tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN April 13, 2017 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT
that's it for us. i'll hand things over to don lemon. lemon. "cnn tonight" starts right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com breaking news. u.s. military hits isis with the mother of all bombs. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. the massive weapon is the largest nonnuclear bomb the military has ever used in combat. today it was deployed in afghanistan for the very first time. president trump praising the mission, but the commander in chief won't say whether he's the one who gave the green light. and we have more breaking news. sources telling cnn that british intelligence and other european agencies intercepted communications between trump associates and russian officials during the campaign and passed them on to u.s. officials. we will bring you the very latest on all of this. let's begin with the military targeting isis in afghanistan.
i want to bring in cnn chief national security correspondent p tim sciutto, and lieutenant colonel rick francona. the mother of all bombs. largest nonnuclear bomb the u.s. has ever used in combat. the president is calling it a success. let's take a look first. >> you look at what's happened over the last eight weeks and compare that to what's happened over the last eight years. you'll see there's a tremendous difference. tremendous difference. we have incredible leaders in the military, and we have incredible military. and we are very proud of them. this was another very, very successful mission. >> it's important to note here this is the second major military strike by the trump administration in a week. >> that's exactly right. the mother of all bombs, the nickname, actually an acronym for massive ordnance air blast, a bomb designed to explode before it hits the ground, but then destroy underground
structures, tunnels, et cetera. it's huge. biggest under a nuclear bomb. let's be clear, it's about 1,000th the size of a smaller nuclear weapon. so this is not close to a nuclear weapon, but it's a big conventional weapon. and beyond destroying underground structures, one of the functions is to really demoralize enemy forces. it shakes the ground like an earthquake for miles around. that's one of the functions here. does it measurably change the battle against isis in a country like afghanistan where there are many places to hide? no. but a show of force. i don't think, don, you could discount the possibility that this is a message intended not only for isis there, but for other countries that have underground military facilities. think of north korea, perhaps, right, where there's discussion of a possible underground nuclear blast. not that you would use this particular weapon against it. but again, a show of force for
that theater. but i think also for around the world. >> let's continue our conversation and talk more about this bomb. the u.s. military has had this nearly 22,000-pound bomb since the early 2000s. this was the first time that this moab, mother of all bombs has been used in combat. was this the right bomb for the right targets for the tunnels in eastern afghanistan? >> it was exactly the right bomb. i was in the pentagon when this thing was developed. we kiddingly called it the mother of all bombs, because this was about the time we had baghdad bob saying we were about to have the mother of all battles. so the air force came up with this term. it is the perfect weapon. general nicholson chose this weapon for the facility. this is an area for dropping this bomb. it's rocky, hilly, has a lot of gorges. the overpressure will collapse those tunnels. it doesn't penetrate the ground.
they have another bomb much larger than that one to penetrate if you need to to get underground. it has a concussive effect and collapses the tunnel. this is a bad guy area, to be sure. this is giving the afghan forces and the americans in the area problems for over a decade, this province area. this particular bomb, this gbu-43 as it's called, replaced another one from the vietnam era called a daisy cutter. you know, when you're talking about a commander, i'm going to channel some of my former combat commander status on this, you literally look when you target areas, it's something called a joint munitions employment manual. it's a guide for your targets to say, this is the target, this is the kind of situation we have, what kind of weapons should we drop on this, this is a perfect kind of thing. it's a tactical system, though, and we shouldn't get all breathless about this being something that president trump ordered. because this was something commander on the scene wanted to drop in this area.
