tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN October 25, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
but you know it's you, so know this. the activated charcoal in charco caps absorbs gas for fast gas relief without passing the gas. charco caps, put less boom in the room. breaking news tops the hour. on a day the president tried to make the russian dossier about the clinton's campaign connection to it, more than the dirt on him, we have new reporting on what may have been his campaign's effort to get dirt on her. pamela brown has the latest. she joins us now. what's the situation? what are you learning? >> reporter: we've learned the head of cambridge analytica, a data firm working for the trump campaign, reached out to julian assange
wikileaks founder, during the campaign asking about hillary clinton's missing e-mails. assange acknowledged this on twitter confirming that he rejected the request. the head of this firm, alexander knicks, sent an e-mail to several people, including top republican donor rebecca mercer, relaying that he reached out to assange, but no one from the trump campaign was on the e-mail chain. for context, anderson, wikileaks, which is responsible for releasing hacked e-mails from the dnc and john podesta's e-mails last year, but not hillary clinton's e-mails, which we don't know if a third party ever obtained them. this establishes the closest known link between the trump campaign and wikileaks. we should also note "the daily beast" was first to report the e-mail outreach. anderson. >> so this firm reached out to julian assange in the summer of 2016. that was right around the republican convention? >> that's right. it was shortly after donald trump became the official republican nominee.
and so the e-mail reachout happened around that time, and then-candidate trump was on the campaign trail referencing clinton's 33,000 missing e-mails. here's what he said. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. >> so all that happening around the same time. now, the trump campaign today responded by distancing itself from cambridge analytica saying quote, once president trump secured the nomination, in 2016, one of the most important decisions we made was to partner with the republican national committee on data analytics. it also went on to say, we as a campaign made the choice to rely on the voter data to help elect president donald trump. any voter claims from any other source played a key role in the victory are false. so you'll see from the statement, not only are they distancing themselves from cambridge, but not denying that this e-mail reach-out did actually happen.
>> i understand cnn has uncovered a couple things that don't square with that contention by the trump campaign. >> that's right. after trump won the nomination his campaign started series of payments to cambridge in july all the way through mid december, totalling just about $6 million. this is according to f.e.c. filings. in addition to that, jared kushner, the president's son-in-law who headed up one of his data operations and is now senior adviser said to "forbes" back in november that just after the president won the election, he said we kept both data operations going simultaneously and a lot shared between them. by doing that we could scale to a pretty good operation, so he appears to be giving credit to kra with the -- cambridge
analytica with the success. i should mention brad pascal did tell 60 "minutes" that they didn't play a huge role. >> appreciate it. i want to bring in the panel. josh, i want to start with you. you actually sort of embedded with the campaign in the final days and wrote an article about their data operation. was this cambridge involved? zbl zbl zblae. >> yeah, they had a full team of data scientists down in san anton antonio, in trump's data headquarters. brad parscale was our host and spoke about the work they did and how their modeling was used to help decide where trump would travel based on where they thought the most gettable universal voters were. from what i understand from talking to people involved what the campaign, what you said is not accurate. i don't know if we've got our wires crossed when you talked to brad and other people have talked to brad. but i can tell you, my understanding, which is pretty knowledgeable understanding of the inner workings of the republican national committee, is they did run the data
operation for the trump campaign. cambridge has been a debunked company. the cruz campaign fired them because they found out they were shar letons. they got involved with trump because the mercers and steve bannon. >> steve bannon was on the board? >> that's right. >> he was also the campaign ceo. >> which speaks volumes. >> he was actually inside the trfrp campaign headquarters. the idea that they weren't involved -- >> let me finish. i don't know why you're argue with me about this. it speaks volumes that if bannon is ceo of the campaign, and they decided to go with the rnc data operation and not whatever this crap that cambridge is trying to sell which is ineffective and not accurate, once they found that out, you have a lot of campaign novices working on the trump campaign. once they found out, wake a second, this guy trying to sell us this stuff, this isn't real. one of the payments that's $5 million in the grand scheme of things is not a huge amount of money. it was $175 million data operation the rnc put towards
this. they did a test with this $5 million to do a tv buy. to say, okay, cambridge, you think you should do better than the rnc and the entire machine we've built here, let's see when your test does. they came back with their tv buy, and they wound up buying d.c. cable for the trump campaign. that was the nail in the coffin to say you guys don't know what you're talking about. bannon agreed with that even. and jared agreed with it. my understanding is everyone used the rnc. the idea the trump campaign was using cambridge is a fallacy the cambridge wants everyone to believe because they're trying to sell their company. they're going around the world saying, we did all the stuff for the trump campaign, and it's not accurate. >> it was on the record. the trump campaign director testified to the strength of cambridge's models to our face on the record. there's pictures in the magazine. you can see the whole thing. there's nothing mysterious or fake about it. i will say this, the rnc had their own data operation, it was much bigger. i don't know how involved they were in cambridge, but clearly
cambridge was an important part of the trump campaign. >> they've also been on the record in the "new york times" about this before. i think some of the cambridge digital kids were in san antonio working with brad. they were doing prospecting, that sort of thing, they weren't going out do ing any persuasion to the voters. so it's a minimal role when you have the massive operation that the rnc ran and now you have a company that wants to sell themselves, which is convenient for the press to make this link. >> you're able -- you're saying they paid $5 million and had employees there. you're saying in the grand scale of things, 5 million isn't much. >> the role they played inside this campaign is way oversold. >> anderson can we celebrate -- can we celebrate what we have now confirmed is there are political consultants law firms, that go out and act wildly and go out and contact julian assange and the russians.
