tv Reliable Sources CNN June 4, 2017 8:00am-9:01am PDT
mine. fears that it would be swallowed by a large hole prompted the decision to pick up and go. the rough cost of this logistical nightmare, over $1 billion. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. and brian stelter and this is "reliable sources." with the aftermath of another terror attack filling television screens right now, let's get to the breaking news in london. 7 killed, 48 wounded and we're told three terrorists rammed with a white van on london bridge. three terrorists were killed by police. 12 people have been arrested in connection with the attack. joining me now with the latest from london, clarissa ward, senior national correspondent. clarissa, we just heard from the health service that 21 of those patients remain in critical
condition. this indicates some of the stabbing wounds were quite severe. what's the latest where you're at? >> reporter: that's right, it is entirely possible, brian, and we've seen this in many attacks of this nature before that the death toll will indeed rise. as you said, so far seven people confirmed dead and 12 people still in hospital in critical condition. meanwhile we're also learning that 12 people have been arrested this morning. notwithstanding that, there has not been a decision made, brian, to lift the threat level to critical. it is currently on severe, which is the second highest level. after the manchester attacks, the threat level was elevated to critical. but in this instance, the impression we're being given is they do not believe there is a larger network beyond the three attackers who, as you said, were killed on the scene, shot dead by police, and i should add, according to british authorities, shot dead within eight minutes. this was an incredibly rapid response from british police
authorities, obviously taking some pride in that, although there is some real concern because there have now been three terrorist attacks in the united kingdom, brian, in as many months, and we also heard from the british prime minister theresa may today, who was standing here behind me just a few hours ago, who said that five other credible terrorist plots have been foiled in that time, too. so that's eight terrorist plots in just a few months. so clearly britain coming to terms with the fact that it does have a major problem. we heard prime minister may articulate some possible ways of dealing with this problem, but the most important thing, or the most marked thing i think she said was britain has been too tolerant for too long, and there is a need now to reassess or re-evaluate some counterterrorism protocol, particularly how long you can detain a suspect without charging them. so definitely a sense that this is still a fluid sensation not in terms of the network being
any larger than the three assailants who were killed, but in terms of the kind of political ramifications, brian. >> and to that point, i've seen some criticism on social media, clarissa, of a "new york times" headline saying britain is reeling after those three attacks. another headline saying "london under siege" right now. how does it really feel there in london? >> reporter: i have to tell you, brian, i grew up mostly in the u.k. and the british are famous for their stiff upper lip, and we're seeing that very much on display here. the attitude i've seen, while of course people are distressed by this and people don't want to see this happening and there is a level of fear and anxiety, the predominant thing i see is a kind of -- an indignance, almost, like hold on a second. you're not going to change our way of life, you're not going to get us to compromise our values, you're not going to get us to
change the way we live, the values we treasure so dearly and you're not going to divide us, which is usually the goal with these types of attacks. britain has a large muslim population. there is a lot of chatter from isis quarters about the need to kind of destroy this gray zone of muslims who live in the west. but so far the response we're seeing from those british people on the streets of london, brian, is, no, thank you very much. we're the united kingdom and we intend to remain that way. >> keeping calm and carrying on. clarissa, thanks very much. here in the united states, president trump has been commenting on the london terrorist attack via twitter. one of his posts in the last few hours said, quote, we must stop being politically incorrect and get down to the business of security for our people. if we don't get smart, it will only get worse. that was in the 7:00 a.m. eastern time hour. it may or may not be a coincidence that two guests on the "fox & friends" show brings
up subjects from the 6:00 a.m. hour. carl, first to you. do you feel the president is trying to perpetuate fear of terrorism by tweeting the way he has today? >> i think this is probably a moment when republicans wish for ronald reagan in the white house whose first concern would have been to express the horror and sympathies and prayers to the victims and their families rather than go on a political rant first and think of the victims later. >> he did reach out to them last night -- >> later. later. his first instinct was to talk about, we need to get smart and tough and vigilant -- >> you're right, that was the very first tweet. >> we have been tough and strong and vigilant as the people in the department of homeland security would tell you. most of the professionals are against his travel ban who work there. i'm a reporter, i talk to them.
