tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN September 18, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
political re-election will be front and center on his mind as he makes those choices. thank you, mark. >> sure thing. and thanks to all of you for joining us. you can watch the show anytime. just go to cnn go. "anderson cooper 360" starts now. good evening. we begin tonight keeping 'em honest with a top official in the trump administration defying congress. he may also be violating the law. the question is why? there's breaking news on that tonight. and there could be even more in the hours and days to come, but first, i just want to get you quickly caught up on the background. joseph maguire is the acting director of national intelligence, or dni. according to congressman adam schiff, who's the chairman of the house intelligence committee, the dni, the acting dni, is refusing to turn over a whistleblower complaint to his committee. now, the law requires that the intelligence community's inspector general report all credible complaints involving urgent concerns to the director of national intelligence, the acting director maguire, which
according to congressman schiff, the inspector general has done. now, we don't know what this whistleblower complaint is. neither, apparently, does congress, but the inspector general does and according to schiff, they judged it to be both credible and urgent. according to the law, once the inspector general has reported the whistleblower complaint to the director of national intelligence, the statute says, and i'm quoting, the director shall within seven calendar days of such repeat forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees together with any comments the director considers appropriate. and that's what acting dni maguire is refusing to do. he's refusing to turn over the complaint from the inspector general that the inspector general has already signed off on to the congressional intelligence committees. now, again, we don't know what the nature of the complaint is, but if congressman schiff is correct, the inspector general thought it credible and urgent. and the law is very specific. it even defines what an urgent concern is. it's, and i'm quoting now, a serious or flagrant problem,
abuse, violation of law, or executive order or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the director of national intelligence, involving classified information. i know it's confusing, but it continues. the inspector general reports this urgent complain to the dni, but the dni is refusing to inform congress about it, as required by the law. now, his office last night told the house intelligence committee it does not meet the definition of urgent concern, because it doesn't relate to activity under his supervision or doesn't involve conduct by a person in the intelligence community. now, we have no idea if that's true or not, because we don't know what the complaint is about. what's interesting, though, is that over the weekend, congressman schiff, the house intelligence committee chairman, had another explanation about why the acting dni is not complying with the law. listen. >> according to the director of national intelligence, the reason he's not acting to provide it, even though the
statute mandates that he do so, is because he is being instructed not to. that this involves a higher authority, someone above the dni. >> so the idea that he's being -- that the dni is being instructed not to, that is chairman schiff's account. the dni in a letter to the committee said that the complaint involves, and i'm quoting, conduct by someone outside the intelligence community and involves confidential and potentially privileged matters relating to the interests of other stakeholders within the executive branch. so there are a lot of questions tonight without a lot of answers, but we might soon be getting them because tonight, just a short time ago, chairman schiff announced that the acting director will testify in public next week and the intelligence community inspector general will be testifying tomorrow behind closed doors. joining us now, a member of the committee, democrat jim himes of connecticut. congressman himes, this is confusing certainly to follow. in tomorrow's hearing with the intelligence community's inspector general, who forwarded
this report, saying it was an urgent concern, what exactly is the inspector general going to be able to talk about? i know it's behind closed doors, but is he going to be able to tell you what is actually in the complaint or who is instructing him or who's instructing the dni not to hand it over to your committee, if that's what's happening? >> well, yes, i think he will be able to discuss what's in the report. remember, the law requires him to forward that complaint to the relevant congressional committees, to my committee. this idea that the dni has the authority to say, no, i disagree with the inspector general's decision is lawless. it's made up out of whole cloth. he does not have authority to do that. and the reason that's important, anderson, and people need to understand this, because it's not that complicated. remember, a whistleblower is someone within an organization who says, something's going on here that isn't quite right. the idea that the boss of that organization, in this case the acting dni could say, sorry, we don't agree that this should be dealt with outside, that betrays
the whole purpose of having a whistleblower. image this whistleblower right now is thinking to themselves, all the protections that i have, the whistleblower protections that i have by law, are now at risk because the boss decided lawlessly to stop this from happening. so at some level, it's pretty simple, anderson. >> so let me just clarify that. because this is interesting -- this is a real key point. you're saying under law, if the inspector general has forwarded this whistleblower complaint, as deemed it of urgent concern, deemed it a real issue, has forwarded it to the dni, you're saying the dni does not have the legal authority to say -- to not forward it on to congress? the dni's only option is to forward it on to congress and they can add comments if they want, saying, i don't think this is valid, i don't think this is under our purview. but he has to forward it to congress? >> that's exactly right. and you said it exactly right. that the dni can add explanatory comments, but in this case, the dni appears to have consulted
with the department of justice, which has no role under the law in this determination and is acting on the face of it. you don't even need to be a lawyer to understand this. is acting illegally in doing this. by the way, quite apart from the law, which is pretty important in the united states of america, in the history of these referrals, there has never been a case in which the boss, in this case, the dni, has overruled an inspector general or said that this is not a meritorious decision. it has never happened before. and the reason that's really important, quite apart from the rule of law, is that, again, think about the whistleblower. if the whistleblower doesn't know that they have the ability in a protected way to go to the congressional committees on things that are profoundly serious. i don't know what's in this complaint, but remember, the intelligence community takes lethal action. it surveils, it does really dangerous things. inside the intelligence community, if someone doesn't believe that there is a legally protected route to get to people like me in the congress, behind closed doors, what happens? they go to the press.
