tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN November 1, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
breaking news at the top of the hour. federal terrorism charges filed against the driver in yesterday's truck attack in lower manhattan, and a string of details made public about what authorities found that they believe paint the picture of a radicalized premeditated killer. they want to know more about the man you see on the screen, so if you do know something, there's a number to call down there at the bottom of the screen which we'll show throughout the hour. first cnn's brynn gingras joins us with the very latest. so what was in this complaint? >> reporter: well, there was a lot to unpack there anderson. it really gave a clear picture of where investigators are at this point. a lot of it coming from the suspect himself, what he's told investigators in the hospital. and it's very clear from this complaint that he wanted to inflict mass casualties. one point being, he told investigators he wanted to perform this attack last night, on halloween night, because he thought there would be more people on the streets. we also know from him that he wanted to not only drive on the
west side highway but continue his rampage along onto the brooklyn bridge hoping to kill more people. >> i also understand we're finding out this isn't the first time this radical islam has rented a truck. >> reporter: yeah, that's right, anderson. he actually, according to this complaint, wanted to carry out attack -- he just made that decision about a year ago, but then he actually rented the truck two months ago, took it out nine days before this attack even happened, drove it around, tried to get a feel for it, and then actually rented the truck to actually carry out this attack. we also know from this truck that he wanted to put an isis flag on it when he carried out the attack, but then decided against it thinking it was going to just cause too much alarm to people. but we do know, though, he asked investigators if he could hang an isis flag in his hospital room. it was very clear then to investigators that he has no remorse. anderson. >> and there was other evidence found at the scene? >> reporter: yeah, a lot more.
we learned, again, from this complaint, that there was actually a bag inside this truck, and inside that bag there were knives. he told investigators he wanted to reach for that bag, but couldn't, when he got out of his truck right after this crash happened yesterday afternoon. also in that bag we know that there was a stun gun, we also know that there were two cell phones. one of those cell phones carried about 90 videos, isis-related, also thousands of isis-related images. another one of those cell phones had a number of searches, one of them being halloween in new york city. i want to give a little bit more detail for you, anderson, about the note that was found inside the truck. it was very clear to investigators that it was isis -- that this attack was carried out for isis, because in the end of that note he said it will end -- it will endure, rather, is what he said, and that's a direct reference to isis according to investigators. >> brynn gingras, appreciate it. we also learned today from the heroic nypd officer who shot
the suspect, officer ryan nash, a notably humble hero. >> i appreciate the public recognition of the actions of myself and my fellow officers yesterday. although i feel we were just doing our job like thousands of officers do every day, i understand the importance of yesterday's events and the role we played, and i am grateful for the recognition we've received. i just want to thank my family and friends for their support and all the responding officers who assisted me. >> officer ryan nash, one of new york's finest. i want to bring in our security experts, former fbi and cia senior official, phil mudd, also former fbi supervisory special agent, ali soufan, also nada bakos, the former cia analyst and the newest cnn national security analyst. ali, you were on the fbi joint terrorism task force. just in terms of the investigation, where it's at now, what are they facing in terms of what's ahead? >> i think they are trying to figure out if he is connected to others, either in the united states or outside. they are trying to probably
figure out if this attack is inspired by isis. it seems it's inspired by isis. or maybe directed by isis or people who are connected to the organization -- >> either overseas or domestically? >> yeah, absolutely. i mean, first of all, the very first red flag will be the fact that he's an uzbek, and recently we've been seeing a lot of uzbeks joining the so-called islamic state, more than 1,500 joined in iraq and syria -- joined isis in iraq and syria from uzbekistan. also in the same time from his region, in central asia, that includes tajik and uzbeck, and so many other countries over there. the former soviet republics produce more than any other region to the -- more fighters than any other region to the islamic states. so there are a lot of things the investigators now will be looking at both domestically and internationally to see if there's any connection with isis or if this attack is just
inspired by isis, as we've seen before in so many different attacks in the united states and, frankly, in europe. >> phil, in the last hour, former dni james clapper was saying the fact that this guy was taken alive is a potential trove of information and also could help understand, in kind of long term, what drives people in the radicalization process. >> it can, but step back and ask a fundamental question, where is this going to get us in the long term. we've been looking at this stuff for 16 years, and you ask the question, once we understand how this happens in a democratic society, he's radicalizing by looking at free speech material, he's looking at material online, and then he goes to rent a truck. and people are going to say, why can't you find somebody like that. we can study this all we want, and i'm not sure we're going to find answers that are satisfying. so when you look at the question what radicalized him and what's the value of an individual who stays alive after the attack, my answer is just where ali was. it's not the radicalization process. i want to know if he identifies people, places, nodes of
