tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN January 24, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PST
good evening, thanks for joining us. any moment the president will leave the white house, board air force one and make his way to davos, switzerland, for the world economic forum leaving on a night when there's breaking news in the russia investigation. we'll get to that breaking news in a moment. a short time ago the president spoke with reporters for 15 minutes covering topics including immigration, his feelings about the fbi and, yes, the russia investigation. here's what he said about the prospects of speaking with special counsel robert mueller. >> are you going to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it, actually.
>> you want to. >> just so you understand, there's been no collusion whatsoever. there's no obstruction whatsoever. >> you have a date set, mr. president? >> i don't know. no. i guess you're talking about two, three weeks. i would love to do it. >> in person? >> i have to say, subject to my lawyers and all that but i'd love to do it. >> would you do it under oath, mr. president? >> like hillary -- who said that? >> would you do it under oath? >> you did say it. you say a lot. did hillary do it under oath? i think you have an idea. wait, do you not have an idea? you dou-u really don't have ani? i'll give you an idea -- >> wyou would? >> she didn't do it under oath. if you didn't know about hillary, you're not much of a reporter. >> are you going -- >> say it? >> you would do it under oath? >> i would do it under oath. >> you think robert mueller will be fair to you in this larger investigation? >> we're going to find out. we're going to find out. >> are you concerned -- >> here's what we'll say. and everybody says.
no collusion. there's no collusion. now they're saying, oh, well, did he fight back? if you fight back, you -- >> what is -- >> you fight back. john? you fight back. oh, it's obstruction. so, here's the thing, i hope so. >> sir, how do can you define collusion? maggie asked this earlier -- >> you're going to define it for me, okay, i can tell you, there's no collusion. i couldn't have cared less about russians having to do with my campaign. the fact is, you people won't say this, but i'll say it, i was a much better candidate than her. you always say she was a bad candidate. you never say i was a good candidate. i was one of the greatest candidates. nobody else would have beaten the clinton machine, as crooked as it was. but i was a great candidate. someday you're going to say that. good-bye, everybody. >> the president there saying he's looking forward to speaking with robert mueller under oath. tonight we have new reporting on the specifics of the arrangements for an interview between mueller and the president. mueller, cnn is learning from sources familiar with the matter, has given lawyers for the president a range of topics
he may want to ask about as part of ongoing negotiations regarding an interview. mueller's team made clear it's seeking a sit-down interview with the president according to the sources, reporting from gloria borger and pamela brown who join us now. pamela, what do we know about the state of negotiations between the president's team and mueller team? >> they're ongoing investigations. sources tell my colleague gloria borger and i that robert mueller, special counsel robert mueller, has made it clear to the president's legal team that he wants to do a sit-down interview with the president. you heard there the president say today here at the white house, i was there in the room, he said he would be more than happy to sit down and talk to robert mueller, but the lawyers for the president will in ongoing negotiations and sources tell us that an in-person interview would really be a last resort. now, we're told that robert mueller has also made clear some of the topics he would like to discuss, any potential interview with the president, under the
umbrella of the firing of former fbi director james comey and former national security adviser michael flynn, looking more specifically at the president's reaction to james comey's may testimony. you may remember our reporting then that his testimony angered the president and shortly after james coachmey was fired. want to learn more about what he said to james comey in the oval office, allegedly asked him to let the michael flynn probe to go, to drop the probe. also another topic we're told by sources that robert mueller is interested in is when the president reached out to the intelligence scheef chiefs of various agencies including dni and cia. asking them allegedly, reportedly, to intervene in the russia probe and to come out publicly and say there was no collusion. as you know, anderson, we reported that robert mueller has interviewed three of the top intelligence officials so far. these are some of the things that are on the negotiating table. but it is worth noting that sources tell us most of the topics right now that robert
mueller has conveyed, he's interested in, his team has conveyed, fall under the obstruction of justice umbrella. that doesn't mean robert mueller isn't interested in topics under collusion. all this would have to be worked out. that is being worked out as we speak. >> gloria, the president saying tonight he's willing to testify under oath. is that also the position of trump's lawyers? >> not necessarily. i think what you maybe see going on here is a good tcop/bad cop routine. the president clearly wants it known he has nothing to hide, publicly saying i'm willing to testify subject to the advice of my lawyers. what our reporting shows is that many many of his lawyers, most of his lawyers, don't want him to testify in h the way the president would like to testify. there may be -- there may be an outlier or two in that group, but what they're trying to do is say to mueller, look, isn't there some way we can do written answers to questions, and if that isn't enough, maybe then we
could make the president available to you? and they, of course, point to the precedent of ronald reagan during iran contra where he answered questions in writing. >> so that's the advice the president is getting from his attorneys, do we know about it from his cloes his closest frie? >> i talked to one of his friends who surprised me. said, look, the president wants to testify, he says, he believes, here's the quote, he doesn't have one ounce of culpability. he says most of h iz friends are telling him not to testify. this one friend said to me, i told him, look, you've done this ple plenty of times before, what do you have to lose here? he'll tell the truth. >> i want to bring in others. the comments about speaking to the special counsel seem to agree to a lot then came some pretty big caveats. >> i mean, yeah, the big caveat, of course, was subject to what my lawyers say, or subject to consultations with my lawyers. it is one thing that agree in
theory, to testifying under oath, but when you -- when you say you're going to defer to your lawyers, that basically takes back the whole concession. there are lots of subjects that need to be settled. issues that need to be settled. you know, how long the interview would be, would it be under oath or not? what subjects would be covered? who would present? would a transcript be taken? all of these issues need to be resolved, and the president's statement today certainly was designed to make it look like he feels he has nothing to hide. i don't think anyone should conclude from the president's statement that it's somehow a done deal that he's going to testify in this investigation. i think it's likely he will give testimony in some form, but the parameters of that are very much unsettled. >> michael, are the negotiations between the president's legal team and his special counsel affected when the president speaks off the cuff like that.
