tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN July 20, 2017 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
>> all right, paul, thank you so much. thank you for join issiing us. the ac 360 starts now. good evening we begin tonight with blow-back from republicans. ripped attorney general jeff sessions. former fbi director james comey. he also had a warning for robert mueller not to poke too far into his business. when asked by the times if that would constitute a red line for the president, he said yes. whether it's that remark individually or the tone of many of them, what the president has said has been drawn to negative reviews from ordinarily solid supporters. a group of senators spoke. one who did not want to be named said he was stunned. any thought of firing a special counsel is chilling he said. that's all you can say. another said "one gets the
impression the president doesn't understa understand or willfully disregards. they are not his personal lawyers. that's right check put it more bluntly. >> he can't be a wing man for a president. he's got to be very independent. and work for the people of the country. >> over on the house side republicans also voicing concerns. here's what idaho gop congressman said. quote i don't pay any attention because i don't care. they're a distraction. the family is a distraction, the president is a distraction. at first this is the guy we elected. he'll learn. not from -- republicans are a president some see as treating the white house as his personal domain and the presidency not as
bigger than himself but strictly solely about himself. no one but himself. that has never worked for any white house or any president. more now from jeff zeleny who's on the north lawn. how does the white house explain the president's comments that -- then if he does in fact have full confidence in the attorney general. >> the white house once again today was struggling to explain the comments. once again in this position of trying to explain something they weren't really planning for. this week was not designed to be talking about this but the president essentially went off yesterday speaking something that had been talked about privately in this town for a long time, that he was frustrated with jeff sessions. but that boiled over. at the daily white house press briefing today in talking to administration officials throughout the day they said the president is disappointed in the attorney general for recusing himself. he was furious at the time. back in march. and that was only intensified over these several months as the investigation has intensified.
but anderson, talking to employees administration officials throughout the government here at the white house, they were jarred by this. largely because this was jeff sessions. he is a loyal soldier. he was the first republican to sign on to the trump campaign. in the words of one official it had a chilling effect. thinking if the president can do this to him what will he do to us. jeff sessions happened to have a press conference today talks about cyber security that he of course was asked about this. the. >> i have the honor of serving as attorney general. it's something that goes beyond any thought i would have ever had for myself. we love this job. we love this department. and i plan to continue to do so as long as that is appropriate. >> and anderson you heard him say as long as it is appropriate. that is of course the central question.
he doesn't know how long that is. he also spoke in the we. that was the entire high command of the justice department standing around him. no one in that group of leaders, fbi, actk fbi director, deputy attorney then, escaped the president's wrath in that "new york times" interview. he singled virtually every one out. no one here expects him to resign. the president has not asked for that resignation but certainly awkward because they have not spoken yet i'm told. simd pli the president talking about him and not to him. >> what did the white house have to say about the red line the president drew for mueller when it comes to looking to his family's finances. >> that was another fascinating part of the interview because it was clear that's on the president's mind as well. he knows more about this investigation than anyone else. he's being briefed by lawyers, and he made clear that he -- miss finances, his family he's
are off limits. the white house was asked about that and sarah huckabee sanders said look, this investigation should stay focussed on the russian meddling in h the election. it should stay focused on that, not talking about the finances. but the reality here is bob mueller has this investigation. he is likely going after that. at least it looks like, at this time. but, again, the question is does the president plan to fire him. the white house said he does not plan to file the special prosecutor but they do say he has the authority to do so if he so choosz chooses. the that, of course, issen a open question here but the white house insists he does but not going to right now. >> appreciate that. before moving on i just want to underscore the white house take on the president's warning. here's what spokesperson said today at the no-cameras allowed briefing. >> i think the president, the
point he's trying to make is that the clear purpose of the russia investigation is to review russia's meddling in h the election and that should be the focus of the investigation, nothing beyond that. >> that should not be viewrd as a threat or warning as it relates to the president's finances. >> the president's making clear that the special counsel should not move outside of the scope of the investigation. >> sarah sanders off camera. the to her -- to exactly the area the president's warning is a no-go zone. bloomberg is out with a new reporting which cnn hasn't confirmed. the trump white hous house ---"mueller expands probe to transactions. >> so basing your reporting what it mueller expanding the probe to include?