they don't think this travel ban against muslims, which is originally it was conceived as a good idea or necessary, and as for political krebtness, i think, in fact, the president and others are right in saying that journalists need to address the subject of radical islamic terrorism and terrorism in the name of islam for what it is. i've said that to you and others on the air. i think it's the case, but it's not the primary issue here. the primary issue is being effective, and i'm not sure the president has advanced his cause at all in that regard. >> some commentators also objected on saturday night when the president retweeted the drugs report. we'll pop it up on screen briefly. he was retweeting a headline saying there are fears of a new terror attack where 20 people mowed down london bridge. this was before british officials were calling this a terrorist attack. the president has received an intel briefing. zurich, what do you make of
this? i think it's unusual the white house has not actually issued a statement condemning the attack in london. all we've really heard from the white house are the president's tweets on my computer here. it's directly tweeting. that's the only official white house statement. >> we've been living in this universe for a while, but it's really problematic with an event like this. and i'll tell you something, the way those tweets with political correctness were picked up -- i watched "fox & friends" during the 8:00 hour, brian, and there was a contributor from the u.k. and a former secret service agent, and they both echoed, it was an echo chamber for trump. calling it a garbage rhetoric. that's not where we should be after an attack like that.
but what's interesting to me, it's generated out of the white house now. it's not coming from the media, it's not coming from polarized media devices. the president opens his door to tweets and then the echo chambers open the door with it and immediately it goes to this partisan, really problematic level. with faraj he said you mentioned internment camps. is this where you want to go? even he dialed back and said, well, this makes an argument for it. we're talking about internment camps a few hours after this happened -- >> since you brought that up, let me show you how fox then clarified later in the morning. here's the clip from "fox & friends." >> earlier on shothe show we ha couple guests mention the word internment as a possible solution to this. i think i let my feeling be
known on that, which i find reprehensible, and everyone here finds it reprehensible, just to be clear. >> let me bring up one more point about what msnbc's joe twitter. member to cable news executives. report the breaking news and move on. do not give terrorists the publicity they crave. is the in assesincessant televi coverage after these attacks worsening the problem? >> i don't think it's worsening the problem. any news executive who takes advice from joe scarborough needs to have his or her head examined. look how they covered trump after the campaign. nobody gave trump a bigger
foothold than joe scarborough, and now he hates him. he was back and forth, back and forth through the whole thing. he knows nothing about what we should be doing. zpz his performance is not a news performance. put joao side. in an attack like this, is it all across television? >> yes. here's the thing, you don't say let's not cover it, because the people involved want coverage. if that was the case, we wouldn't have covered the anti-war protests. we wouldn't cover riots in our city and we would be much worse off for it. brian, you do cover this. there is also a competitive notion here. cnn international is the best at this. they are the best at rolling coverage because they spend the money to have reporters around the world, okay? i want that kind of coverage and normally when something like this happens, cnn's ratings go up. so for joe who works for another network to say this is
disingenuous in that sense, too. he's not the person to be listening to, is all i'm saying. look, i like his show. i watch it in the morning. but joe is also a gas bag a lot of times and this was a gas bag tweet worthy of trump. >> what i appreciate about joe's tweet, when i'm watching all this coverage like everybody else, i'm wanting the anchors to bring the temperature down and put it in perspective. sometimes we see that happen. i worry about how fearful people become as a result of the coverage of these attacks. carl, your thoughts. >> this attack is real news, and the tone that is set by anchors in presenting the real news is of paramount importance. and the tone set by the president of the united states is of paramount importance. the tone that was way off, i believe, in this instance, was the tone of the president of the united states instead of setting the tone of theresa may who went right to the point, talked about
being firm and tough, and at the same time compassion immediately, not exaggerating, not going for the political jugular, not going for easy answers. she sees complexity. our president doesn't deal well with complexity. he sees things in black and white and this is this is another example of it. like i say, ronald reagan said bring the country together. bring the forces of good in the world together. use reagan's example, not trump's. >> i remember a news executive once saying to me feverything i television is all about tone. we'll bring you both back next hour. coming up, sean spicer cannot speak for the president. reporters have not been able to ask trump himself some key questions. we'll have more other media
shakeups and must-see tv later this week. coming up on thursday, james comey expected to testify before a senate panel. we'll have a preview, right after this. 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.