hillary's got to deny she knew they did it, but we know they paid $20 million. >> we're going to get to that story. >> my point is these guys are all to mike's point, they have consultants that are doing all sorts of things and selling and advertising that they were the ones that made a difference, whether it's true or not doesn't matter. >> you don't pay a firm like that -- i think it was 5.9 is what was reported, but over $5 million if you don't believe in what they're doing. this is the latest of several attempts to collude. keep in mind there was the famous june 9th meeting in trump tower during the campaign where donald trump jr., jared kushner, and paul manafort wet with a russian lawyer lobbyist seeking dirt from the kremlin. they called it the crown prosecutor, misnomer, on hillary clinton. then, as pamela pointed out on her report, on july 27th donald trump gives
his last press conference of the campaign where he asks for wikileaks -- or for russia rather to hack hillary clinton, which, in fact, they were doing and they did. now we have cambridge reaching out to wikileaks, which our intelligence community says is the vehicle the russians used for this cyber material. so that's three pretty tight -- by the way, during the campaign, 137 times donald trump praised wikileaks. 137 times. that's collusion. >> on the hillary clinton story, i'm assuming you're going to be saying the lawyer who was hired is not the campaign and therefore may have done stuff on their own. >> no. >> couldn't you make the same argument -- >> i'm not saying that. he's an agent of the campaign. if he hired that firm, he hired that firm. campaign would be responsible. >> you don't buy cambridge was some rogue people that reached out to wikileaks. >> no. they were being paid by the campaign. they were agent to the campaign.
they were a contractor to the campaign in the same way. there's nothing wrong with getting opposition research and hiring investigators to do that, but that is true. there is something wrong with reaching out to wikileaks, i believe, which was in possession of stolen material that the russians hacked. makes a huge difference. >> kiersten? >> but they were communicating with the mercers who were the biggest supporters of trump. the idea this is some rogue group of people that aren't somehow connected at least to people who are decade to electing donald trump. i also think, sort of to what josh is saying, they don't have to have been the biggest operation or the most influential. the point is they were there, they were somebody a reporter was brought in to meet. they clearly were part of the trump campaign. they don't have to have been super powerful or even good at their job. >> this entire discussion has been very in the weeds. we're not going to get to the facts of it on this panel tonight. now, the one who may get to the facts of it is bob mueller. the problem that the trump campaign and the trump administration now have is that this is another drip, drip, drip, another dot on the leopard
when it comes to this ongoing investigation to colluding with russia. it is a story that despite attacks at a gold star family, despite attacks at nfl players, does not ever go away and it continues taking away his credibility and the trust that the american people already don't have in him. >> i'm with jimmy carter. i'm with jimmy carter. >> there's a hell of a place to be for a republican. i'm old enough to remember when jimmy carter was -- >> mike. >> there's a lot of things i would disagree with, but one i think you will maybe admit, just because a campaign spends $5 million on it doesn't mean they think it's great or well-spent money. if that's the case, hillary clinton's campaign was the best-run campaign we've ever seen, they spent the most money in campaign history. >> if they were paid but not doing data analytics, what were they doing? reaching out to assange. i think we know why they paid him. terrible at data analytics, but they got paid. >> they reached out to assange in june, correct? i don't think they were even
part of the campaign in june. june is when cruz was winding down who they worked for. i don't know when bannon came into the campaign. cambridge came in with bannon and the mercers. if this happened in june, it may have been before they were part of the campaign. to her point, we don't know the facts in this whole thing. so we don't overestimate there was a huge conspiracy with this firm -- >> plenty more to talk about, hillary clinton's connection to the dossier. what's with the minivan? it's not mine. i don't -- dale, honey, is your tummy still hurting, or are you feeling better to ride in the front seat? oh! is this one of your motorcycling friends? hey, chin up there, dale. lots of bikers also drive cars. in fact, you can save big if you bundle them both with progressive. i'd like that. great. whoo. you've got soft hands. he uses my moisturizer.