is. >> what we've learned is that he is taking a broad view of the investigation and not a narrow view. the mandate he was given in mid may is open to interpretation. anything related to russia, and that might have resulted in interference in the election. he's clearly going back more than a decade to any real estate transactions -- >> really more -- exactly. well, russians were buying trump's particularly in the un. buying trump apartments at the u.n. development. >> basically across from the u.n. >> exactly. a lot of russians bout there. he became very popular among russians. that's one thing, the scope of the time is like something i think was a new element of this. >> and your reporting is that mueller has already issued subpoenas to banks to get records? >> it's less specific than that. it's that he's clearly focussed on any major transaction that
has taken place. like the miss universe, the flipping of the florida mansion. in order to get information, you'll have to issue subpoenas. he has issued some to some banks and more difficult is to issue not subpoenas but requests from information from foreign banks. >> is that something president trump would be aware of? if a bank he had done business -- >> i think in general, even you and i, if someone wanted our bank record z and subpoenaed our banks, we would be notified of that. it's not something that would happen in secret. >> so do you know the exact financial interest that he's looking into? donald trump had bought a house in florida. >> yes. palm beach. >> for like $41 million. >> good memory. >> and then sold it. >> four years later in march of 2008, sold it having done almost nothing with it for $95 million
to a russian oel i. >> it could be like the russian oligarch who wanted it, going through a divorce. there was a number of reasons why in made sense. however it was a staggeringly high price. but things like that that look unusual, why was the sum of money paid. that it is the type of thing an investigator would want to get into. >> is any of this linked to the former u.s. attorney in new york. >> yes. in h some ways, some elements of this. grew out of an investigation started here in new york. the and of course -- he did stay on. and was fired in early march. so, the -- element of that which involved paul manafort among others -- among other threats has been subsumed into the larger mueller probe. >> but no evidence that the firing of him had anything -- no
connection -- there's been no such sort of reason given on about haba har ra. >> after the events of the first five weeks and wanted to get rid of anybody not on his team. >> any reaction from the white house. >> we do have a response from trump's lawyer, johe raised the question he thought what we reported indicated the special council has gone beyond what his mandate was given two months ago. besides some of these issues are beyond the statute of limitations. >> thanks so much. >> thank you so much. >> joining us now is trump biographer and -- you probably know more about the president's finances at a certain point in his career. what does it mean to have a special council or special prosecutor looking into his business dealings? >> well, it's the financial
equivalent of getting a thorough physical from a doctor you may not want to visit. he's going to have to get, i think his taxes turned over, his bank records and any business transactions. i think what's also happened so far is that the net has come to include members of the trump organization. other people who have worked with him. i think mueller will subpoena hard drives from the organization's computers and i think the larger issue here in light of the new york times article is that trump threw down this warning to mueller. i don't think mueller's listening. >> you see that as a warning? >> absolutely. i think -- we talked about this before, i don't think trump would hesitate to fire mueller if the heat gets turned up. i think we saw this already with com comey. he is someone who tends to lash out when the vice gets tightened. >> obviously donald trump has resisted his finances being
looked into long before he was even running for president. for him to be pushing back on this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. >> it shouldn't come as a surprise, but the magnitude of firing a special prosecutor who is investigating you shouldn't be underestimated. it's only happened once before in history, the saturday night massacre in 1973 when richard nixon demanded the firing of archibald cox. >> white house says he has no intention. >> but if you listen to that interview, yesterday, with the "new york times," he was, i thought, pretty clear that there were lines that if mueller crossed he wouldn't hesitate to demand his firing. he also said something interesting about the finances, in this that interview. he said i don't make money in russia. but he didn't say i don't borrow money in russia. and that's really been the question that a lot of people have. not whether he has investments
