tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN June 9, 2017 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
sugarcoating it. no mentors, no positive role models. you put them in a position to be ready for prison or the county morgue. i don't see bad kids. i see a kid who haven't been heard yet. >> to see how coach culley is changing the lives of children in detroit, go to cnnheroes.com. and while you're there, nominate someone you think should be a 2017 cnn hero. that's it for us tonight. thanks for watching. 8:00. do you know where your white house tapes are? or even if there are any? i'm john berman in for anderson. good evening. breaking news tonight. the house intelligence committee says enough is enough about the manufactured mystery over recordings president said james comey had better hope did not exist. tapes of their oval office conversations. late today told him in so many words, if you got them, we want them. that came after the president played coy this afternoon when asked about them. >> do tapes exist of your
conversations with him? >> well, i'll tell you than maybe some time in the very near future. >> and a couple of hours later, the house intelligence committee sent a request two to the white house council for any tapes by the 23rd of this month. 100 proof drama for sure but hardly all there is tonight. he accused director comey of lying under oath this morning on twitter and this afternoon in the rose garden offered up his take on the hearings, which keeping them honest, diverged at least some from the fax. and just moments ago, senator dianne feinstein, the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee called on the panel to investigate obstruction of justice. yesterday she told cnn look, we're not there yet. tonight she apparently thinks we are. cnn's jim acosta is at the white house with the very latest for us. jim, what else did the president say in the rose garden when asked about the comey testimony? >> well, the president was really trying to have it both way, john. he was saying that he was vindicated by jim comey's
testimony, that he wasn't guilty at all of obstruction of justice or including with the russians. but he also said comey was a leaker. he called the former fbi director a leaker. he also said during one point in answering questions from reporters that jim comey just has it wrong when he says the president tried to pressure him to shut down the investigation into the former national security adviser michael flynn. here is more of what he had to say. >> no collusion, no obstruction. he is a leaker. >> i want to get back to james comey's testimony. you suggested he didn't tell the truth in everything he said. he did say under oath that you told him to let the flynn -- you said you hoped the flynn investigation he could let go. >> i didn't say that. >> so he lied than? >> well, i didn't say that. i mean, he will tell you i didn't say that. >> and did he ask you to pledge -- >> and there would be nothing wrong if i did say it, according to everybody that i read today. but i did not say that. >> and did he ask for a pledge of loyalty from you? that's another thing he said.
>> no he did not. >> so he said those things under oath. would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version? >> 100%. >> now we should point out some late-breaking information courtesy of our colleague on capitol hill. he says that daniel richmond, the columbia law professor who was working in cahoots basically with the former fbi director to release the contents of those memos to reporters, he has been in contact with the senate judiciary committee from what we understand. and apparently those wheels are in motion. we'll know more about that next week, john. >> be very interesting to see what hazy to see and share what he has to share. jim acosta, thank you so much. more now on the house intelligence tape request. just a little while ago i spoke with committee member and california congressman eric swalwell. congressman, the request from your committee came late this afternoon to the white house to produce any tapes if they exist. i know it just happened a short while ago. has there been any response from
the white house? >> as far as i know we have not heard from the white house. and these are the words of the president, you know. he a few weeks back said that director comey at the time or former director comey better hope that there are not tapes. so we want to know are there tapes, or did he make this claim as a way to intimidate or chill james comey from putting forward his account of what happened. >> do you believe there are tapes, congressman? >> you know, honestly, i don't know what to believe, john, this president. he has made claims that have been proved false before, like president obama had wiretapped trump tower. so we just want to know what's out there. and frankly we want to move forward. the president has gotten in the way of the fbi's investigation, the house intelligence committee's investigation. and we just want to start making progress again. >> if there are no tapes, then, how do you explain or what's your opinion of the last month of comments starting with that tweet? is it some kind of performance art? >> well, it appears that the president may have just made it
to be deceitful, as he did against president obama. and maybe he was trying to keep james comey from coming forward, afraid perhaps that there may be tapes. that certainly didn't work. but when you compare director -- former director comey's testimony yesterday, which was quite compelling, believable, and composed to the way the president conducted himself today at the rose garden, i think james comey is going to win any credibility contest. >> what's your problem with how the president conducted himself today at the rose garden? >> well, this is a serious investigation. he was standing in quite a prestigious place, the rose garden. and he was asked are there tapes. he had intimated there were. and then he sort of teased out that that will be coming soon. and, you know, this is not a reality show. this is not a season finale that you're given a preview to. this is the presidency of the united states. allegations that obstruction of justice took place. and it deserves to be taken as serious as the situation is. >> so the president did say he