it's been very frustrating trying to get answers from trump or his aides for the president's views on, well, for example, climate change. instead of a straightforward response, there was a lot of this. >> i haven't asked him. i can get back to you. i have not had an opportunity to have that discussion. as i mentioned, i have not had an opportunity to specifically talk to the president about that. >> i do not speak for the president. >> please ask him that. and i hope you have your chance. >> but how can we ask the president anything when his last tv interview was more than three weeks ago? that was at general in. is this some new anti-press white house correspondent for newsmax. you've been in the news every day with the exception of
off-camera briefings. shuld should the president be answering more questions? >> i do wish, brian, that the president would have at least one more news conferences followed by a series of interviews. that was the pattern in the embre embroyonic administrations. the president has gone through periods where there was very little communication, the difference between then and now being that past spoexmen had deceptive or detailed screenings. >> there's been talk about holding back the on-camera briefings. >> absolutely not and tile tell you why. this is a president who loves to
talk about ratings. he likes to talk about ratings of his former reality show, for example. when people come up to me in the grocery store and say, i saw you on sean spicer, it's akin to saying, i saw you on "csi" or "law and order." 46 million americans watch sean spicer and the briefings every day. i don't think they're going to pull back on the film version of it. >> are the briefings worthwhile if sean spicer doesn't have answers to the questions that are being asked? for example, the question of whether the president still thin thinks. >> i think it's important to still get briefings even if we are not getting straight answers, if we are being misled or if we're not getting answers at all, which was the case this week. i think it's outrageous and we need to completely say that it's outrageous and continue to say that it's out rarage uous that
spicer cannot give answers to the questions. he is not doing that right now. i think that's completely absurd about what's going to happen this week. it's a little bit hard to believe and you have to wonder why he's doing that. i think he's feigning ignorance, as you said. there are times when sean spicer said something and the president comes out and makes it clear that it was false. so he's protecting himself here, as i say, but it's important to protect him on the camera nonetheless. my view is that one always gets information out of the press conference when he or she
pursued a particular topic. ly president trump had a list of candidates he wanted to consider for the supreme court in the campaign. i asked him if the list would be abandoned or if it would be used in the next supreme court vacancy, and the answer from the podium was the list would continue to be used for future vacancies on the highest court in the land. that was a news story right there. i'm sure you would agree. >> if i had my way not just one day a week. the broader story i was seeing as a viewer was that we're continuing to see inaccuracies and misstatements and mistakes, whatever you want to call them, from this white house, whether it's about the president saying there has been more jobs created than there have been or other
journalists. why do journalists continue to make this a story coming out of the white house? as a writer, how do you make this a news story and not kind of get numb to it all? >> i don't know about you, brian, but i've been waking every day since the advent of his career formally in june of 2015 and i am newly stunned by the things that he says. i'm newly stunned every time he says something inaccurate, every time he lies, every time he says something outrageous. i'm newly outraged by it by someone who tells the truth. and i think reporters feel that way when they see something that he says. it's not difficult for me and i don't feel like it's a struggle. but i think it's important to not get numb to it. it's important to remember that a lot of what's happening now is not normal. he's flouting a lot of norms of
ou our delinquency. >> does what olivia just said sound like media bias to you? >> i wouldn't say that exactly. i would say that a lot of reporters certainly do gulp when they're waiting to read the tweets from the white house early in the morning, and i'm sure the white house does. but look, brian and olivia, you know perhaps better than i that it's a changing news media, that the 24-hour news cycle and instant responses are naturally going to breed faster responses, sometimes without the panning and details that have come in the past. but as the german philosopher gerte once said, sometimes it's hardest before it's easy. >> president trump is the person who is frankly doing that, who is reacting to the news before
we had anything confirmed. we saw that with the terror attack in london right now. he repeated brl. >> i think the news are saying things they haven't quite thought through. it's this administration and this president. >> a quick note on what i made in the sbeer views. . we'll see if the president does kind of resume his pattern of giving more interviews to outlets. olivia, john, thank you both. >> thanks for having us, brian, and congratulations on fatherhood. >> thank you very much. so far so good. ly. he's fighting back for using a racial slur on friday night. we're going to talk about that and other big stories of the week right after a quick break.