>> i would think so, yes, it puts them in a difficult position. they're trying to negotiate all the things that jeffrey toobin just outlined. now here's the president saying i'm all in, let me have it, i've not nothing to hide. so mueller should say to ty cobb and john dowd, good, your client is all ready to go, we're all ready to go, let's do it in the map room on tuesday with a court reporter and we'll settle this thing. and i think that the unscripted appearance of the president talking about this, how to make his lawyers a bit nuts. because it's very hard to walk this back in a sense because he says i want to do it, mueller says i want to do it, then he says, well, you know what, my lawyers told me not to do it. so the question that that invites is why? why would you not do it? why did they tell you not to do it? because they think that i may put myself in jeopardy. if i do that. what is there to be putting yourself in jeopardy to if there's no collusion, and there's no obstruction? so it's a bad -- it's a bad
outcome for the president to have done this, i think, ultimately. >> david, what message do you think the president's comments send to his allies? do they now endorse the idea of the president speak bing to mueller under oath or do they say, well, look, it's a good sign he want to but should listen to the lawyers. >> i guess it's how we define allies. i'm sure his allies on capitol hill like paul ryan and mitch mcconnell would like him to simply just say, i want this to come do a swift and fair conclusion and be done with it and not do so much off the cuff talk bing about it. we saw in our most recent poll, anderson, nearly eight in ten americans say if mueller asks for him to testify under oath, he should do so. republic republicans, democrats, independents, majorities of all across parties think about that. that's different from what we've seen on other questions related to the investigation where partisanship really drives the answer. here it's nearly unanimous with eight in ten americans agreeing he should testify under oath if he's asked to do so. >> gloria, what motivation does mueller have to giving in to any
of these requests? ultimately he has subpoena power, he could play hard ball if he wants to. >> he could. i think they've had a good relationship. the president's attorneys and mueller's team have been talking for months now. they've handed over all the documents that mueller has asked for. it's gone pretty smoothly. and i think mueller is not the kind of guy who wants to play gotcha, particularly with the president of the united states. so i think he would like this to go smoothly, because don't forget, there are all these charges out there about how this investigation is tainted, and i think that's not what mueller wants. he wants to kind of have conversations that are very much on the up and up. but i do believe, and our reporting, pamela's and my reporting today, is that mueller has flat-out said to the trump team that i want your client in a face-to-face interview. and now that the client has said that he wouldn't mind doing it, i wonder what the conversations are going to be like tomorrow. >> yeah, jeff, i mean, do you
agree with that, if mueller insisted on, you know, on everything he wanted, that that could look, reflect badly on him, it would give ammunition to the president's allies to further attack him? >> well, the president's allies don't need much ammunition -- you know, much reason to attack mueller. i mean, this is a very -- a very partisan moment. but, but, you know, this does seem like, unlike so many problems in american life, a soluble problem. i mean, both sides want to get this whole issue behind them. they want to have him make a statement -- you know, give an interview, it sounds like the president is willing to do it. you know, there are a lot of details to be worked out, but i don't think a court fight. you know, the president is not
certain rights. that are different from any other person's rights. and it's a complicated legal question about, you know, how to treat him as a witness. so i think mueller recognizes that, yes, he'd probably win in court in some way at some point, but it's in his interest to wrap this thing up. >> yeah. >> as well. i think this is very likely to come to an agreement about some sort of testimony. >> you know, michael, it was interesting to hear the president tonight saying, look, when you fight back then they call that obstruction. that he's referring, or kind of, i guess, saying everything he did in terms of, you know, the relations with flynn or comey, or any of that, was in some form fighting back. >> well, so the obstruction of justice statute is a statute that is based on the intentions of the actor. was the president in doing what
