tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN June 23, 2017 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
okay, what do we got? okay, watch this. do the thing we talked about. what do we say? it's going to be great. watch. remember what we were just saying? go irish! see that? yes! i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome with the xfinity x1 voice remote. well, it's been quite a week and ended today with a first for the network. the first courtroom style sketches, as far as we know, of a white house press briefing. these are by the very talented bill hennessy. the day just ended with the president weighing in by singling out the prior administration, "just out, the obama administration knew far in advance of election meddling by
russia, did nothing about it. why? jessica schneider joins us now. what else has the president said about this? >> he's not just tweeting about it. it turns out he's talking about "the washington post" article, as well. he did an interview today, slated to air on sunday. this is what he told the interviewer in the wake of this washington post story, about the obama administration knowing as far back as august of 2016 about these russian hacks. this is what the president told the interviewer. he said, well, i just heard today for the first time that obama knew about russia a long time before the election and he did nothing about it. but nobody wants to talk about that. the cia give him information on russia before the election, and i hardly see it. it's an amazing thing. to me, in other words, the question is if he had the information, why didn't he do something about it? he should have done something about it, but you don't read that. it's quite sad. and what's interesting about this, anderson, is that it seems both this tweet, perhaps in this
interview that will air on sunday that he taped today, that the president is somewhat now admitting that russia may have played a role in this hacking during the election. it's something that the president and even the white house press secretary sean spicer have been reluctant or remiss to address. president trump has said repeatedly over the past year or so, he said, perhaps the russians are responsible, but he also pointed at actors like china, as well. so this -- >> and the 400 potential blogger. >> that's right, exactly. blaming it on several potential actors. >> the white house formally responded to the house's response for tapes. >> they didn't say much. it was a copy and paste from the president's tweet. it was to the intelligence committee. it came from the administration's top legislative affairs director, and this is
what the litter said in part. it said, in response to the committee's inquiry, we refer you to president trump's june 22, 2017 statement regard thing matter, and then they went on to quote the tweets themselves, with all the recently reported unmasking and illegal leaking of information, i have no idea whether there are tapes or recordings of my conversations with james comey, but i did not make or have any such recordings. that was the tweet from president trump yesterday. so that's probably not the response the house intelligence committee was looking for, especially since ranking member adam schiff said he specifically wanted to hear from the white house if there could have been any recordings at all within the white house itself. >> jessica, appreciate it. thank you very much for the reporting. earlier i spoke with t"the washington post"'s adam entus.
the obama white house was struggling to find a response to the russian hacking. >> they had different factors weighing on them. if they did decide to put a statement out there, to call out the russians, they might be accused of being partisan and trying to help hillary clinton win. another factor for them was that, you know, they weren't sure if they did act, how would putin respond? one of the concerns is that putin intended potentially to actually try to affect voter rolls and voting machines on or before election day. that was something they were concerned that if they did something, they might make things worse. so they decided to not respond, except for deterrence, sending warnings to putin and wait till after the election to respond. >> the level of detail reads like a spy thriller come to
life. with us now, jill dougherty, steve hall, michael sheer, shawn turner, james clapper, and phil mudd. steve, as a former cia officer, what do you make of the cia's ability to identify that vladamir putin had a hand in this? because that seems like part of the obama administration is that they were -- wanted to make sure the cia was right and get buy-in from other intelligence agencies. >> well, according to "the washington post" reporting, this is somewhat of an intelligence coup to get this concrete information, which sort of put the nail into the coffin of what we had all pretty much sumized that vladamir putin was definitely involved in this. according to "the washington post," this piece of intelligence confirmed that. but then the fascinating thing about the whole piece in the
post is that was sort of the easy part. the hard part is now we have that information, what is our policy going to be? you can go really hard and go cyber warfare or go conservatively with sanctions and that's eventually what the administration decided to do. >> michael, just hearing from the president in this latest interview we just read, he was saying that he's just learned about this for the first time. how is that possible? that he just learned that the obama white house knew about this, i mean, he's the president of the united states. if he's truly interested in this, he would have been completely debriefed on the whole history of this entire intervention. >> and you don't even have to assume that he would have gotten secret briefings about this. this has all been public. the intelligence agencies talked about the russian meddling, and the effect they thought it was
having in november, well before the election. you did shows on this, everybody did. and there have been multiple articles in our paper, the washington post and others about the extent of this and about the obama administration's debate. "the washington post" story today added some important details. but it's all been out there. it's impossible to think that this president and his people didn't know that. to the point that your reporter made earlier, the president didn't want to acknowledge it, but that's different than not knowing about it. >> does that make any sense to you that the president just learned that the obama administration knew about this in august? >> what the hell is the president talking about? in july of last year, a lot of us in my business, several hundred of us go to the aspen security form, aspen, colorado. the director of national intelligence spoke about this. that is a public forum that includes journalists. as we discussed, october 7, intelligence officials discussed this publicly.