see you, dale. bye, rob. psoriatic arthritis tries to get in my way? ♪ watch me. ♪ i've tried lots of things for my joint pain. now? watch me. ♪ think i'd give up showing these guys how it's done? please. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are changing the way they fight it... they're moving forward with cosentyx®. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. it's proven to help people find less joint pain and clearer skin. don't use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur.
tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms of an infection. or if you have received a vaccine, or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. with less joint pain, watch me. for less joint pain and clearer skin, ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. what's critical thinking like? a basketball costs $14. what's team spirit worth? (cheers) what's it worth to talk to your mom? what's the value of a walk in the woods? the value of capital is to create, not just wealth, but things that matter.
morgan stanley 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 unknown anti-trump republican source, a source familiar with the matter says hillary clinton was not aware of christopher steele's dossier until buzzfeed published the document earlier this year. the source says she was disappointed the research wasn't made public before she the lost election at the top of the news comes after the law firm representing the hillary clinton campaign and the dnc acknowledge its clients role in paying for opposition research on donald
trump that helped fund the dossier. back with the panel. kirsten, i think the president's calling this watergate of the modern age. >> probably not quite. i don't think that's quite where we are with this. look, i don't think that there's anything wrong with hiring somebody to do oppo research whether that person is a british citizen or not. what would be a problem is if this was a foreign government. >> why not admit it early on? >> great question. i think ken vogel was on with you earlier and he suggested it was semantics with the clinton campaign -- >> the lawyer was basically saying it wasn't a dossier yet. >> it was a memo. so they were playing legal word games with them. i don't think that's okay. they should have been honest because they didn't do anything wrong. >> paul, i i mean -- >> lawyers shouldn't talk to reporters. there needs to be a translator. mr. trump is an international businessman.
i don't know if you know, but he's very rich. he doesn't like to mention it. so, of course, his opponents both in the republican party and the democratic party are going to want to know what's he been doing in the international business deals. that's campaign 101. >> now we have paul's phrase earlier, an agent of the dnc and the clinton campaign using a british spy who we're going to find out paying russian sources in contact with the russians to come up with a dossier. >> retired. >> we now have a smoking gun -- you said the agent. >> i want to know if it's true. >> i agree with you. >> i want to know if the russian government has compromising information on my president. is it true? >> the question at hand is whether there's been influence on the election, the obsession with tying the president up. now we know that president clinton's campaign went and worked with the russians to try to sabotage the election. >> we're investigating the russians for christ sake. no. >> the question is does your president --
>> one at a time. >> is our president compromised by a hostile foreign power, he sure acts like it. >> mike. >> this is amazing. we've found out the dnc and the clinton campaign were lying for months with a straight face. as maggie haberman said, with sanctimony. when they get caught, abusing the law firm the dnc currently hires and pays, and that the sources they were trying to get information from was russia, this is just semantics. how dare you guys try to make this about some conspiracy. those are much stronger ties than some things -- >> mike, are you intentionally trying to -- are you trying to intentionally misunderstood what we said? >> no. >> it feels like you are. let me clarify. there's a difference between the government -- that's what i said. i don't think you can work with a foreign government that is trying to influence the election and that's not what happened. he's not a spy. he's actually a retired spy. he was hired to do this opposition research.
we have no reason to believe he has any interest in swaying the election -- >> would it make a difference if he was used by the russian government? >> totally, absolutely. >> to spread disinformation? which we don't know -- it's very possible. >> i don't defend them lying about it. >> obviously they're covering something up. why would you lie this long about something like this? >> this dossier has become this >> this dossier has become this taboo thing that nobody wanted to be associated with. the clinton campaign was run by people who are seasoned political veterans, they knew enough not to make direct calls to assange themselves. they knew to do it the legal way. there's this rather blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy going on with people who want to be outraged by in connection between the clinton campaign and
this dossier and yet don't want there to be an investigation of the trump campaign, the president of the united states currently, and the collusion with russia. >> there is an investigation. >> that to me is a much bigger issue. hillary clinton is hawking books. president trump has a the nuclear codes. >> you're saying in the hypocritical? >> i don't know if there was or not but those are the types of words we've been hearing for the last six months. there's an investigation, there's been literally zero evidence whatsoever that there's collusion between the trump campaign and the russians, and yet people will come on air and say it as if it's fact. and now when there's evidence that may or may not mean something gets thrown to the democrats they're the ones who are suddenly like, what are you talking about?