radicalization that might identify the next person. what happened to him over the past year, i'm not sure that's going to help us prevent the next attack. >> the fact that this person had almost 4,000 isis photos, 90 isis videos on his phones, would any of that propaganda on line have been flagged to intelligence officials? >> i think it really depends if he had been on their radar at all prior to this. i think ali can probably answer this better than i can, having worked mostly international terrorism, but if he is looking at information that is directly connected to a target the intelligence community is interested in, he could have floated onto their radar, but where he had kept under wraps basically in the united states and, from what we know, was radicalized here, it's likely he was never obvious. >> the fact that isis now has suffered greatly on the battlefields in iraq, in syria, that they're reportedly on their heels in many senses, does that mean they're less likely or less capable of encouraging people
online or are the online -- i remember in past cases i think there was an online recruiter in raqqa, there was one in somalia, i think. i think the guy in raqqa that i was studying about got killed in a drone strike. i'm not sure what happened to the guy in somalia. but does the battlefield losses, does that impact their ability to reach out online? >> it could impact their ability to actually generate more propaganda. i mean, they have a slew of it online at this point that anybody can reach into and find. but this would impact their ability to the generate new propaganda, new tactics, new techniques that somebody else could use to form this kind of attack. now, i don't think necessarily it's going to withdraw the numbers of people who would actually do something like this, especially somebody radicalized domestically. but i think it could have an impact on the amount of propaganda. >> ali, the term lone wolf is often thrown around. is that an accurate term for some of these people? >> for the most part it's not
because eventually there are some people who knew about what that -- >> people talk? people see something? >> people talk. people sometimes ignore it. he has connections with others. i know the fbi was looking for another uzbek, and i think they were able to locate him. so there's always something. it's becoming more a known wolf rather than a lone wolf because every time we get someone or somebody does anything, in the u.s. or even in europe, we know, oh, he was on some radar. that gives you just an indication about the pressure law enforcement and intelligence services are under. in europe, for example, you have more than 1,200 isis fighters that actually went back to their home countries. they returned. that puts significant pressure on services all across europe. in the uk alone there's more than 425. so when they are focusing on people, they focus on an individual who just returned from syria, rather than focussing on an individual who's
watching videos on you tube. and unfortunately the guy who is watching the videos on you tube is the person who conduct the terrorist attack. >> phil, is it -- it's not just a problem overseas for intelligence agencies, but also the fbi here at home. there's been cases in the united states of fbi running undercover informants against potential islamic radicals for years, and yet ultimately the person doesn't do anything for several years and they finally at a certain point have to say do we continue this undercover operation with great resources or move on to someone else, and then there's always the risk that then the person acts. >> radicalization is not illegal. the question is when does someone decide to commit an act of violence, that's a decision they may make inside their own head, and when do they begin executing that decision to undertake an act of violence. so you can be up on somebody electronically, e-mail, phone, et cetera, you can be up on somebody in the human form, human intelligence, that is an informant into somebody, if they don't make a mistake, the intel business lives off
vulnerabilities and makes. if they don't talk to the wrong person, e-mail the wrong person, get on the wrong chat room, how do you decide when someone transitions from what's legal in the united states, i like isis, that's legal, to what's illegal, i'm going to conduct an act of violence on the west side highway that's going to kill 8 people. that's really difficult to figure out in a country of 330 million people. >> in terms of the investigation, does it make much difference whether he was directed by isis or whether he just watched propaganda videos online or was talking to other radicals in the u.s. and went about doing this? >> i'm not really sure it does at this point. there's enough propaganda, there's enough information for him to pull from. isis just submitted propaganda last year, instructions on how to do a vehicle attack. within that propaganda, they even talked about a note that you should leave that used similar language as to what he left. whether or not he was connected to anybody that was helping direct him is maybe not totally relevant in this case.
it can be significant if the individual is planning something that's larger, that they're not as familiar with. but an attack like this does not take a lot of sophistication to pull off. >> nada bakos, appreciate it. ali soufan as well, phil mudd as well. just ahead tonight we're going to turn our focus to the seven men and one woman who lost their lives yesterday. we want to honor their lives by telling their stories. also next what the president said about justice, as he put it, calling it a joke, the justice system in america, and a laughing stock. the question is, was it an attack on the very thing that makes this country this country. we'll talk to the panel about that just ahead. here's to the heroes -- 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.