he did intending to obstruct justice or was he intending to fight back as is his -- mueller will have to evaluate all the things that he did and determine whether this is fighting back or this is obstructionist behavior. that's why you need to look the wr witness in the eye in a face-to-face environment and ask them these questions and not have anything be a written lawyer response to a question that is propounded by the special counsel. and i think that if i were mueller, as we did in our independent counsel investigation, we took herbert walker bush's testimony, we were very differential to his schedule, to where the interview would take place, to when it would take place, whether we need to do it over one day or two days to accommodate liz schedule. all of that stuff. we wouldn't negotiate the scope of our questioning or desire to have it be under oath and in person and i think that mueller has the easy opportunity here to say, let's do it the way ken
starr did it with bill clinton in the maproom, under oath, under, you know, if you will, on your home turf, and be done with it. >> david -- >> antson. >> sorry, go ahead, jeff. >> well, i just think, you know, you pinpointed a very important point. you know, the president has said a lot of things but the first time he used the term, fight back, was today. and i think that is a real tell to what the defense to any charge of obstruction of justice is going to be, because he is going to say, i fired james comey not to interfere with the investigation, but to fight back against a conspiracy of anti-trump people including the director of the fbi, the deputy director, andy mccabe, and i was using my powers of the presidency and my first amendment rights as a citizen to fight back against that conspiracy i wasn't obstructing justice.
w we'll so whether mueller or anybody else buys that argument. i think we're going to hear it plenty. >> david, i know that fighting back comment really jumped out to you as well. >> yeah, it did, also for the reasons jeffrey states as it's a preview to the defense, perhaps, but also it sounded to my ear like the president is in a pr street fight here instead of a deadly serious investigation. he seemed to want toe to shift the terms of this and that's why it perked up my ear. i wonder if he envisioned himself in a pr battle than a serious legal matter. >> interesting. >> you can also fight back and obstruct justice at the same time. one does not preclude the other. i think what donald trump's lawyers are trying to do is get a roadmap. and they got sort of a roadmap from mueller. according to our reporting. about the general areas. but i think what they would like is the written questions in advance of the test. i don't think they're going to get that. >> yeah. i want to thank everybody. coming up, much more from president trump's chat with reporters before heading to
davos. the audio recording after her fired james comey. did he ask the acting director how he'd vote in the election? you'll hear the president's response. also the president's latest demands for a daca deal. we'll talk it over with senator bernie sanders who joins us ahead. she's really good at social media. she buys stocks in companies that "stand for something." you like her. she's always up on the latest trends. she got in early on the whole goat yoga thing. and her sunsets are always #nofilter. you like her. but you'd like her better if you made more money than she does. don't get mad at @just_marea. get eátrade. tens of millions of people have switched to unlimited on america's most awarded network. verizon? whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. vince, not yet. it's the network rated number one in the nation by rootmetrics eight times running. it's totally verizon. vince! n-n-no, j-j-j... we can see the sign. it's see-through.
i think they can definitely read it. still could be anything. vince, pull the thing up. w-wait, hold it! heh heh. look at that. (vo) unlimited is only as good as the network it's on. so switch to the best unlimited on the most awarded network. now buy select smartphones like the google pixel 2 and get one free. it has long been called storm of tiny bubbles, the champagne of beers. ♪ if you've got the time welcome to the high life. ♪ we've got the beer ♪ miller beer [ laughs ] rodney. bowling. classic. can i help you? it's me. jamie. i'm not good with names. celeste! i trained you. we share a locker. -moose man! -yo. he gets two name your price tools. he gets two? i literally coined the phrase, "we give you coverage options based on your budget." -that's me. -jamie! -yeah. -you're back from italy. [ both smooch ] ciao bella.
breaking news tonight, president trump chatting with reporters about 15 minutes tonight before leaving for davos, switzerswitzerland. didn't hold back when he was asked about andrew mccabe he's been at odds with. here's the audio of that. >> should mccabe go? >> well, mccabe got more than $500,000 from essentially hillary clinton and is he investigating hillary clinton? >> so should he go? >> you remember, did anybody hear many of my speeches where i talked about mccabe? he was the star of my speech. this is a nap. and i said, a man who was more or less in charge of her got -- the wife got $500,000. i mean -- >> do you regret having him as your acting fbi director then? >> yuan you know what, i keep out of it. you find that hard to believe. i kept out of it.