confidence they had neutralized the threat those men posed. i'm humbled by the bravery of an officer who will rush towards a potential suicide bomber thinking only of protecting others. as the officers confronted the terrorists, a member of the public also suffered a gunshot wound. although the injuries are not critical in nature, they are in hospital receiving medical attention, and we will of course keep you updated on that. seven people have been killed in addition to the three attackers. work to inform the family are ongoing and it's difficult because some of them appear to be abroad. we have people in the hospital suffering from a range of injuries, some of which are serious, and 21 remain in critical condition. you will have heard today about the british transport police officer who sustained injuries in the attack responding to the
incident. i can also confirm an off-duty metropolitan police officer was caught up in the attack. fortunately, he has not suffered life-threatening injuries. he remains in hospital. the investigation team are taking statements from hundreds of witnesses and i can appeal to anybody with information on the incident to make contact with the police. the courdon in place around london bridge and borough market will remain there for the next few days and we encourage you to avoid those areas. we encourage everyone to call their travel operators en route when necessary. you will see police armed and unarmed in the next several days and plans of forward events are
being reviewed. finally, i asked the public to remain calm and vigilant. if you see anything suspicious, no matter how insignificant you think it might be, please don't hesitate to contact the police, either 999 or 0800-789-231. i'll take some questions. >> do you think all the terrorists were shot dead by your officers? >> we are encouraged that this attack was performed by these individuals. we're currently looking to see if anyone else was involved. [ inaudible question ] >> i want to finish the work from those involved before i get further details in respect to that.
[ inaudible question ] >> so we have routine plans for a terrorist incident, and specialist support from the military to be involved where necessary, and this incident was resolved by police officers as the first understanders. the military weren't involved. >> you've been listening to a policeman on the terror attack in london. the government is increasingly confident that the attack was kbik conducted by only three individuals. there are 21 critically injured people inside the hospitals there, still. others injured as well. he said some of the injuries are extremely serious. he also announced that eight police officers fired around 60 round when they arrived on
scene. the metropolitan police suffered a number of rounds on location as these three men were apparently trying to stab people inside the pubs, inside the restaurant at borough market. quick break here, more reliable sources in a moment. ir. then we asked some older people when they actually did start saving. this gap between when we should start saving and when we actually do is one of the reasons why too many of us aren't prepared for retirement. just start as early as you can. it's going to pay off in the future. if we all start saving a little more today, we'll all be better prepared tomorrow. prudential. bring your challenges.
hey, welcome back to "reliable sources." i'm brian stelter. three big shake-ups in the media world this week, and now this weekend calls for a fourth. a first, comedian kathy griffin, canned by cnn after a graphic photo shoot. she held an ill-advised press conference saying she is a victim. as a result, she will not be on cnn's new year's eve show anymore. scott pelle will not be on the evening news anymore. there are big changes in the "new york times" as well, the
editing column being eliminated and looking to change its ranks of editors. joining me, david moore. he dropped a racial slur during an interview on friday night. let's take a look at the clip first. >> i have to get to nebraska more. >> you're welcome. we would love to have you work in the fields with us. >> work in the fields? senator, i'm a [ bleep ]. it's a joke. >> sort of out of nowhere there, david. obviously bill maher's schtick is about being shocking. both owned by time warner. what we've heard is an apology from maher and abc saying it was inappropriate and it won't air on re-airs of bill maher's show. is that enough, brian? >> this is a tough one.
