tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN November 19, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
>> reporter: the jokes keep coming. people in finland and across the world continue to post using #raga and # rake america great again. thanks to all of you for joining us. anderson is next. john berman in here. remember the chance of lock her up? someone else has an e-mail problem and she is close to the president, as close as his own daughter. we will have that breaking news shortly. first, think about your thoughts the day after the 9/11 attacks. do you remember how you felt when george w. bush stood at ground zero and said this? >> i can hear you. the rest of the world hears you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. >> how did you feel back then?
how about on this day nearly ten days later? >> tonight, i can report to the american people and to the world that the united states has conducted an operation that killed osama bin laden, the leader of al qaeda and a terrorist who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children. >> if you were as relieved and proud to hear president obama say those words as you were angry and proud when president bush spoke into the bull horn, you wouldn't be alone. osama bin laden wounded this country in a way that could not fully heal until he was captured or killed. people haven't forgotten that. we haven't forgotten this famous photo from the situation room nor the sacrifices that made this moment possible nor the work of s.e.a.l. team six and the gratitude that they came home safely and gratitude for everyone because it helped heal this horrible wound. you would think that no one
would have anything but a kind word for anyone involved with that operation let alone the admiral who oversaw it all. however, there is an exception. he happens to be commander in chief. president trump has a beef with retired admiral william mccraven in charge of s.e.a.l. team 6. it should be necessary to mention he wrote a fundamental textbook on special ops. we shouldn't have to say they retired a highly decorated commander or the highly respected chancellor of the university of texas system. we shouldn't have to say he left that job to battle chronic leukemia or he is widely regarded by republicans, democrats, civilians as the opposite of a political animal. we shouldn't have to say any of it except the president of the united states has made admiral mccraven a target. >> bill mccraven, retired admiral, navy s.e.a.l., former head of --
>> hillary clinton fan excuse me, hillary clinton fan. >> who led the operations that took down saddam hussein and kaled osama bin laden says your sentiment is the greatest threat to democracy. >> he is a hillary clinton backer and an obama backer. and frankly -- >> he is a navy s.e.a.l. >> it would have been nice to get osama bin laden sooner than that. living in pakistan in what i guess i consider a nice mansion. i have seen nicer. >> that is the president this weekend on fox news. the apparent trigger the criticism of the president's attack on the press. we know the president is a counter puncher. keeping them honest, nothing the president hits back with in this case if that is what he is doing has the weight of truth behind it, just the opposite. his suggestion that admiral mccraven's operators were
responsible for locating bin laden? not true. s.e.a.l. team six got orders. as for the claim that admiral mccraven is or was a hillary clinton backer? it is kind of the same thing as saying the current head of special operations is a trump backer. admiral mccraven served during the obama administration and the bush administration. he backed neither. democrats and republicans who know him know that and have said so. the republican party tweeted worth noting retired eeadmiral s reportedly on hillary clinton's short list for vice president. he is hardly a nonpolitical figure they say. that is true. onest, part of - admiral mccraven was briefly mentioned as a running mate for hillary clinton and mentioned as a possible national security adviser to president trump.