>> did you ask mccabe who he voted for -- >> i don't know what the big deal is. i'll ask you, who did you vote for? i don't remember that. i saw that this morning. i don't remember asking him that question. >> is is possible you did? >> i don't remember asking him the question. >> you deon't remember. >> it's also a very unimportant question. >> joining me, jennifer grand ho holm. mike, you heard the president not exactly denial, saying he doesn't seem to recall whether or not he asked that question. doesn't recall asking it. would it be appropriate if he did ask the acting director of the fbi who he voted for? >> yeah, i don't know -- in some ways, yes, some ways, no. some ways we don't ask lots of people who they voted for, but win you have people who are senior people in your administration, i don't think there's anything wrong with trying to figure out who they are, where they stand. you're making decisions on who you're putting in charge of things. >> even if they're a career civil servant, not talking af it
people work ing around the president in the white house. >> right. he probably thinks he got off easy if that's when he asked him, could have gone a lot further qurg what he knew about, what he suspected about who mccabe was, what he was and wasn't doing in his investigation. let's keep in mind what has not been fully flushed out in the investigation, the entire clinton foundation and all the money they were taking from people around the world, the e-mails that were deleted as a part of her server, there's a lot of things that were not fully investigated. when you have someone at the fbi that you know, some ties to clinton, there's some questions that can be raised there. so him asking a question like that, i think, from his perspective, he's sort of, like, taking a shot at making sure this guy knows i'm paying attention, but, you know, to say that's something you shouldn't do, if it didn't seem to go any further th further than that. said, look, i left him there, try to stay out of it. >> governor granholm, is this much adieu about nothing?
>> it's totally inappropriate to be asking a civil servant who's hatched, which means he's not allowed to engage in political activity, who he voted for. it just shows that trump believes the justice department are his personal attorneys and not serving the country, serving him. >> there have been no -- >> let her finish. let her finish. >> there's evidence apparently of him asking it. how else did it arise? this is another example of trump all of a sudden forgetting what he probably asked. but let me just say, this series of questions today, it gave reporters such a huge array of things to chew on, like we're talking about tonight. this is exactly why his lawyers do not want him to be interviewed by mueller. anderson, there was a lawsuit in 2007 where he was deposed. where donald trump was deposed. 17 176 pages. he had sued an author of a book he didn't like. his deposition was taken.
in that deposition, he had to admit he lied 30 times. he was totally unprepared. he was like in this press conference today all over the map. he does not want to be interviewed by mueller and, yes, this was an inappropriate question. >> mike, certainly reporters like it when the president, you know, speaks like this extemporaneously for is15 minut. do you think it's wise for him to do that? do you have confidence how he would do it if he was under oath speaking with mueller? >> he's saying he want to take part, saying he wants to be interviewed. of course, falling back on what the lawyers won't let him, these are all negotiated things. the scope of it, how long it is, whether or not he's getting -- we're now part of a sort of a negotiation. i think one of the interesting aspects of this is very recently, the word that came out of the white house was this investigation's wrapping up and pundits jumped on the television and said, no, that's a joke. this thing's going on forever. now we realize this thing is starting to wrap up. and here's what we know. we know that there's not been a single leak or any kind of
evidence that have come out of a very leaky investigation, a very well-run press operation, out of the mueller investigation. there's been no evidence come out of collusion with russia. >> you think the mueller investigation has been very leaky, more so than the white house? >> i think the mueller investigation -- i look forward to reading the book when this is all over of the kind of press operation they ran with the targeted leaks to get news to force people to talk about certain aspects of it. i think it's been amazing. >> you don't know that that came from mueller, though. that might have come from people who had been interviewed by mueller. >> right. yeah. sure. so my point is just to finish my point, that there has been no evidence of any collusion. and i think the reason why the president is so confident saying i will testify is because i've said this many times, anderson, he was the campaign. he was the campaign manager. he was the strategist. he was the communications director. and so in his mind, he didn't collude with russia, so how could my campaign have colluded with russia? this whole thing is absurd. he's confident to go and talk to investigators about that. now they're just negotiating with the parameters of that
testimony -- >> and the parameters of that testimony really revolving around obstruction of justice, less about collusion. and perhaps -- >> in terms of fighting back. >> that's an important point. >> let the governor -- >> i wanted to finish the point and perhaps about his financial dealings with russia, although that doesn't appear to be in the initial range of questions that mueller is going to be asking about. >> but you're talking about the initial range of questions, he's going to get one shot at interviewing the president of the united states, the idea he's going to just have one interview then later on say, oh, id like to talk to him again, that seems highly unlikely. >> it does seem highly unlikely. this is why they've got to be super careful about letting him go in. the minute he starts opening himself up to being challenged on the facts, being presented with documents that show that he's, in fact, lying, that opens a whole array of potentially other avenues they can go down. they got to be kafld. >> governor granholm, mike, appreciate your time. just ahead, what the president said about missing text messages from two fbi officials who were briefly on the mueller investigation. that's ahead.