is 100% willing to testify under oath. will you call on the special counsel bob mueller to depose the president of the united states? >> i'll leave that to bob mueller. i miss being in the courtroom as a prosecutor. i'm sure that based on what james comey said yesterday, bob mueller will be seaboarding to hear from the president, and he should. however, right now the president i think at the very least has questions to answer around whether he sought loyalty, whether he sought to make the flynn case go away, and whether he fired james comey once neither of those happened. >> he stood there in the rose garden today and said he did not ask for loyalty, in those words. he never used those words. he said he did not not say hey, can you back off michael flynn. the president denied either of those things happened. if he is questioned under oath by robert mueller, remember, president trump is someone who has been involved in many legal cases. he was deposed in the beginning of january as president-elect in a civil suit. he does have experience answering questions from
lawyers, you know. do you think it's possible that he manages to navigate this adeptly, or that his side of the story proves to be the more believable? >> there is also, john, other witnesses who will be relevant here. jeff sessions apparently was in the room. jared kushner was in the room. and from press report, it sounds like there is more to hear from admiral rogers and odni director coats. so i think that will also be telling as to who you would believe in a situation like this. >> but by james comey's own admission, there were never more than two people in the room, the president and james comey, or the president and james comey on the telephone when these matters were discussed specifically, both the attorney general and jared kushner left before the alleged ask about michael flynn. >> that's right. and that may go to intent when a prosecutor is looking at this. >> just last question. if the white house does not produce tapes or does not give an answer about whether there are tapes by june 23rd, what are you prepared to do? >> well, i'll leave it to mike
conaway and adam schiff who have worked quite well together in the last month since mike conaway took over. yes seeking these voluntarily right now. that's always the best way in an investigation is to have cooperation. and if that doesn't happen, then i'm sure they will consider whether a subpoena is appropriate. >> do you happen to know whether the chairman, the actual chairman of the house intelligence committee, devin nunes still has signoff on some subpoenas? do you know if he was involved with the ask for these tapes? >> i don't know if he was involved. i do know he has been signing off on some subpoenas. we still need to work with him on nonrussia related matters and he needs to have credibility when we do that. >> congressman swalwell, thanks for being was. >> my pleasure. >> let's bring in our panel right now. carl bernstein, laura coates, and professional foley, i have never quite understood what the white house is playing at here with these tapes. the president said in that initial tweet, you know, james comey better hope there were not tapes of this conversation.
and the white house refused the say whether or not these tapes exist. you know, from an investigative standpoint, from a legal standpoint, what does the white house get out of being so vague? >> well, i don't know. a lot of speculation here because we don't even know if the tapes exist, frankly. i think if the tapes do exist, one reason why that president might hesitate to turn over the tapes and be a little bit coy about that right now is to buy some time for the white house lawyers, the legal team to make assessments of assertions of executive privilege. that's an assertion that covers the president and his closest advisers. it may be that portions of the tapes are covered by the privilege and portions aren't. i think they would probably want to get their little legal eggs in a row before they reveal whether the tapes existed. remember, right now they're not even under any compulsion to turn them over there is no subpoena yet. >> scott jennings, from a
political standpoint, i've also never understood what the white house gets out of this game about dancing around whether there are tapes. >> i don't know what they get out of it either. i would say as someone who has been in the white house, i value very much the concept of the president of the united states being able to get candid advice in the oval office. if it were to become known publicly that there is a taping system, how much candid advice would the president be getting from whoever happened to walk through the door if you know you're being tape recorded? to tee maine that's a little chilling. for that reason i hope there aren't tapes. i think it's extremely valuable for the president to hear directly from his advisers in a candid room as possible. >> we have to get historical perspective here. tapes in the white house, my god. if there are tapes, the american people have a right to know, correct? >> yes. but i think we're all so far out in front of our skis that we need to back up little bit and get back in the chair lift. first of all, we could be talking here about a tape on a
cell phone of a meeting we don't even know about. or a partial meeting or whatever. right now what is clear to those of us that have studied this white house is that donald trump is engaged in a scorched earth battle against james comey, and he is playing to his base for all it's worth. he is trying to discredit comey. he is trying to rouse his base, as he did at the faith initiative conference yesterday. and he is somebody who worries about what's down the road later rather than now. right now he is trying to get in whatever counterpunch he can to discredit comey. so he has gone to the question of, well, comey is a leaker, thinking that that is going to discredit him, particularly with his own base, when in fact donald trump is a leaker. he has been a leaker for all of his professional life. he even has leaked by falsely impersonating himself under another name. so this is a big game in which the president and the people
around him know that he has been damaged, that these investigations are closing in on him, and right now he wants to push the weight of his followers behind him. and he wants to keep them in place so that republicans on the hill don't abandon him. because he can't afford to have republicans on the hill saying we need to get to the bottom of whatever it is that this president doesn't want us to know. so he is playing a game here. >> kirsten powers, do you think there are tapes? >> i think that if there were tapes and they exonerated donald trump, they would be released, right? so either there are tapes and they don't exonerate him, so that's why he is being coy about it. but it seems like if he had something that would exonerate him, he would probably release them. i just think it's strange that we're sitting here -- does anyone else find this conversation bizarre? that this is the president of the united states. it's literally like an adolescent, like a 14-year-old.