if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,... ...isn't it time to let the real you shine through? maybe it's time for otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... ...with reduced redness,... ...thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has... ...no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased... ...risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have... ...a history of depression... ...or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla... ...reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper... ...respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take... ...and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.
my "business" was going nowhere... so i built this kickin' new website with godaddy. building a website in under an hour is easy! 68% of people... ...who have built their website using gocentral, did it in... ...under an hour, and you can too. type in your business or idea. pick your favourite design. personalize it with beautiful images. and...you're done! and now business is booming. harriet, it's a double stitch not a cross stitch! build a better website - in under an hour. free to try. no credit card required. gocentral from godaddy. before the first charge was read today here in new york against the alleged truck attack killer, the terrorist, the president was sending his signals that the prosecution would somehow be different, and by comparison would be better than in past cases. he took the opportunity to criticize the justice system as it now stands. listen to what he said. >> we need quick justice and we need strong justice. much quicker and much stronger than we have right now, because
what we have right now is a what we have right now is a joke and it's a laughing stock. and no wonder so much of this stuff takes place. >> you heard the president say what we have right now, talking about the justice system, is a joke and a laughing stock. keep that in mind as we play a clip of white house press secretary sarah sanders denying the president said what you just heard him say. >> why did the president call the u.s. justice system a joke and a laughing stock during his comments? >> that's not what he said. >> he said the system of justice in this country -- >> he said that process. he said the process has people calling us a joke and calling us a laughing stock. look, i think, as i told marjorie, he's simply pointing out his frustration of how long that this process takes, how costly this process is, and particularly for someone to be a known terrorist, that process should move faster. that's the point he's making. that's the frustration he has. >> okay.
so there's that. also, sarah sanders' announcement today that the white house considers the alleged killer an unlawful enemy combatant. how it jibes with today's decision to charge him isn't clear. i want to bring in the panel, kiersten powers, rick santorum, maria cardona, ed martin, paul callan, and phil mudd. kiersten, is it appropriate for the president to say that about the criminal -- >> well, i think, generally, his entire reaction of this hasn't been appropriate. >> how so? >> attacking senator schumer, and we can get into that later, it wasn't even accurate, but even if it was, just going after a u.s. senator, trying to blame them for a terrorist attack is essentially inappropriate. look, there are problems with the u.s. criminal justice system. it's not that justice moves too slowly. that's just not the problem. i think we can talk about the fact that a lot of people of color do not get treated as well as they should in the criminal justice system. but it's not that we need to get rid of our processes that protect people who have been accused of crimes. so i'm not even sure what sarah sanders is talking about that
the process is moving too slowly. i don't know which process is moving too slowly. >> i would agree with you about the process moving slowly. but i think there is a problem with our criminal justice system. john mccain pointed it out, many of us have been pointing it out for a long time. when someone commits an act of terrorism in the united states, particularly i would argue someone who's not a united states citizen, they should not be treated like a normal criminal. they should be treated as an enemy combatant, they should not be read their miranda rights, they should be -- they should be interrogated not under the protection of miranda, and i think a lot of folks are concerned about that. that we aren't doing what we need to do to combat the terrorist activity and that by treating this person as just an ordinary garden variety criminal -- >> do you think they should be sent to guantánamo? >> i think that's another issue. i'm not sure that that's necessarily the most effective way to deal with this. but the idea that we treat an enemy combatant, which this person truly is, the same way we treat someone who commits a murder --
>> they don't have to be mirandized. my understanding, according to supreme court, jeff toobin last night was talking about it, there's an exemption for these kind of crimes. >> there's an emergency doctrine that in the aftermath of something like this, you can interrogate without miranda warnings to protect public safety. and as to the senator's, you know, point and the president's point, to say that we'd be better off treating this guy as an enemy combatant, i think there's an misunderstanding as to what that means. because enemy combatants are soldiers in wars, and they get treated under the geneva convention as prisoners of war, and then they are repatriated to the country they came from. and, senator, i'd like to see the guy go to jail and not be treated with the dignity that a prisoner of war is supposed to be treated with under the geneva convention. that's how an enemy combatant is supposed to be treated. >> i have to say, when i listened to the president, i had read it, i hadn't seen his words. the backdrop that i see it in is we have federal judges striking
down his constitutional role as the person who sets immigration policy. so when he says justice isn't happening fast enough, we now know this guy drove his truck onto these people and killed them, right. we ought to be -- the system is being bogged down by a combination of judges who think they're in charge more broadly than they should be and the aclu and others using a system. so this guy will get 17 appeals. his point is, if you're in america and you're going to watch the new york marathon this weekend, and when you see those guys cross the finish line, and gals, you're going to think of boston four years ago because that's how you feel and you're going to want somebody finally to say, let's get this guy and put him away and not mess around. >> the boston bomber is on death row. >> right. fine. that went fast. that's a good one. that was fine. >> this is only day one of this thing, charges have already been leveled. >> but americans know these systems go too slowly. >> guess who's in -- >> that's right. >> guess who's in charge of the prosecution. the president. >> exactly.