new year, new phones for the family. join t-mobile, and when you buy one of the latest samsung phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. plus, unlimited family plans come with netflix included. so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free. all on america's best unlimited network.
we know life can be hectic. that's why, at xfinity, we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now, with instant text and email updates, you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels, so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for - because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today.
. there's breaking news tonight in the russia investigation. you're looking at live pictures of air force one at andrews air force base. the president headed to davos, switzerland, tonight, for the world economic forum. before he left, the president spoke to reporters about a number of topics including the fbi and an issue that some of his allies in congress and on fox news have used to fuel some recent conspiracy theories. the issue is missing text messages between two fbi officials peter strzok and lisa page, ro pamantically involved sent texts before and after the election that included personal feelings about multiple political figures including donald trump. strzok was taken off the russia investigation after it was discovered that he texted some anti-trump sentiments to page. missing months of texts cover december 2016 to may 2017. here's the audio of what the president said about that tonight.
>> i worry about when i look at all the things you people don't report about, what's happening, the five months' worth of missing texts, that's a lot of missing texts. oo as i said yesterday, that's primetime. so you do sort of look at that and say what is going on. you do look at certain texts where they talk about insurance policies -- >> do you trust the fbi? >> i am very disturbed as is the general. as it everybody else that is intelligent. when you look at five months, this is leap great rosemary woods. right? with a step, right? this is a large-scale version. >> 18 minutes. >> that was 18 minutes. this is five months. they say it's 50,000 texts and it's primetime. that's disturbing. >> references to nixon's secretary aside, the president keeps repeating there's 50,000
missing text messages. keeping them honest, that's the total number of text messages the inspector general reviewed on servers. the missing text messages number is unknown. there's more information about the missing messages. manu raju has that now. what have you learned? >> reporter: anderson, a law enforcement official tells cnn a technical glitch resulted in thousands of fbi phones being affect affected five-month period in which the two fbi agents' texts have gone missing. affected 10% of the fbi phones according to this law enforcement official. this has seemed to satisfy some on capitol hill including the powerful chairman of the senate intelligence committee richard burr who believes the fbi's explanation. other republicans are pushing back demanding more information sending letters to the inspector general and the justice department saying there may have been something suspicious that was going on. a anderson, this comes as a number of republicans are seizing on the text messages, themselves, including one that occurred right after election day in which the two fbi agents were
discussing a, quote, secret society in reference to trump's presidency. having to form one. now ron johnson, who's the chairman of the senate homeland security committee, told me that he spoke to an informant who said that this group was trying to meet offsite to discuss some various issues. now when i asked him what this group was about, he acknowledged he did not know, but he said this was an effort, he wanted to dig further to understand exactly what this, quote, secret society was about. now, the top democrat on that committee, anderson, tells me tonight that she has not spoken to this fbi informant, that's claire mccaskill of missouri, and it comes as democrats are saying the republicans are selectively leaking the contexts of these text messages in an effort to undercut the mueller investigation. shows you the partisan tension that remains over these investigations here on capitol hill, anderson. >> i want to explain to our viewers, they're looking at marine one there for the president arriving. going to be getting on air force one heading to davos,
switzerland, with his team. manu, when you talk about the secret society, were there multiple references to that or was it in only the one text between strzok and the woman he was seeing -- i believe -- i don't have the text in front of me, words to the effect of, you know, maybe it's time to start up that secret society or something? >> reporter: yeah. from what we know, it's the text that occurred right after election day. we have actually not seen this text message, anderson. this is only being relayed to us by republican members of congress who have reviewed these text messages. they're the once who are characterizing these contents. until we see these documents in full, we do not exactly know what they're referring to but it's very clear the republicans, themselves, don't know, either, which is what ron johnson acknowledged when i asked him that which is what he said he wants to investigate further. >> manu raju, appreciate that. joining us now is congressman charlie dent. the department of justice says the text messages are missing because of an archival problem affecting 10% of phones of the
fbi between that period. do you take the justice department at its word or share president trump's suspicions? >> no, i accept the justice department's explanation. i think a lost my colleagues got to take a deep breath, be a bit more measured and i think they ought to step back from some of these conspiracy theories, deep state. for heavens sake, sounds like we're talking about the ulliminati for heavens sake. i think we should be more measured. we've been the party of law enforcement at the state and local level and certainly been supportive of federal law enforcement. we shouldn't be doing things to undermine the american public's confidence in the justice department and the fbi at a time like this. >> it does seem startling to hear this coming from the republican side, talking about, you know, this idea of a deep state, but also, you know, secret societies within the fbi. i mean, it's not the kind of thing as you point out traditionally republicans would be arguing. >> yeah. i mean, just two years ago, many many of us on the republican side were appalled by some of