colleagues of all stripes have praised him as being nonpartisan. is the president projecting here just a little bit? you can decide for yourself. does the president project at times and try to diminish the kind of qualities that he himself lacks? take a look. >> he's not a war hero. >> he is a war hero because he was captured. i like people that weren't captured. i hate to tell you. >> the president has mocked gold star parents. he said none of the risks that s.e.a.l. team six took and fighting or dying would have been necessary if the country had only listened to him. listen to what he tweeted today. of course, we should have captured osama bin laden long before we did. i pointed him out in my book just before the attack on the world trade center. president clinton famously missed his shot. we pay pakistan billions of dollars and they never tell us he was living there. fools. he seems to be saying he warned
us all, but no one listened. think about that. read the book, he says, then you will see. keeping them honest, we did read the book. it's called "the america we deserve." here is the passage in question. one day we are told that a shadowy figure is public enemy number one and u.s. jet fighters. he escapes under some rock and a few new cycles later it is on to a new enemy and a new crisis. that is all. not exactly paul revere's midnight ride. and there is more to the story. jim acosta joins us now with the latest. president trump seemed to pivot from his attacks as the day went on. what is he saying now? >> there was a lot of bipartisan criticism coming in after he went after admiral mccraven. he put out the tweet going after bill clinton saying the clinton administration missed their
shot. u.s. forces did try to take out osama bin laden in the late 1990s. the president neglects to mention that 9/11 happened under president george w. bush and they put the focus back on capturing osama bin laden. i should point out this is just not outraging democrats but outraging republicans. i spoke to a key g.o.p. congressional aid who said this is pathetic coming from the president. as you mentioned, not even accurate as u.s. intelligence was in charge of finding bin laden. it was the navy sea.e.a.l.s who got them. >> it is different than what he was saying when bin laden was killed. >> there is a statement for everything. the president when he was then citizen trump, then businesman trump told our colleague over at the "new york times" back in
2011 after the bin laden raid was successful and took out osama bin laden he gave a statement saying i want to congratulate president obama and u.s. forces on a job well done. that is a pretty big departure from what he had been saying. >> a job well done overseen by admiral mccraven. >> thank you so much. joining us now, someone who served with the admiral, also cnn global affairs analyst max boot. i want to start with you. president trump maintains that he has quote done more for the military than any president in many, many years and that nobody has been more with the military than he has as president. so how does that square with what he is now saying about admiral mccraven? >> i'm not sure it does square. certainly there has been a key budget increase over the last year, not truthfully all that
significant compared to past budget increases. i'm trying to kind of square that with the way he has coordinated with our allies, the ways he has made it tougher in some cases for our military to maintain those alliances, to counter some of the things that are going on around the world, the broadening of various threats and how we are addressing them from a national security standpoint, the veterans administration. there has been a lot of talk about fixing some of the short comings there, but not a whole lot of action. just this week i know you have seen the other scandal that has occurred with g.i. bill payments. there is this continued mantra. one of the concerns i have is the continued politicalization of the military. who is on the left? who is on the right? it is all being generated by
politicians, not the military themselves because they swear their oath to the constitution. this is damaging to men and women who wear the uniform. they sign up to do a job. they don't fight for one individual. they support and defend the constitution of the united states. and the politicalization of the military, the intelligence community and law enforcement is increasingly dangerous in my view. >> as the president somehow comes across and comes up with this criticism of the bin laden raid, you know this falls neatly into a pattern that this president has which is making his career on second guesses. >> he is a genius at decision making but only after the facts. he loves to come back and say i would have done something differently. i would have run into the school and confronted the shooter. you saw him after the california forest fire saying it was mismanagement. they should have raked the forest. you saw it after game four of the world series where he said the dodgers made a mistake in
yanking their starting pitcher and the implication is that donald trump, all knowing, he would have done something differently. there is zero evidence of that in any of these cases including this one because there is no evidence as you pointed out that he ever actually said we needed to be going after osama bin laden prior to 9/11. all he said in that passage you quoted was there is this guy out there named bin laden getting a lot of attention and then we move on to something else. now he is trying to suggest that almost as if i donald trump had given the cia the gps coordinates. >> like smoky bear and rambo all wrapped up into one. when you talk about the politicalization of the military, that is serious. no one thinks that the military is above reproach and doesn't deserve criticism at times. the president seems to be
looking at it exclusively through a political lens. >> some in the military are picking up on that and it is unfortunate that some are even gearing this way. we are seeing people choosing left and right who are wearing the uniform and having worn the uniform for almost four decades, i counted this afternoon how many presidents i served under. i had to forcibly count that. it was five republicans and three democrats. and bill mccraven was in the same time i was. i would guess he served under the same kind. it didn't make a difference to me. we served the constitution and the pleasure of the president as long as they were getting legal and moral orders. unfortunately, the president continues to use the military as props. he likes to stand in front of them. he likes to use them for parades or hopeful parades and change