>> interesting you should say that. because the president wouldn't say if he green-lit using this bomb. here's exactly how he responded when asked. >> everybody knows exactly what happened. and what i do is i authorize my military, we have the greatest military in the world and they've done a job as usual. we have given them total authorization. >> colonel, i need to tell you that sources are telling cnn that general john nicholson, commander of the u.s. forces in afghanistan, signed off on this. but the white house was informed of the plan ahead of time. here's the question, realistically, a bomb with a nickname of mother of all bomb. did that happen without the direct signoff of the commander in chief? >> i think so. that's what sources at the pentagon are telling us. we were talking about this elier today. the president has authorized the theater commander and also the commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan to employ these weapons. i think the general was very
clear on this, this is a tactical weapon, not a nuclear weapon, not a chemical weapon, this is a tactical weapon. we could have dropped 1,000 -- sorry, 20, 1,000-pound bombs for the same force. or we wouldn't have this conversation. it doesn't require that high of a level of signoff as the general said. the j-men tells you what the effect the munitions will have on the target. you use that guide, this is the target, this is the effect i want to have, this is the weapon to do it. it is the perfect weapon for this one location. >> the senior administration official saying they don't approve every strike, and that, quote, this administration has moved further away from dictating military strategy from the white house. what about civilian control of the military? >> well, that's a question, listen, the commander in chief is still the commander in chief. i don't know there's been a dramatic constitutional change here, but you're seeing what appears to be a relaxing of the
process. the obama administration was famous, perhaps notorious for how many hoops the military had to jump through to approve strikes. that was -- i expect a lot of time in the pentagon and that was often a frustration there. on the flip side, though, the reason behind that was a desire to minimize civilian casualties, and to be fair, if you look in the last several weeks, there have been a number of strikes -- listen, this happens all the time. it's risky to drop bombs in areas wherever you're doing it. you have a number of strikes in the last several weeks, a bomb in mosul, friendly forces struck in syria in the last 24 hours. you had the use of this weapon. so there is evidence, maybe not conclusive yet, but there's evidence that the military has more leeway to use weapons, and i'd ask that the generals here, and the lieutenant colonel francona to see if they agree, it appears they've been given more leeway to push the limits a bit. and increase that risk of
collateral damage. >> a shake of the head. i think they agree with that. >> i'm not buying that, don. i've got to jump in. having been in combat, knowing what commanders go through to get strikes and knowing the constraints commanders live under when striking targets, there may be fewer rules in terms of the processes. but they're still going to look very closely at collateral damage. you don't want the death of innocents on your conscience. the other thing is, the comment by the president saying, we've done more in the last eight weeks than we've done in the last eight years. that to me is insulting. there have been a lot of people fighting hard in many theaters, just because there's been a couple of big bomb drops and tomahawk strike in syria, we're saying we're doing more in eight weeks than ever before. that's just wrong and it's incorrect. >> don, just so i can interject as martin knows me well. i certainly don't mean to intimate that generals are suddenly not concerned about civilian casualties by any means because i spend a lot of time
with the military and i know the care they go through in the command centers to do that. if we look at the evidence, it just raises a question that is worth asking. we do know that there was frustration with the decision-making process under the obama administration. has that changed? we'll have to see. >> quickly to the colonel, can you wrap it up for us? >> i keep asking that question. i talked to a lot of people at different levels in the chain of command. and i get the answer that, no, the rules haven't changed. so they say it hasn't, but it sure looks like it has. i'm not exactly sure. i take jim's point. >> all right. we'll continue to investigate. thank you, colonel. thank you, jernl. jim, i want you to stick around. i understand you have breaking news tonight on the russian investigation. you and our cnn colleagues came out with new reporting about the trump campaign and russia. what can you tell us? >> i'll tell you, you may remember, cnn was the first to report some weeks ago that u.s.