the rhetoric being used by some on the left regarding law enforcement in this country. we were pomortified about the attacks on police and law enforcement. again, i'm just surprised by this 180 degree turn at least with respect to the fbi. we have keep in mind the fbi, these agents in my community, they're out there doing anti-organized crime investigations, certainly counterterrorism investigations. they put their lives at risk. we have to keep thinking about that. not try to judge them entirely based on this one investigation that has become very politicized. i served as chair as the house ethics committee in the last congress, anderson, you know, when we did investigations, we always did them in a bipartisan manner. i couldn't do anything without the consent of my ranking member. i wish the house intelligence committee could do the same and i'm not blaming anybody here. just saying both sides have to get together. the committee operates in secret, just as the ethics committee did. you basically have to inspire confidence in the investigation by working together. and when things become so
polarized and partisan, this is what happens. things break down and there is a lot of blaming and name calling. it's not in anyone's interest. >> the president tonight asked pointblank if he trusted the fbi, didn't answer the question, didn't say if he did or has confidence in them. are you worried about long-term potential damage to this law enforcement agency which is the premier law enforcement agency if not in the world, certainly in this country? >> it well, i'm not sure what the long-term damage will be. i don't want to predict that. but all i can say is this the republican administration. this is president trump's director at the fbi, christopher wray, his attorney general, jeff sessions, and rod rosenstein, assistant attorney general. these are his people. to attack his own government just strikes me as kind of unprecedented. i'm not used to a president going after his own department. and that's what i find interesting and a bit baffling. >> the president also tonight
said he didn't remember asking andrew mccabe who he had voted for and said if he had, he didn't think that was really -- there was no problem with that. do you believe there was a problem with that and if you do, can you explain to people why you might have a problem with that? >> you mean, if asking a civil servant how they voted? >> yeah. >> yeah, i mean, look, i've been in the u.s. congress now for nearly 14 years. i can't remember any time i asked a civil servant how he or she voted or for that matter anybody else who came into my office to talk to me about a given issue. i never asked. i never thought it was my business. this speaks to the issue of what are limits of propriety? i remember a few months ago the president got into some trouble, went to a boy scouts jamboree and gave a campaign speech to the bow scouty scouts. i've been involved with the boy
scouts. those are things i never did. there are things you don't do, don't cross certain lines. and in this case, i wouldn't ask a career civil servant how he voted. awkward at the very least and inappropriate. >> charlie dent, i appreciate your time, thank you. ahead, president trump talking about immigration speaking specifically about the so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers saying, "it's going to happen at some point in the future." question is does that mean an actual deal? we'll talk to senator bernie sanders in a moment. . oh really? thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms... again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management. directv has been rated number one in customer satisfaction over cable for 17 years running.
but some people still like cable. just like some people like pre-shaken sodas. having their seat kicked on an airplane. being rammed by a shopping cart. sitting in gum. and walking into a glass door. but for everyone else, there's directv. for #1 rated customer satisfaction over cable, switch to directv and get a $200 reward card. call 1.800.directv but he's got work to do. with a sore back. so he took aleve this morning. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. tylenol can't do that. aleve. all day strong. all day long. and for pain relief and a good night's rest, try aleve pm for a better am.
continuing with our breaking news. in his off-camera session with journalists tonight president trump also talked again about immigration and those hundreds of thousands so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers. this time as he has in the past sounding a bit more pliable, i guess you could say, saying he'd accept a pathway to citizenship for them but still wants money for his wall. take a listen. >> we're going to morph into it. it's going to happen. at some point. >> what does that mean?
>> over a period of 10 to 12 years, somebody does a great job, they've worked hard. it gives incentive to do a great job. but they've worked hard. they've done terrifically whether they have a little company or whether they work or whatever they're doing, if they do a great job, i think it's a nice thing to have the incentive of after a period of years, being able to become a citizenship. >> how many years, mr. president? >> we're looking at 10 or 12. >> 10 or 12 years? >> march 5th, are you going to protect them, extend the deadline? >> yeah, i might do that. >> how much do you need for your wall, mr. president, $20 billion? >> i'm going to build it way under budget. putting down $25 billion for the wall. >> should these dreamers be concerned they could be deported on march 5th if a deal is not reached? >> tell them not to be concerned. okay? >> they have nothing -- >> tell them not to worry. we're going to solve the problem. >> clarify one thing -- >> it's up to the democrats but they should not be concerned. >> mr. president -- >> can we just clarify one thing? >> we're going to put in a fund. $25 billion in a fund.
