tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN October 28, 2017 12:00am-1:00am PDT
witness katy perry. witness katy perry become a legal witness. witness katy perry and left shark. or a card shark. grandma? witness katy perry work. witness katy perry firework. witness katy perry swish. witness katy perry... aaaaaaw look at that dog! katy perry: with music videos and behind the scenes footage, xfinity lets you witness all things me. this is cnn tonight. 11:00 p.m. on the east coast, live with the breaking news. a federal grand jury approving the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel robert mueller.
the charges still under orders from a federal judge, sealed under orders from a federal judge. we're learning any one charge, we don't know who yet that might be, could be taken into custody as soon as monday. let's git right to pamela brown. cnn was the first to report this. walk us through tonight's breaking news. >> it's a significant development that a federal grand jury in washington, d.c., today approved the first charges in this investigation led by special counsel robert mueller. this is according to sources briefed on the matter. the charges, don, are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. we're told plans are being prepared for anyone charged to be taken into custody, possibly as soon as monday, these sources said. now, because it's still, you know, under seal, it's unclear exactly what the charges are. the spokesman declined to comment. as you know, mueller was
appointed back in may into the russian meddling in the 2016 u.s. elections. but given broad authority by rod rosenstein. we had a producer at the courthouse today, and we saw veteran prosecutors, drug andrew weissmann there in the courtroom, at the d.c. federal court where the grand jury meets. a flurry of activity at the grand jury room. but officials made no announcements. now we're learning that the grand jury approved the first charges in this high-profile investigation. >> the right word there that i want to talk about is approved. to bring charges like this, who would have to approve them, pamela? >> our understanding is that the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein would have to approve them now that he oversees the probe since attorney general jeff sessions recused himself.
robert mueller would bring the information to him, the potential charges, to rosenstein, to keep him apprised of what they want to do. and if rosenstein had a big issue with it, of course, he could probably put a stop to it. it's not a formal approval process or anything like that, we're told. but he would be made aware of it before the prosecutors brought the information to the grand jury to bring these charges, don. >> so, pamela, do you have any idea who the charges are against, and what kind of charges they are? >> we have a sense of who the charges are against. but, you know, because it's under seal, we are told that so far, the people have not been notified about this. and usually it takes a couple of days. you have an indictment under seal, then there's a whole process, it takes a day or two, and normally the attorney is notified that, you know, his or her client has been charged, and that that person needs to turn themselves in. and so that is what we expect to play out in this case.
as soon as monday we're being told. we could see some law enforcement action. >> so if i'm sitting at home, i'm sure that the avid viewer is wondering how significant is this development in the russian investigation. can you tell us that? >> well, it is very significant, because this is an investigation that has been going on for more than a year. it is extremely high profile. it draws the ire of the president who calls the investigation a hoax, a witch hunt. recently he tweeted this is a waste of taxpayer dollars. now we're finding out that several months into robert mueller's special counsel investigation, into russian meddling, that the first charges are being brought. it's important to note that he does have broad authority, as i mentioned. so these charges may actually have nothing to do with collusion, or the campaign in 2016. we don't know. but if they don't, that could leave an opening to the white house to kind of say, look, there is no collusion, they couldn't find anything on that,
so they had to look here, we just don't know because we're not naming who the charges are against and we don't know what the charges are because they're under seal. we'll stay on top of this, don. >> thank you very much, pamela brown, with the breaking news tonight. i want to bring in ed mcmullen, and global affairs analyst david rhode, and cnn legal analyst laura coats. this is big breaking news we need to talk about. laura, i want to get your legal advice. what is the process here? when will we know who is under indictment and for what? >> as soon as it's publicly available information, probably as early as monday, whenever the people are informed, or maybe an attorney for the person who is informed that they are the target of the indictment will come forward and perhaps have some information as to when they will turn themselves in. that all really assumes you have a handling of kid gloves here. remember, we all thought it was very odd that back, i want to
say it's july, when you learned evidence of the fact that paul manafort had a warrant executed on his house, which was not a knock and announce. normally you would have the courtesy extended to people. the ability to turn one's self in may not be extended in this case, but likely it will. the first you may hear of it may be around the same time the person is actually turning themselves in, and probably orchestrated press conference by that very person. >> so, michael, there was that no knock warrant she just mentioned. served on paul manafort's home. is it likely manafort or michael flynn? >> the manafort tax matters and perhaps money laundering tax matters being handled by andrew weissmann, and the flynn matter which started in the u.s. attorney's office in the eastern
