tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN June 9, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
the future isn't silver suits anit's right now.s, think about it. we can push buttons and make cars appear out of thin air. find love anywhere. he's cute. and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? because our phones have evolved. so isn't it time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. lordy, there's a lot of
breaking news tonight, most stemming from the president's reaction to james comey's senate testimony. there's the request for any white house tapes of any conversation. there's the commitment he made, the president, to testify about it under oath. there are the implications of that and all the doors it opens legally and politically. we will talk about that and much more in the hour ahead. first though, the president's pretty remarkable day and jim acosta. >> reporter: speaking as he tweets in short bursts, president trump tried to have it both ways, clinging to the testimony of former fbi director james comey as his salvation while also slamming the man he fired in the same breath. >> no collusion. no obstruction. he is a leaker. >> reporter: during a news conference with the romanian president, he denied he tried to shut down the russia probe, specifically when it comes to former national security advisor michael flynn. >> well, i didn't say that. i will tell you, i didn't say
that. >> reporter: the president rejected the notion he asked comey for a pledge of loyalty as the former fbi director said in sworn testimony. >> i hardly know the man. i'm not going to say i want you to pledge allegiance. who had do that? who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? think about it. i hardly know the man. it doesn't make sense. no, i didn't say that. >> reporter: mr. trump's response when asked whether he would speak under oath on the matter. >> 100%. >> reporter: the president dug in his heels on the question of whether he has recordings of his conversations with comey and others at the white house. >> i will tell about you that maybe sometime in the near future. do you have a question here? >> when will you tell us? >> in a short period of time. >> tomorrow? >> are there tapes, sir?
>> you will be very disappointed when you hear the answer. don't worry. >> reporter: in their response, democrats are eager for the president to tell all he knows, under oath, with special prosecutor robert mueller. >> i would expect at some point, not right away, at some point that mr. mueller would feel he has to depose the president. >> reporter: the president was not asked about jeff sessions. the white house dances around whether the president has confidence in the attorney general. some republicans say it's time to know more about session's interactions with the russians during the campaign. >> we on the intelligence committee want to know the answers to those questions. and we have begun to request information from the attorney general to allow us to get to the bottom of that. >> reporter: the president was asked by a romanian reporter whether he is committed to nato's article 5, which would mandate that the u.s. come to the defense of the alliance's more vulnerable nations on russia's border. >> i'm committing the united states and have committed, but i'm committing the united states to article 5. and certainly we are there to protect. and that's one of the reasons that i want people to make sure we have a very, very strong force by paying the kind of
money necessary to have that force. yes, absolutely i would be committed to article 5. >> reporter: jim acosta, cnn, the white house. you saw the president there be a little coy or maybe a lot when asked whether tapes of his conversations with james comey even exist. he offered a vague time line for releasing them if there's anything to release. in this case he said, very shortly. if that all sounds familiar, there's good reason, whether as a citizen or candidate or now as president, donald trump, the president, likes to talk time lines, whether or not he sticks to them. more on that from athena jones who joins us not far from bed minister, new jersey, where the president is spending the weekend on his golf course. the president won't confirm that tapes of his conversations exist. what are you learning tonight? >> reporter: that's right. he is keeping the mystery alive here. when it comes to the tapes or audio recordings, perhaps a cell phone recording.