it really is like talking to a 14-year-old who will not answer a direct question. he is not acting like an adult. i'll tell you later. i don't know. it's this kind of gas lighting. and i feel like he is the one who put it throughout. he is the one who suggested it. we didn't come up with this, he did. and now he can't simply answer yes or no? it's so disturbing. i don't even know what to say about it anymore. >> all right. we're going to carry on this conversation, laura cardona, maria coats you get the first question next session. next, bizarre or not, more on the by now legendary tapes and the president's habit, perhaps you've noticed, of doing what we're doing right now, promising something tempting is coming right up very, very soon. later hour, other presidents have been caught on their own mics doing everything from obstructing justice to averting world war iii to wearing a pair of slacks. here's to the safety first...
so we can detect leaks before humans can see them. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia i knew at that exact moment ... i'm beating this. my main focus was to find a team of doctors. it's not just picking a surgeon, it's picking the care team and feeling secure in where you are. visit cancercenter.com/breast be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.
it may have been the breaking news as far as intelligence is concerned. the president teasing reporters when asked if tapes of his conversations with james comey do exist. he said he would tell them, quote, in the very near future. which prompted the house committee to request tapes if any exist. not because they could not wait for the very near future, but because where the president is concerned sometimes the very near future never actually comes. first as a citizen, then as a candidate and now as president, he has made a habit of tossing around time frames and not really delivering on the goods. >> you said you have senate investigator. have your investigators been able to unearth anything more that has given your argument credence? >> i will let you know that at a future date. i'll let you know that at a future date. >> they sent investigators to hawaii and they can't believe what they found. what have they found? >> that's none of your business right now. we're going to see what happens.
>> have they found anything? >> we're going to see what happens. >> what have you found with your investigators? >> it's going to be very interesting. >> if i decide to run for office, i'll produce my tax returns. >> maybe i'm going do the tax returns when obama does his birth certificate. maybe when we find out the true story on hillary's e-mails. wiretap covers a lot of different things. i think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks. >> so is that a cause for concern, a subject for ridicule, or no big deal? back now with the panel. maria cardona, it's interesting. i'm not sure whether or not dianne feinstein and the senate judiciary committee is responding to that specifically, but we learned a very short time ago that she wants to launch a senate judiciary investigation into just the issue of alleged obstruction of justice. and that is after last night saying we're not there yet. this is dianne feinstein who by the way in the past has said she has seen no hard evidence of collusion yet. so this is an interesting step from her. >> thing is two things there.
first of all, she has been somebody who has been incredibly concerned, i think as most persons are, at the crux of the issue, which doesn't seem to concern the president of the united states. which is that russia committed an act of war in cyberattacking the united states and interfering and meddling in our elections. and it doesn't seem like the president of the united states has any interest in getting to the bottom of that. number one. number two, i also think it comes from comey's testimony. you know, i think it's so ironic that the president is out there on twitter and his lawyer is out there saying that what comey said vindicated him when actually it's completely the opposite. what comey said is yes, when he was fired, donald trump may not have been under investigation personally, but he also said that now given everything that has transpired up until now, he is sure that mueller is going to go into and look at obstruction of justice of what donald trump did.