>> he's the head of law enforcement in america. >> that's what he's saying. >> why doesn't he speed it up since he's running the prosecutorial system. >> but also for all of us who love and care about the constitution, isn't this process inshrined in -- >> no. not at all. >> it's due process. >> the due process question is for who? >> the system taking months and years and judges being out of control is not inshrined. due process -- >> due process, right. >> due process, but not the current version. >> from what we have seen of the people who have been charged with terrorist acts, they have actually gotten justice. they are in jail or on death row, and quickly. so i don't know what he's talking about when he says the processes -- >> i just told you what he's talking about. >> but it doesn't make sense given the facts. >> it does make sense. >> the people who have been charged with terrorism in the past have gotten justice. >> the record of convictions, from my understanding -- i was talking to a professor earlier, the record of convictions in court for terrorism suspects is far better than at guantánamo. >> but the american people are
watching their country invaded. they elected this man president because he said he would build a wall, make us safer, and he has federal judges saying things like i'm going to tell you -- >> ed -- >> hold on. >> go ahead, senator. >> i agree with ed on the issue of immigration and the frustrations the president has with the court system delaying his immigration policies and potentially the impact on america doing so. that is a separate issue than what we're talking about here. so i'm not going to argue that the criminal justice system is slow. i don't agree with the president's comments that the criminal justice system is laughable. i do believe, and i do disagree that we should not give people who are in the country, who are not citizens and who are enemy combatants -- i'd even open the question as to how we treat citizens who have aligned with a foreign power to attack this country as whether we give them the same constitutional rights as an ordinary citizen, and i would say we should not. >> phil, from a law enforcement perspective? >> nfl season is on, i have to throw a penalty flag as a
practitioner. i assume, as an american citizen, whether you're a republican or democrat, constitution -- i'm not a constitutional lawyer. i want to see a terrorist in jail and the key is thrown away. so let's do a side by side. hundreds and hundreds of prosecutions post 9/11 in federal courts, prisoners, high degree of convictions, speedy trials, cheaper than guantánamo, and as you heard today, some of the convictions, including charges against the individual today, that's a life or that's a death. he may face the death penalty. so you have convictions, successful convictions, and terms. >> and also -- >> can i speak? >> let him finish. >> excuse me mr. politician, the practitioner would like to the speak. >> go ahead. by the way, this has political implications. >> furthermore, people talk about threats to u.s. courts, can you speak to a significant threat, including in cases that involve central figures in the bin ladin organization, in any trial in the united states? let me give you, in closing, the comparison and contrast to guantánamo.
fewer than 20 convictions, they take forever, and they cost everything. and you want to tell me, forget about politics. that if success is defined by long time behind bars, speedy trials, and hundreds of prisoners, a better success is fewer than 20 for millions of dollars outside of the american system? i don't understand. >> the answer is that's not a success. and that's the problem. it's not success. it's how much information you're getting and the availability of that information that you can't get in the criminal justice system because they're protected by rights. and that's the fundamental difference. >> there's an emergency. doctrine -- >> they did get a lot of information from this guy. he's talking. >> we don't know. >> and the boston bombers as well, because they can question under the emergency doctrine and not give miranda warnings. >> we're going to continue the conversation, because it's an important one. we're also going to hear something sarah sanders today about diversity immigrant visa program. she said it allows people to come to the united states randomly with no vetting. that's not true about the no vetting. we'll talk about that.