every president of the united states through decades, not after they become president but after they become nominee, start receiving intelligence briefings, china, iran, in this case, a classic element of those intelligence briefings for the nominees of the republican party would be russian activity. once the president-elect becomes president, he has the authorization to receive daily intelligence briefings from the same people who spoke publicly about russian meddling. i don't know what to say, anderson. it was public and the president had the right to receive anything privately when he became the nominee. >> shawn, does it take senmake you that the president of the united states, given all the high level concern, one hopes in the white house, but certainly in congress about a future hacking that there would have been a complete review of this by the president. it seems like he's just learning about this from "the washington
post." >> absolutely. phil is absolutely right. the president has every -- had every opportunity to understand what was going on here. and i think what's been more startling than anything from my perspective, and i talk to people in the national security space, and my former colleagues in the intelligence community. the president has not demonstrated a level of curiosity about this. the president's most important job is making sure that he can protect this country and defend this country, and that he's on top of our national security issues. without asking about these issues, without looking into what happened with regard to russia's interference, i don't know how he can do that, anderson. so i think phil is right. there's no way the president didn't know about this. >> to shawn's point, you know, about if the president is actually interested in russian interference, clearly this is so wrapped up in the allegations of collusion, the allegations of n
obstruction of justice, a means -- he won the election fair and square, but you can still win fair and square and have had russian collusion. we learned from director comey that he never discussed this from the president, never asked him about details or for a br f briefing, and jeff sessions as well never had a briefing with the president about this. >> yeah, i think when you look at what the administration is saying, a lot of it has to do with the allegations of collusion. and that's, i think, not really the issue ultimately. eventually it will become clear. but the point right now is that it's pretty clear that there was a major operation by russia. and you had president putin directing it. that information that i think is crucial and probably very worrisome here in the kremlin is they had a source, some type of
source right at the inner workings of the kremlin telling me tha them that. and the second part is planting these cyber weapons you could call them inside the russian network that would be used in the future. those are two things that are very serious. so this is the type of thing that should be looked at. and also how this entire operation is not just one hacking or two something else. it was an entire spectrum of weapons and approaches and techniques. including psychological operations in order to effect what was happening in the united states. it's much bigger, much bigger than just collusion. >> as someone who follows russia very closely and has a long career with the cia, involved with russia, do you see anything that the president is actually
doing about future hacking? because other than this cyber security executive order, which made no mention of russia, it seemed more focused on i.t. systems in the federal government. it doesn't seem like there's a lot of dmen demonstrable things that you can say he's taking proactive action. >> in fairness, it's a really tough and difficult thing to get at. russia doesn't want to get into a nuclear exchange with anybody. they can't do any conventionally, because their armed forces aren't as big as the west. so what is left is this cyber battlefield, which they are extremely competent at, which is what they refer to as a hybrid warfare. and instead of building more battleships and tanks, we need
to be focused on this. this is the battlefield of the future. the russians are definitely coming back, and they have proven that they are effective at it. so we have to have a plan, and it's got to be serious and sort of on a war footing, but from a cyber perspective, not a battle perspective. >> it seems like the president's plan is go after the obama administration for not doing enough, and certainly there's plenty of criticism whether they did enough or what they did do. >> right. but the thing that's striking is that he sort of bounces back and forth between on the one hand suggesting in the tweet today, and appears to be suggesting in the interview that somehow the obama administration should have done more, and yet there's no indication, as you went through in the last hour, as many people reported on, that this administration had moved to do anything to address the underlying concerns. put aside for a minute the question of collusion and
obstruction of justice and all of those ancillary investigations. the question of what is this administration doing to directly address the russian activities and to prevent them in the future, seems to be nothing at this point. >> intelligence said it's going to happen again. >> here and elsewhere. >> thank you very much. just ahead. we'll hear from a republican and get his take on the russian hacking and the ongoing threat and does he see any action by the president? and now that the president said he did not tape conversations with james comey, we'll talk about fallout with our legal and political panel, next. 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.