they do an edward snowden and they decide that that's the best way to blow our secrets out into the public. so while it may seem complicated, at some level, this is very simple. there is a law that determines how somebody who thinks that there has been wrongdoing can come to the congress and the dni is right now illegally standing in the way of that process. >> but just to be clear, i mean, in terms of what this whistleblower has raised or alleged whistleblower has raised, at this point, we don't and you don't know what is contained in that complaint? you don't know what this complaint is about at all, is that correct? >> well, that's right. we do have a little bit of a hint. and you alluded to this in your opening. the dni in the letter to the committee said that this involves other executive department equities of people that quite frankly, when you read the language, would appear to reference the president. because there aren't other people other than the president of the united states who have privilege in the executive department. the president does have executive privilege. but again, there is no provision
for the dni to make that determination. it is an illegal determination, standing in the way of a process that is essential to making sure that the intelligence community, you know, behaves itself and abides by the law. >> so just in terms of what's going to happen, i mean, tomorrow you have the inspector general testifying behind closed doors to you. next week, acting dni maguire is agreeing to testify in open session. certainly, you know, as we saw yesterday with corey lewandowski, just because someone agrees to appear to a hearing these days, it doesn't mean they're actually going to answer the question's questions. do you have any guarantees that he'll actually be forthcoming in his answers? >> well, inspector generals, of course, by their very nature are supposed to be independent, they're outside of the hierarchy, they can't get fired by the boss, in this case, the dni, so i do anticipate that the inspector general, i hope the inspector general will tell us what the substance of the complaint is. look, maybe there's nothing to it. maybe there is, maybe there isn't. we don't know. it appears to involve maybe the president of the united states, but we just don't know that. but we do need to know that and
we need to make sure the integrity for whistleblowers is there. and by the way, anderson, we watched corey lewandowski yesterday simply refuse to answer the questions of the congress. so there needs to be accountability here. and it is time for the congress of the united states to start asserting its authority, probably through mechanisms like inherent contempt, where we start fining people and making people very, very uncomfortable when they thumb their nose at the elected representatives of the people of the united states of america. so this dni, corey lewandowski, and all of the other people who have come before congress and said, hey, guess what, i'm not answering your questions because donald trump doesn't want to, they need to be held accountable. and look, this is ant democratic anti-trump thing. our country doesn't work if the congress doesn't have the ability to do oversight of the executive branch. and my republican friends need to remember that there will be a democratic president some day and they will rue the day that they supported a republican president in thumbing their nose at the congress of the united states. >> whoever's in power, we have checks and balances for a reason. and clearly, if this is a break -- this seems to be a breakdown, at the very least,
not only in whistleblower protections, but in checks and balances, whatever the complaint may be. congressman himes, appreciate it. we'll learn more, hopefully, tomorrow. i want to get some perspective on all of this from cnn chief legal analyst, jeffrey toobin, and cnn legal and national security analyst, asha rangappa, who is also a former fbi special agent. jeff, look, obviously, democrats, we're hearing from eric swalwell, adam schiff, congressman himes there. they're raising alarm bells about this. the bottom line is we have no idea if this is a legitimate complaint, we have no idea what this complaint is even about. are they making too much of this or is this serious? >> well, i don't think we have no idea. we have no idea of the substance, but we know it's not a frivolous issue. i mean, the inspector general of the intelligence community has said, it is urgent. it is an urgent matter. so, it's not just some crazy person, you know, with -- wearing a tinfoil hat.