district of virginia and rolled into mueller's investigation with the same prosecutors moved over, were the two cases thought to be most advanced. mueller's been at this about five months. if you're bringing a straightforward failure to file your tax returns or failure to declare foreign income, whether it's personal or related to your business in ukraine, in the case of manafort, or turkey in the case of flynn, those are pretty straightforward types of cases. and it wouldn't -- and shouldn't probably take mueller all that long to wrap them up and get them sealed and put away as they are right now. but that portends for the future for these guys with respect to other collusion-like related offenses remains to be seen. >> david, there's been a lot of speculation that mueller was applying pressure to get manafort to flip against someone else. could that be what's in the works right here? >> i mean, possibly, don. but i think one broad political
point should be made to everybody out there watching. and that's that, if you're a trump supporter and think that when these indictments are unsealed next week, if they are, that this will exonerate the administration at large, that's probably jumping the gun. if you're a trump opponent and think that whatever's happening tonight, even though it is a big, big news and hats off to evan and pamela for reporting it out, that this is all of a sudden going to bring down the administration, i also think that's jumping the gun. this might be the first step where one of the gentlemen michael just mentioned, either general flynn or paul manafort could be indicted and rolled up into a larger investigation of potential collusion, potential obstruction of justice. but we are probably weeks, months, maybe even years away from getting to these steps. the mueller investigation is moving very methodically for a reason. >> okay. i'm glad you said that. let's bring it to the table now. i want to make sure we got those guys in. feel free to jump in at any
time. it's significant this is happening. it's significant that this is the first major step in this investigation. but how do you respond to what david said? >> i think david's exactly right. it's too premature to pop open the champagne if you're a democrat and say this is it for the trump campaign. but at the same time, this could be something very significant, and really put us on the path to showing extreme collusion between the trump campaign and russia. we don't know that. it could be the first step in a long process. i do think the timing is interesting, in the last 48 hours or so of the administration has really been shifting the focus from them to hillary clinton, tweeted earlier today after many costly months, we've seen there's no collusion between trump and russia. but rather hillary clinton and russia. and a lot of those on the right have been really focusing on how much money is being spent and there's been no there there. we don't know that. and the fact that these -- this initial first charges are coming
out after that push, i think that's very interesting. but republicans pushing back on this are no different than back when the whitewater trial was going on. democrats were angry with ken starr for calling him a sex police, going after bill clinton. i think republicans will continue to call out mueller for spending all this money and taking time. but i think as many know, he's very methodical. he's going to do this at his own pace, in his own time, and he's not going to be pressured by outside tweets and criticism. >> david, i have to ask you, if it ends up being against michael flynn, who's a former national security adviser, fired because he lied about a meeting with the russian ambassador, what are the implications of that? >> i think with flynn specifically in your question, did donald trump instruct him to meet with the russian ambassador, that could potentially be a violation of law in terms of, you know, the acting administration coming in and not being in power yet. and this gets into the question, this is all theoretical, this is
really premature, but did flynn act on his own or was he under the instructions of donald trump to do that. i think that's what they're pushing for. how does trump react? he could pardon flynn, you know, a lot of this is going to be how donald trump himself react to all this. does he compound his problems or just hold steady and let this process play out. >> charles, you've seen what's happening over the last couple of days with the changing the subject, maybe the administration had an idea that something was coming down the pike. and then trying to undermine the legitimacy of this investigation. push the focus onto hillary clinton. by the way, who is not the president of the united states, by the way, you would think that she was if you watched the news the last couple of days. what do you think of that? >> it's a curious proposition that you raise. they were literally throwing every piece of spaghetti they had at the wall to cover something up. every single thing. all at the same time. so my antenna went up being a journalist, it just doesn't feel right, why her right now, what
is this about. but i think one thing that these charges underscore is that the president of the united states has been lying for months about this investigation. he keeps saying that it is false, and fake and phony, and it is not. there is a -- russia really did this. there are real avenues for investigation. mueller and his team are following those avenues. what they find, whatever. but for him to continue to say that it is fake, that is a lie. for him to constantly say that they have found no evidence of collusion, he doesn't know that. we don't know that. that is a lie. he cannot say that without knowing what mueller knows, and he does not know what mueller knows. so we have the -- every time he tells that lie, and we have to step back and say he's lying. he seems to believe he tells a lie often enough, some people will start to believe it.