in russia. i think we all know he doesn't really have major ones there. the but has he received loans? that's something where he could generate indebtedness both in a financial and political sense. >> mueller's instructions from the department of justice in addition to investigating any coordination. they also include quote any matters that arose or may arose directly from the investigation. does that give him a tremendous amount of leeway. >> well you could interpret that way but one of the criticisms of the i counsel law when it existed, the reason we don't have it is because of independent council's getting out of their charge. it is exactly that kind of concern that has been expressed in bipartisan basis for years and years. >> does it seem to be that he's going beyond his portfolio? >> i don't know if that's the
case yet but the way you asked the question, it does not give him the ability properly to just do a fishing expedition on the trump family. with respect to economics of the trump family related to russia and recent years and i don't think a march 2008 sale of a moment would fall into that category -- it could very well be within the charge he's been given. but other things that fall outside it, it isn't like they have to go away. he should just hand them over to the department of justice to handle as they see fit. >> why would investigators be looking to finances as part of the russian meddling. >> one the main reasons is to see if any russians or anyone connected to the russian government was trying to finance real estate deals as a way to curry favor. that is certainly something that logically investigators want to
look at in this investigation. as they try to figure out the russian interference and influence campaign that was going on during the election, and perhaps even before the election, according to investigators. and you heard and just discussing this, the attorneys for the president say that this is outside of the scope of the special council scope. but the wording is important. it does say that anything that arises from this investigation or may avise can be looked at. and so in talking to prosecutors current and former they say finances would be something you want to look at as you try to build a picture and have a better understanding of what russia's role was. >> when you tried to look into the finances over a decade ago, what was the response? >> he said -- >> until we got to that point, he never offered substantive documentation. it was always take my word. this and this is word this much
but i won't tell you how much debt i have. it was a cat and mouse game, and i think the big difference here is that robert ploomueller has subpoena power. i was a reporter. one of the things that's going to arise in all of this with the loans is that there's an issue about any of these peoples were representatives of other interests in russia, financial or political. kremlin or other powerful interests. >> i want to thank you everybody. question of family ties after one prior apology for doing it already jared kushner's name still being used to track foreign investors to the family he left behind. also coming up next o.j. simpson's parole. what he said that got jeff toobin's attention.
when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz.
now's your chance at completely clear skin. now there's armor all wash wipes with lift and clean technology. extra large wipes that lift and remove dust, dirt and grime. no hose, no bucket, no problem. just wipe, to spot clean bird and bug splatters in seconds or to wash and wax the entire car in minutes. also try new armor all ultra shine wax wipes. for a brilliant shine with that same wipe and walk away convenience. clean, shine and protect, anytime anywhere with armor all ultra shine exterior wash and wax wipes.
ethat's the height ofs mount everest. because each day she chooses to take the stairs. at work, at home... even on the escalator. that can be hard on her lower body, so now she does it with dr. scholl's orthotics. clinically proven to relieve and prevent foot, knee or lower back pain, by reducing the shock and stress that travel up her body with every step she takes. so keep on climbing, sarah. you're killing it. dr. scholl's. born to move. . simpson will soon be a freeman. the hearing didn't lack for drama and one of his remarks
about not having a violent past certainly raised a lot of eyebrows. >> thank you nevada's parole commissioner hand the o.j. simpson a get out of prison card. he will serve the minimum nine years of a possible 33-year sentence for his role in the 2007 armed robbery and kidnapping of memorabilia dealers. simpson pleaded with the economi commissioners. >>. >> i'm sorry is happened. i'm sorry -- nine years away from your family is not worth it. >> simpson stressed he had been disciplinary free. a model inmate. >> i've done my time, as well as respectfully as i think anybody can. if you talk to the wardens they'll tell you i gave thoem my word. i believe in the jury system. i. >> commissioner called simpsons conviction a serious crime, said there was no excuse for it but added simpson complied with prison rule the and was lorisk
to re-offend. >> the question here as with all parole here hearings is whether or not you served a enough time in prison on this case. considering all of these factors, my vote is to grant your parole effective when eligible. >> and his colleagues agreed. the board noted the legal issues in california had no bearing in nevada. an allusion to the murders of his ex-wife and ron goldman. simpson's life so often filled with sensational moments took another twist during the parole hearing. he testified you -- ra among asked for his friend o.j. can be set free. >> he's a good man. he made a mistake. if he called me tomorrow and said bruce, i'm getting out,