this is semantics. >> how many more trumps can come out of the volkswagen? >> it's not evidence of collusion. they're clearly covering something up. this tells me two this tells me. >> >> but it smells funny. >> there is a real investigation going on. >> sure. >> just because we don't know what's going on in that investigation, that's all it means. >> that's right. i've said this before. first of all, the russians clearly tried to get involved in our election and they're an enemy of america and we need to do something about that. and we need to attack that. i have no disagreement on that. but you said something else that was interesting. you said that the clinton campaign was run by professionals. the trump campaign would not collude with the rnc. there wasn't anyone in the trump campaign that was able to do something like this. so i find the idea of collusion absurd on its face. i find a lot of the allegations are trying to connect dots that are all over the place. yet when that happens to the democrats, we can connect dot s as well. all of a sudden that's out-of-bounds and we can't talk about that.
and then all of a sudden, stories about assange and cambridge start popping up in the press as soon as these stories start coming out, it makes you wonder about the timing. >> paul, go ahead. >> the clinton campaign apparently conducted opposition research, as every campaign does, on their opponent. they got back apparently this very salacious and infamous dossier, which they never used, in fact, didn't even reach the press until after the election was over. they never used it for whatever reason. i have no idea, i guess they didn't have confidence in it, to tell you the truth. but now that he's my president, i would like to know if he's compromised by a hostile power. the contrast is, the trump campaign met with russian lobbyists and lawyers being told before the meeting we have dirt from the crown prosecutor of the kremlin on your opponent, and mr. trump jr. said, if that's what it is, i love it. but rather have it later in the summer. colluding on the timing of the research, that is collusion. >> we're going to take a quick break. coming up next the president's taking on party unity, suggesting it's a gop
love fest. also the obama uranium deal. we'll talk about that ahead. ola" something we all think about as we head into retirement. it's why brighthouse financial is committed to help protect what you've earned and ensure it lasts. introducing shield annuities, a line of products that allow you to take advantage of growth opportunities. while maintaining a level of protection in down markets. so you can head into retirement with confidence. talk with your advisor about shield annuities from brighthouse financial established by metlife. you're more than just a bathroom disease.. you're a life of unpredictable symptoms. crohn's, you've tried to own us. but now it's our turn to take control with stelara® stelara® works differently for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization.
before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion, and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. we're fed up with your unpredictability. remission can start with stelara®. talk to your doctor today. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for stelara®.
or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile.
a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com. the president spoke to reporters on his way to a fundraiser in dallas. the south lawn press conference was impromptu, made plenty of news. he accused the media of portraying him falsely as somehow not civil, also in the wake of criticism from four republicans including george w. bush, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and both senators from arizona. president trump said the party is unified.
called yesterday's lunchen with the gop party a love fest. >> we have great unity in the republican party. that's okay, look, they have to do their thing. we have great unity. if you look at what happened yesterday at the meeting, we had i guess virtually every senator, including john mccain. we had a great conversation yesterday. john mccain and myself about the military. i think we had a -- i called it a love fest. it was almost a love fest. maybe it was a love fest. standing ovations. >> based on all the reporting he did get standing ovations, however, they came after a punish ing week as any president had from his own party. by the same token, the administration has reason to believe the president had a good day today. kate lynn, the president says the republican party is united behind him. how real is that? >> reporter: well, that might be wish ful thinking on behalf of the president. after he came away from the lunch on capitol hill with senate republicans, he essentially said they were singing his praises.