we're still not getting a clear answer from the president or his aides about this. now another congressional committee is demanding those tapes. the house intelligence committee giving the white house until june 23, that's two fridays from now, to produce these tapes, if they exist or any sort of audio recordings or records of these conversations the president may have. the house intelligence committee is joining the judiciary committee which asked a month ago. still no answer to either of those committees. >> there's late word about the comey memos possibly being turned over to the senate. what's the latest on that? >> reporter: that's right right. the keyword, though, there, john, is possibly. the senate judiciary committee asked daniel richman, the columbia university law school professor that the former director cited yesterday saying that's the friend he gave -- that he asked to talk about the memo to the press. one of the memos to the press so
the judiciary committee asked richman to deliver the memos. we learned late today from a source, my colleague manu raju, who you spoke with, that richman has been in touch with the senate judiciary committee through the office of the special counsel, bob mueller, and says the matter will be resolved on monday. it's not clear what that means. it's not clear if he is going to hand over the memos or not. certainly, one would expect he would not be handing over any memos if they are not -- if mueller does not believe they should be handed over. we will wait and see what happens there. >> developments on monday. stay tuned. athena jones, thanks so much. plenty to talk about, whether it's a president giving sworn testimony, the meaning of obstruction of justice, the quality of the legal advice he is getting and more. we retained our own counsel to help make sense of it all. allen dergswits, elizabeth foley, page pates, and laura coates. laura, we just learned that
diane feinstein has asked to launch an investigation in that committee specifically on the issue of obstruction of justice. she wants to know if there was any obstruction of justice independent of the russia investigation. she specifically says she also wants to look into the director of national intelligence dan coats and whether he was asked to intervene in the investigation into michael flynn. if there's a congressional committee that ultimately looks into this as well as a special counsel, does that increase the jeopardy here? >> it does. remember, the congressional probe has a very different goal than the criminal objective. the criminal objective is to actually see if criminal charges should be brought and if prosecution is appropriate. if the congressional committee is looking into it, their focus is different. they're trying to figure out -- there's a legislative agenda or initiative that has to take place to correct issues like this from happening or set parameters to ensure it doesn't happen again. the probe focus is different. the questioning may be the same
but the ultimate objective is very, very different. >> professor, foley, i know you are skeptical to say the least that obstruction of justice was committed here. when you hear senator feinstein say she wants to also focus on dni coats who -- the president asked dan coates to stop the investigation or asked them to stop investigating michael flynn on certain matters. if you have that requested, dan coats in addition to the conversation that james comey reported yesterday, does that indicate some sort of pattern? >> no. i don't see why it would change the calculus legally at all. you can add conspiracy, i suppose, to your obstruction allegation. my basic objection to any use of obstruction under the facts as we know them today is that all the obstruction statutes either address obstruction of investigations or obstruction of
pending proceedings. you look at this scenario and say this is an investigation. there's a statute that deals with obstruction of criminal pending investigations. it's call said section 1510 of the of title 18 of the united states code. but it requires very specific elements. it requires an act of bribery that prevents a communication about a crime to a criminal investigator. there's no indication of such bribery here. if you want to use the more broad obstruction statute, pending proceedings, while they are broader in their language and don't have that bribery element, you still have the problem that there's not a pending proceeding. a pending proceeding means a quasi-judicial or judicial proceeding. an fbi investigation has been held by every court to look at that language, not to be a pending proceeding. >> paige, you don't see it like that? >> i don't see it like that. it's true the statutes are well
defined and there are key elements you have to meet. some courts have held that a federal investigation can qualify, a dea investigation, one court found was sufficient. but, john, i think we're focusing on the wrong thing. it's not the legal definition under the statute that matters. it's what congress thinks obstruction is that matters. if they are pursuing their own independent probe, if they're going to consider impeachment at the end of the day the only definition that matters is what congress thinks the president did. was it an impeachable offense? was it a high crime? did he attempt to obstruction the investigation? >> professor dershowitz, you have a different take on this, which is to suggest the president can influence investigations if he wants to. it's within his rights to weigh in on investigations. from a legal perspective.