>> it's always about -- i've had people, you know, stop me on the street, friends who text me, what about hillary clinton? what about this uranium thing? i have to send them fact checks on the uranium thing, explain to them that has been reported, explain it's been debunked, that the information they have gotten so far over the last couple of days really, there's no new information in that. but then again, you know, it's the white house who's pushing this, and conservative news organizations. you tweeted this just a short while ago, evan, you said, buckle up. we can expect trump's efforts to confuse and divide americans against each other to shift into overdrive. don't fall for it. are you talking about what just -- >> i'm talking about what happened this week. but i think that's nothing compared to what we're going to see in the weeks and months ahead. listen, pew came out with an interesting poll recently, this week, i think, where they showed republican -- they divided republicans up into different categories. and they tested how many of them
strongly support trump. and then they asked them, well, how many of you strongly loath or hate or whatever hillary clinton. there was more hatred for hillary clinton than there was love for donald trump. and donald trump is shrewd in an evil sort of way, shrewd enough to know that he can win with that, if he simply feeds that hatred of the political opposition, the old political opposition, hillary clinton. as you point out less relevant than ever, she's not the president, that was the result of the election. the strategy is one that's familiar. the russians use it, too. what donald trump will do is take the same accusation that's being leveled against him and he'll send it right back at his opponent. in this case, right back at somebody his partisan supporters already don't support, already hate. and for people who are his supporters are neutral, then they'll just conclude, oh, it's a wash. there are accusations on both sides there was russian
collusion. therefore, what he does -- >> that's exactly what's happening. >> he's playing the partisan game. it's not just distraction, it's leveraging the road partisanship in this country to create a political dynamic, that he believes, i believe, will protect him. has been protecting him. and is his best shot at protection in the house. >> i have to get to the break, but why are people so vulnerable to this sort of rhetoric? is it compromised? why are people so vulnerable? otherwise, intelligent people who cannot see through this. >> you're asking why are we so divided in this country. one of the reasons i think has to do with the fact that barriers to entry and digital media are lowered. you have far more digital media platforms. they focus on particular segments. >> it's beyond that. it's really beyond that. i've got to get to the break. stick around, because we're going to talk more with everybody. when we come back, much more on our breaking news, a federal
here's our breaking news. a federal grand jury approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel robert mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter. the charges still sealed under orders of a federal judge of the plans have been prepared for anyone charged to be taken into custody on monday. it's unclear what the charges are. my panel is back with me now. i want to get back to laura coats. laura, i'm not sure if this is related to this, but it's important to get to. dana boente resigned today. is any significance to this? is it related to the indictment? could it be? >> it's curious you mentioned that. dana boente is the person who was the u.s. attorney who overseas the eastern district of virginia. his name rings a bell to many people because he was the person to replace sally yates when shifs fired from the justice