he had received several standing ovations and declared there's great unity in the republican party. but this comes after 24 hours of the president fending off attacks from members of his own party, including senator jeff flake who got on the senate floor and delivered this blistering 20-minute critique of the president. and that was just hours after senator bob corker, of tennessee said the president was debasing the nation. and that was just on tuesday, anderson. we've also seen senator john mccain criticize the president in recent days and former president george w. bush who was pretty much silent during the barack obama years in office. so if it's unity the republican party, it really largely depends on who you're asking, because we see a lot of senators trying to stick by the president overall because they're desperate for a legislative accomplishment here and all eyes are on tax reform at the moment. >> the president also placed
blame on the press for the dysfunction within the gop. >> reporter: yeah that's right. the president was asked after he had been criticizing jeff flake on the south lawn as he was departing for texas if he feels that he should be more civil, and he says it's the press that portrays him as an uncivil person and he cited his ivy league education. and he's a very intelligent person as reasons for that. but this is the same president who has dee meaned his fellow republicans by giving them nicknames and also disputed what a pregnant widow of a fallen soldier said about their call this week, just to name a few. >> appreciate that. more on the president's surprise press conference. back with the panel now. kirsten, what did you make of it? >> look, i thought about this a lot. his claims that the party is unified. in some way, it is sort of unified behind trump, if you look at the voters.
>> it's his party now. >> yeah, it's a party of voters who supported the president over the members of congress. they see the members of congress being a problem, not the president. and i think, yes, he's had very high-profile problems with a couple senators this week, but overall he really has a problem with a handful of people. we're talking about three or four people. and the rest of them -- >> most of them are leaving. >> yeah. and look, i think a lot of the people that are standing behind him also probably have problems with him, but ultimately are voting the way he wants them to vote. so, you know, there is a fight going on in the republican party. there's no question there's a fight going on in the republican party. i would say right now it seems like donald trump is winning right now. >> he is, but he needs to unite his party. he should have done that last year before he was even elected. he got 45% of all the primary votes. that's great. 13.3 million votes, that's a ton of votes, but it's still 45%.
55% of those republicans who voted in those primary caucuses voted for someone other than mr. trump. if you're advising him, you say we have to unite the party, boss. he got 88% of the republicans in the election. he's down to between 70 and 80 in the polls. >> what does it matter? >> here's what it matters, the first primary coming up in 2020 is in new hampshire. he's below 50% there already. >> come on, paul. nobody's going to run against him. >> wait, say it again. >> no one's going to run against him that's credible. if they are, they'll be destroyed in a second. look, let flake run if he wants to. the message that everyone needs to hear this message. the republican party is now trump's party. it's not for international trade deals or illegal immigration amnesty. >> it's not for p.o.w.s, guys with disabilities -- >> that's not name calling. >> the party changed dramatically and it's picking up voters. >> ed and i agree, america. >> you put up maxine waters and
bernie sanders and see if you're picking up vote everies -- >> why would you -- >> let him finish. >> trump is picking up voters with people that say we prefer to have a president who's on the side of the american worker and the american people. that's what happened. and guys like flake admitted, one, he said, of course, i'm going to vote for trump's agenda. i'm going to have to vote for it because i'm not that liberal. that's what he said. the second thing he said was -- he didn't vote for him. i misspoke. he said he didn't vote for trump and so he probably voted for mcmullin. but the reason he's not running is he can't win because he's not a republican where the voters are. that's good. take care. great service. onto the next. >> do you see party unit? >> i look at it differently. i think before donald trump came to washington, the senate set the government down. they've been fighting each other in washington for a long time. and what's interesting to me is, the president would sign every bill they send him. he has so far. he's been signing bills. they're not the big marquee
bills. but when they pass bills in congress, they send them to him. but the idea donald trump came to washington and suddenly the party started fracturing is not the correct narrative. there has been fighting inside the republican party for a long time. jeff flake and some of the conservative members are part of that. jeff flake is going to leave and i don't put that down to bannon or breitbart or down to the president. >> i agree with mike. the republican party was fractured way before trump. that being said, you now have the symbolic head of the republican party who spends an enormous amount of time beating up on other republicans. yesterday they published the list of something like ten republican senators he attacked. he's attacked his secretary of state, his attorney general, all republicans. he spends more time attacking republicans than he does attacking the leader of north korea. >> that's paid a price and that's why republicans aren't
unified in washington. if they were, trump would have passed more elements of his legislative agenda. and the republicans i talk to privately, the only place i see unit is in their desire for trump to stop tweeting and attacking them. >> the interesting thing is a lot of the criticism that's coming from corker, from flake, these guys actually vote with trump. they voted with him on health care on the most important issues. the issue is tone and what he is doing to the country, the division, the hostility, the dog whistles to the races and the discrimination that's going on, the legitimizing of people that think they're better than others. that's what's bothering republicans. the trump administration passed the deadline to impose the sanction on top russians for meddling in the election. some republican senators are demanding an explanation. that's next. well, like most of you, i just bought a house.