what about page's point that from a political perspective, which is when congress -- if congress decides to get involved, they may be judging along different lines. >> you know, we don't know what the law of impeachment is. nobody knows. there has never been an attempt to do that. if i were a lawyer for an impeached president, i would bring the case to the supreme court and i would expect that those who believe in applying the words of the constitution would say, you really have to see whether there is bribery, treason, high crime and misdemeanor. and if none of those criteria are met, you can't have an impeachment. i want to focus on the big picture rather than the technical words of the statute. there are two basic questions. did the president have the constitutional authority to fire comey and try to prevent the investigation of flynn? the best evidence that he does have that authority is comey testified to that yesterday. he said unequivocally, that the president would have had the authority to tell him directly, do not investigate flynn. of course, he could have pardoned flynn. that would have ended the investigation. and he testified and said over
and over again the president had the authority to fire him. if that's the case, then the fundamental question that people have not really been focusing on is, can the president commit a crime, any crime, by simply exercising his constitutional power? of course, if he bribes and destroys evidence, lies to an fbi official, of course, those are crimes. by simply exercising his constitutional authority to fire and to direct the director not to investigate flynn, can that be a crime? i think the answer to that is obviously no. you cannot commit a crime, no matter your motive or intent, if you don't have the act of criminality. and the act of criminalality can't be constitutionally protected implementation of a president's authority. it seems that's a relatively simple analysis. >> will be interesting to see if bob mueller shares your view and whether the congressional committees share your view of that. we will have more with the panel after a break. jeff sessions due in front of a senate panel. we will preview the questioning he is likely to get on this and
more as 360 continues. when you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, the unpredictability of a flare may weigh on your mind. thinking about what to avoid, where to go, and how to work around your uc. that's how i thought it had to be. but then i talked to my doctor about humira, and learned humira can help get and keep uc under control... when certain medications haven't worked well enough. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. raise your expectations and ask your gastroenterologist if humira may be right for you.
with humira, control is possible. ykeep you sidelined.ng that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. "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. so, if anyone has a reason that these two should not be wed, speak now. (coughs) so sorry. oh no... it's just that your friend daryl here is supposed to be live streaming the wedding and he's not getting any service. i missed, like, the whole thing. what? and i just got an unlimited plan. it's the right plan, wrong network. you see, verizon has the largest, most reliable 4g lte network in america. it's built to work better in cities. tell you what, just use mine. thanks. no problem. all right, let's go live. say hi to everybody who wasn't invited! (vo) when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited.
we're talking with our legal panel about the president's pledge to give sworn testimony about his conversations with james comey. the implications of that as well as where comey's testimony leaves him with respect to law and several varieties of possible political jeopardy. professor dershowitz is back
with us. today the president said he would be willing to testify under oath. if you were his attorney, would you advise him do this? >> absolutely not. that's what got bill clinton into trouble. you never, ever advise a client to testify under oath. you don't want to get into he said he said contest with comey. comey has a long track record of being very credible. president trump unfortunately does not have a long track record. i think that to expose your client to the jeopardy of a possible perjury prosecution or perjury impeachment -- remember, bill clinton got disbarred for perjury, would be a very, very serious mistake. he doesn't have do it. >> to follow up, professor, to be clear here, you don't think the president did anything wrong? you are saying even though you don't think he did anything wrong here, that it would be foolish to agree to testify under oath? >> i think the president did a lot of things wrong. i don't think he did anything criminal. he did a lot of things wrong. he never should have had the
conversation with comey. he never should have fired comey. he never should have done many of the things he did. they're wrong. and i think a lot of his critics conflate doing wrong with doing criminal. the only thing i focused on as a criminal expert and constitutional expert is has he committed obstruction of justice or any other crime? i am clear the answer to that is no. i'm less clear about impeachable offenses because we don't know what impeachable offenses are. as far as whether he did wrong, i think he did wrong. >> it's interesting, elizabeth. you know, president trump has testified under oath as a private citizen before. he's been the part of many civil dispositions. in 2007, "the washington post" reports they counted 30 lies in a deposition right there. what evidence can you point to that indicates that president trump should feel safe or comfortable testifying under oath? >> there's no evidence i can point to that should make him feel safe. i agree 100% with allen on this