i think his apology helped, but his apology really was, i was on live tv. come on, we're on live tv. that kind of word comes out of somewhere. and brian, you know, i teach a course on first amendment and free speech, and the students of color who talk in that course testify to how words like that hurt them, intimidate them, keep them from achieving their full potential is heartbreaking. so i think hbo has to do more when we come back to work. maybe a suspension or something, but this is not okay. this is not okay to just say, i said it, i'm sorry. that word shouldn't be coming out of the mouth of a guy who is one of your lead voices of political commentary. now to kathy griffin. earlier in the week, of course, tmz published that photo of her appearing to hold up a bloody head of president trump widely denounced by pretty much everybody. cnn said she won't be back on
newt years eve show with anderson cooper. now on friday in a press conference, she said trump is trying to ruin her. is it smart for measuher to be there trying to gain public sympathy? >> i thought that press conference was nuts and it was beyond disingenuous. it was almost sleeazy after wha she did to try to paint herself as a victim. there is a large cultural moment we're living in as i've written about where patriarchs, people who still believe in patriarchy, who believe men can control women, are being brought down. this is a big moment. she is not one of the patriarch slei slayers. she's done none of that work like what rachel maddow is doing. for her to try to appropriate that after this action is outrageous. this is not political commentary, this is not first amendment stuff. she is a shock jock.
she's always been a shock jock. she's closer to shock jock than she is anything with political commentary, and that press conference was outrageous. i couldn't belief they dve they either. >> made a bad thing worst. i was shocked by this announcement mid week that pelle is being moved to "60 minutes." they're bringing in a new anchor for "cbs evening news." people say anchors don't matter. i think it does. there were 6 million viewers for pelle's show but he's stuck like others in the news. what is their reason for bringing in someone new? >> i just think you can't with a shrinking audience. by the way, the last 15 years they've been saying it's a dinosaur. they've made a lot of money off that dinosaur. i agree with you, it's not done by a long shot. with network resources going to morning shows, prime time news
magazines where they make more money, you can't afford to be in third place and not move the needle at all. here's what i think about pelle. pelle has a lot of good things. i share most of his values as a journalist. but he mimicked, he i am indicated dan rather, even edward r.murrow in an age where it's a much different television medium. it's more fluid, it's more relaxed. his formality from that era when television was more formal with someone speaking down to you from the heights of the anchor desk is is gone. and he was not going to pick up. look, they tried the same thing, you know, the "new york times" in 350,000 new digital subscriptions since they've really gone at trump. cbs tried that, too, with him and saw nothing. i think they looked at that and said, look, we are never going to move the dial with this guy and we can't afford to run it at this level. i don't blame him. by the way, being a correspondent at "60 minutes" is a pretty nice way to make a
living when you're in your 60s and 70s, so i don't think we need to feel sorry for scott. >> we don't know who is replacing him. anthony mason will fill in for the time being starting in a few weeks but we don't know who the new news anchor will be. >> bob schafer. i'm kidding, i'm kidding, but he had great ratings. i thought they should have given him the job. "new york times" moving the public editor liz spade. this was her last column today. the public editor job is unique, a person who is there to represent the readers. we're seeing fewer and fewer of those jobs across the media. there are fewer critics who print newspapers the way you are at the baltimore sun. what does it matter that the "new york times" is removing this job? >> two things are going on here. this is, again, a tough call. "the times" gives itself good cover when they're laying off editors and people in their newsroom saying, hey, we can't afford this job. on the other hand, they're
hiring all kinds of new people. >> they're moving on directors, bringing in new young people. >> which is the only way the newspaper will survive, i get that. i think symbolically getting rid of their public editor matters, but brian, you know that it's a very hard thing for someone to be paid by the "new york times" and legitimately criticize them is complicated. and liz spade, now, she took on values i believe in, is that in covering trump we should adhere to legacy values of fairness and balance and all that. she was constantly in a way, i think, at odds with the "new york times" which has taken a much more aggressive approach towards trump. look, if i'm the editor and i'm getting them 300,000 new digital subscriptions and every week i have to read my public editor criticizing me, i might mention to the publisher, hey, maybe we can do without this job. that's the way real newspapers work in some ways. i'm sorry to see that person