-oh! -very nice. now i'm turning into my dad. i text in full sentences. i refer to every child as chief. this hat was free. what am i supposed to do, not wear it? next thing you know, i'm telling strangers defense wins championships. -well, it does. -right? why is the door open? are we trying to air condition the whole neighborhood? at least i bundled home and auto on an internet website, progressive.com. progressive can't save you from becoming your parents, but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto. i mean, why would i replace this? it's not broken. i got some financial how'd that go?le ago. he kept spelling my name with an 'i' it's bryan with a 'y.' since birth. well, i happen to know some people. do they listen? what?
they're amazing listeners. guidance from professionals who take their time to get to know you. psoriatic arthritis tries to get in my way? ♪ watch me. ♪ i've tried lots of things for my joint pain. now? watch me. ♪ think i'd give up showing these guys how it's done? please. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are changing the way they fight it... they're moving forward with cosentyx®. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. it's proven to help people find less joint pain and clearer skin. don't use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms of an infection. or if you have received a vaccine, or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. with less joint pain, watch me.
tonight senators on both sides of the aisle are finding out if the white house is purposefully delaying russian sanctions after a deadline set by law. top senate republicans including bob corker tell us they're trying to get information after the delay. this comes after the house and senate passed new sanctions against russian for meddling in the campaign and president trump signed the bill into law.
earlier i spoke to senator king. here's our conversation. >> senator king, it's been almost a month since these sanctions were supposed to have gone into effect. do you know why they haven't been implemented? >> no, and i think it's frustrating. this bill was passed back in the first couple days in august. the president signed it and the deadline for implementation was october 1st. i haven't heard a thing. i'm going to be talking to bob corker later this evening and i know he's concerned. senator mccain is concerned. this wasn't an optional law, this is something congress passed by an overwhelming majority. so far the russians aren't paying any price for what they did to our country last year, and they should. >> the white house is pointing the finger at the state department saying the sanctions are undergoing interagency review and will be announced soon. does that cut it for you? doesn't the buck stop at the white house? >> one of the problems at the state department, there's literally nobody at the top echelon, this isn't because of any delay in congress. these people haven't been nominated. secretary tillerson is about it,
other than that there's nobody running any of the departments and divisions over at the state department. so i'm sure that's slowing it down. but ultimately this is the responsibility of the white house, and i hope and believe that it will be implemented in short order. >> the story that broke yesterday in "the washington post" about the dnc and the clinton campaign paying for opposition research in the dossier, does that change things at all? >> i don't think so. my understanding has been right along that the original work, the original investment, if you will, was made on the republican side. i don't know by whom. and then the democratic side took it over when mr. trump was the nominee. opposition research is part of -- an unfortunate part of every political campaign these days. it's not very shocking this this took place. my understanding is that the clinton campaign didn't hire this guy directly. they hired an opposition research firm which in turn
picked up on the work that had already begun. >> the president says his visit to capitol hill was a love fest, those are the words he used, and that there's great unity within the republican party. from what you're hearing from your republican colleagues, is that true? >> i think it is. it depends on what you're talking about. i think when it comes to tax cuts and tax reform, there certainly appears to be. i don't know whether it's a 52-vote unity or whether it's 50 or 49. that remains to be seen because we don't know what the plan is going to be. i'm reporting now to a reporter, as an outsider, not a member of the republican caucus, i think there is consensus in the republican caucus. they want to move forward on that particular agenda item. where it goes after that, i think it's going to be item by item. >> from your vantage point, will the impact from the senators actions yesterday have on
capitol hill? do your colleagues think it's going to be a shift away from the president or is that simply something that people might be able to do. >> i can tell you from talking to people today, there are a lot of people that are sort of down about these two guys leaving. i know them both, jeff flake came in with me five years ago and, of course, bob corker's been here for two -- this would have been his third term. very capable, thoughtful guy. and i think the message that's sort of disturbing is if you're independent minded and willing to take your own positions on particular issues and try to reach out and solve problems, that can cost you your seat politically. and that's a dangerous place for us to be in because we need people who are willing to reach across the aisle and find solutions. if that's a punishable offense, that's a bad sign. and i heard a lot of people talking about that this morning. >> senator king, appreciate your time. thank you. >> yes, sir. the obama-era uranium deal
more news out of washington. house republicans are looking to the sale of a uranium mining company approved by the obama administration. the sticking point is the buyer of that company which turns out to be russia's atomic energy information. president trump was asked about the deal today. >> i think the uranium sale to russia and the way it was done, so underhanded with tremendous amounts of money being passed, i actually think that's watergate modern age. >> it's a very complicated story, a lot of interconnected threads. let's turn to tom foreman. >> complicated is the word, anderson. a key question for congressional investigators, did hillary clinton give 20% of the united states supply of uranium to russia for donations to the clinton foundation?