one. this is a snake pit. it can only go wrong. i would never advise a sitting president to sit for a deposition. he should fight it tooth and nail. by the way, allen is 100% correct when he says as long as the president is acting within his constitutional wheelhouse, there's absolutely no way he could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. beyond the statute simply being inapplicable here, there's a larger constitution. and it's not a situation where the president is above the law. i've heard that a couple of times. he is the law -- >> yes. absolutely. except that the check on that is -- i'm using the i word here. the check is impeachment. that's the only thing he is not above. it's congress acting -- congress gets to decide when and how to apply that. laura, on the issue of testifying under oath, the president volunteered. he said 100% he'd be willing to
do it. if he decides maybe that's not a great idea, can he be compelled? >> now that he volunteered to do so and if the memos have been forwarded to mueller as he suggested in his testimony, suggests he is now perhaps the subject of whether or not there should be an allegation or investigation into obstruction, he could certainly be compelled to do so. he is compelled politically as well. by volunteering, he wrote a check that he didn't have the political capital to withdraw at this point the funds from. you have that issue. to suggest as the professors have been talking about that the president is somehow immunized if he is exercising his constitutional duty from an investigation that has yet to conclude whether or not there has been full obstruction or any other crimes would be erroneous. if you concede the testimony did not amount to obstruction, certainly if the motivation to fire director comey was based on an attempt to obstruct justice or impede justice, then that's the relevant point in time to
fixate on. by not doing so, you undermine your own arguments. >> i want to move on to the tapes, if i can. the alleged tapes, the perhaps tapes, maybe not tapes. page pate, the president played coy, was coy, which is nice way of saying he wouldn't answer the questions today after the white house hasn't been able to answer the questions for the last month or so. if tapes exist of the conversations of the -- between the president and james comey here, if there are tapes, can the president be forced to turn them over? >> that's the ultimate question that i think the white house is going to have to answer. the first issue i think they have to deal with is, were there tapes at all? i think they do have to acknowledge whether or not the conversations were taped. if they were taped, they have to preserve those tapes as a record of presidential communication. they can fight the production of those tapes. if congress try tuesday get them, if congress subpoenas them, if a court later attempts
to get them. we have been through this process before with president nixon. we know that they have the ability to fight the production. they gotta keep the tapes if they have them. >> professor, do they have a legal right not to answer the question? they have dodged this question, dodged from the president down to the staff, is there a legal right to not answer it? >> they have to be asked under compulsion. any citizen has a right to -- not to answer any question. you can ask me a question. i don't have to answer it. if i'm in front of a grand jury or congressional committee, then i have to answer. unless i can claim executive privilege. i think in the end, the courts would -- if there were probable cause to believe there were tapes that may contain information that could lead toward some kind of evidence of criminality, they will lose. nixon lost. they will lose. and the one thing i would strongly suggest, do not destroy any tapes, do not create an 18 minute gap. do not do anything that constitutes any kind of a coverup.
that's the one thing every prosecutor looks for. >> based on the fact the president has been re-tweeting you, i get the sense he will listen to your advice. thanks so much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. james comey's testimony is over. there's a lot on deck in the russia investigation on capitol hill. we will tell who you is appearing next week and what we know about what jared kushner and michael flynn will testify. 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 bp engineered a fleet of 32 brand new ships with advanced technology, so we can make sure oil and gas get where they need to go safely.
because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. more "doing chores for dad" per roll more "earning something you love" per roll bounty is more absorbent, so the roll can last 50% longer... ...than the leading ordinary brand. so you get more "life" per roll. bounty, the quicker picker upper and now try bounty with new despicable me 3 prints. in theaters june 30.
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 ♪
the comey testimony was big. but there's a lot to come in the multiple ongoing investigations into russian meddling in the election and ties -- alleged ties to the trump campaign. house and senate committees have subpoenaed former national security adviser michael flynn. so he may end up testifying. jeff sessions is in the hot seat this coming tuesday. the president's son-in-law jared kushner is expected to be in the hot seat soon. the next big moment seems to be what jeff sessions will say when he testified before the senate next week. what can we expect? >> i think we can expect a grilling. i will be watching it during your hours on cnn.
this is going to be an intense hearing. it was previously scheduled to discuss the just department's budget. i think it's fair to say that is not what they're going to talk about. you will recall sessions, before the senate judiciary committee, did not disclose and certainly did not disclose as he was heading into the administration, that he had two meetings with the russian ambassador and now cnn has been reporting that there's been an investigation, as jim comey said yesterday, into a possible third encounter, maybe not a meeting, maybe an encounter. these are the questions he will be asked and how forthcoming he is on the answers is really fascinating. we don't know how forthcoming he is going to be in an open session. >> indeed. he has run into trouble for past testimony. any better sense on how crucial the back and forth between the president and comey could be in terms of the special counsel's investigation? >> some people are looking to the past. they look at ken star and bill clinton and the impeachment of bill clinton. they point out -- i heard this from ron brownstein.