but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet? ♪ a lot of people have vertical blinds. well, if a lot of people jumped off a bridge, would you? you hungry? i'm okay right -- i'm... i'm becoming my, uh, mother. it's been hard, but some of the stuff he says is actually pretty helpful. pumpkin, bundling our home and auto insurance is a good deal! like buying in bulk! that's fun, right? progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto.
progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, 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
more reaction to the president's interview this morning on fox. in it, he expanded a bit on the whole question of whether he taped conversations with james comey, which he said yesterday he did not. today, he talked about that and elaborated on why he says he put out the tweet 42 days ago, hinting he might have, which he now says was his way of keeping director comey honest. >> my story didn't change. my story was always a straight story. my story was always the truth. but you'll have to determine for yourself whether or not his story changed. but i did not tape. >> it was a smart way to make sure he stayed honest in the hearings. >> well, it wasn't very stupid. i can tell you that. >> the president also said he doubted special russia counsel robert mueller's objectivity, because he and comey are, quote, very good friends, in the president's word.
as randy kay reported earlier, they seemed to be close on a professional but not a personal level. perspective from three harvard guys. ae lan jeff, you hear the president say the friendship between james comey and robert mueller is very bothersome. do you agree? >> i don't think it is bothersome. people in washington know each other. mueller is going to be responsible to make these decisions. comey is not the target of this investigation. he's a witness. i think it is working the reps. that's what the president is doing. he's entitled to do that. i don't think it really is going to have an impact on this. >> should the president be concerned about their relationship, if they're friends, if they talk? >> i think it is a favor to the president because when you're doing a prosecution that's a political prosecution, you have to be -- you can't give the other side an appearance of injustice.
comey isn't the target but he is the victim, to the extent that the crime of obstruction of justice, as jeffrey argued, includes the firing of comey by the president. one can easily understand how upset mueller would be by the way his friend was treated, understandably. his friend was treated terribly. so the perception of bias can affect at least the way the public sees this investigation. he can avoid this if he simply does the right thing and says that the firing by the president of comey is not a crime. it is not part of this investigation. then the issue is done. >> well, i mean, this goes back to the argument we've been having. >> sure. >> at a minimum, mueller has to determine what the facts are and not throw up his hands and say, this is not a crime. that will involve interviewing comey. i don't think he is going to bend over backwards to help his friend. but it does provide an avenue of attack, which the president will
use. but, you know, if it is not that, it'll be something else. and there's nothing that can be done about it now. i really think it is a non-issue. i don't blame the president for pointing it out. >> david, when president trump says robert mueller is an honorable man, hopefully he'll come up with an honorable solution, how do you interpret that? >> well, i interpret it that he's -- if he's totally exonerated, it'll be an honorable conclusion. and if he is not, it is dishonorable. i think the president is clearly trying to discredit in advance. any kind of conclusion which comes out of bob mueller and his team. >> at one point in the fox news interview, the interviewer said to the president, his tweet suggesting there were tapes of comey was a, quote, smart way to make sure comey stayed honest in the hearings. that was a journalist interviewing the president. his reply was, it wasn't very stupid. i can tell you that. can you decipher that? a, there is no evidence comey
changed his story in public or private. the tweet prompted comey to leak his personal memos on the meeting through a friend at "the new york times" that spurred the special counsel. do you see this as helping president trump? >> well, the president has suggested that comey may have changed his testimony. i think he did say that comey originally, through leaks, and comey has been disgraceful, how much leaking comey did it himself. and he hasn't had the courage to stand in front of the cameras and do it himself. he launders it through a law professor. but the initial leaks deny the president asked comey to announce he was not under investigation. then once the statement came out that there might be tapes, comey did say in his testimony that the president did specifically ask him to announce publicly he wasn't under investigation. you know, i don't know whether it helped or hurt. and the fact that comey then leaked the information -- look,