which means donald trump is under investigation or will be very soon by the special counsel. so i think those two things are key. and it's why dianne feinstein has really taken this a little bit more aggressively. >> we'll find out. maybe. we'll find out if the president is under investigation at some point. scott, you want to jump in there. but i want to bring laura coates into the conversation with the other giant bit of news which is the president says 100% that he will testify. you know, if he does in fact get called before robert mueller or bring to sit voluntarily before robert mueller, he could be asked questions, could he not, that are somewhat different, or off topic at least purely from the russia investigation. and he would be obligated to answer those questions truthfully, which can get you into trouble. look, president clinton was impeached for things that were not about whitewater originally. >> that's absolutely true. the term collusion could come back to haunt him in this scenario. that's a nebulous term. it hasn't been defined yet
because there hasn't been a criminal statute to actually hook to that term. we should tell the president you've got an open investigation that doesn't have the parameters that are going to give you the wiggle room to not answer certain questions. meaning everything is fair game. and the president has put himself in a very precarious situation when he says, look, believe jim comey as the things that make me sound more credible and corroborate him. but then shea liar. when you have believe him/he is a liar, you're going to open a lynn of questions in terms of what robert mueller may ask about a whole host of things to talk about the credibility of the president and whether or not there are other corroborative aspects of this investigation. so absolutely here you've got a president who if he does in fact sit in that 100%, i think it's probably going to go to 60 then 50 then 40 and then a pig might fly by before it actually happens. but if he actually does that, he will open himself up to more criminal exposure and criminal liability, and the snowball he thought he had by asking comey
about the flynn investigation will become an avalanche. >> you know, scott jennings on the issue of agreeing to testify or saying 100% he'll testify, as a political adviser, if you were watching him answer that question, were you psyched that he said that or were you saying oh no, now i know what donald trump will be asked every day, you know, for the next five months? >> well, as a political matter, you have to admire someone that has full confidence in what he is saying out loud. look, i'm going to tell you here in front of the press today, and i am 100% willing to tell that story under oath. that shows extreme confidence, and would tell his supporters and others that he fully believes in the honesty of his answers. but i think we should take a step back here and focus on what really matters about the week in general. we started this week all wondering, did a presidential administration pressure the head of the fbi to end, alter, or change an investigation? and unfortunately we found out that they did. and loretta lynch now has a lot of explaining to do. the only person that we found
out that james comey said pressured him was lynch, not somebody from the trump administration. so we're painting a dark picture of what comey said about trump. but lynch -- >> that talking point right there i think underscores how desperate trump is and his supporters are, because they know that this dark cloud that he wanted comey to lift is now becoming a funnel cloud. >> despite what scott said there, i do not think that the only comments made by james comey in some ways were about loretta lynch there. he said a lot of things yesterday, including five times in different ways saying that president trump was a liar. >> that and he also did say that he felt that he was trying to get him to drop this case against flynn. he was very clear about that. that is how he interpreted what he said to him. so he felt that he was being pressured. and so i think that, you know, to the question you were asking him about how should trump supporters feel when you hear the president saying he is going to do this, you know, at the
very beginning of this, i said probably what is going to end up causing the biggest amount of problems for donald trump and his associates in the white house is getting put under oath and inevitably purerjuring themselves. scooter libby ultimately was found not to be the leaker, but then he perjured himself. with bill clinton, of course. what started out as an investigation into whitewater ended up something where he got in trouble for perjuring himself. if you're somebody who hears that and you do support donald trump, i don't know how excited you should be about that. >> carl bernstein, you certainly have seen firsthand how something like, say, a break-in can lead to many different things. over the course of investigations here, just a quick final word on this subject. we're just at the beginning here. >> i think the final word is that this is part of a huge sprawling investigation about the russians and what people in
the trump orbit, including the president of the united states, might have done in their contacts with russians, russia, ethnorussian, former republics of the soviet union that are adjacent to russia. there is a huge investigation going on. and it's closing in. think of all of this as a mosaic in which the pieces are starting to come together. and we're beginning to get a picture, and we don't even know yet under oath would be quite something about donald trump talking about what loans he has outstanding or had in the past to russians and ethnorussians. and he is going to be asked about that. kind of thing. so that's where we're heading. >> glad you brought up the subject of under oath. thank you so much, everyone. coming up, the president said he would testify under oath 100%. he won't be the first president to do that. but it's a pretty small club. and it comes with pretty gargantuan consequences. we'll discuss.