department when she refused to tried to support the argument in favor of the first travel ban under the trump administration. he then is also the person who oversees the edva, which is where all of these financial document, subpoenas related to michael flynn and his colleagues about his disclosures, but information or money he received from foreign entities, is actually derived from. so it is curious, on a day when we don't actually know is in the dimt. that's forthcoming from washington, d.c., in that federal court. that you do have a curious connection here that may be made. however, i do believe dana boente is agreeing to stay on until a replacement is found. the question is was he forced out, did he want to remain. all reports indicate he actually wanted to remain. this may have been a surprise even to him. so eyebrows are raising. the ultimate conclusion without more information with the indictment, we have to be in suspense a little bit longer. >> michael, in the five months
that mueller's team has done a lot of interviews, gathered a lot of evidence, what are the other possibilities here? could this be about the june 6th meeting that don jr. had with all the russians who promised dirt on hillary? >> possibly, but i don't think so. we haven't seen evidence that kushner, manafort, don jr., the president has been brought into any sort of grand jury or sworn testimony deposition. my guess, and it's a bad thing to do to guess, o.j. simpson was going could be convicted, and that proved not to be correct, but my guess is it relates to either manafort and flynn and their financial transactions, either related to foreign accounts that they held offshore in their business operations, that they didn't fully report, or something to do with their own individual failure to register as a foreign agent.
if i were betting, given the speed at which this occurred over a five-month period and the nature of materials we know were taken from the manafort home, and businesses during the search warrants and stuff, i would guess financial crime related to tax, ukraine, and perhaps business dealings in the united states through shell companies, real estate purchases. i wouldn't think this would at this point go so close to the heart of what we're calling the collusion investigation, the conspiracy to cooperate with russia in respect of the election. i don't think we're there yet. >> david, there was a lot of talk about the president pardoning people ahead of any indictment. could he still do that? >> yeah, he can do that. i mean, the president has broad pardon powers, at least when it comes to federal crimes. but, you know, that would probably present at least somewhat of a political problem for him if he started pardoning people in advance of them either
being charged or going on trial, et cetera. you have a situation where it's one thing to say someone was convicted, and then pardoned them after the fact. that's the scenario we're more familiar with. but to start saying in advance, i'm blanket pardoning this person. and robert mueller's special counsel team has not even figured out what they did or did not do, then you have a situation where members of congress, we in the media have to start looking at that and saying, well, what is the pardon about? is it trying to hide something? is the president just trying to do a favor for his friends? we don't know the president would actually even do that. yes, it's possible. but i think we have to see how that plays out. >> i would think, don, if i can say one thing. i agree with that completely. i would think one additional problem that pardoning people that are going to be spoken to, before they've been indicted, and convicted, and sentenced, is that it raises the possibility of obstruction and abuse of office.
so i think that that creates a big horn et's nest for the president where you go that route. and, of course, the states are still free to indict these people for state money laundering, state tax, and all those things cannot be pardoned by the president. it doesn't necessarily get him off the hook. >> the panelists will weigh in after this break.
our breaking news tonight, the first charges filed in the mueller investigation. we don't yet know who is being charged, and the charges themselves are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. david and michael zelden were having a conversation. we were talking about possible pardoning of people who may be involved in this. and charles, we may be getting a little bit of ahead of ours. can he pardon himself? >> that's an open question. this idea that the president has enormous power. you know, he's not kind of trapped by a lot of constitutional law or legislation.