it flows out of the sale in 2010 of this company, uranium one, which controlled about a fifth of america's uranium to a russian firm called roz tom. by law, even though uranium one was a canadian firm, the u.s. part of this deal had to be approved by the committee of foreign investment in the u.s. which is comprised of nine agencies including the state department, and at that time, hillary clinton was the boss there, anderson. >> so a lot of this was looked at during the campaign. why is it coming back again. there were donations also to the clinton foundation. >> it was all talked about before, but the hill newspaper which reports on a lot of things with the government here, came out with a report showing the fbi was investigating a subsidiary of rosatom, for possible money laundering, bribes, all aimed at giving the russian government more influence over the u.s. nuclear industry while this deal was being approved.
so some members of congress want to know why they weren't told about this. further more, the hill says the russians were channelling millions of dollars to the clinton foundation at the same time. raising some questions for republicans, did hillary clinton help this deal along in any fashion? her staff, people who worked there say emphatically no, she had nothing to do with approving the uranium deal. it was handled at the staff level and clinton herself calls the allegations baloney. >> so clinton tonight -- congressman devin nunes wants to launch an investigation. >> here's what we know about that guy. he's an informant who played a crucial role in that fbi investigation. his attorney tells us this man has a lot of information about corruption surrounding this matter, and he says to inform
was stunned when the uranium deal was approved. if he testifies, we'll get to hear it first hand and see how well his statements sand up to questioning. >> back to the panel. mike, is this water gate modern age? >> we'll find out. this has more teeth and more legs. that was a great explanation by cnn there of what this is. when i worked in congress in 2006, sifius is the acronym, it is a committee that denied the cousin dubai from buying u.s. ports. it's a long, laborious thing to investigate whether or not a foreign entity can buy in. this was expedited. it went through the obama administration in 90 days with democrats in congress and no oversight hearings. and the republicans at the time said what's going on here? many americans might be learning tonight and not realized that 20% of u.s. uranium is now owned by russia. that all happened under the obama administration with hillary clinton as the secretary
of state, while -- >> it was approved by multiple government agencies. >> all under the obama administration. it's like a committee of people of the cabinet of barack obama with her sitting there as secretary of state. it's well worth looking into this. >> this is all old news. i wrote about this story and how it came to be in my book published three, four mobls ago. all of this stuff came out years ago. there was a front page story in "the new york times." the element about this that hasn't got any attention and i think it's important is this story was generated by steve bannon working under the auspices of the family who produced the book clinton cash which was given to "new york times" reporters who took this, realized that there is a story here, and it generated a front page story in "the new york times" above the fold just after clinton announced her candidacy. the purpose of the story was to impugn clinton's character which is did and what's interesting is it's coming up now at the very
point at which russia has become a problem for donald trump and by congressional republicans surfacing this now, i think it muddies the water and draws attention away from trump. >> the new company that bought uranium has no license to export. the uranium can't go to russia. they have no license to export. that's point one. point two, those are nine cabinet and sub cabinet agencies that sit on that, including the justice department, of which the fbi is part. so if they had concerns they should have raised it at that level because they had a seat at the table. the treasury department chairs that process, by the way, not state or justice. finally, hilldy didn't even vote on it. she didn't attend the meetings on it. she delegated it sensibly to someone else who knows more about this. he was jose hernandez, who said hillary clinton never intervened with me on any sifius matter. so no intervention. she didn't vote on it. >> hang on.