i hate the outside. well, i hate it wherever you are. burn. "burn." is that what the kids are saying now? i'm so bored, i'm dead. you can always compare rates on progressive.com. oh, that's nice, dear. but could you compare camping trips? because this one would win. all i want to do is enjoy nature and peace and quiet! it's not about winning. it's about helping people find a great rate even if it's not with progressive. -ugh. insurance. -when i said "peace and quiet," did you hear, "talk more and disappoint me"? ♪ do do do do ♪ skiddly do do ♪ camping with the family ♪ [ flame whooshes ] ♪ pressure. i feel it everyday. but at night, it's the last thing on my mind. for 10 years my tempur-pedic has adapted to my weight and shape, relieving pressure points from head to toe. so i sleep deeply and wake up ready to perform. ♪ now through june 11th, save $600 when you buy select tempur-pedic adjustable mattress sets. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com.
whuuuuuat?rtgage offer from the bank today. you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. pappa's eatin' steak tonight. no. at lendingtree, shop and compare loan offers from top lenders and in just 5 minutes, you could save thousands. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. i love date night. somebody's ruining it. yeah. well you could leave if you wanted to?
live-streat the airport.e sport, binge dvr'd shows, while painting your toes. on demand laughs, during long bubble baths. tv on every screen is awesome. the all-new xfinity stream app. all your tv at home. the most on demand, your entire dvr, top networks, and live sports on the go. included with xfinity tv. xfinity the future of awesome. one of the big looming question, will the president testify under oath about his firing of fbi director james
comey. when he was asked about it today, the president said he would absolutely be willing to do it. >> so he said those things under oath. would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of those events? >> 100%. i didn't say under oath. i hardly know the man. i'm not going to say i want you to pledge allegiance. who would do that? who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? i mean think about it, i hardly know the man. it doesn't make sense. no, i didn't say, that and i didn't say the other. >> so if robert mueller wanted to speak about that? >> i would be glad to tell him exactly what i just told you. >> so if it happen, president trump would not be first first president to speak under oath. president bill clinton was the first sitting president who testified under oath as part of an investigation about his own behavior. presidential historian douglas brinkley joins us now along with jeffrey lord and carl bernstein is back as well. you know, doug, it is very rare that presidents testify under oath. it has happened. and as we said, president
clinton is with the first one to do it having to deal with a criminal investigation of his own conduct. >> well, that's right. bill clinton and u.s. presidential history was the hank aaron of sworn testimony. from june of 1994 to august of 1998, all bill clinton did was give sworn testimony, over and over again, and hillary clinton for that matter. it ended up not particularly well for bill clinton in the fact he had to do five and a half hours with ken starr on august 17, 1998. and then had to go on public airwaves, television and say look, i'm guilty. but i think the key here is to look at what happened with ronald reagan during the iran/contra. for lawrence walsh in 1998, reagan agreed to answer questions in writing. and so you might be -- donald trump's a tricky character. he might say 100% sworn testimony, but i'll answer your questions in writing you.
might see his lawyers push trump to deal with it that way. putting him in front of, you know, mueller for five and a half hours is a disaster for donald trump. >> you know, jeffrey lord, doug said the buzz words would make you perk up, which was ronald reagan. >> what was that, john? >> exactly. he said ronald reagan. so i have to ask you the next question by law here. do you think that the president should testify under oath, and let's say for argument sake, out loud in front of bob mueller? >> i'll leave to it the lawyers, but i like the reagan solution, do it in writing. john, really, this is about a war between washington and the washington establishment and a lot of the american people. and that really is what's going on here. and washington, i worked there for a long time. i love the place. but boy, it is tribal warfare. these scenes that you would see of people lining up in bars at 9:00 in the morning in washington, d.c. to watch the comey hearings, i assure you
right here in the middle of pennsylvania, that was not happening, to the best of my knowledge. >> 19 million people. 19 million people. 19 million people. 19 million people watched the hearing on television yesterday, which is as many watched the nba game three. and i don't think you would say that game three of the nba finals is somehow tribal warfare in the united states. i think it's a separate issue, jeffrey. but to the issue of whether or not the president should testify, carl bernstein, you earlier said it would be a remarkable thing if the president answered questions under oath, carl. what did you mean? >> first of all, once he got in there, if it was open ended, it could be devastating and probably would be. because it would be a license for a prosecutor to go in to all of trump's history in terms of his finances, russians, russian money, all kinds of pandora's box that trump has spent years trying to keep people from opening. it's unthinkable to me that he would permit that. but there is a problem i think that he has, and i'll leave to
it the lawyers to discuss. and that is activities that took place before he was president of the united states. because a lot of what we're talking about here occurred before he was president of the united states, including the possibility of criminal activity then. i'm not suggesting he engaged in criminal activity. but it certainly is something that prosecutors would want to look at. so there is a real pandora's box to repeat that phrase because it's so apt here. and the other instance we have of a president before a grand jury actually is nixon after he was president of the united states, he did 11 hours before a grand jury. and the testimony wasn't released until a few years ago. and it was a horrible picture of president nixon angry, vindictive, and one that he did not want to see released.