>> all up front? >> we have $25 billion. >> still want chain migration. lottery. as part of the -- >> we're going to put in the initial -- we're putting chain, negotiated chain, we're putting a replacement for lottery or an end to lottery. it could be a replacement. we bring people in from various countries that come in based on merit and various other reasons. and we are going to build a wall. so those three primary things. >> all of this against the background of the deadline of february 8th when the government again supposed to run out of money. senator majority leader mcconnell indicating he would be open to some sort of dream d.r.e.a.m.er legislation. senator bernie sanders joins me now. you heard the president saying he is open to citizenship for d.r.e.a.m.ers over the course of 10 to 12 years, would morph into that. for any d.r.e.a.m.ers out there, they shouldn't be concerned. do you think they should take the president at his word? at this point, and what do you think of what he said.
>> unfortunately, anderson, as i think most americans know, the president says one thing today, another thing tomorrow, depending on who got to him last. sadly, the president lies a whole lot of times. but it is important to understand that we have a moral crisis in front of us. we have 800,000 young people who came to this country when they were 2 or 3 years of age. they know no other country. working, 20,000 of them are teachers. they're in school. they're in the military. this is their home. and the idea that they could lose the legal status that trump took away from them and faced deportation would be an incredible moral stain on this country. 80% of the american people think that we should maintain legal status for these young people and the vast majority of
americans think there should be a path toward citizenship. now the good news is that senator durbin and senator graham have crafted legislation. not what i would write, but it's a decent piece of legislation. which provides legal status to the d.r.e.a.m.ers. it has now we think six or seven republicans who are supporting it. that mean, we have 56, 57 members of the united states senate who are supporting it. we think we have a strong majority in the house who are supporting it. this is what the american people want and i hope trump will support that effort. >> it as you know, the white house said they're going to unveil what they want on monday of next week. clearly, what they call chain migration, is on the table. rethinking, you know, some sort of lottery or the lottery program and $25 billion for the border wall. is that something you and the democrats would support if it meant a permanent solution for d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> well, let me just say this. i think a wall made a whole lot
of sense in the 15th century when china built the great wall. i think what most security experts understand is that you can protect the border in a much more cost effective way with modern technology. so if we want to save money, if we want to protect the border, there are ways to do it other than the wall that trump is proposing. which the vast majority of the american people, by the way, do not want, and it is, in my view -- but at the end of the day, what is absolutely imperative, will be a lot of negotiations and i look forward to seeing the day come sooner or later where the 800,000 young people do not have to live in the kind of anxiety and fear that they're living in today. >> so for you, that's the number one priority in an immigration deal? >> yes. >> the d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> yes. it is. it is. but what i also want to say, i think sometimes we push it aside, when we talk about the
budget crisis that we're facing, the united states of america, anderson, has a $4 trillion government. $4 trillion. we are now into the fourth continuing resolution, going on five months in which a $4 trillion government says we will spend money exactly this year the way we spent it last year. can you think of a business, think of a large business like amazon saying, oh, we'll do exactly the same we did last year, same priorities. they would lose tens of billions of dollars and probably go bankrupt. you cannot run a government in an ever-changing world, all kinds of crises and say we're going to do exactly what we did last year. one of the reasons i voted against this continuing resolution is we have major crises facing this country. we have 27 million people in the community health center program. that program has not been
reauthorized for 3 1/2 months. people are going to lose their ability to get health care and dental care. it's a crisis. we have 30,000 vacancies in the veteran's administration. veterans are not going to be able to get the quality and timely care that they need. we have a massive underfunding and understaffing of the social security administration. people who are old. people with disabilities. >> yeah. >> cannot get the service they need. we have got to address those problems now. >> the fact that minority leader schumer says talks are starting over, in his term, that funding for the wall is off the table now, is that helpful? because the president seem to be very clear that if there is no wall, there is no daca. >> well, you know, we will see how the negotiations go. i think what schumer was upset about is he and trump sat down, and i think schumer felt that they had reached an agreement and that once again trump pulled the rug out from underneath him.