now, whether it implicates the president, whether it actually is a substantive legal, important issue, you know, we don't know that for sure. but this is not a frivolous issue. >> but, jeff, couldn't it be a personnel matter, a sexual harassment matter of people who were working in the intelligence community? >> absolutely. it could be something that is very specific to one person, not something that is, you know, related to policy. but it also, you know, given what the dni has said, director of intelligence, it does appear to involve someone very high ranking, someone with a privilege, someone -- either the president or someone in the white house complex. all of that, you know, suggests that they should just follow the law. maybe it's nothing. if it's turned over and we learn that this is a personnel matter or a minor matter or a, you know, simply incorrect whistleblower complaint, fine. but the law is clear that the
congress should be informed when the inspector general says it's an urgent matter. >> and asha, the law is clear, i assume, as congressman himes is pointing out, and correct me if i'm wrong, that the director of national intelligence actually has no legal authority to not forward this. that according to the law, the dni has to forward it because the inspector general has ruled this is an urgent concern. is that correct? >> that's right. the way the statute is worded, the dni is basically performing kind of a, just a procedural function. he doesn't have the discretion to determine whether or not something is urgent. that is placed in the discretion of the ig. the definition of whether something is urgent is whether there has been some kind of abuse or violation of law or, you know, illegal order or something like that. so it does have to meet a
certain kind of definition. but once that determination is made, it has to move forward. so the issue here is that, that the dni has taken on this veto power. and i would also say that i would question the assertion of some privilege, because, you know, we've seen that this white house has a very expansive view of privilege. it may not be a senior person. i mean, it could be corey lewandowski. it could be ivanka's next-door neighbor. i mean, you know, they are willing to claim privilege for many people who don't have it. so i also wouldn't necessarily say that it's the president or even somebody super senior, given how they've used that term. >> jeff, chairman schiff has said that acting dni maguire told him he wasn't handing over the complaint because someone above him was instructing him not to. i'm not clear exactly who's above -- i mean, dni is sort of an amorphous -- i mean, it's an unusual position in that it actually has no, you know, they're not collecting
intelligence, they're not he heading an agency, they're overseeing the coordination of the intelligence community. >> right. but, you know, the dni is subject to senate confirmation. so, you know, the only person technically he reports to is the president. i mean, if you want to be literal, i believe, on an organizational chart, the only person above him is the president of the united states. >> asha, what about the rationale for not turning over the complaint. that it doesn't meet the definition of being an urgent concern, that it doesn't actually involve an intelligence activity or somebody in the intelligence community. >> well, the substance of the complaint is going to be kept opaque until it finally reaches congress. remember that this particular statute is sort of the alternative mechanism for whistleblowers when it involves classified information. that's why there's this whole separate process that's set up. but ultimately, the idea is to get this complaint, make sure that it's credible so it goes
through this process and get it to the intelligence committees. it's just giving it to them for their attention. it doesn't mean it's going to become public. and i think it's really undermining their oversight authority. and i should add, anderson, that the reporting requirement is not just for the house intelligence committee, but also for the senate intelligence committee. so it will be interesting to see whether senators warner and burr also, you know, stake out some kind of interest in getting this information as well. >> to that end, our colleague, ted barrett, just spoke to senator warner, who's the ranking democrat on intelligence, and he said that he thinks that there will be some resolution of this next week. we'll see. >> asha rangappa and jeff toobin, thanks very much. still to come tonight, did iran commit an act of war? the secretary of state thinks so. his boss, president trump, less so, it seems. the disconnect on national security, next. also, after a week of stumbles and unforced errors, we'll examine whether the democrats are hurting themselves in their confrontations with the president.
you can stream and scroll through other people's vacations, or you can be the kind of person that books their own vacation. a booker. scootin' through life at seven miles an hour. awesome. you see, bookers just go for it. they book a surfside resort, order a fourth taco even though three was plenty... 'cause bookers don't make bucket lists.
no booking way. they make memories. just like this guy right here. be a booker at booking.com. the world's #1 choice for booking accommodations. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?