he thought that testimony would never be released. >> you know, douglas brinkley, one of the things we've seen from the trump white house is they've actually looked a the clintonuous, how it behaved when it was under siege. and somehow has taken lessons from that well, if they look at the issue of bill clinton having to testify during that time, what lessons should the trump white house take from that? >> well, if you're donald trump, you realize bill clinton survived all of this. he was reelected. and then by the time he left office in 2001 was wildly popular. many people thought al gore lost the 2000 election because bill clinton wasn't on his side, that he treated him like a pariah figure. the other thing that bill clinton did was he never gave up. he just kept scrapping and fighting and fighting, giving states of the union addresses, defending his honor, defending himself. eventually he had to admit guilt. but, you know, you want to be careful not to put sloppy sound
bites throughout. i think that's going to be donald trump's big problem. bill clinton now lives in history for, you know, it depends on what the definition of "is" is. you don't want to see donald trump going down with it depends on what the definition of certain words are and splitting hairs, because it kind of looks like guilt when you do that. >> and jeffrey lord, donald trump has testified before. he appeared before a lawyer in january in a civil disposition there was a 2007 case, "the washington post" reported on extensively in which his honesty was called into question. they said he lied a full 30 times there. is the president's past dalliance with honesty, could that be an issue if he appeared before bob mueller? >> well, if that's an issue, then bob mueller is an issue. one of the things we've learned from the comey testimony is he did various actions to tilt things to bob mueller who was one of his best buddies. i mean, this already throws into
credibility mueller's testimony who up until now has gotten rave reviews. -- >> you're questioning whether or not robert mueller is a respectable special counsel now? >> what i'm saying is it's very clear that james comey admitted in his testimony that he took various actions in leaking so that he could get his friend bob mueller so act. now right there, that says that there is a problem here. that's a big problem. >> he did admit that he did provide that memo to his friend because he wanted to see a special counsel appointed. he didn't use the words "bob mueller". >> that's right. he is manipulating things. >> wait a minute. >> let's get beyond james comey. this is how washington works. >> one of the ways the pundits work occasionally is by taking leaps of logic here. and bob mueller, his name was not even mentioned. there was no special counsel appointed. and then after -- and bob mueller's name wasn't even
circulating. and you're saying james comey wanted to see bob newaller appointed as special counsel? james comey rod rosenstein? >> i'm saying he is great friends with bob mueller that is a fact. >> let's talk about what really happened here. it was one of the most fascinating moments of comey's testimony. he acknowledged, and it was a spectacular moment that he more or less engineered the appointment of a special prosecutor. that was his objection. >> yes. >> not necessarily robert mueller. and why was that his objective? because it is obvious from his testimony he thought there was a cover-up going on. a cover-up in which the president of the united states might well and probably was involved -- let me finish, please. from his point of view. and also the role of jeff sessions. he went to the attorney general and told him about his session. keep me away from the president,
et cetera. and when that failed, yes, he indeed tried to engineer getting a special prosecutor. and has succeeded. and why has he succeeded? because there is an underlying case of the most important thing that perhaps we have faced in a nation in a kind of attack we've never faced before. and that is what the russians did to our electoral process. and we're trying to find out what happened, a legitimate inquiry. and we have a president of the united states who has obstructed, demeaned, undermined and tried to make that investigation go away since he has been in office. and it speaks volumes. i'm not saying he is obstructing justice. we'll find that out. >> all right, guys. >> but that's where we are. >> thank you, everyone. jeffrey, you're going to be back with us and have a chance to respond to that. all those people who watched the comey hearing, all 19 million of them, they had 180 different views that have formed of it. we're going to look at the wildly different takes on what happened. that's next. remember our special night?