leave the job, but i'll tell you something else. margaret sullivan ran that job and did it in a different way. i think maybe because she was a former editor, she knew how to maneuver within the realm of newspaper politics. i think she did a really good job. i would be much more upset if she was leaving the job. let me put it that way. >> it makes "the times" a little less transparent. these news rooms need more of that, not less, in my opinion. >> by the way, this line that social media is the new -- if you let social media tell the "new york times" what to do, we are in hell already. we're not going in a handbasket. >> zthank you very much for beig there. reliablesources.com. log on and get our sign-up for all the news. what finally caused a white house reporter for a russian news agency to say, i'm fed up,
i'm quitting? he'll join me for an exclusive interview, right after this. ♪ so nice, so nice. ♪st. croix full of pure vibes. ♪ so nice, so nice. ♪ st. john a real paradise. ♪ so nice, so nice. book three nights and receive $300 in spending credits. only at visitusvi.com so we know how to cover almost alanything.ything, even a coupe soup. [woman] so beautiful. [man] beautiful just like you. [woman] oh, why thank you. [burke] and we covered it, november sixth, two-thousand-nine. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
go to great lengths frto find relief.ain finally there's drug-free aleve direct therapy®. a tens device with high intensity power that uses technology once only available in doctors' offices for deep penetrating relief at the source. aleve direct therapy. manait's a series of is nsmart choices. and when you replace one meal or snack a day with glucerna made with carbsteady to help minimize blood sugar spikes you can really feel it. glucerna. everyday progress.
what happens when a russian-owned media operation is part of the u.s. journalism landscape? according to one foreign reporter, nothing good. andrew fineberg, the national correspondent for sputnik, a russian-owned digital service, took to twitter and said he's quitting, he's leaving. he said, quote, it seems sputnik is not happy with real journalists. they would have rather have natural propaganda respond anonymously. he is now willing to talk about his experience there. andrew, good to see you. >> good to see you, brian. >> you were in the briefing room for months ago questions of sean spicer, covering the white house like every other reporter there? >> yeah. >> what's the difference? >> the difference isn't what i
was doing at the white house, the difference is what's happening back at the office. what's happening back at the office is i'm being fed questions top down. i don't have the opportunity to develop my own stories or my own leads. i'm being told, you will ask this, you will cover this. >> russian questions? what does that mean? >> things that are bizarre and just don't comport with reality. for instance, after the gas attack in syria, that whole seran gas attack, i was asked to put questions to the white house that framed the issue in such a way that made it seem like the attack didn't happen, that it was staged. things like that. just things that seemed like, you know, to them -- they frame it like a reasonable question, but it's really pushing a narrative that doesn't comport with reality. >> now there are heads of newsrooms that nbc or the "new york times" might suggest a question to their white house correspondent. you're saying the difference here is there was a propagan
propaganda-istic approach? >> at sputnik it was an order. when i did ask a question that was of my own volition that did have to do with russia, why won't the united states send weapons to ukraine when there is money in the budget and they give the president the authority, i was told, no, you must clear your questions with us, and if you don't have any ideas for us to approve, we will send them to you. >> i see. so people right now, they can log on, they can look up sputnik news' website. it's a big website all over social media, just like rt, russia today, for those of you who have heard of that cable channel. you knew about sputnik when you joined, right? you knew it was owned by russia, so why did you join? >> i tell you, i think there is a legitimate purpose for
state-response state state-sponsoring news agencies. bbc, the press is tech naturally state sponsored, al jazeera and they do great work. but there is >> so you're essentially warning viewers and readers now not to necessarily trust what they hear from sputnik and rt. >> absolutely. everything they write, they don't always print absolute falsehoods. that would be very hard to get away with with today's environment, and such. but they'll take something in innocuous or a minor detail and frame it in such a way that fits a narrative that's not real, things like a occupied protest
and protests against president trump so far have been frame. and there's an article on sputnik that yesterday we shared with one of their radio hosts. so to us, to normal journalists you have protest and the first amendment. but to them they push the narrative that the united states is crumbling, it's a failed state. >> and sputnik came out a statement with that we're saddened, hopefully you won't create anymore conspiracy theories. any reaction to your former bosses? >> i think that's an interesting choice of words coming from them, the place that pushed that seth rich was murdered, a former did knowc staff, i'm sure you know this on places on the right. and sputnik was pushing the idea that he was the one that leaked all of those e-mails zblch right, a sick conspiracy theory.
