video of what happened. if you have medicare parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company.
medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long.
>> jupiter, florida. >> you're coming from jupiter florida? >> yes. >> okay, do you know where you're going? >> no. >> you're just driving around or what? >> i like to drive. >> i'm sorry? >> i like to drive. >> have you had anything to drink tonight? >> no. >> are you sure? >> yes. >> 100%? >> 100%. >> have you taken any illegal drugs? >> no. >> have you taken any medication? >> yes. >> joining me now -- he admits that he was taking medication from a doctor. >> there are a couple things that come to mind. is the medication what's causing him to have those symptoms and to look that way. if it is related to the medication, has he been taking it appropriately or
inappropriately. >> he had surgery i think not long before that, but it was -- was it in the timespan of taking that medication? >> it's unclear. some of the reports say he had surgery five weeks prior. usually if you have surgery, the pain lasts for maybe up to a week or two weeks. if it's longer than that, you get concerned. is there some other issue? the postoperative pain usually lasts about a couple weeks. if he's taking the medication about five weeks afterwards, then either he might be treating something else, so whatever pain he had before the surgery or maybe there's another issue, but something that would have to be looked at again. >> it's hard to tell from the video, whether this is a one off or not, right? you know, sometimes people have interactions to medications or they just don't know the severity of taking the medication or how they're going to react to it. you can't tell just from this? >> you can't tell just from that. even over the counter allergy
medications can cause you to anybody who's taking something knew should be more cautious. you can have a drug interaction, this wouldn't necessarily be an unexpected reaction if it's a pain medication. they're known to cause sedation and confusion. not something you want to get behind a car taking. and on top of that, being tiger woods, it's so easy nowadays to call for a car or have someone else take you some place rather than go through this. >> car service or uber or lift or churve you want to use. mark, i want to play some more of this tiger woods field sobriety test at the time of the arrest and then we'll talk about it. >> heel to toe. >> you remember the instructions to touch the tip of your nose and put your hand by your side? >> no. >> you're going to recite the entire english alphabet in a
slow manner, you're not going to sing it. do you understand the instructions? >> i do. >> what were they? >> not to sing the national anthem backwards. >> not to sing the national anthem backwards? go ahead and spread your feet for me. do you have anything on you that's going to poke me, prick me, stick me or cut me? >> no. >> you don't? >> no. >> as an attorney, what do you make of this? what's his defense? >> i think that the reason before the bodycam was released that tiger released that statement, was because he understood just what problems he had. obviously, one of the good things about these videos is whether it's dash cam or body
cam, you can see after the fact in realtime what was going on in here. he is impaired. whether it's because he was just asleep. in tiger's defense, if he had been asleep or was awakened or groggy, generally you would come quickly to consciousness. it was .00 which means there was no or still if you're at a .00 you can drive under the influence if under the influences of a medication. and that medication can be legal. it doesn't necessarily have to be illegal. it's just if it impairs you. most people would say that based on that video, it looks like it's somebody who's impaired. >> he put up a statement saying as much, it's prescribed medication. do you think -- and his own
saying many people don't know, or a lot of people don't know it can be prescribed medication under the influence. and you should be aware of these things. >> i've said it for years, don. people don't understand, they say they come in waving a prescription into the office. and i said, well, that's great, that isn't the question. that would be a different offense what you're charged with is a dui, driving under the influence and if you are impaired whether it's legal, illegal or over the counter or anything else. >> thank you, marc, thank you, doctor. that's it for us tonight. i'll see you back here tomorrow.
the attorney general facing new questions in the russia investigation. did jeff sessions have more undisclosed meetings with the kremlin during the campaign, just one of several key developments. president trump expected to announce a withdrawal from the paris climate accord today. what does it mean for the u.s. role on key global issues? we're live in paris. and it's the gift that keeps on covfefing, i suppose. sean spicer giving the story plenty of new life. now it's evolving into an online