he said one of the things that led to an article of impeachment is a he said, she said in that testimony. that was something ken star pushed forward and congress used in impeachment. legal minds don't think that unless there are tapes that can corroborate what comey said, can show that president trump has not been honest, they don't think that he would really push forward in the same way. >> as for jared kushner being interviewed by senate staff, do we know precisely when that would be and whether it would be under oath? >> we know the imprecise time. it could be the middle of this month. could be the beginning of next month. he is going to be talking behind closed doors. so we're not actually knowing going to see it. then there's a question of whether it's under oath. we do know there will be mutually agreed upon terms between the committee and jared kushner's lawyers. we don't know exactly what those
are going to be. this is something that, of course, will be fascinating. a number of issues, kushner having contacts with a putin associate, the head of the state-owned bank, russian bank. most importantly i would say, this issue of him trying to establish a line of communication during the transition with russia in an attempt it appears to conceal that communication from the then current administration, the obama administration. >> a lot going on. briana keeler, thanks so much. >> you bet. lots to talk about. joining me now my panel. matt, first to you. you are new on the panel here. i want to start with you. i want to start with the tapes. you cover the white house. what do you make of the president's comments today playing coy with the idea, maybe i will let you know if i have tapes pretty soon? >> well, he's the reality tv president. we know he loves to build
spence. that's what he has been doing with the tapes. it seems to us observers like there are no tapes. if there are, you would imagine we would have found out by now. the white house refused to take questions on that. today trump said i will tell you guys in a little while. i don't know if we're going to get an answer. comey will not get his wish. it does not appear there will be tapes. >> jeff sessions testifying before the senate appropriations committee. it's not about appropriations. they have questions for him. he is in an interesting spot. the senate is skeptical of him because he had a run-in during his confirmation hearing when he testified and had to correct it later on. the president took 48 hours to even suggest whether or not he had confidence in him this week. jeff sessions is going to have an interesting time. >> i think it's just always a problem when you forget to tell about meetings or contacts that you have with the russians, which seems to be a recurring theme with people who are associated with trump.
i think that's why a lot of people have a lot of suspicions is because it just seems like when something was so central to the election that you would remember these things. i do think that, yes, we will probably have more interest in those kinds of relationships than any other regular business. >> there has been reporting about whether there was a third meeting between sessions and the ambassador. he will be asked, i imagine under oath outright when he's sitting there whether or not that happened. >> yeah. again, we go back -- when you have all of the problems that he had when he had forgotten the other meeting, then you think how could there be a third meeting that you wouldn't remember? it's puzzling that there are so many connections to russia and then also that they are forgotten. >> scott, now there's diane feinstein saying, we need a separate investigation into obstruction of justice. is there any chance under the moon and sun that chuck grassly will agree to that? >> no. she had actually said some
rather reasonable things until this. she's probably getting a lot of angry phone calls from her constituents about it who tend to be more liberal than the rest of the country. she has to respond to them. no, i don't. that's why you have this special counsel investigation. isn't that what they are supposed to look into it? so it seems more like a political letter to me. look, on this russian stuff, i don't think anyone is disputing, these people are bad people. they intervene all over the world. catarrh, we saw them mess around there. doesn't mean they have to collude with someone to do it. it's all questionings going on, investigations need to happen, let's see where it takes us. >> james comey testified the president never talked to him or never seemed curious at all about russian meddling in the u.s. election or around the world. he might be an exception to the rule. there is a special counsel investigating right now. the senate intelligence
committee, which feinstein sits on, just held hearings yesterday. why do you need this separate investigation? >> members of congress, in the house and senate, that is part of their role. they have various oversight roles. we talked about this a little bit earlier. the fact that diane feinstein is asking for this indicates both the level of frustration with the trump white house and republicans but mostly the trump white house which hasn't seemed to understand the enormity of what russia has done. i wish they would agree with you, scott. clearly, the president does not. he has never said a bad word about russia or about vladimir putin. i also think it indicates that we are in a different space now. after the james comey testimony, as much as trump and his supporters want to claim victory, it was completely the