>> and the reason that sputnik is so invested in this and rt is invested is this guy that they claimed had access or an rt guy, if he did, then russia was involved. >> andrew great to see you. thank you for being here. coming up next carl bern stain back talking about this week's up coming congressional hearing, perhaps the biggest congressional hearing on television since watergate. y282uy ywty
welcome back. this week president trump's road garden announcement was the biggest political live tv event. it was carried across the channels. i suspect next week will be bigger. james comey, the former fbi director set to testify before the senate intelligence committee about the investigation between coordination or possible collusion between the trump campaign and russian officials. maybe going back all the way to watergate in terms of live television coverage or testimony. let me bring back carl bernstein, one on the pair that
breck watergate wide open. i'm thinking, carl, this is going oo be the biggest television event since election night last fall. but it stretches back farther. what will you be looking for on thursday? >> i think the real comparison for watergate that tells us a lot so far is that donald trump is not fearly as effective as presiding over a cover up as richard nixon was. after being in office for only four months he now has to face the spectacle of his fired fbi director who has been replaced by someone conducting an even more in-depth investigation. nixon was a three-dimensional figure. trump emerges as a one-dimensional figure.
and comey in what we have heard from him thus far about dealing with trump rescores the notion of trump being one-dimensional and trying to cover up and close down this investigation at a very inopportune moment for trump. >> i wonder if your colleague don't see eye to eye on this. he's said this is not watergate. he's been critical of what he calls a smug media going crazy over president trump. is there talk of the woodward bern at the scene pair? >> i think there's an emphasis that in fact bob and i both agree we need to see the facts. the facts are thus far we know there is a cover up. we're unclear what it is, what exactly is being covered up. but as for emphasis, i don't think the emphasis ought to be
on smugness done by the media but on the great reporting down by "the washington post," "the wall street journal," cnn. there are many more news organizations involved than just when "the washington post" and maybe "the times" were doing the watergate reporting. so i think the emphasis ought to be on the reporting. and bob is right in saying let's see what the facts are. but smug, no, i think that's secondary. >> but some folks are saying, hey, people in america don't care about this russia thing. what do you say to that? >> that our jobs as reporters is to get the truth. i would finally say this is a moment for the press perhaps to be watching the republicans on judiciary committee, particularly mark rubio who could have a role like senator
howard baker did in the watergate investigation about what did the president know and when did he know it? because this investigation is closing in on a cover-up. >> so you'll be watching thursday, 10:00 a.m. eastern, huh? >> yeah, i'll be watching and kmenitating and analyzing and hopefully coming up with real facts. >> carl, thanks so much for being here. and finally this morning i was off the past couple of weeks because my wife gave birth. as we were mentioning earlier this hour, my wife gave birth to our first baby. i want to show you the picture. here she is at home this morning. i want to thank everyone for their well wishes in the past cup olf week. you know being a dad it means that i as a media reporter, i've got a new beat. kids media, tv shows, news, apps, send me your
recommendations. tweet me @brianstelter. state of the union with jake tapper is coming up right now. terror strikes again. a deadly attack in the heart of london. >> it's time to say enough is enough. >> as president trump renews calls for his travel ban, the very latest live from the u.k. and america first, president trump withdraws the u.s. from the paris climate accord. >> i was elected to represent the citizens of pittsburgh, not paris. >> and al gore is speaking out. >> we are going to solve the climate crisis no