we can't give you, unlimited summer, but we can give you unlimited talk, text and data for just $30 a line for 4 lines. and that comes on our newest signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. so you can... share more sunsets. stream more videos. and stay connected with friends while you slide into fall. all for just $30/line. and for a limited time,
just prior to landing in saudi arabia today, secretary of state mike pompeo called the attacks on saudi oil facilities, quote, an act of war. he also reiterated in no uncertain terms iran was responsible for saturday's attacks. it doesn't seem to be the same language that president trump is using. the president announced new sanctions were forthcoming on iran, but didn't go nearly as far as secretary pompeo saying, instead, quote, there are many options to deal with iran. he's also been far less clear than pompeo about iran's alleged responsibility. appearing with his new national security adviser, the president also hit back at senator lindsey graham, who had suggested on twitter that the president's previous responses to iran had shown weakness. >> but if you ask lindsey, how'd it go going into the middle east? how'd that work out?
and how'd going into iraq work out? so we have a disagreement on that. and you know, there's plenty of time to do some dastardly things. >> joining me to talk about it, fareed zakaria, cnn host of "fareed zakaria gps." certainly, i guess you could say, mixed messages from the secretary of state and the president. and it's so fascinating, because we're really seeing you know, despite the president's often tough talk, there is a real streak of not wanting to -- you know, it's an understandable position, not wanting to get involved in another iraq, another conflict in the middle east. >> you know, there's a kind of fundamental incoherence in trump's foreign policy, which is he is, himself, fairly cautious. he really doesn't like the idea of getting into wars. that's always been his position. but he's surrounded himself with these super hawks. and at times listens to them. so if this was his position, why would you withdraw from the iran nuclear deal which had put iran in a box. iran was abiding by it. everyone said they weren't acquiring nuclear capacity, and
you could work to deal with their other actions. by withdrawing from the deal, we've set in chain a sort of series of actions, because what has happened here is iran is now struggling to figure out what to do. the u.s. sanctions, the fact that the sanctions are so tight, that no one else can do business with iran are strangling with iran. so the iranians are sort of searching for some path. they first went to the europeans and said, can you give us relief? can you find a way to do business with us? the europeans tried. can't. the dollar is too strong. you have to use the dollar to do international deals. so this is their other path, which is, okay, you put maximum pressure on us, we are going to show you, we can put maximum pressure on you. and the single here is crucially, if you want a war, this is the kind of response we could do. we could shut down saudi oil production. this one strike shut 50% of saudi oil production down. >> which is something saudi arabia seems very aware of, the saudi prince, cnn's reporting
tonight that saudi prince bin salman actually met with u.s. officials at the end of august, essentially saying, saudi arabia does not want the u.s. to get into an armed conflict with iran. they don't want saudi arabia to get into an armed conflict with iran. >> exactly. the saudis appear to be backing off as well. everyone has been sobered up by this. because you suddenly realize the stakes have gotten very high. and again, what's puzzling is, why did we go down this path? what was the point of trying to strangle iran, without a clear strategy? and this is where i think trump is beginning to realize that he's been ill-served by the advisers he had. that's perhaps why he fired bolton. that's perhaps why he's now essentially directly contradicting his closest ally in the senate, lindsey graham, and seems to be contradicting pompeo, who inexplicably is taking this independent line, independent off the president. >> so if it's true that iran is just sort of sending a signal with this, look at what we can
do, do they want war? if they're being strangled in sanctions, obviously a war is costly not only in human lives, but, you know, for a country being strangled, it's not an easy thing to wage a war. >> it's not, but i think they're feeling as though they're getting strangled anyway. they're in a bad situation and wherever you put a country under that much pressure, they have less to lose. also, i think what's going on is there's an internal dynamic here in iran. there were people in iran who told rouhani zarand zarif, the iranian foreign minister, don't trust the americans and don't do this deal. it all played in parliament. >> don't do the nuclear deal? >> don't do the nuclear deal. the americans will double cross you, they'll draw, they'll put sanctions back and we'll destroy our nuclear facilities for nothing. and that's essentially exactly what happened. so the supreme leader is now listening to the hard liners, the hawks and the people in the revolutionary guard and perhaps this is their preferred tactic. they've always wanted a little bit more of a sense of, we can
fight back, we've got proxies all over in yemen, in syria, in iraq, even in afghanistan, why don't we use them? >> it's so fascinating to see what happens next, given if pompeo saying this is an act of war and iran, you know, that sort of leads down one path, we'll see where the president decides to go. fareed zakaria, thank you very much. coming up next, the latest salvo in the president's war with california. his push there to let cars pollute more and the politics of being at odds with america's biggest electoral prize.