opposite. like i said before, this dark cloud has become a funnel cloud. they are in a tough spot. >> i heard jeffrey lord laughing. we will get to you in a second. phillip, there's is a significant development. this friend of james comey that got the memo and released it to the media is now communicating with the senate judiciary committee through the special counsel's office. that's an interesting little twist there. what does it tell you? >> it tells me a couple of things. first, if i were out there looking for information in this investigation and i'm in the congress, i would not go to a friend of james comey. the fbi has all the memos. the former director by releasing one of them in my judgment -- i'm not a lawyer. in my judgment has pretty much given a free ticket to the congress to say, hey, if you are giving this stuff out to the public via one of your friends, how can the fbi or special counsel come to us and say we can't see it? i think it's right for those
conversations to be going through the special counsel. i think the special counsel investigation, which we never hear about, is far more significant than the congressional investigations. there has to be a focal point process to make these judgements. i think robert mueller is in a tough place. how do you say to the congress no when the media hasn't? >> more to talk about coming up. a time line of events from the president's vague threat about taped conversations with james comey to his firing and beyond. what comey said about what he did when and why next. cutting fat and calories.st the current of monotony. not only with what you cook, but how you cook it. so there's no need to worry about sticking... ...and you won't need to fish for compliments. you pam do it! voluminous original mascara from l'oreal. in black and now in blue l'oreal's creamy formula builds 5 times the volume the soft-bristle brush separates every lash it's america's #1 mascara for a reason the one and only voluminous original mascara from l'oréal paris
nit's softer than ever. new charmin ultra soft is softer than ever so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird enjoy the go with charmin there are the wildcats 'til we die weekenders. the watch me let if fly. this i gotta try weekenders. then we've got the bendy... ... spendy weekenders. the tranquility awaits. hanging with our mates weekenders and the it's been quite a day... ...so glad we got away weekenders. whatever kind of weekender you are, there's a hilton for you. book your weekend break direct at hilton.com and join the weekenders. z282uz zwtz y282uy ywty
change the way you wifi. xfinity. the future of awesome. one thing is clearer than ever after fired fbi director james comey's testimony, someone isn't telling the truth. they are each accusing the other of lying. one of them has to be. it's as simple as that. what emerges from comey's testimony is a time line of events, some of the pieces we had before. tom foreman puts them all together. >> reporter: to hear james comey tell it, he leaked his private notes of meetings with the president only after the final straw, the president tweeting, james comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations. >> my judgment was i needed to get that out into the public square. i asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. >> reporter: that's not the whole story. the president's tweet came a day
after "the new york times" had already cited key allegations that match verbatim part of comey's notes. three days after comey had been fired. >> he is a showboat. he is a grandstander. the fbi has been in turmoil. you know that. >> reporter: complicating it further, comey says all the way back in january, around the inauguration, he suspected he had a problem when president trump allegedly told him he expected loyalty, which the president disputes. >> i then said, you will always have honesty from me. he said, honest, loyalty and i exceeded as a way to end the awkwardness. >> reporter: then two and a half weeks later, another meeting according to comey in which the president said he hopes comey can let go of the investigation of michael flynn. >> that's how i understood it. >> reporter: over the next two months, comey says the president
presses him to get out word that he the president was not under investigation, to remove the cloud of suspicion hampering his new administration. some of it is so troubling, comey says, he's taking notes. >> i knew there might come a day when i would need a record of what had happened. >> reporter: the president denies almost all of it. >> i didn't say that. >> he lied about that? >> i didn't say that. i will tell you, i didn't say that. >> reporter: monday may 8, it comes to a head. the president calls the russia investigation a hoax, a taxpayer funded charade. comey is fired on tuesday. thursday, "the new york times" publishes the first article alluding to details contained in comey's now infamous private notes. the president tweets about possible tapes on friday. yet trump's lawyer points out, comey said he did not leak his notes until the next monday. 3 1/2 months after he said he was first alarmed over the president's behavior. so the president and the former fbi director have now called
each other liars. in this twisted time line, it's hard to sort out who is telling the truth. but this seems clear, they can't both be. john? >> tom foreman, thanks so much. back now with the panel. carl bernstein, i want to go first to you. you think it's important we focus on the big picture in general. how important is it in your mind this focus on the chain of events for james comey, the fact that the memo he handed to his friend and "the new york times" story came out but there was a story of loyalty before that. is that important in your mind? >> yes, it's important. but it also fits into the big picture. the big picture is what the president did to shut down this investigation and also the underlying contacts with russians, the contacts of his businesses with russians, with neighboring countries to russia that were in the former soviet union.