will you pick me up? bruce, i'll be here tomorrow. >> simpson revealed his plan after release is to move to florida. >> i could easily stay in mf nea but i don't think you guys want me here. >> so what is next for him now that he's been granted parole? >> so he stays in this prison behind me until about october. the a little bit before that he'll go to another facility in southern nevada and that's where he will make his exit. also, those commissioners will hash out the very detailed term the and conditions of his parole and they september him a message. they said if he breaks any of the rules while on parole he could be right back in the facility here in nevada. >> appreciate. senior legal analyst is back. having written the definitive account of the trial. jeff, earlier today you said the parole board probably wasn't
wrong to grant him parole but you were pretty critical of the statements he made. >> it's been a long time. i thought i was sort of over the whole thing. but just to see him there, justifying his behavior, mouthing the words i'm sorry it happened. but trying to justify what he said -- what he did for which he was arrested, but then even worse, to describe himself as someone who had led a conflict-free life, when he was a convicted domestic abuser, when nicole brown simpson had called repeatedly to 911 for the violence that he imposed on her, putting aside the murders for which he was acquitted. i just thought that was so indicative of someone that doesn't think domestic violence is a real-time. i just was totally totally off fended. >> it was interesting he was saying he was sorry for what happened as though it was a thunderstorm that just happened
as opposed to for what i did. but you thought it was a slam dunk he'd be graptdgranted paro >> i didn't think there was any doubt given the low risk factor, az age, he's already done nine years on a case that the prosecution offered him two and a half years so he got the going to trial penalty if you will. t if you take a look at what they're supposed to consider, as i said, it was a slam dunk. i don't disagree with jeff. when this started and he was making that statement, it just -- i had kind of my own posttraumatic stress but more from clients who you talk to and talk to and you tell them just own it. the and he wasn't owning it. the so to speak. but ultimately at the end of the day, when you check off the boxes of what the commissioners were supposed to do, he met all of those thingens and there was really no reason to keep him in there. he's 70 years old. the guys who had the guns a
basically got slaps on the wrists and that was the end of that. the i didn't think there was much spaens. >> >> the parole board said it had nothing to do with the 1995 acquittal but legally speaking would they take in consideration prior convictions. spousal abuse, multiple 911 calls made by her saying he was being abusive on multiple incidents yet he said he lived a conflict-free life. >> i think that statement was inaccurate, and absolutely the parole board takes into account prior convictions. that's one of the eleven factors they had to ic ta. and they also looked at aggravating and mitigating factors. i just think anyone being objective about what happened today would have to agree the system worked as it should have today. you had someone that was convicted of a robbery sentenced to 9 or 33 years. he had a discipline-free nine years in this prison, met the
criteria set and that's what's supposed to happen. the when you meet the criteria, peaceful and under the radar in prison and you have the vic victim plead for your release you should be. i think people are confusing this with a popularity contest. >> we're going to have more on this including just what jeff toobin objected to and play you some of the 911 tapes so you hear what for yourself what his self-described conflict free life sounds like. when you think of saving money,
what comes to mind? your next getaway? connecting with family and friends? a big night out? or maybe your everyday shopping. whatever it is, aarp member advantages can help save you time and money along the way. so when you get there, you can enjoy it all the more. for less. surround yourself with savings at aarp advantages dot com.
we danced in a german dance group. i wore lederhosen.man. when i first got on ancestry i was really surprised that i wasn't finding all of these germans in my tree. i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. the big surprise was we're not german at all. 52% of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com.
dubious claim he lived a conflict free life. he was acquitted in the brutal death of his wife and ron goldman. he did admit to hurting his wife and once plaed to spousal battery. here's just a few of the 911 calls. >> what is he doing? is he threat anything you? >> he wept nuts. >> is he threat anything you in any way or just harassing you? >> uf h. you're going to hear him in a minute. he's about to come in again. >> just stay on the line. >> i don't want to stay on the line. he's going to beat -- he wanted somebody's phone number berp and i gave him -- gave him my phone book. i didn't write down the number he wanted and he took -- basically you guys have just been arguing? >> is he inside right now? >> yes. >> okay. just a moment.