we're going to talk about what the president said about the justice system of the united states. just to remind you, here are his remarks from today. >> we need quick justice and we need strong justice. much quicker and much stronger than we have right now. because what we have right now is a joke and it's a laughing stock. and no wonder so much of this stuff takes place. >> ed, does it hurt sarah huckabee-sanders' credibility when at the podium she said that's not what the president said, he didn't say it was a joke and a laughing stock, he said people are saying --
>> i'm going to probably make you crazy here when i tell you, when i watch him speak like that, like he's done his whole public career now, what i hear him saying is our country is being invaded by people that are running over kids on halloween and we have to change what we're doing. so when he talks about -- >> he's saying it's a joke and a laughing stock. >> it is a joke. >> you agree it's a joke, but sarah huckabee-sanders said he did not say it's a joke. >> she's asked a question about does he say the justice system, the whole system is a joke. and what i hear him saying is, what we have happening -- >> but she lied about -- or she was not accurate in her portrayal of what he said. >> i don't know. they didn't read it off to her. i don't know what she -- the question is thrown at her. my point is what the president said, the country is looking up, a lot of us, saying thank goodness we have a president who's going to go after this, you know what, because people are getting run over on halloween. >> i just want to the play what sarah sanders said. >> why did the president call the u.s. justice system a joke
and a laughing stock during his comments? >> that's not what he said. >> he said that the system of justice in this country -- >> he said that process. he said the process has people calling us a joke and calling us a laughing stock. look, i think, as i told marjorie, he's simply pointing out his frustration of how long that this process takes, how costly this process is -- >> i mean, look, people misspeak all the time and stuff like that, and i don't want to seem like we're playing gotcha and stuff. she's just not being -- >> she should have said that's not what he meant. >> yes. >> as opposed to to that's not what he said. look, as we all know donald trump is not necessarily precise in the way he addresses issues off the cuff. i can understand if she said he didn't really mean that. he meant his frustration. >> if she said that, though, she would be in so much trouble because we know this is not a president who ever wants to be challenged about the things he
says when they're not true. when, in fact, the majority of what comes out of his mouth are untruths or misguided -- >> i would not say the majority. a lot. >> i mean, he was rated as the candidate that lied the most during the campaign. >> but not the majority. >> but here's the thing. when he says things like it's -- our justice system is a laughing stock and it's a joke, he's talking down the whole country. >> no, he's not. >> yes, he is. when you say americans look at that and they feel proud, it's actually not the majority of americans. this man is at a 30% approval rating. >> i just wonder what he compares this to. because he keeps talking about strength, and it's got to be fast and strong. i mean, egypt is fast and strong, i wouldn't want to live under the egyptian justice system. there's plenty of countries -- >> and saudi arabia, too. >> -- where justice is fast and strong, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's -- >> that's why we have the constitution. >> do you want someone to disagree with your point?
you guys are missing what the president said. you're hearing him say a critique of the speed of the actual justice system from plea to -- >> we're listening to what he said. >> but we've watched this guy now for a year to two years and what he's saying there to the people is some kids got driven over and killed last night, and we're sick of this. and we're sick of judges striking down the extreme vetting program. we're sick of policies that are in place -- >> because it's unconstitutional. that's why they strike it down. >> no, it's not unconstitutional. >> they're judges. >> no, they're not. >> they're not judges? >> district court judges are not the ones that are supposed to make those decisions. that's not a constitutional move. >> that's what the justice is like. >> no, it's not. otherwise they're in charge. >> anderson, the thing that i thought was most disturbing about his statement was, first of all, he starts out by calling the suspect an animal and then he says that our justice system is a laughing stock. i looked back to see, george bush after 9/11, what did george bush, who wasn't considered to be particularly eloquent, he talked about terrorists could shatter american steel, but they could not shatter american resolve.
he said americans should move forward with peace and justice. what does trump say? trump says they're animals -- >> right. >> -- and basically we should just take them out and shoot them like you do in some third world countries. >> no. come on. that's. >> that's the implication. >> ed, he has in the past, in front of a crowd of police officers, said you shouldn't be so delicate with them, don't worry about putting your hand on their head when you're putting them in the police car. these are suspects not people who have been convicted of a crime. so that was a joke and now what he said today seems to kind of echo that idea. >> but what you're saying is he's consistent on how he talks about -- >> he's consistent about ignoring due process. >> by the way -- >> that's right. >> america rejected the attempt that we did. we tried to say those guys who came in here illegally -- >> you're somebody who loves the constitution, and yet due process does not seem like something that -- you're just like tired of it. >> no. due process is in the constitution. what we have today is too many judges, that you think are in charge of the country, in charge
of holding things back. >> no judge has weighed in on this case yet. the only thing that's happened in this case -- >> ed, it's like you're writing a new part of the constitution. >> no. i'm actually going back to the constitution instead of going to the constitution she wants with judges in charge. a hawaii judge striking down the president's policy based on congress' law that they passed. i go back to this, though -- >> that's due process. >> that is not due process. >> it is. you're just mad because you don't like the outcome. >> one second. kiersten. one at a time. kiersten. >> yes, absolutely. but it's a policy that would have done nothing to stop this attack. the other thing is, you said that we're being invaded by people running over people with trucks. >> yes. correct. >> that's just a false statement. >> tell that to the eight people that died and their families. >> right. i'm not denying that eight people that died. but that's not the same thing as saying people have invaded our country and are just running over people. first of all, he didn't invade the country. let's just start there. the reality is, statistically speaking, as tragic as this is, it's not very common. now, at the same time, we'll
have probably 11,000-ish people killed by homicide with a gun this year, and you don't want to do anything about that, i'm pretty sure. >> you should take over chicago. >> and yet we will, in the same time period, tragically have eight people have died and you want to like shut the borders, basically. >> right. yes. >> we've got to take a quick break. we're going to continue the conversation next. ♪ let out your inner child at the lexus december to remember sales event. lease the 2017 is turbo for $299 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. pressure relieving comfort, and our 90-day, complete satisfaction trial, will make tossing and turning a thing of the past. plus, during our veteran's day savings event, save up to $500 on select adjustable mattress sets. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com.