before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, marie could only imagine enjoying freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. e-commerce deliveries to homes walking a dog can add thousands walking this many?day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move. thand find inspiration who win new places.ct...
leading them to discover: we're woven together by the moments we share. everything you need, all in one place. expedia. performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪
the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪ not owing anyone anything is the best feeling in the world, i cannot stop smiling about it ♪ some of the following has spoiling this is us for the few who haven't seen it. season 4 of this is us is almost here. to catch every past episode, just say "this is us" into your xfinity voice remote. like the one where i... [ buzzer ] or the one where we show... [ buzzer ] when he was a... [ buzzer ] plus you can watch this is us
clean air. on clean air, the president today said he's revoking california's waiver with the environmental protection agency, which allowed the state to set more stringent vehicle emission standards. they've since become the de facto national standard among carmakers and carmakers who have shown no appetite for changing that and building two types of cars. now, that said, the president sees it otherwise, tweeting, many more cars will be produced under the new and uniform standard, meaning significantly more jobs, jobs, jobs. automakers should seize this opportunity, because without this alternative to california, you will be out of business. again, automakers seem to disagree and clearly so does california's leadership. >> we're winning. and that's the frustration he's having. we are winning. he's losing. and we're winning because we have the law, science, and facts on our side. and we have not only the formal authority, we have the moral authority. and that is something missing in this white house. >> well, this could get very messy in the legal dimension for a very long time. it's also playing out in the political arena, where california makes a convenient culture war target for the
president and vice versa for governor newsom. more on all of this now from cnn's senior political commentator and former obama white house adviser david axelrod and "new york times" analyst, maggie haberman. what do you think the strategy is behind this for president trump? >> i think a combination of factors. your point that this is a good target for the president in terms of the culture war is certainly one of them. and it's also a way for him to look as if he's being tough in terms of ending the regulatory state, which has been a big piece of his administration's campaign promises and something that others, don mcgahn and others, steve bannon, said they were going to try to do and i think this is about reminding his base. i don't think you can divorce any of this from the fact that the state of california had tried to make being on the ballot conditional on releasing your taxes. and that was aimed squarely at donald trump. >> and you think this is payback for that? >> at least in part. i don't think it's the only motivation, but i certainly think it's impossible to look at anything going forward between gam gavin newsom and president trump
as away from that. >> david, how much of this is also the president, governor newsom getting underneath the president's skin? >> well, i'm sure there's some of that. i think what maggie said makes great sense. you know, that was an assault on the president. the demand for his tax returns. but i do think this serves his larger political project. you know, california is a symbol of liberalism and he wants to make the case that, you know, out of control, liberalism is what he is fighting and, you know, the homeless problem, you know, he didn't -- he really wasn't talking about solving the problem. he really went to exploit it and he went to exploit it by saying, everyone else is being victimized by these homeless people and this is what you get under this kind of leadership. and that serves his -- everything the president does politically, to my mind, ultimately boils down to trying to drive these big cultural wedges in our political
environment and our society. and he exploits them. and this was part of it. one thing i want to say, though, on the fuel efficiency standards, you know, i'm old enough to remember when the republican party was a free trade party for balanced budgets and for federalism. and this is a huge intrusion on california's prerogatives that the president is engaging in -- >> but california made a deal with -- right. california made a deal with a number, i think it was four, automakers about standards. so you're saying, essentially, that this is an intrusion on california's ability to do that? >> well, it's just on their rights as a state. we should note that the justice department then opened up an anti-trust investigation against the four automakers for cutting the deal with california. so this is a full-scale war on the state of california. and 13 other states have followed california's standard. a third of the country lives under these california standards, so it would be a huge