that's all this big picture that the investigators, including mueller, who incidentally has hired the former assistant attorney general in charge of the fraud division to start looking at the finances of the trump organization and the finances of people involved in the trump campaign. this is a sprawling inquiry. part of it, a big part of it is the firing of jim comey because of the questions it does raise about obstruction of justice. it's important in terms of trying to impeach comey's testimony if indeed it's impeachable. but let's keep our eye on the big picture here. the most important aspect of the big picture is that since he took office, and even before, the president has tried to impede, obstruct, shut down, demean, all investigations of things russian. that's the big picture here. >> jeffrey lord, your chance to talk about james comey and his line of events. >> well, look, with all due
respect to my friend carl, i think he is focusing on the small picture. and if we're going to go in for pictures, i want the big, big, big and biggest picture. i want everything. i want what went on in the obama administration, the washington establishment to shut down donald trump. i want to know about trump derangement syndrome and how that's affected the washington establishment. i want to know about all of this. let's get it all out. let's take everything carl has said and multiply it by 1,000. let's get it out there. let's do it. let's rumble as it were. that's a good thing. >> jeffrey, what is "it?" you want it out there. what is it? >> let's find out what was going wouldn't clinton foundation and the russians. let's find out what was going on with hillary clinton and the russians. let's find out with president obama and whether or not he obstructed justice in that fox clip or was trying to send a
message. let's find out. let's go to it. let's get loretta lynch up there. let's get susan rice. come on, carl, let's go. let's rumble. >> carl, your response? >> my response is that we have an incumbent president of the united states who is under investigation as part of -- we need to find out what happened with the russians and the campaign and whether or not there is collusion is part of that question. if any crimes occurred in the clinton administration, there is a justice department that is in place and has every ability to inquire, prosecute those crimes. and if they occurred -- >> let's investigate. >> matt, i want to bring -- >> i believe there's an assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division. thus far, i have seen no inclination of that assistant attorney general to prosecute those crimes, if they exist. >> hang on. i want to bring matt into this. >> this is a really silly discussion. >> that's why i want to bring --
hang on. i want to bring matt into this. jeffrey over the course of the show has questioned whether bob mueller can run an efficient special counsel investigation. he'sologist brought up hillary clinton and loretta lynch. you cover the white house right now. are you getting the sense from people close to the administration, or surrogates like jeffrey here, that there is an effort to draw focus away from the matter at hand here, a specific focus? >> not to that extent of let's go look at the clinton foundation and the russians and hillary clinton and the russians. hitting hillary clinton and hitting barack obama is always going to be fun for republicans and it's always going to be a winner with some of their base. this is so much bigger than that. those normal talking points aren't going to work. hillary clinton is not running for anything right now. obama is out of office. while those talking points are good standbys. they are more focused on
painting comey as a disgruntled ex-employee rather than going after hillary clinton. >> all right, guys, thank you. carl, i'm -- we did run out of time here. >> that's okay. >> i'm so sorry. >> carl, i really appreciate it. thanks so much, everyone. this is the best segway ever. they chat about bourdain's travels to oman, that defied expectations for bourdain when 360 continues. when it's time to move to underwear toddlers see things a bit differently thanks to pampers easy ups while they see their first underwear you see an easy way to potty train pampers easy ups our first and only training underwear with an all-around stretchy waistband and pampers' superior protection so you'll see fewer leaks and they'll see their first underwear pampers easy ups, the easiest way to underwear. pampers
"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. [vo] what made secretariat the grwho ever lived?e of course he was strong... ...intelligent. ...explosive. but the true secret to his perfection...