comey was determined to get revenge on the president by getting a special counsel appointed. he did it in a way that doesn't renown to his reputational benefit. >> it is true comey leaked something because he wanted a special counsel appointed and thought it was a maneuver that'd get it. that is a politically stunning, you know, savvy, however you want to describe it, or alarming move. >> it is. i think alan is right to say, you know, that certainly one way to read that is he did it out of revenge. there is another way to read it. that is he so deeply worried about the honesty and the professionalism of the people around him in the justice department and in the white house, very importantly in the white house, that he felt it was a matter for the nation's own protection to bring things to light to go for a special counsel. he had more confidence in a special counsel than he did at people who were running the show
in the justice department and white house. >> that's a fair point. why didn't he write a letter to the senate committee or to the public and stand behind it and make the points you so eloquently and articulately made? i wish he would have done that. it would have been better than to leak it through a surrogate. >> i agree with that, alan. i think it would have been better to do a letter. it is possible he was responsible for leaks that occurred before he stepped down. but it is worth noting, again, that the leaks continued after he left. so if comey wasn't the only person leaking out of this operation -- there have been too many leaks. looks like there are a number of people involved. >> as a journalist, i'd like to speak out in favor of leaks. the more, the better, as far as i'm concerned. but the other point to make about this tweet from the president is, i know it is wonderful to talk about whether james comey did right or wrong, how about the president lying publicly about the existence or non-existence of tapes? he knew there were no tapes.
>> now you're calling abraham lincoln and me liars. lincoln used the same tactic in a famous case in illinois, where he led a witness to believe that the almanac showed no moon when he testified full moon. the president showed him the wrong year almanac. i did the same thing in one of my most important cases. i had a cop lying about what my client told him and i led him to believe i had tapes by reading what appeared to be a transcript. it was a transcript of what my client told me. i didn't have tapes. i got him to tell the truth just like -- >> with all due respect -- >> those weren't lies. >> with all due respect to you and abraham lincoln, i think the president of the united states issuing tweets to the entire country that he knows to be false is very different. >> but he -- >> i think it is a troublesome precedent that will haunt president trump as we read his future tweets and think, hmm, i wonder if that's a false statement that is some tactic,
as well. >> you'll enjoy this, particularly both of you, jeffrey, we know who i am talking about. but there is a current supreme court justice who i used to play poker with all the time. when he or she became a justice, they stopped playing poker because they didn't think it was seemly for a justice to bluff. that may be a lesson that the president should learn also. you know, presidents bluff all the time when it comes to international affairs. i think it is a fair point to talk about whether that is presidential. you know, some people have said it is criminal to bluff. i think that's, again, just the notion that people are looking and searching for anything that could be a crime, the notion that a president saying that comey ought to be careful
because he doesn't know whether there are tapes constitutes some kind of tampering with a witness goes so beyond the existing criminal law. i think it shows the zealotry the anti-trump forces are prepared to invoke, even to change the law to get retroactively a president they don't like. >> we have to leave the conversation there. david, alan and jeff. the favorite line of the night, with all due respect to president lincoln and you. jeff, thank you for that. see you all later. still to come, next, a republican member of the house intelligence committee's take on the what the president is doing to prevent russian hacking. ...that had the power to whawaken something old...... ...or painfully dated... ...or something you simply thought was lost forever... ...because it could form a strong bond, regardless of age... if a paint could give any time-worn surface stunning new life... ...you have to wonder... is it still paint? regal select exterior from benjamin moore®. only available at independently owned paint and hardware stores.