intelligence had captured repeated conversations between advisers and associates of the trump campaign, and russian officials, and other russian nationals known to u.s. intelligence. the nsa intercepted those. british intelligence and other european intelligence agencies picked up similar conversations. again between russian officials, others known to western intelligence, and people associated with the trump campaign. so it's significant, not just one intelligence service picking up this back-and-forth, it was our allies. the uk, and others who were then seeing it, seeing it as significant enough to then share with their partner the u.s. it adds into this bigger picture, which is, we know still the subject of an active investigation of the fbi, and house and senate intelligence committees, what do these communications mean. and one open question has not been established yet, does that indicate there was some sort of cooperation or collusion between
some people in the trump orbit and russian nationals as they were interfering in the u.s. elections. that's not established yet. but the communications are material to that investigation. >> so we are not aware of the nature of any of these communications and what they reveal about the trump team, just to be precise here? >> we don't know the content of the transcripts. just the fact that they happened. the frequency with which they happened. and that european intelligence agencies considered them important enough that they shared them with their american allies. >> the british intelligence agencies, do we know if they were specifically targeting members of the trump team? >> that's a good question. as you know, donald trump accused britain -- accused president obama of using britain, tasking british intelligence with spying on trump and his campaign. that's not how this happened. and i've spoken to european intelligence. this is what's called incidental collection. the europeans just like the americans are regularly
monitoring the communications, particularly of u.s. adversaries overseas. that certainly includes russia. sometimes when they're monitoring those communications, they pick up on the other end of the line an american. or they pick up russians talking about an american. when that happens, the u.s. takes notice certainly, but so do our allies. this is a case where incidentally they picked up these communications and said russians are talking to trump associates, et cetera. we felt it was important to share with you, and you look at it and decide what you're going to do with it. >> why didn't our u.s. intelligence agencies, why did they not capture it? or maybe they did. >> they did. with ereported that earlier. >> is this duplicate? >> u.s., british and other european intelligence agencies picked up on it. it wasn't just one, it was several. >> are these duplicates? the same communications being captured by british, by european intelligence agencies, u.s. intelligence agencies and others? >> it's possible some are
duplicates. you have to imagine, and some of this is the nature of cooperation between these countries, where, for instance, the five eyes program, sharing of intelligence between the u.s., upand other allies. they will task certain countries, intelligence services, with focusing on certain parts of the world. britain, part of britain's responsibility is focusing on russian communications. so the british might pick up things that the u.s. would not. >> jim, i have a short time here, but how might in affect the investigations going on now. >> we don't know yet. i spoke with a source close to the senate intelligence investigation. they said, if these conversations are relevant to our investigation, we're going to take a hard look at them. >> jim sciutto, thank you. appreciate it. when with ecome back, a closer look at the investigation and what this could mean for the trump administration going forward. stay with me, mr. parker.
when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and. i mwell, what are youe to take care odoing tomorrow -10am? staff meeting. noon? eating. 3:45?
uh, compliance training. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. 8:30? tai chi. yeah, so sounds relaxing. alright, 9:53? i usually make their lunches then, and i have a little vegan so wow, you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investments that worked as hard as you do? yeah. introducing essential portfolios. the automated investing solution that lets you focus on your life.
breaking news. sources telling cnn british intelligence and other european agencies intercepted communications between trump associates and russian officials during the campaign and passed them on to u.s. officials. let's discuss it here. robin wright, joint fellow at the u.s. institute of peace, and woodrow wilson center. jim sciutto was just reporting foreign intelligence officials passed along information to the fbi and the c.i.a. about trump associates contacts with russia. what do you think?
>> i think we're getting the same picture from a number of sources over a number of days. and it all points to, frankly, one of two possibilities. either the trump campaign was an extremely disorderly, chaotic, and somewhat corrupt affair with a lot of grifters, free lancers, you know, trolling in various ways, and interacting and intersecting with all kinds of strange characters, including people associated with russian intelligence, the russian government, or there is some actual connection and collusion. but it does seem strange, if you think the first, that there was an actual collusion, the number of times that trump association -- the trump campaign, associates, affiliates seem to have had some kind of contact or bumped up against some kind of russian, somebody watched the british, the fbi, if this is a coincidence, it's a remarkable coincidence.