but bottom line is there needs to be negotiations. i think there are serious republicans here who want to do the right thing. and we've got to work together to make sure that these young people get the legal status that they need and have a path toward citizenship. >> senator sanders, appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. ahead, the white house attorney reportedly had a different talk on whether president trump will do an interview with special counsel robert mueller. different take, i should say. the details on that. reaction to all this from former cia director general michael hayden. there's a vacation at the end of every week with hilton.
imagine what we can do for glaucoma, even cataracts. if we can use dna to diagnose the rarest of diseases, imagine what we can do for the conditions that affect us all. imagine what we can do for you. president trump told reporters torrent that he's looking forward to talking about to special counsel robert mueller. that he said he'd love to do and under oath. now according to to the new york times a white house lawyer is walking that back. ty cob said he was speaking fast
and only meant to say he was willing to meet with the team not volunteering to testify under oath. former cia director hayden joips us now. your reaction to trump saying hepted to talk under oath. as long as his attorneys were fine with it. >> i thought it was breaking news. but good news. and look, there's a cloud over the presidency. we can debate why there's a cloud. there's no doubt there's a cloud. both the president and a america will be well served by getting out from under this cloud. i see no way that we do this to the satisfaction of most americans until the president talks to bob mueller. no one would should talk to the burr owe without their counsel. his instinct is i have to do
this. >> those who raise concerns if the president is just speaking on the record under oath to the special counsel. who knows what he may say. if he goes off on a tangent. the example being tonight talking to reporters minutes later what some hour later his attorney is already walking back what the president himself said. in just a 15 minute q and a with reporters. thst really no telling what the president might say under oath. >> i understand that. i have a great respect for drelkt director mueller and the team. they will be disciplined and demand the president answer the questions. what the president says will matter no matter what kind of intersen intervention the president lawyers might say. what the cap pain meant to say it. that won't hold water. what the president says is going to matter. >> the president cast doubt on the fbi as a whole.
saying he's disturbed and the missing texts are worse than water gate. if he had confidence in or trusted the fbi. and he didn't answer he didn't say he did. what do you think -- that does aid to the moral of the fbi. also just does it do real damage to the fbi? >> that's the real point. moral matters. personal integrity matters. the feelings of people who go in harms way every day for america matters. fundamentally what matters is the health of the institutions on which the democracy relies or safety and liberty. that's the intelligence community. that's the department of justice. that's the fbi. and as this circle has tightened you have seen the president and a lot of supporters of the president almost reflectively attack the integrity of the institutions. and i fear greatly no matter how this turns out, we'll harm these bodies on which we must rely.
whatever happens to the bureau right now, we'll need it again in the future. and so we should be careful not to damage it. >> it's incredible this is coming from the republican side. traditionally strong on supporting law enforcement. and state local and federal level. this is a day after senator republican senator ron johnson was spreading rumors about secret societies within the fbi. having off sight meetings and saying they had an informer. confirming based on the one text sent by the fbi agent. >> yeah. i have spoken with ja senator johnson in the past. she's a very serious man. dedicated to the united states. and there's a bit of difference in both content and tone from what senator johnson said yesterday. and what he's saying today sfwl he backed off the idea there was an informer who confirmed the secret society notion. >> that was really struck. a little bit ago on your show.
congressman dent a republican from pennsylvania was really trying to calm the waters here. saying we all need to settle down. and quick reflectively attacking the institutions. that actually was very heartening. coming from a republican. >> it is just such a -- again if one had heard this rhetoric from the left, a few years ago. perhaps it wouldn't be surprising. about the fbi or the idea there was a within the fbi. coming from the republicans it just seems we're in inchartered waters. >> i'm sorry i'm smiling. i have heard from rhetoric from the left. when i was in government. the presumption of guilt the presumption that there was nefarious activity going on. we generally got a pass. that's not a good thing from the right. institutions need to be held up to the light of day. it's a bit unusual from the
right. and actually the almost viciousness of the attack is really unusual from either right or left. >> general hayden, appreciate your time. we'll be right back. so, you can watch all your netflix favorites on your new samsung phones. join the un-carrier and get a samsung galaxy s8 free. all on america's best unlimited network.
[ horn honking ] [ engine revving ] what's that, girl? [ engine revving ] flo needs help?! [ engine revving ] take me to her! ♪ coming, flo! why aren't we taking roads?! flo. [ horn honking ] -oh. you made it. do you have change for a dollar? -this was the emergency? [ engine revving ] yes, i was busy! -24-hour roadside assistance. from america's number-one motorcycle insurer. -you know, i think you're my best friend. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. that's okay. thanks for watching 360. time to hand it over to chris cuomo for cuomo "prime time." >> breaking tonight it is on. in a surprise statement to the media. trump just said he wants to meet with bob mueller under