we've been reporting on it at cnn throughout the day and tonight throughout the broadcast. the president's willingness, it seems, to talk about everything with respect to russia, the election and the prior administration, but not much about what this administration plans to do or is doing about the next cyber attack. i spoke about it earlier with republican congressman will hurd, a member of the house intelligence and homeland security committees, also a former cia officer. congressman hurd, president trump has spent a lot of time focused on russia. the vast majority seems at least publicly to be refuting
collusion between the campaign and russia, which he is very concerned about and denies. as a member of the house intelligence committee, do you think the president should spend more time making sure u.s. elections are never hacked again and less time trying to refute any collusion? >> well, as a member of the house intelligence committee, i'm involved in this investigation. the most important thing is the investigation is bipartisan and thorough. yes, we should all be concerned with the russian attempt to influence our elections. this is something -- an attack on the dnc is an attack on all of us. this was a covert influence operation. we should be making sure that we're talking about, how do we do a counter-covert influence? this is something we've shown we're not prepared for. the russians are going to do it again. they've been doing it for a couple of decades in eastern europe. they did it in our election last time. we should expect to see them again in '18. >> maybe there's stuff happening behind the scenes that the
public isn't aware of. are you aware of initiatives by the white house to try to make sure this doesn't happen again? >> the secretary of homeland security is definitely concerned with this. there's been conversations with other secretaries of state. the house is looking into how can we potentially fund programs that -- have a pool of money available for the secretaries of state to gain access to if they need help upgrading some of their voting systems. there are a couple of states that have systems that are old and outdated. this is something that is a major concern when it comes to every single state. so this is -- defending the voting systems is one of the things that a state is responsible for. i know this is a top priority for secretaries of state across the country. >> have you ever heard the
president talk about this? >> you know, i don't listen to everything or haven't read everything the president may or may not have said on this particular topic. i do know, i also sit on the homeland security committee, and this is a topic of discussion amongst us. there's been hearings on this. so when you look at across the federal government, there are a number of entities that are focused on this issue. >> the deadline your committee set for the comey memos to be handed over was today. can you say if your committee has received those memos? >> the day isn't over, and i haven't gotten an update. today is when we were expected to have some of those resources. >> if they aren't turned over, what is the next step for your committee to obtain them? >> we have to look at, you know, using our subpoena authorities. this is an important piece of the puzzle, and we should be able to have access to review those. so this is something that chairman conway and the rest of us will evaluate and make sure we receive in a bipartisan manner in order to collect the information.
>> hillary clinton's campaign chairman john podesta is scheduled to testify next week. a lot of folks in the dnc didn't take the hacks seriously enough early enough. what do you want to hear from podesta? >> the chain of events. who was notified when? why wasn't this escalated? also, you know, to understand the practices within the organization. you know, basic digital hygiene should have been used. we all know that as elected officials are running for office, they were likely targets from not just russians but other countries. so understanding the culture of security and also some of the decisions about whether or not technical information was shared with the federal government to aid in the investigation.
these are some of the questions that i'm sure we will explore and get some answers to. >> it sounds like -- i mean, from reporting for months ago from the "new york times," when the fbi called the dnc, they weren't sure they were talking to a real fbi agent and blew it off for a while. seems stunning how they dropped the ball on this. congressman hurd, i look forward to the testimony. thank you so much. >> thank you, anderson. white house staffers are trying to figure out how to handle the crisis. they're also trying to figure out how to handle working for a boss like president trump. i talked to michael bloomberg about trump's managing style and more when "360" returns. stay out front with tempur-pedic. our proprietary material automatically adjusts to your weight, shape and temperature. so you sleep deeply, and wake up feeling powerful. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's dietom. coke, dr. pepper, and pepsi hear you and we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all.
smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels, and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org new colorista. from l'oreal paris. a playful new line of hair color. pink hair, blue hair, mermaid hair. 11 semi-permanent shades that last 4 to 10 shampoos. color your way. colorista. from l'oreal paris. [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.
no secret, there's been more than a little bit of chaos inside the white house. the start of any administration is difficult, but particularly for a president who never held elected office and never worked in government. i spoke with former new york city mayor michael bloomberg about president trump's management style and how his white house is organized. i began discussing bloomberg's promise to cover the united states's pledge under the paris climate accord if the u.s. doesn't honor it. you pledged the $50 million the u.s. was supposed to pay. >> i assume they will pay. the federal government has an obligation.
they made a deal they would pay. it is hard to believe america is going to renege on a commitment. if they do, i didn't want the people keeping track of all the progress america and other countries are making, i didn't want them to worry about whether or not they'd be funded. i said if the federal government doesn't, bloomberg philanthropies will commit it and other people called me and said, we'd like to help, as well. >> a lot of democrats said look, the u.s. is basically giving up leadership on climate change. >> no question about that. the cop 21 agreement was designed to favor america. because the negotiators knew that it would be very hard, if not impossible, to get through an american congress. so they made a deal that gave america a better break than anybody else. so to walk away from this is just not smart. >> i want to ask you about a couple other issues in the news. i know you won't criticize the president. i'm not looking for you to do that.