setback for the fight against climate change. tailpipe admissions being the chief cause of these greenhouse gases, if the president were to prevail here. >> it's also, obviously, for governor newsom, there is an advantage beyond just the environmental interest and the politics of it all. going toe-to-toe with president trump and beating him on some issues. >> which he said. i mean, he made very clear, we're winning and he's not and that is getting very frustrating to him. i think that gavin newsom has had higher office ambitions for a very long time and i don't think that this is divorced from that. i do think it helps him. i think that at a certain point, it is going to come at potentially greater and greater costs to his state and i don't know what that looks like going forward. i would say i am struck by watching this, less in terms of the emission standards, but more in terms of the homeless crackdowns they're talking about, in very vague terms. but what is striking about the donald trump candidacy is the
way he is targeting this state's homeless problem as if there is nothing else nationally is fascinating to watch. >> also, if you just look at the homeless populations, new york -- i think the last number -- the last numbers that there were national numbers, new york is the largest, l.a. is second, seattle, i think is third. although i think there's been an 8% drop over last year. there's obviously, san francisco is -- there's a huge issue on the west coast, but it is a nationwide issue. and it's not something -- there is no easy solution to this. >> no, and to your point, it certainly is right at home for the president in his hometown. it's not something we've heard him talk about other than taking a disparaging shot at bill de blasio, the mayor, from time to time. but it's strange watching him approach it this way. >> it's interesting that the president is -- obviously, it's one of these things that people see homelessness, and therefore it's something that he wants to be seen as doing something about, but again, it is not -- if there was an easy solution to homelessness, it would have been
solved already. it is a very complex thing and there are many different kinds of people who are homeless for many different reasons. >> it is a complex thing, and his administration has taken some steps at it that in many ways have affected it negatively. i don't think this was about solving a problem, anderson. i think it was about exploiting a problem. his message to the rest of the country is, this is what these crazy left-wing liberals and radicals produce with their dissolute policies and this is what i'm fighting. i think he was using the homeless as a backdrop for his political project here. you know, he's never evidenced any interest in the homeless before. >> yeah. maggie haberman, david axelrod, thanks very much. just ahead, are democrats their own worst enemy when it comes to running against president trump? two former presidential candidates and governors, howard dean and john kasich are next. my grandfather had an amazing life, but ancestry showed me so much more than i could have imagined.
my grandfather was born in a shack in pennsylvania, his father was a miner, they were immigrants from italy and somewhere along the way that man changed his name and transformed himself into a successful mid-century american man. he had a whole life that i didn't know anything about. he was just my beloved grandpa. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
in the human brain, billions of nefor people with parkinson's, some neurons change their tune, causing uncontrollable tremors. now, abbott technology can target those exact neurons. restoring control and harmony, once thought to belost forever. the most personal technology is technology with the power to change your life. there's concern among some democrats that they've done a good job this week of making president trump's case for him on a number of issues, starting with the impeachment investigation. the house judiciary committee's first big televised hearing fizzled after corey lewandowski successfully stonewalled. likewise, beto o'rourke's comment at last week's debate that he would take away all ar-15s is now being used by president trump to backtrack on gun control legislation. he tweeted today, quote, dummy
beto made it much harder to make a deal, convince many that dems just want to take your guns away. we'll continue forward. and then there's brett kavanaugh. many democrats, including some presidential candidates called for justice kavanaugh's impeachment after a new allegation of sexual harassment was published in a "new york times" essay. the essay was missing key details found in the book that severely undermined the impact of that new allegation. i want to get some analysis. former democratic presidential candidate and dnc chairman howard dean and cnn senior political commentator former republican ohio governor, john kasich. >> governor dean, all of this taken together, are democrats making the president's job easier for him here? >> you know, i'm not sure what they're doing. in terms of the impeachment stuff, look, you have to get to the bottom of what really happened and you need the facts. so i don't think kavanaugh is going to get impeached. i think people are upset with what's happened with the supreme court over the last 40 years.