policy that seems to go along with an ideology that is not in line with what the military does and what we have built in terms of the strength of the military. what is dangerous in all of this is less than one percent of america serves in the military. people who are commenting about what the military should and shouldn't be and should and shouldn't support, it's all i can say is it is dangerous because we built a very strong military over the last 40 years. it's coming under quite a bit of criticism from our president right now which is unfortunate. >> general heartily notes that president trump likes to use the military as props. critics over the last two weeks have noted that may be true except if it is raining in france or veterans day and he doesn't want to go to arlington or if there is a general who has been critical of him. it's interesting. >> he is very quick to throw the military under the bus. he loves my military and the primary evidence is the fact
that he signed off on higher defense budgets that came from republicans on capitol hill. he convenes by going to a war cemetery in france. he didn't budge out of the white house on veterans day. he also has not visited the troops in the field. he spent over four months of his presidency. he has not spent one day visiting troops in the field. the worse thing he has done is politicizing the military with this crack pot deployment of troops to the border for no reason other than to serve as a political stunt. i noticed today the army said those troops were going to go home even though the caravan has not reached the border which under lines the fact that there was no military necessity for the deployment. that is a very dangerous precedent using the troops for political purposes. >> it is interesting because as we started the segment with we noted the president seems to suggest he has the full backing of the military, he did back
track on something today. it was the fact that he did not visit arlington on veterans day. he said he should have. you almost never see the president admitting a mistake. he admitted a mistake. i wonder if it is because he is starting to get criticism from within this group of people whose support he is perhaps taking for granted. >> that could possibly be true. i also think it is an understanding that he is losing the trust and confidence of those who wear the uniform. an interesting factor is leadership is all about generating that trust. that only comes when you say the right things, do the right things and put yourself in harm's way. certainly a president wouldn't do that. the troops need to know that he is on their side. they need to know that they can trust him and that he has an integrity. these continued incidents i think are wearing away at the trust. we are seeing that in some of the polls taken within the military in terms of percentages
supporting trump right now as opposed to when he was first elected. that also all concerns me, as well. >> as always, we thank you for your time and your service. thanks for being here. appreciate it. next, ivanka trump's e-mail problem, using private e-mail for official government business problem. later the white house backs down with the legal clash over press access. is the president listening? we have a tweet to help you decide. stick around. once i started looking for it was a no-brainer. i switched to geico and saved hundreds. that's a win. but it's not the only reason i switched. the geico app makes it easy to manage my policy. i can pay my bill, add a new driver, or even file a claim. woo, hey now! that's a win-win. thank you! switch to geico®. it's a win-win.
♪ bum-bum-bum-bum-bum t-mobile believes it's better to give than to receive. some may disagree. (scream) no! others won't believe it. no! no! and some just won't have the words. (laugh) join t-mobile and get the samsung galaxy s9 free. we look forward to your reactions. (scream) ♪ bum-bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ the greatest wish of all... is one that brings us together. the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with $0 down, $0 due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer.
little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla,75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. 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. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.
♪ the kenya tea development agency is an organization that is owned by tea farmers. every week we sell this tea, we get paid in multiple accounts. we were looking for a bank to provide a safe and efficient technology platform to pay our farmers. citi was the only one that was able to ensure that this was done seamlessly. and today, at the touch of a button, all the farmers are able to get their money, pay school fees and improve their standard of living.
with citi, we see a bright future for our farmers and their families. ♪ the president certainly has had plenty to say over the years about hillary clinton's e-mails and fans yell lock her up at rallies. it will be interesting to see what he has to say about this. as it turns out his daughter used her personal e-mail account for government business. the washington post was the first to report this story tonight.
washington post reporter joins are we talking about here?mails- what did she use her personal e-mail for? >> she used personal e-mail to e-mail white house aides, others in the government about government business from her west wing office and from the administration. and in those e-mails, white house found many were in violation of the federal records act which requires government business to be done on government e-mails. >> what timeframe are we talking bet here? this is just before she entered the administration and shortly after. >> it goes into fall 2017. the administration did a review in response to a freedom of information request acts for documents from the public and found a number of e-mails from ivanka trump. her lawyer was called in to do a review and to make sure that
everything was forwarded to a government account. >> do you have response from the white house about this yet? >> the white house declined to comment. they referred all questions to her outside lawyer in our story. we included the comments. it was rare that she did it. it was occasional and not like hillary clinton's e-mail use according to her lawyer. it was far less frequent and no server in her basement. we put in an extensive comment. >> her personal lawyer was the initial vetter who vetted the e-mails and decided what would turn over to the government and what was not. there have been comparisons between ivanka trump's e-mails and hillary clinton. what are the differences here? >> we have no proof that there was classified information sent from ivanka trump's with the reclassification that was done on hillary clinton's afterwards. we think if it is less frequent.