was a heart, twice the size of an average horse. ykeep you sidelined.ng that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. lwho's the lucky lady? i'm going to the bank, to discuss a mortgage. ugh, see, you need a loan, you put on a suit, you go crawling to the bank. this is how i dress to get a mortgage. i just go to lendingtree. i calculate how much home i can afford. i get multiple offers to compare side by side. and the best part is... the banks come crawling to me. everything you need to get a better mortgage. clothing optional. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. okay! ...awkward.
wise man, i'm nervous about affecting my good credit score. i see you've planted an uncertainty tree. chop that thing down. the clarity you seek... lies within the creditwise app from capital one. creditwise helps you protect your credit. and it's completely free for everyone. it's free for everyone? do hawks use the stars to navigate? i don't know. aw, i thought you did. i don't know either. either way it's free for everyone. cool. what's in your wallet?
so anthony bourdain goes warm in this sunday's episode of "parts unknown," travels to the arab nation of oman. from the sea to the sand. anthony and anderson recently sat down in a restaurant here in new york to take a look. >> so this upcoming episode is set in -- you go to oman. what's that like? >> yes. >> i know only one person that's been there. >> it's funny, we talk about
laos and vietnam and about, you know, major conflicts. maybe the most important not well known conflict in my lifetime was the british/omani effort against an uprising in oman. >> what is this? >> this is a foie gras banana split. truly you know what foie gras is. >> the fattened liver of the goose or duck. >> i actual lie like foi gras. >> oh, it's incredible. it's an ice cream -- >> oh, it's an ice cream. oh. >> ice cream form. not loving that? liver-flavored ice cream? i guess not. >> you know, when you think it's going to taste like coffee, i thought -- >> right. >> i knew what -- >> that was your mistake. >> i thought it was going it be coffee, like coffee ice cream, but then it's really liver. >> i tell you this, you haven't been to oman. >> no. >> it's one of the most extraordinary countries i've
ever been -- >> really? >> in 16, 17 years of traveling. absolutely expectation defying. >> much of it is desert, right? >> this is the thing, the empty quarter is there, the world's largest sand desert, which is in and of itself a thing of extraordinary beauty. mountains. incredibly beautiful mountains with traditional mountain communities. beaches. it is a monarchy that is a sultanate but it is remarkably tolerant, incredibly welcoming and they've maintained their traditional architecture and the look and the beauty of the country without, you know, they don't have, like, dubai or abu dhabi type modern architecture. they -- they've seemed to have struck a delicate balance. >> it sounds like a country you would go -- i mean, you would go back to. it sounds like kind of a cool -- >> food's great. people are lovely, welcoming, proud.
even the people who disagree with the sultan, would like to see a more democratic society respect, admire, are grateful to him. then just, again, it is unspeakably beautiful. you know, i never do top travel destinations. >> right. >> i would say that that's -- oman has got to be one of the top travel destinations of the future. >> don't miss "anthony bourdain parts unknown" in oman 9:00 p.m. sunday here on cnn. we'll be right back. so, if anyone has a reason that these two should not be wed, speak now. (coughs) so sorry. oh no... it's just that your friend daryl here is supposed to be live streaming the wedding and he's not getting any service. i missed, like, the whole thing. what? and i just got an unlimited plan. it's the right plan, wrong network. you see, verizon has the largest, most reliable 4g lte network in america. it's built to work better in cities. tell you what, just use mine. thanks. no problem. all right, let's go live. say hi to everybody who wasn't invited! (vo) when it really, really matters, you need the best network and the best unlimited. plus, get our best smartphones for just $15 a month.
there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. they offer free cancellation if my plans change. visit booking.com. booking.yeah. 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 at bp's cooper river plant, employees take safety personally - down to each piece of equipment, so they can protect their teammates and the surrounding wetlands, too. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.
thanks for watching "360." "cnn tonight" with don lemon starts now. this is cnn breaking news. >> the president aggressively hitting back at the testimony of former fbi director james comey. defiantly saying that 100%, he'll give his own sworn testimony under oath. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. president claiming comey's appearance before a senate committee vindicates him in the russia probe and attacking comey himself. >> no collusion, no obstruction. he's a leaker. >> he's saying he never asked for comey's loyalty at that now infamous dinner meeting. >> i hardly know the man. i'm not going to say, i want you to pledge allegiance. >> so, danth