75% of young americans, 35 and under, believe the supreme court is more interested in politics than they are the law. that's a big, big problem for the country. so the kavanaugh stuff is a symptom of that, certainly not the cause. >> governor kasich, i mean, how important -- obviously, this is very early stages in this election, but how important is it that the democrats at large or any party is cohesive in its message, or at least not making unforced errors as it heads into an election year? >> yeah, well, first of all, i always like being with howard dean. he's a smart guy and he's, you know, he's got a lot of wisdom, to tell you the truth. look, i think howard would agree with this. this is going to be a mammoth turnout. so when people worry, are you kind of stoking the other side, i mean, anderson, there's no more stoking the gun people. they're as stoked as you can get them. so the question is turnout, and i think it's going to be enormous. the question is will the democrats be able to talk a little bit more about bread and
butter issues, the family table. that's what -- i had a democrat call me last night and say, what's going on in your part of ohio that's been heavy democrat, that's voted for trump. he goes, sometimes i feel like they're talking to the professors at the university rather than to our folks who are really caring about the kitchen table issues. i think they have to be careful about that. >> but governor kasich, if beto o'rourke is saying, you know, i'm going to -- yeah, i am coming for your ak-47s, i am coming for your ar-15s, i am coming for your guns, i can't believe that doesn't stoke up some people who -- doesn't it confirm every far-right conspiracy theory that the democrats want to take your guns? >> well, you know, i think it was a crazy statement, but that brings us to the craziness of these debates. these parties, look what happened to us in '16. it's happening now. these debates are not serving the selection of our best leaders. they drive people to the
extremes. and so, you know, beto, when he was running for the senate said, oh, i don't want to take your guns. now he turns around and says he has to, because he's got to get attention. does that mean that the pro-gun people are more stirred up because of what he said? now, some of them will run around and say, see, i told you so! do i think it stoked them up anymore? no, because they're all going to turn out and vote, and so are the other people, the people who are in favorable of reasonable gun control. they're going to turn out and vote. it's going to be, i believe, a mammoth turnout. so when we think about, are we stoking them up, maybe a little bit on the margins, but they're all coming. it's going to be some election. >> governor dean, do you agree that? the beto o'rourke comment, the lewandowski hearing yesterday, which was sort of hyperpartisan spectacle and didn't seem to produce really all that many results or new information, certainly. and polling shows the majority of americans don't even favor impeaching the president and the democrats can't even decide what their investigation should be called. i mean -- >> well, let's first talk about
the guns. most people, like about 68% of people believe that assault weapons should be banned. that's pretty stunning. >> but that's different than taking a forced buyback, which is essentially confiscating -- >> but banning is -- at least you get money with a buy pac. >> but the last ban, as you know, was just for new weapons, it wasn't taking weapons that were there are out there. >> right, but, look, i'm just telling you what americans believe. they believe assault weapons ought to be banned and high-content magazines ought to be banned. so i don't think that hurts beto at all. this is just -- i never read the president's tweets, but apparently he tweeted about that. you know, so what? okay, john is right, and i want the democrats to listen to this. if we are talking about donald trump with three months to go, we lose, period. this campaign cannot be run on what a jerk donald trump is. it has to be run on what the democrats are going to do that's going to be better. so trump will say this, trump will say that, trump will remind
everybody every day, why they don't like donald trump. we cannot play that game. we have to talk to ordinary americans about what we're going to do to make this better. >> anderson, sometimes, you know, social media is not accurate. you know, sometimes social media is, a lot of times, it's by activists and people who have great passion. but, you know, everybody's not watching this. there are people like getting up and going to work and going home and having dinner and, honey, how's it going? you know, those are things -- that's where people live. they don't live like on twitter. i mean, i like twitter, you like, we all do -- >> actually, i don't, but -- >> -- don't take that as a sense where people are. well, you know, howard, you're on twitter, you're good at it. >> that was me. i'm on it, but i've given it up. i try not to even look at it. but david axelrod wrote this thing essentially saying, look, let trump -- trump will destroy himself just by being himself. don't focus on that. governor dean, do you agree with that idea? >> i essentially do agree with
that. trump has already destroyed his presidency. and i think he'll destroy himself. but we have to give him the rope to do it. if we fall into the trap that all of the republicans did in 2016 and let trump be the issue of the day, we lose. because he's really good at that. he's a narcissist. he's really good at that. >> i don't agree. >> governor kasich? >> anderson, i don't agree with that that he'll self-destruct. i don't agree with that. but i think you have to have a refrain. i think you have to go back to it all the time. this is what you promised and what did you deliver? you delivered bubkes. that's what it's got to be. back and forth. but he's not just going to just fall apart on the stage. i was on the stage with him a lot of debates, i never took the bait. of course, i didn't win. but there's a lot of reasons for that, too. >> governor dean, governor kasich, really good discussion, i appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you. up next, what canada's prime minister, justin trudeau, is saying about a photo that just surfaced of himself looking like this. i saved hundreds when i switched
my car insurance to geico. this is how it made me feel. it was like that feeling when you pull your green sock out of the dryer and then the very next sock is the other green one. and then you pull out two blue ones. and you keep going till you've matched every single sock in perfect order. and the owner of the laundromat is so impressed,
he hangs a picture of you next to the dryer. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. fifwe can't give you, save you unlimited summer, but we can give you unlimited talk, text and data for just $30 a line for 4 lines. and that comes on our newest signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. so you can... share more sunsets. stream more videos. and stay connected with friends while you slide into fall. all for just $30/line. and for a limited time, you can get free smartphones too! come to t-mobile now and get new 4 lines of unlimited and 4 free phones for just 30 bucks a line! ♪
more breaking news tonight. canada's prime minister said he made a mistake when he wore brown face make-up at a party at a private school where he was teaching in 2001. "time" magazine broke the story after they found a year book photo. this is a tweet time photo. trudeau has apologized said he's made a mistake when he was younger, adding he's worked all his life to fight discrimination. let's go to chris. >> we have chelsea handler on the show talking about hi new documentary about white privilege. he confronts not just the obvious issue of endemic and cultural racism but where is its source and what is the ability of white americans to look at themselves?