>> jeff, you listened to that call. just chilling. >> well there's one i always remember, one of the 911 calls where she identified herself and she -- who's your husband and she says it's o.j. simpson, i think you know his record, which suggests how many times she called 911. and we saw the photographs of her with black eyes that he gave her, and this story, as elaborate and complicated as it got, is something that i always thought was something very unfortunately very familiar. a domestic violence homicide. an ex-husband killed an ex-wife. it happens every day in america. >> and in some places people don't take it as seriously in some lens as other crimes. >> domestic violence has always been treated at least before the modern era as a family matter or personal matter. and maybe something that the
victim has a right to complain about but what, i hope people are starting to see that domestic violence is not a crime just against the victim, but society just like bank robbery or murder. >> it was interesting during the hearing we did hear o.j. simpson's side of the robbery, he didn't take the stand during the trial. it was so convoluted, at a certain point it was almost impossible to follow. the but, again, he just seemed to be saying well, yeah, it was all these other people and they had guns and i was just there and it got out of hand because of these other people. >> that harkens back to what i was saying about not owning it. the one thing you have to do in parole hearings, if you're generally -- i counsel people to do -- is own it. you're not relitigating the case. le this clearly, as you just articulately recounted, was him relitigating the case.
and so i understand that and i understand he wants to tell the story, and basically what he was trying to say was i only went there for nor the mem ra beal ya, i went there for the intimate family photos. that in ms. mind i think dovetailed with the idea he wants to get out and be with his family. the i understand it. i've been there. i understand when you counsel a client -- it's one of the reasons you never went to put a client on the stand is because you never know what's going to happen after you let loose with them. i think that's exactly what happened today. >> you made the po point this isn't a pop eulaow larty d how his behavior taken into account? >> his behavior was what they took into consideration.
age, employment at the time that the incident occurred, substance abuse, including use of alcohol. so severity of the crime that was committed. family support, a stable plan once you're released. all of those factors. of course your conduct during your imprisonment. i also made the point earlier today that you can't really talk about o.j. simpson without talking about the issues of race, class and justice. everyone keeps saying talking about him relitigating the facts and in many ways we are relitigating the 1994 trial that occurred in los angeles. i don't condone the conduct listening to those domestic violence tapes were chilling to me, but the reality is that was over 24 years ago and to say that the prison -- the parole board should have considered that tape, that audiotape of nicole brown reporting that domestic violence and making this determination to me is just a hype of hip pock rasy. >> i don't think anybody's
saying that but its ear more that he himself said living a conflict free life. i want to ng thatk everybody. up next the latest on the russia probe on capitol hill. why they're threatening to subpoena donald trump jr. and paul manafort. do more. add one a day women's complete with key nutrients we may need. plus it supports bone health with calcium and vitamin d. one a day women's in gummies and tablets. (woman vo) to refinance? time (man vo) yes! mortgage rates just plummeted. the time to refinance your home is right now. get started at lendingtree dot com. the only place you can compare up to five real offers side by side, for free. our average customer saves $20,000. quick. beat the fed's 2017 rate hike. do not miss this window. are you sure you have the best rate? it only takes 3 minutes to find out. go to lendingtree dot com right now.