abdominal pain... ...and diarrhea. but it's my anniversary. aw. sorry. we've got other plans. your recurring, unpredictable abdominal pain and diarrhea... ...may be irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, or ibs-d. you've tried over-the-counter treatments and lifestyle changes, but ibs-d can be really frustrating. talk to your doctor about viberzi,... ...a different way to treat ibs-d. viberzi is a prescription medication you take every day that helps proactively manage... ...both abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time. so you stay ahead of your symptoms. viberzi can cause new or worsening abdominal pain. do not take viberzi if you have no gallbladder, have pancreas or severe liver problems, problems with alcohol abuse, long-lasting or severe constipation, or a bowel or gallbladder blockage. pancreatitis may occur and can lead to
hospitalization and death. if you are taking viberzi,... ...you should not take medicines that cause constipation. the most common side effects of viberzi... ...include constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain. stay ahead of ibs-d with viberzi. briathe customer app willw if be live monday. can we at least analyze customer traffic? can we push the offer online? brian, i just had a quick question. brian? brian... legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. you're saying the new app will go live monday?! yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes. "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business.
it depends who you ask and where you get your information. the president says it was ooh total and complete vindication for him, which technically is not true. even before that, there were separate narratives going on simultaneously. we're not talking about a mild spin or slight difference of opinion, but wildly disparate takes that could make you wonder if everyone was even watching the same hearing. brian stelter reports. >> reporter: it was the hearing seen in the eye of the beholder. >> a huge victory for donald trump today and a massive defeat for the democrats. and of course the propaganda media. >> well, this is going to end bad. >> reporter: and on the right, some conservatives are declaring victory and saying it's already over. >> i think jim comey's credibility is at about zero right now. >> now that this is all past, he can go back to doing what he promised he was going to do. there is no clouds there is nothing getting in his way. they can't be obstructionist. >> reporter: trump says son says the clouds have parted. but if you change the channel, it is stormier than ever.
>> well today was, really was, as it was predicted to be the worst day of the trump presidency. >> reporter: it's like hearing about a different hearing. >> imagine right now at this moment the seething rage that you know the president is living with. >> reporter: this battle of ideas is not going away. it's a choose your own news situation. >> so let's see. where are we now? a month of shrieking hypes, hundreds of hours of the shrillest television ever produced add up to nothing. >> reporter: there a split. veterans of d.c. scandals know there is much more to come. >> i think we now have about fi5 to 10% of the answers to the questions we need. >> we're sort of in the middle, beginning of the middle of this
process. certainly not at the end of this process. >> reporter: contradicting trump's son, experts are saying that is far from over. >> my general rule is when things look pretty bad from what we know, it's usually worse. this is extremely serious. >> reporter: try telling that to trump backers like corey lewandowski, who claim leaks are the real story. >> what we've seen from jim comey is his goal is to manipulate the media, manipulate the press. see part of the deep state. he is everything that is wrong in washington. >> reporter: on twitter, the president confirms he is watching, thanking fox's conservative-themed morn showing for its great reporting and blasting what he calls false statements and lies from comey. the two men can't agree on the facts. and in a polarized media world, neither can the country. >> all right, brian stelter joins us now. back with maria cardona and jeffrey lord. brian, it's remarkable. i was at an event last night. everyone wanted to talk about the comey hearing. everyone wanted to talk
aboutette. everyone watched it. not a single mind was changed by it, though, of the people that i talked to there. they went in with one idea. and no matter what side they were on, they came out with the side idea. >> that tells the entire story. i was so struck by trump's son saying it's over. the clouds have parted. now my father can get along with the business of the country. everybody else who is not a kind of in the base of trump supporters is saying something very differently, saying this is just the beginning. maybe at best, the end of the beginning and now we're entering the middle stage of this investigation, with so much more left unanswered. >> it's interesting. maria cardona and jeffrey lord, we were on tv earlier today. i don't doubt either of your convictions or your sincerity that you believe this was good for your perspective side. jeffrey lord you think this was gad for the president. maria cardona, you think this was horrible for the president. i don't doubt that for a second, yet we all watched the same hearing. i'm going to try as an academic exercise to get you to agree on some points here. >> good luck. >> let's try.