and it stopped when she was told to stop. we are told she stopped doing it now. we are still continuing to report it and figure out if there is more to the story. >> one of the things i read in the article is that people inside the white house were not just surprised about the volume of personal e-mail use but also her initial explanation which was what? >> people in the white house were startled by the fact that she seemed to be the highest offender. when they approached her about it she expressed ignorance of the rules and said she did not know and all had to be done on the government e-mail server and she did not realize she was so in the wrong. that surprised so many folks in the white house. your father ran a campaign chanting lock her up. so it seemed startling to people in the white house that she would not have had more
foresight to preserve her e-mails. >> it is hard to imagine who lived through 2016 to be surprised by rules. thanks so much for the reporting. appreciate you being with us. >> thanks for having me. with me now, two former federal prosecutors jeffrey toobin. jeff, irony is dead. is ivanka trump in legal trouble? >> i doubt it. most people realize that government officials do use their private e-mail occasionally. hillary clinton did it, too. it is not fundamentally a big deal. the news media made it a big deal. donald trump made it a big deal. this is not a -- it's technically not within the rules, but everybody in government does it. this is the problem. this is why hillary clinton got a very raw deal. >> in terms of irony, off the
charts. >> and i feel personal responsibility for this. i spent a lot of time here on cnn talking about hillary clinton's e-mails. i think we talked about it too much. i think we made a bigger deal than it should have, but it fundamentally is not that big a deal. >> ivanka trump's attorney said she did occasionally use private e-mail for business and says none of the e-mails contained classified information. >> so one of the things that came up a lot with secretary clinton is were the e-mails classified? it looked like a number of them turned out to be classified. here is the big concern. one is that other e-mails servers can be hacked. you want all the government security that you can have. you want the e-mails to be within the government server. it really becomes a question there are always freedom of information acts and a reason to
preserve documents and the government should control the e-mails and have access. the one thing i think i would disagree a little bit with is it is part of being in government. people may do it but it is important to use government e-mails. at the end of the day, the thing that is stunning about this is there is incredible hypocrisy. she knew this was a huge issue. to disregard it as though you are above the rules is problematic. >> the incredible arrogance is with a measure of stupidity thinking that after watching this campaign which she had a pretty good seat for and then not being scruppule s about e-mail practs is remarkable. >> she didn't know the rules after a year of a campaign. >> and having sat through all the campaign events with her father where all he talked about were personal servers and personal e-mails.
it is a big difference between her and hillary clinton. she was the secretary of state. we lived through years of this conversation. >> by the way, earlier there were similar reports about jared kushner doing something very similar. i think it just under lines what a phony issue the e-mail issue was about hillary clinton. they knew it was bogus because they did the same thing and they obviously don't think it was a big deal. it was a bogus issue about hillary clinton. i think they are acknowledging in a way that it is bogus for them. >> do you think the house oversight committee might do with the issue? >> it is very possible they would call her in to testify or call others in to testify. he is right. she is not the only one to do it. at the end of the day, one of the questions i have is why did it go on for so long.
cnn has dropped the lawsuit. speaking of decorum, the president has been busy lately on the old twitter machine. here is what he said about adam shif. before i read it decorum requires a warning. you can probably tell where this is going. so funny to see little adam schitt talking about the fact that matt whit taker was not affirmed. joining us now two mean who have seen all kinds of behavior from all kinds of presidents. the president said decorum was needed in the white house yet he doesn't appear to be very concerned with his own decorum regarding congressman schiff.
>> i think this has been a significant victory for cnn and for the country. we have now reinforced through the courts and the white house backing down, reinforced the first amendment. we go back to work. what we have to see is a night of ironies. an irony here is that this is a white house that prides itself on i don't know how many regulations it has erased. now coming into place a set of regulations with regard to the press. we have to see how the regulations enforce. are they going to allow reporters to continue asking a follow up or not. that is critical. >> no follow-ups seems like a rule at a briefing.