among the invited guests donald trump jr. and paul manafort. now there are threatening subpoenas. le meanwhile jared kushner has agreed. what are they saying about these requests for trump jr. and paul manafort. >> they're saying they need to respond by tomorrow and tell the committee tomorrow whether in fact they do plan to appear in this hearing next wednesday. the so far we have not heard whether or not they will, but senator -- committee telling me earlier today they are taking this very seriously, even grassley raising the specter of sending federal marshalls over to deliver the subpoenas if they don't comply. >> are you concerned donald trump jr. and manafort have not yet accept at the invitation to i a peer. >> am i concerned? no. the i'm not concerned because if they don't, they'll be
subpoenaed. >> will you have a hearing next wednesday so obviously we want to hear right away so we get the subpoena. i hope they accept the subpoena voluntarily. if they don't, then you have to have a marshal give it and that takes a little more time. >> now, tonight, anderson, paul manafort's representatives are telling us we're weighing the request, not saying whether or not they will appear or not. did you donald trump jr.'s attorney has not responded for multiple request for comment about whether or not he will actually appear at this public hearing next week, and of course donald trump jr. went on han nerty's program and said he will be willing to tef befostify. >> this is going to be a staff level interview. staff of the senate intelligence committee talking to them in a classified session. he will not be sworn in.
he not take the oath while being interviewed by staff but he has to tell the full truth of the staff but any misleading statements or lying to congress could be a crime. i've been told in the past that he is also agreed to talk to senatorers but unclear whether or nat that will haen or when that will happen or if. >> all right. thanks. earlier today i spoke with a member of the senate judiciary committee. >> senator coons i'm done wering if have received response to request they come wednesday is it. >> i don't know specifically wler not the committee shaf have yet heard a confirmation. whether they will come willingly next wednesday, but the chairman have both said now publicly they're willing to subpoena them if they don't come willingly. the it's my expectation that el
we'll beseeing them next wednesday. >> do you recall with that approach, the idea of subpoenaing them if they don't come willingly? >> well i think it's a way that the congress has of ensuring that folks who we view as very important, very high level witnesses come and testify. obviously it's better if they keep public commitments and come willingly. >> had the committee requested in he documents like e-mails from either donald trump jr. or paul manafort? >> my understanding is that yes, there's been a fairly ride ranging document request but i don't know the details. the. >> if they in any way refuse, is that something also you would suppo support -- >> yes, to get document the relative to the meetings and relationships we're investigating. i think this is an important next step for us and it's
important part of the intelligence committee's work as well. using congress's subpoena power. >> for donald trump jr. is the focus just that meeting we all know about last june? or is it beyond that? >> well speaking for myself, one of my main concerns is the meeting that donald trump jr. had that was initially m mischaracterized as a small brief meeting about adoption but over the next couple days turned out it was a much larger group, about eight people talking about potentially receiving derogatory information about secretary clinton from someone who represented herself as being a russian official, someone on behalf of the rougussian government. the e-mail is quite challenging and raises more questions than it answered. with paul manafort, the issue here is that he was representing interests in ukraine that were closely tied with the kremlin and whether or not those were complicating relationships that played a role in decisions he
made as the manager of the trump campaign. >> the "new york times" is reporting he was in debt to russian interest groups. i assume that will be of interest to people on the committee. >> any sort of complicating relationships that trump's campaign manager may have had are russians, russian creditors or leaders. >> do you know if the committee is going to be bringing anyone else from that to testify. >> i don't know that but my expectation is following wednesday's testimony by paul manafort and donald trump jr. we may well expand the request to have before us sworn testimony several other participants in that meeting and several other folks that could shed more light on the complicated relationship between donald trump's campaign manager and russian interests. >> senator coons appreciate your time. fraung. thank you. >> up next, this past bring kushner companies the family
i needed something more to help control my type 2 diabetes. my a1c wasn't were it needed to be. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's suppose to do, release its own insulin. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis.
do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe pain in your stomach, or symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin, increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. once-weekly trulicity may help me reach my blood sugar goals. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar, activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
tonight, "ac360" investigation into the kushner companies, jared kushner is no longer involved in the family's business. but you may recall that before his name was involved in the lure for investors, then came an apology, so it may have been thought that his name would not be used for the company. >> reporter: the allegations surrounding this promotion of the family project in jersey city, new jersey are about to grow. that is because despite an apology from kushner companies, cnn has discovered that groups working with the kushner project had continued to use white house adviser jared kushner as a promotional tool to others seeki seeking visas. the promotions are under a u.s.