we're operating under the assumption that the president will in general be an honest, upstanding person. and this president is kind of blowing a lot of that out of the water. we now have reporting that he is meeting with potential candidat candidates-to-be, federal prosecutors in districts where he has business interests and could, therefore, prosecute him on a state level. >> and whistleblowers. >> it's an incredible thing. and what says is our protocols, gentlemen's agreements about what the president will do and how they will behave, simply are not holding up. >> should they be reevaluated? >> we're going to have to look at some sort of kind of legislative stricture that says, you must release your tax returns. we got used to people started to
do it and we didn't have legislation to compel them. it became routine and protocol. all of a sudden somebody didn't do it. and we realized there's no way to compel to do it. that would take one of the stones off the side of the scale that says something's fishy going on if he just released the tax returns. at least we would know he was not encumbered to a loan with a foreign government, that the united states had an interest. >> what do you think about the whole pardon thing, and -- the question is, too, what's the next move? people are tweeting tonight robert mueller should be fired or step down. >> it will be difficult, i think, for president trump to get to mueller. he would have to, i believe, remove rosenstein and then put in place someone else, and sessions' position in all of this seems murky, what he's actually doing, his involvement, what it actually is. the president doesn't have a straight shot on mueller. so it's more complicated than that, i think.
>> let's ask laura. laura, is it more complicated than that? >> it is complicated in the sense of the president of the united states would have to jump through significant hoops to be able to fire robert mueller. that was the premise of having him in the independent position that he is. and who he reports directly to is rod rosenstein. mueller serves essentially at the instruction of rosenstein. it rod rosenstein refused to do so, this sounds a lot like what happened in the nixon area in the watergate scandal, finding somebody who is willing to be the merrymen of the president. the likelihood of it, it may be an aspirational objective of the president of the united states to rid himself of the burden of having to deal with the collusion investigation.
but the headache he would invite is far greater than the challenges imposed of robert mueller. >> the key is, laura knows and all the legal experts and everyone knows, rod rosenstein works for the department of justice. he's not president trump's personal attorney. i think moving forward for the administrati administration, the best course of action is to stop calling attention to the amount of time and money that's being spent on this and calling it a witch hunt. i want to believe that this president and this administration did not collude with the russians. so if that is true, and if they say there is no collusion and they were not involved, then let this investigation move forward. give them all the information. don't obstruct in any way, shape or form by continuing to call attention to the time and money spent on this. let's get the answer. i think the american people want that. not just republicans, i think the american people want to see this come to a conclusion, and the best way is for them to focus on what they need to be doing, tax reform, health care,
and issues that they're brought there to focus on. >> fake news, hoax, even diverting attention, saying looking at the shiny object over here, hillary clinton. the research shows his supporters hate hillary clinton more than they love him. but is he bringing attention to it by trying to -- >> no, i think it's working. i think we're deeply divided. what's really going to matter in the end is 12 months from now the midterm elections. 2018. can the democrats win control of the house. these committees are -- these investigations are already dying out on the hill. mueller could have a miracle. he could get someone to flip. and there's concrete evidence that the president was involved, i think that's a long shot. it really comes down to the elections. >> thank you all. when we come back, much more on the breaking news. the first charges filed in the mueller investigation. plans have been made for anyone charged to be taken into custody, that could happen as soon as monday. building a website in under an hour is easy with gocentral...
...from godaddy! in fact, 68% of people who have built their... ...website using gocentral, did it in under an hour, and you can too. build a better website - in under an hour. with gocentral from godaddy. there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor
or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay.