you can switch and save time. it pays to switch things up. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.
as we reported, less than 24 hours after a deadly terror attack in new york city, the president used the occasion to criticize new york senator chuck schumer and blame him and democrats, in general, for these suspects getting into the country. at issue is the diversity immigrant visa program which was established in 1990. the idea was to diversify the pool of people who can immigrant to the united states. applicants are selected from countries that have low rates of immigration in the previous five years of immigration to the u.s. so here's what sarah sanders said today about that program. >> the fact that we have a lottery system that randomly decides who gets the greatest opportunity in the world, one of the best things that we have in this country is the fact that everybody wants to be here, and to give that away randomly, to have no vetting system, to have no way to determine who comes, why they're here, and if they want to contribute to society is a problem. >> keeping them honest, sanders is incorrect when she says there is no vetting. there are educational and work requirements, financial requirements, and, as with all
immigrants, no one with a criminal background is allowed. so it's the same vetting for every immigrant. now, you can argue the vetting's not tough enough. that's totally a matter of opinion. but it's the same vetting that every other immigrant gets. it's not true that there's none at all. i know it's a minor fact but -- >> it's still a fact. >> having said that. every immigration bill in the past several years, bipartisan and otherwise, have gotten rid of this program. >> right. and i wanted to talk to you about that. >> so let's just be honest about it. this is not a popular program. it has not done what everybody thought. my recollection was, it was put in by ted kennedy because he wanted more irish coming into this country, believe it or not, and it's now morphed from europe to basically africa, and you have this basic question is are these people who really want to be americans? do they have value structures? so there's a bigger issue here with this, but -- >> right. i totally get -- i'm not arguing that -- >> this program needs to go, and we should -- one thing we should do is if we can't pass a big immigration bill, let's pass a
small one and get rid of this program. >> but before -- yeah, all of that is right, but the white house didn't seem concerned with any of these facts and instead went out and started impugning senator schumer. and you're right -- >> it was signed into law -- >> well, schumer was the one who introduced it, it became part of the law with the 1990 immigration act, which was signed by the first president bush, and it was to encourage italian and irish immigrants and it was later than -- it was bipartisan approval, later on they decided to get rid of it, and it did pass the senate and then died in the house. and that's what happened. so it was a completely bipartisan thing. so to take a terrorist attack and turn it into an attack on a u.s. senator -- it's not even factually correct. what she was saying what the president said is not true. it's not what happened. >> my bigger concern of this is, we're within 24 hours of this happening and i don't think the president or anybody should be
out there using -- just like i can -- if i'm going to be consistent when the gun control folks come out of the woodwork two hours after there's a shooting, and i say give time -- >> you're saying it's too soon. >> it's too soon. i agree we should have a debate on immigration. but not right now. >> that's right. that's how he treated vegas. but we now know it was for different reasons because saying something about immigration as soon as a terrorist act occurs, president trump knows that is something his base will love, because they do. my fear is, as the only immigrant on this panel, is that he's going to continue to use the issue of immigration as a divisive issue to scare people into thinking that all immigrants are bad. >> phil, from a law enforcement standpoint, when you look back on past attacks. is it, from my remembrance of this, it's not people coming directly over from other countries.