government program that gives fortuna foreigners and their families a chance for a green card as long as they invest at least 500,0$50 in an american project, this is the one that was pro propermote nicole kushner. he would recuse himself from particular matters involving eb 5. from kushner companies came this, kushner companies apologizes if that mention of her brother was in any way an attempt to lure investors. that was not ms. meyer's convenience. cnn discovered that companies continued to promote the kushner's square property,
alluding to or connecting it with jared kushner. ads in chinese writing that describe the kushners as real estate big shots, jared kushner as the celebrity of the family. and 30-something, mr. perfect, jared kushner who once served as ceo of kushner companies. another refers to the president himself saying even some members of trump's family have participated in the growth of the eb-5 program, and attributed that so trump's son-in-law. forbes referred to this addition, with jared on the cover, this guy got trump elected. they worked with the kushners to attract investors to their project, this chinese company which organized the event in may where kushner's sister spoke. and a private company seeking eb-5 investors for the kushner's
new jersey development. cnn contacted both businesses as well as kushner companies. we have not heard from the chinese company, but within hours the u.s. immigration fund sites had removed any connection to kushner, in a statement it was blamed on a third party saying the post was several months old and has not had any interaction by followers. kushner company sent this response saying kushner company was not aware of these sites and was not connected with them. they will send a cease and desist, in a letter, three democratic lawmakers asked kushner companies to explain their relationship with these companies but so far they have not received a response. the visa program is perfectly legal, but it was said to use the parent's son-in-law to lure
investors is not acceptable. >> that is something we said in the bush white house, don't let other people use your name to raise money for investments. some believe the connections are deliberate. he says that chinese investors, especially, look for projects they feel the u.s. government supports. >> having the president's son-in-law's name on a project, if i'm sitting in china i would perceive that as some level of security. >> what they want to make sure is that they get the green card, so if they see a public official associated with the project, that gives them the impression the project is safe enough to invest in. >> reporter: originally, the ef-5 was set up in a different way, now it is set up to raise millions from foreigners as long as the investments create jobs. about 10,000 eb-5 visas are
available to foreigners and their families each year. the developers get the cash and as for most investors, the website states the whole family gets their green cards, coming at a minimum price of a half a million dollars. what better way to invest that money than with the company's ceo, mr. perfect, the son-in-law of the president. >> drew griffin joins us, this does seem like a strong conflict of interest? >> that is why many are asking for explanations, crying foul. jared kushner's explanation is simple, he is not involved in this. but others are using his position to raise money, only highlights to critics just how valuable it will be for the kushner companies, these four years maybe eight that they can either sell, promote or benefit from people knowing they have a relative in the white house. >> drew griffin, appreciate
we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. i wanti did my ancestrydna and where i came from. and i couldn't wait to get my pie chart. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american. i had no idea. just to know this is what i'm made of, this is where my ancestors came from. and i absolutely want to know more about my native american heritage. it's opened up a whole new world for me. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. no, please, please, oh! ♪ (shrieks in terror) (heavy breathing and snorting) no, no. the running of the bulldogs? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money aleia saved by switching to geico.
murderer. and for the last eight years he has been a nevada prison inmate, and lately learned he will be going free. there was much to talk about including this unfounded claim. >> i always thought i have been pretty good with people. and i have basically spent a conflict-free life. i'm not a guy that ever got in the fights on the street with the public and everybody. >> well, that is simply not true, simpson has admitted to beating his wife and once pled no contest to spousal battery. a civil jury also found him guilty in the death of his wife and ron goldman. did o.j. simpson seem remorseful during the hearing? >> reporter: he did say he was sorry a couple of times but really he spent most of his time and talked about his self and how wonderful he was doing in prison and how great of a