>> he's got a tough enough job as it is, and i hope he does a good job. i'm an american. my kids and grandkids live here. i want him to be a good president. anything i can do to help him. i think it is wrong for people to say they hope he fails. i criticized mitch mcconnell when he said that about barack obama. i'll criticize any democrat today that says that about donald trump. >> you were critical during the campaign. you spoke at the democratic convention. we all remember that. >> i said my piece, yes. >> do you stand by what you said then? >> i haven't gone back and looked at it but yes. >> i think i saw on "60 minutes" you said the president had given you his cell phone number. >> he did. >> have you used it? >> i have not. nor has he called me. >> okay. i talked to the nsa director general michael hayden recently and former director of national intelligence james clapper. both talked about concern that the institutions that are the bedrock of u.s. democracy are under threat. >> yes. >> do you share that concern? >> it is a disaster. we have spent decades building
trust and relationships, and the benefit of that is lots of people around the world, americans, we have not had a world war in 70 years. the time between the first and second world war was 20 years. it's been 70 years since and we haven't. that's because of trade relations. that's because of the eu, i think, has helped in that. we have a lot of our jobs in this country depend on global trade. that comes from relationships as well as treaty. terrorism is something we have to fight together. only if your intelligence services and your governments work together can you do that. the benefits of international cooperation to america are as great as they are for any country in the world. >> when you look at the white house, the way its structured, every former chief of staff, whether republican or democrat, i've talked to all say you can want be structured like this.
you have to have people in their lanes. you can't have all these different people with an ear to the president. >> i was asked, what's the 100-day question? what'd you do after 100 days? it was asked of me back in 2002, my first year in office, after 100 days. i said, i built a team. that's what i've done in 100 days. that's right but what did you do? built a team. they couldn't get the concept that i built a team, and it was a team that was going to do all the work going forward. nobody knew at that time that it would be for the next 12 years, but a big part of that team stayed for the whole 12 years in a business where people leave after a year or six months or two years. it's the team that does everything. i've said when i was asked about president obama -- or president trump, what he did in the first 100 days. i said he focused too much on trying to pass a few bills and not build a team. you have to have people -- the manager's job is not to do it. it is to pick the people and then support them. make sure they're funded, adjudicate disputes between
them. when they get in trouble and make a mistake, stand by them so that the rest of your organization knows, as long as you really try to make a decision and it's a decision that is made honestly, that a competent person could have made, even if it turns out to be the wrong one, you don't get penalized for it. you get credit because you were willing to try new things. that's what management is about. it is not throwing people overboard when they mess up. >> or undercutting them. if they say one thing, you're changing it in a tweet the next day. >> if one of your staff says something, it puts you in a difficult position because you can't do that. you have to say, well, what he meant to say, or it's my fault. i didn't brief him on some other discussions. he was doing the right thing. he didn't get a chance to participate in the meeting where we made that decision. but he is a good guy, trying, or
good woman, really doing it for the right reasons. you can't throw them overboard. not only will that person be gone but the rest of your staff won't trust you. >> major bloomberg, appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. next, inside the operating room for a risky surgery to separate conjoined twins who were joined at the head. we'll get a look at dr. sanjay gupta's new special report, "separated: saving the twins," airing here on cnn in a few minutes. earning your cash back shouldn't be this complicated. yet some cards limit where you earn bonus cash back to a few places. and then, change those places every few months. enough with that! with quicksilver from capital one you've always earned unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere. welcome to unlimited what's in your wallet? 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 heri 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. for her compassion and care. he spent decades fighting to give families a second chance.