>> back to the issue of decorum here, if this is how the president reacts before he takes over the house intelligence committee, what do you think we will see from the president once he has subpoena power? >> the whole question of the president's decorum on a daily basis in terms of traditional norms, the question answers itself. what is much more important and the least demonstrable area where we see the president day after day with no concern for decorum is the line. line is not decorous to go back to the definition of decorum. line is the opposite of decorum. that is what all issues come back to. this is a dangerous presidency. this is nothing to make light of. irony is dead and all the rest. this is a dangerous presidency.
it's dangerous to the truth. it's dangerous to the national security. it's dangerous to the western alliance. that is what we keep learning is the danger of this president and what he does. the rules don't apply to him and to his family. they don't apply to his daughter. we see one thing after another, but really lack of decorum comes back to questions of honesty. that is where there is no decorum in this white house. >> to follow up on that point, david, the president says -- >> he says it is nothing to make light of here in this case. how should democrats handle it? what is the right way to handle it? everything from the sliding scale all the way to the e-mails. what are the risks and pit falls for them? >> the major risk is that of
overplaying our hands when a new congress is voted in from the party. there is a tendency to want to push forward on all fronts, take down the president if you can. as we saw as far away as newt gingrich coming into power in 1994. he overplayed his hand and really wound up not damaging only him but the body itself. this case what the democrats need to do in the next few days is to demonstrate they can come together and bridge differences on the choice of a speaker and who is going to be doing what within the house. so you have people who emerge as spokes men or unofficial spokes men for the party and can carry the fight or the cooperation on to the air waves and speak incredibly about things. >> you noted that you feel as if the president is acting like he is backed into a corner now.
>> i think that the election returns were a real rejection of donald trump and his method and his lying and the way he has done the business of the presidency. i think that is really how republicans, many of them if you talk to them on the hill in private are interpreting the election. they are worried about going forward with this president in 2020 in ways that they perhaps were not before the mid terms. it all comes back to this question of supporting a president who cannot come to a basic truth about his business, the country's business, the business of the western alliance. we keep coming back to this notion that we don't have the best obtainable version of the truth except in our reporting. that is why the lawsuit was so important. what has been upheld is the
prerogatives of the press under the first amendment. yes, the white house gets to make the rules if they are applied fairly and evenly, let them promulgate rules if they are and apply them across the board in a fair manner, but we have seen nothing of this sort. we have seen a war on truth by this president and that is what even today's events, all of this about decorum, all of this about ivanka trump. it is about the truth. she didn't know the rules? we keep coming back to it. >> i will note that no one has agreed to the idea of rules that don't allow follow up questions at briefing. we'll see what happens there. those aren't rules. >> very important. >> david, both of you have talked a little bit about republicans here. i will note when it comes to the issue of admiral mccraven, marco
rubio spoke out. i have seen republicans step forward and say directly in some cases that the president crossed the line and speaking out in support of mccraven. do you think that republicans if the president approaches will take a harder stand? >> i think the republicans are now starting to distance themselves with increasing frequency from the president. they realize that he could become a liability within the next few months. they are beginning to speak for themselves as opposed to being held hostage by the white house which is what we have seen a lot of in the first two years. that's a healthy thing for the republican party. i think it is something fundamental about the importance of truth. we are going to learn tomorrow, for example. we should be hearing from the white house what the president has finally decided about khashoggi. is he going to speak the truth
about this or not. it is a really important issue again and again and again. >> thanks so much for being with us. appreciate it. coming up after claiming multiple times that he was willing and eager to sit down for an interview, the president has changed his tune. does he have a point or is he rattled? presenting the internet! whoa! what's he doing? come on, let's check it out! nice. he's pretty good at this. hm! it's like a game! (gasps) woo-hoo! got it! which car should we get? all of 'em! ooh, yeah! that one! this one looks nice. yes, and yes. i like this game. i think we're winning! delivery? where? (doorbell rings) (man) it's here! what? (announcer) save $1,000 from carvana
the president says he has completed his written answers to questions in robert mueller's investigation and it wasn't a big deal and will be submitted at some point very soon. the president sat down for an interview on fox news. it seems more unlikely than ever that he will sit down with an interview with the mueller team. >> is that your final position that there is no sit down interview or nothing written in person on obstruction? >> i would say probably. i can change my mind, but probably. i think we have wasted enough time on this witch hunt. the answer is probably. we are finished. >> one in 100? >> i don't do odds. >> you run casinos. >> and very successfully.