i think there's been a handful of those. it's mostly second generation people. >> there are issues here that are fundamentally separate. i think senator santorum is correct. why do we let people in because they happened to win a lottery. that is not a national security question. if you look at the people that i typically would have followed when i was at the fbi coming to the cia, from the hoover building, you're looking at people who were born in the united states and who become radicalized or people like this individual we've seen in the last 24 hours, who move over here seven years ago, i think you're going to find he was not radicalized overseas, he was radicalized when he came here. so if you're talking about this bill, this issue of whether we should have people coming in on a lottery, as an american citizen, i don't understand it. if you're talking about extreme vetting, that is a different issue. how would a person who is not radicalized, whether they're from ireland or uzbekistan, how would they crop up on an extreme radicalization radar, they're
not going to because people like me are going to say they never talked to anybody, said anything, and furthermore, i'm not following 7 billion people around the world, and i don't have a perfect picture of what they think. >> ed? >> one way to do that, you don't let people come from country where people are not subscribing to the american system we have, that's the president's judgment. >> somalia. >> yeah. >> east asia. >> that's a good list. >> so countries that don't believe in nuclear policy, so japan and new zealand? >> wasn't uzbekistan a country that aided us with afghanistan? they let us flying in to raid afghanistan. >> if the people -- >> that's where he came from. >> what the president said and ran on -- back to your point. >> what countries? >> that's not my job. that's not my job because i e leked a president -- >> that's a country that has an airport that helps us.
>> here's what you misunderstood. this election was fundamentally about the question of controlling the borders and letting people in. it's not about the past. it's about what we've seen happen to us, and it has to do with the values and it has to do with criminals. that's what's going on. >> we have to take a break. lots of new headlines on the russia investigation. including which of the president's close associates will happen next. we'll talk to the house intelligence committee, adam schiff on the indictments. also remembering the victims from this terrorist attack. 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
stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and.
...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. helping small businesses.ut, jamie -- damage your vehicle? we got you covered. [ glass shatters ] property damage? that's what general liability's for. what?! -injured employee? -ow. workers' comp helps you pay for a replacement. what's happening? this is carla. how's it going? and if anything comes up, our experts are standing by. ♪ boo!
week. the russia investigation, we are learning new details. first, george papadopoulos was at more than one trump campaign meeting. the second meeting was with attorney general jeff sessions but not the president. that revelation comes after sarah sanders insisted monday that he only went to one foreign
policy group meeting. >> also sources tell cnn the president spent hours isolating his third floor residents aides apparently had to reschedule briefings before the president's high stakes foreign trip to asia that begins on friday. another new headline, the house intelligence committee has interviews scheduled next week. that includes keith schiller. he's one of the president's closest confidants. he'll speak behind closed doors. earlier today i spoke with congressman adam schiff on the latest developments on the russia investigation. what do you make of the fact that george papadopoulos was in two meetings with the campaign, not one as the trump administration had claimed? do you believe he's little more than a coffee boy as some of the allies of the president are claiming? >> no, i don't think that's accurate at all. but this is a pattern we've seen where any of these contacts with exposed the white house tried to
diminish their significance. just last when when it was revealed that cambridge analytica, which jared kushner touted as being so consequential once again we saw the campaign down play, well, they didn't have much of a roele. so it's part of a broad pattern. they also tried to diminish the significance, of course, of the indictment of manafort and gates. >> you would still like to speak to manafort, to gates? >> absolutely. and i also would hope -- >> is that possible, even though -- because of the charges already? >> well, you know, there are the technical constraints of them being under house arrest. then there's more practical constraint that it's unlikely that they would testify and invoke the fifth. i'm hoping that when the case is resolved that at that point as a part of any agreement that mr.
mueller will require their cooperation not just with him but also with congress. >> i assume you'd like to talk to papadopoulos as well. >> absolutely. and he was on our witness list. he was already very much a person of interest in our investigation and apparently he's agreed to cooperate, but whether that's agreed to cooperate only with bob mueller or with us too is yet to be determined. >> your committee is interviewing former aide to the president and long time confident keith shirley next tuesday. he was sort of the president's body man going back for years. what information do you hope he can provide? are there specific topics you hope to question him on? >> well, the majority apparently is the releasing our witness list. i'm not sure why because the agreement is to keep that confidential and allow the witnesses to disclose if they choose to. so at this point i don't want to confirm whether he is coming before the committee. but we do have a busy few weeks ahead of us. we're interviewing often multiple witnesses a day. frankly, i'm not sure that that
kind of schedule is good for the investigation in the sense that sometimes we're still waiting for the documents to interview these witnesses on. but there's a concerted push to bring people in fast and furious i think in an effort to bring us to a premature conclusion. >> are you saying that the majority on the committee are kind of pushing things too fast? >> well, i noticed an appreciable uptick in the pace and also unilateral actions of the committee. that is actions taken without consultation with the minority. and we have seen ample evidence of that with the new investigation of uranium one with the subpoenas being issued by the chair that i think are a response to a call that steve bannon made a few weeks ago that the republicans need to bring these investigations to a halt and turn their attention and focus to investigating hillary clinton. so i think we are seeing in congress a response to what bannon is urging and what the president is urging. i don't think it's in the interests of our investigation and i do think it's an effort to
distract and place the focus elsewhere. i'm particularly disturbed, anderson, that the president and white house have violated justice department policy by intervening with the department of justice in order to push forward this investigation of hillary clinton. it's yet another erosion of our system of checks and balances. >> that's pretty damning criticism that you believe it was a phone call by steve bannon, pressure from steve bannon that house republicans are responding to. >> well, you know, i think that mr. bannon may have been right when he says that he has more influence outside the building than he does inside the building. it's hard for me to escape the conclusion that this sudden interest in the uranium one investigation or transaction is unrelated to the president continually urging, hey, republicans, do something literally all in caps the same week that information leaks that the people close to him may be under indictment. he's urging the republicans to do something.