maria cardona, do you agree that james comey made crystal clear while he was fbi director, donald trump was not under investigation? >> yes. and i even said that this morning, i believe. >> yes. >> but here is the problem. he also went on to make crystal clear that the behavior of donald trump, whether you call it inappropriate, whether it's going to come up as obstruction of justice, that he has -- that he has engaged in up until now has now led to the appointment of a special counsel and when comey was asked whether he believes that there was obstruction of justice, smartly so, he said that's not up to me. that is something that i am sure the special counsel will be looking into. he said i am sure the special counsel will be looking into. that means that donald trump will be under investigation for obstruction of justice. >> we will see. we do not know that yet. that was a yes but answer to my question. we'll see, jeffrey lord, if we
can get that interest you. maria cardona concedes that james comey admitted prufr was not under investigation. concede that the former fbi director basically said the president of the united states lied five times. james comey said that you may not agree with his opinion. but do you agree that he said that? >> oh, i bring that he said it. absolutely he said it. i'm glad that brian is here. let me just call something -- >> uh-oh. >> to attention when we're talking about obstruction of justice. on april 10th of 2016, president obama was in an interview with fox's chris wallace. and he was talking about hillary clinton's e-mails. and he used the words "careless" or some version of that. and careless or carelessness. and intentional. well, you move ahead three months later, and there is james comey using exactly the same phrases in his press conference.
now, what do we know from the testimony yesterday? that james comey says that the attorney general of the united states said to him he was not to use the word "investigation". he was to use the word "matter" when >> my point here is, the story is that president obama could well be accused of obstruction of justice along with loretta lynch, and we don't want to go down that path. >> oh, come on. come on, jeffrey. >> desperation on your part, my friend. >> go ahead. >> folks want to talk about clinton because it's more convenient and comfortable. what's that? >> i want a single standard for everybody. >> look, the testimony yesterday was james comey talking about his relationship with president trump. so that was the standard. that would be the single standard i think that everyone was looking at this hearing for.
we appreciate you with us, jeffrey, maria, brian, thank you very much. it's unclear whether the president has recordings of conversations that he had with james comey. plenty of other presidents have had an open mike. we will look at that next. here's to the safety first... i think i might burst... totally immersed weekenders. whatever kind of weekender you are, there's a hilton for you. book your weekend break direct with hilton.com and join the summer weekenders. p3 it's meat, cheese and nuts. i keep my protein interesting. oh yea, me too. i have cheese and uh these herbs. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. afi sure had a lot on my mind. my 30-year marriage... ...my 3-month old business... plus...what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me?
so i made a point to talk to my doctor. he told me about eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. not only does eliquis treat dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis had both... ...and that turned around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis right for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you.
bp developed new, industry-leading software to monitor drilling operations in real-time, so our engineers can solve problems with the most precise data at their fingertips. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one.
the house intelligence committee has asked fired fbi director james comey for copies of his memos. they asked the white house for any record, including audiotapes of the meetings. the president promised more information in the very near future. and gave a more cryptic answer when asked for more details. there's a history of white house recordings. brian todd reports. >> reporter: white house taping systems have been known to exist, recording the most explosive points of the executive branch from kennedy captured here discussing the cuban missing crisis. to president johnson ordering pants. >> your father makes clothes? >> yes, sir.
>> you made me real lightweight slacks. >> reporter: the most infamous taping system was during the presidency of richard nixon. nixon began secretly taping conversations and telephone calls in multiple locations of the white house in 1971, including the oval office. time and time again, the president's words were clear. the president was acting like he had absolute power. even the president's own family was taped. >> hello. >> hi, daddy. >> reporter: it was among his recordings, one week after the
watergate break in that proved to be the smoking gun. nixon did everything he could to fend off the investigation. >> people have to know whether or not their president is a crook. well, i'm not a crook. >> reporter: the taping system became public when deputy assistant to the president alexander butterfield confirmed its existence before the senate watergate committee. >> are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the oval office of the president? >> i was aware of listening devices, yes, sir. >> reporter: the tapes ultimately led to nixon's resignation to avoid impeachment. >> america needs a full-time president. >> reporter: when asked by abc's barbara walters in 1980 why he didn't destroy the tapes, nixon had this to say. >> are you sorry you didn't burn the tapes? >> yes.
i think so. they were private subject to misinterpretation. >> president trump says we will find out if he has taped in the near future. the deadline to turn them over if they exist. our legal panel weighs in when 360 continues. oscar mayer deli fresh ham has no added nitrates, nitrites or artificial preservatives. now it's good for us all. like those who like. sweet those who prefer heat. sfx - a breath of air and those who just love meat. oscar mayer deli fresh. sweet! ♪ ♪ award winning interface. award winning design. award winning engine. the volvo xc90. the most awarded luxury suv of the century. visit your volvo dealer to take advantage