we gave very complete answers to a lot of questions that i shouldn't have even been asked. i think that should solve the problem. i hope it solves the problem. if it doesn't, i'll be told and we will make a decision at that time. probably this is the end. >> of course, this contradicts what the president has said many times in the past about his willingness to sit down for an interview with mueller. >> we have done nothing wrong. >> would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version? >> 100%. >> i would love to speak. i would love to go. nothing i want to do more. >> are you going to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it, actually. >> i would love to speak. nobody wants to speak more than me. against my lawyers, because most lawyers never speak with anything. >> would you elect to testify? >> are you more likely to set an
interview now? >> my lawyers are working on that. i always wanted to do an interview because there has been no collusion. >> just before air time i spoke with democratic congressman jim heinz of connecticut, a member of the house intelligence committee. >> after months and months of saying he is happy to sit down with the special counsel, now an about face from the president says he probably won't. did you ever really believe that he wanted to, though? >> i believe he wanted to. whether he was going to be permitted to do so is a totally different question. my guess is that from the very beginning president trump's lawyers were telling him he had no business going in front of the special counsel and hence we are where we are. there has always been different versions of this. bill clinton testified and now we have written questions. we'll see where it goes from here. >> kellyanne conway claimed that the president is not afraid to
sit down with mueller. he just doesn't believe it is necessary. is that really true here? do you think that it is important or would be important to hear what the president has to say? >> what is important is that there is a mechanism for the special counsel to ask the president whatever questions the special counsel may have. that is sort of an important constitutional principle that no person in the united states including the president of the united states is above the law. whether you do it the way bill clinton did it when he was being investigated or however you do it so long as the special counsel feels that he has had the opportunity to ask every single question that is pertinent to the investigation, that is the important thing. >> the question claimed contrary to reports that he had no idea that the acting attorney general had said what he said on cnn among other places that he opposed the mueller investigation. do you believe that the president had no idea that he had these opinions? >> i don't believe that for a second. i think the president demanded
to know who he might get away with that position that would be most inclined to share his view of the investigation. the president being dishonest is not a rare thing. it's a daily if hourly thing. of course, i don't believe that at all. i think this was not only was it done for the reason of keeping an option on eroding -- you don't need to end the investigation. whittaker could simply cut the budget of the investigation. there is no question in my mind that the timing and orchestration of this acting attorney general was directed very fispecifically by the president to keep an option. >> he could step in the way of indictments and step in the way of subpoenas which is why i ask you if you have seen evidence. in theory, he does have that power which is why some senate democrats filed a lawsuit declaring his appointment as attorney general unconstitutional saying that such an appointment requires senate confirmation. do you think their lawsuit has
merit? >> well, congress should stand up and say not withstanding the litigation that will occur around the appointments clause of the constitution and whether this is a principle officer or not. it is clear that he should be senate confirmed. the other thing here is that whittaker is on record talking in an adverse way about this investigation. so whether or not the courts decide that he needs to be senate confirmed it is clear that given that he goes into this with an adverse opinion on this investigation, he should recuse himself right away. >> what percentage chance do you think there is of that? >> zero. >> thank you very much for your time. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> so let's check in with chris to see what he is working for for
the top the of the hour. >> you have to ask yourself about the tactics sometimes. is that really the battle for them to have about matthew whitaker? is it going to change anything? should they wait and see what happens and take action as they need to? i don't get it. it's amazing. i believe the best book to be written about the president will be the luckiest man in the history of the game. even the democrats help him. we will look at the truth about what happened with the hunt for osama bin laden. what it means the president after admiral mcraven. we will talk about the latest from monica lewinsky and how much we didn't know. >> that's an interesting documentary series she's part of. thank you very much. see you in a few minutes. as millions of americans are getting ready for the thanksgiving travel adventure, news of another troubling development in the federal air marshal program. an investigation into more than 200 cases of air marshal alleged misconduct involving mishaps with firearms.