but to help others, they first had to protect themselves. i have afib. even for a nurse, it's complicated... and it puts me at higher risk of stroke. that would be devastating. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. once i got the facts, my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®... to help keep me protected. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner... ...significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. it has similar effectiveness to warfarin. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. for afib patients well-managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding,
unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures... ...and before starting xarelto®-about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. it's important to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from a stroke. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know™. 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
. >> in just a few minutes don't miss separated, saving the twins. sanjay gupta takes us inside the operating room for an incredible surgery. two boys, one risky surgery. the twin boys conjoined at the head. you'll meet the medical team that gave them a new life and their very grateful family. here's a preview. >> just seven hours after the first incision, we check in with the family. it's 5:00 p.m. >> what's waiting in my stomach
is for that phone call. okay. we're into -- i call it the land of the unknown. really we're into that area that we just don't know are we going to be separated today, or are we not? ♪ >> around 10:00 p.m., 12 hours since the operation started, doctors hit that land of the unknown. >> so i was at a point i was wondering whether we were going to lose both kids. >> goodrich has to stop. >> no, no, don't do that. the reason why, you'll tear these guys. >> the dream of separating these boys is about to end. >> i spoke with sanjay recently about this special report and how the twins are doing now. you were given extraordinary access during to be in the operating room for the surgery. what was it like to be there during that? >> i'd never seen anything like it. even as a neurosurgeon, these are very, very rare situations. cranial pagus twins, one in
2.5 million births. a significant portion don't even survive to delivery or don't survive the first few months after they are delivered. to have this and actually see the who process from, you know, literally the beginning through these boys' care now after the operation was really remarkale for me. >> what was the most surprising thing about it? >> there's just so much technology that goes into something like this. i mean you have -- >> it's a huge undertaking. >> it was a 27-hour operation. you had teams of surgeons that were constantly toggling back and forth and literally you had a team of surgeons on one boy, a team of surgeons on the other. i think one of the most surprising things is even though these are two boys conjoined at the head. from simply giving medications to help put them to sleep, whatever you give one of the boys, you have to anticipate the effect that's going to have on the other boy. so literally blood is circulating between the two of them constantly, and you have to constantly sort of assess for that and predict that. it was pretty remarkable, just
the anesthesiology, just the nurses, all of that. the planning is meticulous. you'd expect it to be, but to see it up front like that, just the hours, you know, of planning ahead of time with the 3-d models was really neat. >> what about the recovery? can they make a full recovery? >> well, they're doing really well. you know, you'll see that they're now in rehab. the operation was in october of last year. so they were out of the hospital in december. so it's been some six months now in rehab. they'd never been upright, right? they'd always been flat on their backs, conjoined at the head. so simply getting them to now stand upright is an undertaking, but then their eyes still will go up because they're used to looking up. they have to recalibrate their entire central nervous system as a part of this. it's as they say a long road. but to see where they were and where they are now is just -- those two boys are really cute and pretty remarkable. >> it's amazing. thanks. you can watch the special
report, saving the twins right after 360 tonight on cnn. first a sneak peek at anthony bourdain's parts unknown in trinidad and tobago. you'll see what he discovered in a moment. but we don't want annual contracts and hardware. you scoundrel! we just want to stream live tv. and we want it for 10 dollars a month. (batman:raspy) wow. i'd like that in my house. it's a very big house. yeah, mine too. look at us. just two bros with sick houses. high five. directv now. a big streaming deal for $10 a month. it's entertainment your way.
- 100% free. plus it finds me better deals and helps save me money. - [announcer] sign up for wallethub now for free credit scores and 24/7 credit monitoring. - that's gonna leave a mark. you're searching for something. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel. so wouldn't it be perfect if there was a single site where you could find the right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. . . this sunday night on cnn, anthony bourdain takes you to trinidad and tobago for a mix of
music and a whole lot of food. here's a preview. ♪ >> holy crap. okay. this is a challenge. people keep coming up to me in the street. the first thing they say is have you had it yet? so i'm eating doubles, all right? ♪ doubles are a caribbean take on an indian dish. two floppy tender pieces of soft indian style bread loaded with curry chickpeas, pepper sauce, and mango. structurally i have questions here. ah. i don't want seepage. seepage is never good. when somebody uses seepage in a sentence, nothing good is going to happen. i'm going to suck the paper.
i don't think there's meat in here but i still like it. it's really, really good. >> parts unknown, trinidad, sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific here on cnn. thanks for watching. have a great weekend. the cnn special report, "separated, saving the twins" starts now. >> announcer: the following is a cnn special report. the rarest of rare. >> hi, pumpkin. >> two boys held togethe, sharing a brain. their parents facing an impossible decision, knowing their only hope for a future is to be separated. >> if you don't get them separated by 3, you've kind of lost that window. >> a terrifying choice. >> how long into this surgery will you know if you can actually separate that vein or not? >> a dangerous operation. >> they've got to continuously move jadon and anias. >> an uncertain future. >> all right. double skin hook. >>