that's deep. good to have her here. we have beto o'rourke on the show, coop. a lot of democrats are talking. you just had a great panel discussion on your show about whether or not what o'rourke is pitching is good for him or good for the new deal. as for trudeau, we don't like that behavior but it was in 2001. how do we judge today what people did in the past? >> a lot to cover. i look forward to that and the chelsea handler interview as well. see you in a few minutes. >> is this truth really out there? see what the u.s. navy says about ufos and maybe some videos you haven't seen before. at verizon, we're building the most powerful 5g experience for america. that's why the nfl chose verizon.
because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl... imagine what it can do for you. so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country.
when you open a new account. and fidelity's rate is higher than e*trade's, td ameritrade's, even 9 times more than schwab's. plus only fidelity has zero account fees and zero minimums for retail brokerage and retirement accounts. just another reminder of the value you'll only find at fidelity. open an account today. too many people a restless night's sleep. there's a better choice. aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid and the 12-hour pain-relieving strength of aleve. that dares to last into the morning. so you feel refreshed. aleve pm. there's a better choice. thanks to priceline working with top airlines to turn their unsold seats into amazing deals, family reunion attendance is up. we're all related! yeah, i see it. and because priceline offers great deals by comparing thousands of prices in real time, sports fans are seeing more away games. various: yeah-h-h! is that safe? oh, y... ahh! not at all. no, ma'am. nope. and more people than ever are enjoying romantic getaways.
(romantic music) that's gross priceline. every trip is a big deal. that's gross mytill he signed up for atunitedhealthcareealth medicare complete. ♪ now, it's like he has his own health entourage. he gets medicare's largest healthcare network, a free gym membership, vision, dental and more. there's so much to take advantage of. can't wait till i'm 65. a few more chairs, please. unitedhealthcare medicare complete plans, the only plans with the aarp name. free dental care and eye exams, and free designer eyewear. go ahead, take advantage. the u.s. navy has finally acknowledged that videos reportedly showing ufos are real. the several videos they're talking about with recorded years ago by fighter pilots. in 2017 they were made public by
the "new york times." more now from our randi kaye. >> reporter: images of that rotating thing captured by u.s. navy aircraft, sensors locking in on the target. commander david frafr saw it firsthand during a training mission, describing it like a 40-foot-long tic-tac. >> as we both looked out the right side of our airplane, we sawdisturbance in the water. >> the object was first cited in 2004 and then similar again in 2015. similar citings decla sightings public until 2017. >> there's a whole fleet of them. >> my gosh! they're all going against the wind. the wind's 120 miles to the
west. >> this was extremely abrupt like a ping-pong ball bouncing off the wall, the ability to hover over the water and start a vertical climb from basically zero up from 12,000 feet and accelerate in less than two seconds and disappear is something i've never seen in my life. >> reporter: the navy said they don't what they are, but there are simply confirming they are unidentified aerial phenomenon or uaps. they were investigated by a secret $22 million program, part of the defense department budget that investigated reports of ufos. the program has since been shut down but it was run by a military intelligence official who told cnn they found compelling evidence that we, quote, may not be alone. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> that blows my mind. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo primetime."
chris, i find it terribly exciting that those things are real. >> look how effusive your emotion is. this is crazy. you're blowing my mind here. >> you don't think it's -- >> i do. i'm right there with you. everybody shows it in different ways. i'm just sitting here basking in your light, brother. anderson, have a good night. >> i am chris cuomo. welcome to "primetime." we have two big voices making a lot of waves as they take on two of america's biggest and most intractable problems, racism and gun violence. chelsea handler is here and so is broeto o'rourke. so what do you say? let's get after it. president trump seems to have a new scapegoat for his own inaction on guns guess who? >> hell, yes, we're going