♪ bum-bum-bum-bum-bum t-mobile believes it's better to give than to receive. some may disagree. (scream) no! others won't believe it. no! no! and some just won't have the words. (laugh) join t-mobile and get the samsung galaxy s9 free. we look forward to your reactions. (scream) ♪ bum-bum-bum-bum-bum i felt i couldn't be at my best for my family., in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up
and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret. ♪ the greatest wish of all... is one that brings us together. the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with $0 down, $0 due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.
only at your lincoln dealer. welcome to emirates mr. jones. just sit back, relax and let us entertain you... ...with over 3,500 channels of entertainment, including the latest movies and box sets from around the world. ( ♪ ) we even have live sports and news channels. ( ♪ ) and your free wi-fi will start shortly. enjoy your flight mr. jones. world's best inflight entertainment. fly emirates. fly better.
the annual thanksgiving travel ordeal will soon be upon us. for the millions who will try, there's more troubling news about the federal air marshal program. drew griffin has been looking into the program for a decade. tonight has a new exclusive report. >> reporter: these documents released to cnn through a freedom of information act request reveal more than 200 cases of alleged misconduct by federal air marshals involving firearms. men and women supposed by well trained to use their weapons in one of the most dangerous environments, misplacing, misfiring, even accidentally and not so accidentally shooting themselves. documents released to cnn include 19 accidental discharges, including an air
marshal who caused a gunshot wound to his foot. another accidentally discharged his in a hotel room hitting a television in an adjoining room. three times air marshals have left them in an airplane rest room. in 13 cases, alcohol was involved. after releasing the documents, invited cnn to the air malshars trainin ing ing academy. >> we look at what was the underlying cause, what happened, where, if and when training failed, how and why did it fail? our goal as a training department is to strive for 0% error. >> reporter: it's hard to compare if they are more or less dangerous with republicans because the number of air
marshals is classified. former air marshals say any mishap is unacceptable, because their agents operate at 34,000 feet. >> there's no backup. you have got to take care of business. you gotta do it very quickly and efficiently. >> reporter: henry preston says he on servbserved a decline in s practice, inconsistencies that could contribute to mistakes. >> they need training. there's no doubt about it. >> reporter: three of the apparent mishaps occurred during firearms training. in one case, an instructor allegedly threw training bullets into an open flame. they exploded and one staff member was struck in the face by flying debris. problems are nothing new to the controversial air marshal service. cnn has previously reported agents have continually complained about low morale, low staffing, grueling hours. a 2012 sleep study obtained by cnn shows 75% of domestic air
marshals were flying while sleep deficient. that study found that lack of sleep puts them at greater incidents of serious errors. critics question if air marshals are even necessary. last year, the department of homeland security inspector general slammed the air marshal service and said its contribution to aviation transportation security is questionable. ohio state professor john mueller, who studies the efficiencies of security measures, says the nearly $1 billion agency is almost worthless. >> federal air marshals don't pass muster in terms of cost/benefit analysis. they deliver five or ten cents of benefit for every dollar that is spent on them. >> reporter: the revelation that 200 cases where agents made mistakes is yet another strike against the federal air marshal program. >> drew joins me. it's not often you hear someone
saying a law enforcement agency is worthless. i'm sure the tsa doesn't think it should dissolve the air marshal program. right? >> reporter: the tsa sent us a full statement pushing back on the idea you should get rid of the air marshals. we still have no evidence this group has taken part in stopping any terrorist activity. the dls inspector general did call their contribution questionable. which is one of the reasons some call for its disbandment. on gun safety and train, they say the reports cover 12 years representing less than 1% of the work force during that time frame and says the misconduct reports are taken seriously, investigated and dealt with quickly. >> the idea that these people have guns on airplanes and they may not be the best trained, that's troubling. >> reporter: i agree. the tsa says they are trained. the problem is many air marshals that we have been talking to disagree with that. even the government accountability office reported in 2016 that the tsa wasn't able
to tell if its air marshals were being trained properly. they couldn't even tell. tsa does say that's all fixed now. that's all we can take them at is their word. >> let's hope. drew griffin, thanks for the reporting. hand it over to chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." but her e-mails. what will he say when it's his daughter ivanka using her personal e-mail for government work? plenty of blow back for the president disrespecting a decorated veteran and the hunt for owe sama bin laden. you may think you know the monica lewinsky story. there's so much we don't know. new det