mueller and such? >> right. so there's a lot of discussion about whether or not the pardon of joe arpaio, the sheriff from arizona, was a signal to mueller that if he gets too close to people that could implicate him, the president, in wrongdoing, that he would use his pardon power as he did in the case of arpaio. in respect of federal crime, the president has that power. he doesn't have it in respect of state crimes. so if there are state money laundering or state tax, or state violations, the president can't interfere with mueller's investigation or state attorney general's investigation. with respect to firing of mueller, the code of federal regulations that governs this whole area is quite explicit, that mueller can't be fired by anyone other than the attorney general. in this case, acting deputy attorney general in the place much acting attorney general
mueller, without due cause, or other dereliction of duty. so there's no right for the president to fire mueller. only rosenstein, upon a finding of dereliction of duty or other good cause. if mueller is asked to be fired, then rosenstein has to make a career decision, is he going to fire him without good cause, or is he going to retire. and if he retires, then the succession plan goes to the associate attorney general and then she has to make a decision whether she's going to retire or fire when there's no good cause to fire. the interesting thing that you would ask laura about, the eastern district of virginia, u.s. attorney, if the associated attorney general refused to fire mueller, so the deputy refuses, the associate refuses, then under the succession order is goes to the eastern district of virginia u.s. attorney. he is the third in line to have to make the decision about whether to keep or fire mueller. if you want to be a conspiracy
therist, good luck here. >> what are you saying? >> i want to know what that meant. what does that mean? >> that all roads lead to rome, back to eastern virginia. the idea that this is a coincidence that as mike pointed out david would resign in the same day perhaps there would be indictment of people issued subpoenas for, and about the idea that somebody who was already charged and willing to replace a fired sally yates when she was the acting attorney general, and trump was displeased with her work and her people to promote an unconstitutional directive, you have the incentive to know that the president of the united states believes he has great omnipotence in this issue. as mike pointed out, you have the idea that we've already put in place different acts and legislative acts to protect against that presidential omnipotence. you do not want to become a monarchy. this is where it's important the two things intersect. while you have to have the due
cause firing or dereliction of duty to avoid the saturday night massacresque behavior if president trump tries to fire robert mueller or seek someone who is willing to do so, guess who gets to review, congress. now you have the meeting of the minds between the congressional probe, and a criminal probe. there is really no escaping the scrutiny. if donald trump and the president and any members of the campaign are hoping to evade that scrutiny, there are so many parameters put in place under separation of powers to avoid that. >> excuse me, that same district, if trump were to pardon someone who did something in virginia, for instance, flynn maybe, does that mean that that would -- the person who just left, who now needs to be placed, would need to be bring the charges on a state level? >> no. >> i'm confused. >> state level, versus federal
level. the u.s. attorney boente who will stay on as the eastern virginia district attorney, he is in charge of federal charges. the state issue is not an issue. again, it does, to your point, charles, have everyone wondering about the idea of how do these different charges intersect. we're all in suspense to figure out is michael flynn even the person named? and if he is the person who is the one indicted, then we need to look at dana boente, perhaps his investigation about the financial dealings of michael flynn, because surely they intersect with robert mueller's probe. >> wow. all right. more on our breaking news when we come back.
our breaking news tonight, the first charges filed in the mueller investigation. those charges are still under seal. i want to bring in two men who have the ear of america, joe madison, and john frederick, a former co-chair for the trump campaign in virginia. good evening to both of you. you haven't been on the air since this latest bit of breaking news has happened. joe, give me the reaction to the first indictment in the mueller investigation. >> i've been listening intently ever since you've been on, and i
think where we are, quite candidly is, we don't know. we just simply don't know. i don't think anybody needs to start predicting until probably monday morning, or afternoon, whenever these indictments are made public. and i would agree with, i think one of the panelists who said, this is just a beginning of a very long process. but i also agree with those who said that you can no longer run around saying, there's nothing to this. this is not something that the president can tweet away. and i think he would make a terrible mistake if he did. but i anticipate he probably will. >> john? >> i think we have to wait and see. i agree with joe on that. i mean, this investigation has
been going on for some time. everybody's anxious to see some sort of finalization or conclusion, or what the evidence is, or why we're doing it. now, in all due respect to grand juries, as you know, gentlemen, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. so we don't know the seriousness of these. we just have to wait and see what happens on monday. we understand there's two of them going on. but a lot of my callers this week are really upset about the payments to the russian dossier group by both the dnc and perhaps hillary clinton campaign and the fact that no one seems to know -- >> are they upset about the rnc -- >> debbie wasserman schultz doesn't know -- >> the republican leaning publication and taken over by the hillary clinton campaign, we have to get the facts in. >> well, that only came out
today. i tell you, the washington free beacon is the -- >> not the republican party, the republican party has been out since the very beginning. we've been reporting -- >> you asked me a question and i'm -- >> we have to get the facts in. we've been reporting on republicans being the first to fund this for months on cnn, and also that it was connected to democrats. very little new information, more specifically now that it was part of the hillary clinton -- part of the dnc. >> don't you think $9 million is new information? as far as the washington free beacon, that is the poster child for the neocon warmongers. that's who funds that. obviously when they had an anti-war candidate in donald trump that wanted to get us out of these foreign entanglements and cut the funding, cut the money drop, drain the swamp, they picked up the opposition to that. you've got $9 million paid out to these people. who paid it out?