this is a point you'll want me to make. mrs. clinton did wrong was she didn't disclose the donors -- the head of this company was donating money to the clinton foundation. bill clinton was getting money from a russia aligned -- >> $145 million total which is a lot of money. >> hang on. hang on. >> there was a deal that clinton foundation was supposed to disclose foreign donors and in this case they did not. which is what made it a viable story. what it doesn't show was there was any kind of collusion. >> the guy that thaed moez donations, he made them 18 months before hillary was even secretary of state and three years before this deal. >> but they knew she was running for president. >> at the end of the day it's two -- two things are the problem. it's crooked hillary. >> look it up online. >> crooked hillary, the money moving all around. >> impeach her. >> no. she's out of office. and the second thing that's true
is the fbi, the story the hill wrote -- they're not carrying water for the trump campaign. the hill said, wait a second, the fbi was in this in a way that nobody ever knew and it wasn't disclosed. what's the story? that's what we have to get to. >> the state department runs the fbi? >> we don't know because the -- isn't that what you all said we should look into whether the president -- you've been calling -- >> if this is an attempt at russian interference -- >> it's been looked into. >> it's important to remember is that this happened at a time when they were trying to do the russia reset, so this was also part -- we're thinking of it in today's world, right, where we're looking at russia as someone who tried to interfere with our election who has basically become a major enemy of the united states and at that point they were trying to have a relationship with them and so that would be an argument for why they might approve a deal like this. i don't think there's anything
wrong with investigating it. i just think -- like you're pointing out, the person who supposedly was doing this payoff, he also sold a stake in the company before hillary -- >> i spoke to the ceo who said he's a huge clinton fan. gave a lot of money to the clinton foundation, considered bill clinton one of his pals. so he clearly had an interest in ingratiating him selves to the clintons. >> appreciate everybody on the panel. thank you. more ahead when we come right back. ase. you're more than just a bathroom disease. you're a life of unpredictable symptoms. crohn's, you've tried to own us. but now it's our turn to take control with stelara® stelara® works differently for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization.
before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion, and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. we're fed up with your unpredictability. remission can start with stelara®. talk to your doctor today. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for stelara®. america's small business owners. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes, who use their expertise to keep those businesses covered. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes behind the heroes, who brought us delicious gyros. actually, the gyro hero owns vero's gyros, so he should have been with those first heroes. ha ha! that's better. so, to recap -- small business owners are heroes, and our heroes help heroes be heroes
when they're not eating gyros delivered by -- ah, you know what i mean. psoriatic arthritis tries to get in my way? ♪ watch me. ♪ i've tried lots of things for my joint pain. now? watch me. ♪ think i'd give up showing these guys how it's done? please. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are changing the way they fight it... they're moving forward with cosentyx®. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. it's proven to help people find less joint pain and clearer skin. don't use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms of an infection. or if you have received a vaccine, or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. with less joint pain, watch me. for less joint pain and clearer skin,
ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. time now for the "ridicu-list." who is hungry because tonight we're taking you to a quaint little cafe in long beach, california. purveyor of southern comfort food. here's the owner. >> most of my stuff from here is made from scratch. i make biscuits every morning. we make pastries.
>> umm, biscuits. also on the menu, chicken and waffles, and that's where the trouble starts because recently a customer saw boxes of popeye's being carried into the kitchen. he couldn't believe the restaurant was using somebody else's fast food chicken for its chicken and waffles. he posted about it and it turned into a whole thing. it must have been some kind of understanding, right? >> i love popeye's chicken. i love it. i think it's the best chicken out there. >> okay. fair enough. the restaurant owner freely admits she gets the chicken at popeye's and she has a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why. >> my kitchen is not set up for frying. we're an old building. i don't actually have a proper kitchen back there. walk through the front door with it. seriously, if i thought it was an issue i would put it in a brown paper bag. >> it's true, it would. take columbo to figure this one out. the clues are absolutely everywhere. there is even one on the menu. it's called pops chicken and waffles. the dish sells for about 13 bucks. so you can imagine the uproar over this, right. i've just been told there really isn't much of an uproar. >> it doesn't make that big of a
difference. that went with a winning choice. they get it at a good price. it's like a win win. >> all right. some people must be upset. this would be like going to a fancy restaurant, ordering a fresh burger and out comes a bigmac, which actually i would love. so let's be honest, at this point everything is derivative of something else, right. even the name popeye's is derivative unless the actual sailor man built the company from the ground up with his own two biceps. fun historical fact, though. poppy's isn't named after that spinach binging old salt. a gentleman named alvin copeland, sr., opened popeye's in 1972 with the original name chicken on the run, which is an objectively terrible name for a restaurant. who wants to imagine a chicken running away from some cook with a butcher's knife. not me.
after several months of lackluster performance that restaurant opened up with the name popeye's. 45 years later here we are. >> i think it's so crazy. i'm a tiny little restaurant doing what i do. we didn't do anything wrong. i did something i thought was the best product i could bring in anywhere, anywhere. >> i feel bad for her. give her a break. good artis borrow, great artists steal. the best artists go to popeye's and make it on the "ridicu-list." thanks for watching "360." time to turn it over to don lemon. cnn tonight starts now. breaking news on the russia investigation. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. remember when candidate trump said this about hillary clinton's e-mails? >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. >> well, maybe somebody was