but all along he's been urging them not to investigate russia but to investigate hillary clinton. and bannon the same way. and i think we are seeing the very tangible results of that. >> congressman shiff, appreciate your time. thank you. >> thanks, anderson. >> coming up tonight, we'll tell you what we know about the eight people whose lives were cut short by a terrorist in new york yesterday. eight people from three different countries on big trips to new york with friends or family, just out for a bike ride between meetings. we remember them next. it's a small finger...a worm! like, a dagger? a tiny sword? bread...breadstick? a matchstick! a lamppost! coin slot! no? uhhh... 10 seconds. a stick! a walking stick! eiffel tower, mount kilimanjaro! (ding) time! sorry, it's a tandem bicycle. what? what?! as long as sloths are slow, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you
fifteen percent or more on car insurance. i want ycome on mom!t easy. go slow. ♪ let's go! ♪ mom! slow down! for the ones who keep pushing. always unstoppable. if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients
achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. fothere's a seriousy boomers virus out there that's been almost forgotten. it's hepatitis c. one in 30 boomers has hep c, yet most don't even know it. because it can hide in your body for years without symptoms,
and it's not tested for in routine blood work. the cdc recommends all baby boomers get tested. if you have hep c, it can be cured. for us it's time to get tested. ask your healthcare provider for the simple blood test. it's the only way to know for sure. tourists, lifelong friends marking the anniversary with a trip to new york. a young man just starting a promising career. a woman traveling with her sisters and mom. a man on a quick bike ride between meetings. these are the eight people killed in yesterday's terror attack. tonight we remember them. it was a reunion of old friends who attended the same polytech nick high school in argentina. they were celebrating their 30th reunion with a trip to new york city and a bike ride along the hudson river. that's it, champion, one of the men exclaims.
a few miles north of where the attack happened. the men believed to be filming this would survive. five of his friends did not. in this photo taken before they boarded their plane to america, the argentinian victims are pictured standing arm in arm with their classmates. libre printed on their t-shirts, spanish for free. they were all killed. nicholas cleves was the only native new yorker to have died in tuesday's attack, according to social media accounts he attended elizabeth irwin high school before heading to skid more college upstate. he just graduate last year with a degree in computer science and just returned to new york city to start a job as a software engineer. his life was just getting started. nicholas cleves was 23 years old. darren drake was the other
american killed in the attack, a 32-year-old project manager worked at seven world trade center. he was on a bike ride in between meetings when he was hit by the truck, according to his father, who described him as the perfect son. >> i'm not even angry. i'm not. i'm not angry at all. i'm hurt. i'm absolutely hurt. >> drake was from nearby new milford, new jersey. he graduated from rutgers in 2007 with a degree in political science and went on for a masters in business administration from fairley dickinson university. he was well on his way to his second masters in science when he was killed. drake had also served as his local school board president. the superintendent of the district called his death senseless, saying darren was a good man with a soft touch and huge heart. the eighth and final victim was 31-year-old belgian in a statement her husband called her a fantastic wife and the most
beautiful mom to our two sons of three months and three years old. he said this loss is unbearable. eight lives cut short. eight families forever changed. time now for don lemon and cnn tonight. breaking news on the russia investigation and the response from an angry president. this is cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. sources telling cnn president trump has been spending hours isolated in the white house, fuming about the indictments of two former campaign aides and the guilty plea from a third. predictably the president's main worry seems to be that mueller's investigation makes him look weak, so he is talking to the newspaper that he loves to hate, telling "the new york times" tonight, quote, i'm not under investigation. but his aides have been forced to postpone briefings on the eve of his long and difficult trip to asia. what could possibly go wrong?