debbie wasserman schultz? >> what does it matter -- $6 million to cambridge analytical, why does it matter how much it costs? campaigns raise millions and millions of dollars during the campaign to pay for things like opposition research. >> this is what these guys do all the time. i always refer to them as cafeteria whatever, cafeteria christians, cafeteria patriots. they always pick and choose what they want to emphasize, and as the two of you were talking, the one tinge that you've left out, john, is that some of the information by the opposition, and don is absolutely right, both sides do it, turned out to be factual. so who paid for it is immaterial as opposed to, was the information accurate or not? that's really what we want to focus in. but you were honest. you said what your callers were interested in, and i'm sure they
were instigated by you on the air. >> well, you know, joe, the truth will set you free. that's what we seek to do. that's why i seem to be unique in the talk radio business, to be honest. but at the end of the day, people want to get to the bottom of this. and they want to know who the democratic national committee or the clinton campaign paid these people, paid them through false names, where did this money go, and it was done to discredit the president. >> how do we know it was paid through false names? >> wait a minute. when the president said during the campaign that the whole system is rigged, well, here it is. >> first of all -- >> wait. >> what are you talking about -- the opposition research is research, negative research on your opponent. >> and both -- look, everybody in america, both -- >> both sides do it. come on, john. >> dhe not pay a foreign government, that's not true.
>> just say both sides do it. >> yeah. >> okay. >> it wasn't -- >> the dossier was created to discredit the president. >> he wasn't the president at the time. he was a candidate. he was candidate for president of the united states. it was started by republicans. and picked up -- >> it has to be investigated. >> listen, it was started by republicans. he was a candidate. he wasn't a president. and it wasn't to discredit the president of the united states. >> it was started by the neocon -- >> oh, come on, john. >> he wasn't president. >> the warmonger machine, because they feared a candidate who was telling -- >> now you're categorizing the republicans that started it. okay. i've got to go. i'm being told i have to go. that was a great talking point. >> monday will be interesting. >> monday will be interesting. now that you're right.
if you've got a garage full of used sports equipment, the rackets from the time you thought you would take up dennis, this week's cnn hero has found a creative way to give forgotten sports equipment new life. meet max. >> a lot of kids learn the importance of work ethic on the sports field. >> good job! do it again. >> sports were the most important part of my childhood. i thought it was a given for kids to play sports. but there's millions of dollars of sports equipment not being put to use, either thrown away
or wasting away in garages. i thought why don't we create a food bank for sports equipment. >> to see how max's equipment is making a difference, go to cnn heroes.com. next week we reveal the top ten cnn heroes of 2017. that's it for us tonight. thanks for watching. this is cnn breaking news. >> it's 4:00 a.m. on the u.s. east coast. we begin with breaking news out of washington, d.c. and a major step forward in the special counsel's investigation into russian meddling in the 2016 election. i'm george howell. >> and i'm natalie allen. welcome to our viewers here in the united states and around the world. let's get straight to our breaking news first reported on this network. sources tell cnn the first charges have been filed in b robert mueller's investigation. >> important points here, though. at this point, we don't know the nature of those charges, we don't know exactly who could be charged, but we get the latest now from from cnn's evan the