>> robin, some of this came from the british, you'll recall, that the president created a diplomatic incident when he claimed that the british had tapped his phones in trump tower, at the former president barack obama's request. they say this communication was picked up during incidental collection during routine surveillance of known russian targets. that's different. just as it happened with the u.s. that's different, right? >> absolutely. and the deniability of the evidence becomes ever harder. the pressure now will grow on congress to investigate even deeper. you know, the layers of this keep adding. and there will be more and more questions. over the past week, the administration has seen that the focus shifted from foreign policy, syria, afghanistan. but long-term, this is something that will haunt the administration. i think at some point it has to
either come clean, try to help facilitate answers. because i think the american public really wants this issue to go away. >> haunt how why? how? >> pressure them? >> how will it haunt the administration? >> i think the idea that some of its personnel were engaged with russia will come back to haunt this administration. particularly given the kind of tensions we have with russia that were apparent this week when secretary of state rex tillerson visited moscow. his meeting with vladimir putin and the foreign minister. this is a time that they're trying to sort out a number of very significant issues. and to have this haunt the administration, i think is going to be very difficult. >> you know, i think part of what robin is saying, it feels to me the trump administration does not have a strategy to deal with this. you don't get the feeling that they have figured out, okay, this is a problem. and here's what we are going to do. here are the two people who are the point people for this.
here's all the -- they're going to answer all these questions. they're going to do their own internal review. they're going to have some statements to make. instead what you get is this is drip, drip, drip of information, reporting, congressional inquiries that keeps coming in. and as robin was saying, what it does is it keeps diverting the narrative from anything that the trump administration wants to present. and of now and then, yes, the syria strike will divert it, but then you get back to the next -- >> going like this, right? not a straight line. because the original tweet was something that is completely different to what this has evolved into, not a natural evolution. >> yes. you would think somebody in the white house, chief of staff frankly should be tasked with saying, how are we dealing with this, what is our response to it, who is the point person, what is the internal investigation? you know, some kind of political and communications strategy. and instead, you feel as though there's nothing other than an occasional defensive tweet from the commander in chief.
>> i think they realize that it is a weakness. >> still, you've got to have a strategy for weaknesses as well as strengths. >> do you think that the british intelligence, european intelligence, robin, would give us everything that they have? i tried to sort of get jim sciutto to break this down specifically. were these duplicates? was this new communications? will they give using that they have? >> they haven't given it to me, so i don't know. but i expect they provided a good bit of information. and i think there's a sense in the international community that they want to see this issue resolved as well. this ewant to see how deep these connections go, and what it means. i think there's a discomfort generally among many of our allies about what happened in this election. because the europeans also face the same kind of issue with the russians in terms of their meddling in, for example, the french or german elections. and so there are a lot of
questions that play out among our allies as well as in washington. >> does this mean that other world leaders would know about these contacts and the nature of them, robin? >> absolutely. you have to believe that whether it's angela merkel in germany or theresa may in britain, that a lot of them know exactly what their intelligence agencies picked up and what may have been happening, what interference the russians have engaged in when it came to the united states. and i think this is, you know, we talk about a new cold war with the russians. there's a lot at stake on this issue. it's not just what happened in the run-up to our election. this is what broader russian intentions are, how it's engaging, how much we can engage with them. so the stakes are huge on this issue. >> yeah. and of course, the narrative now is being twisted.
that's really po-- can we have free election in this country without -- >> and can any democracy. >> absolutely. stick around. when we come back, more on the mother of all bombs. we'll break down what message the blast could send to other countries that president trump is targeting. courtyard, the official hotel of the nfl, and i want to remind you that no one's the same without the game. like @flagdad28, who tweets, "in a recent flag football game with my family, i ran up the score, pick-sixed my daughter 3 times, and blocked 8 punts. did i cross a line?
flag, i get it. you simply wanted to recreate the thrill of the nfl... all over your family. don't fret: training camp opens soon. but, it might be a good time to spring for a puppy. we're out ink,nk! not ink. printing doesn't have to be painful. now, during "hp savings month" at staples, get up to $180 off hp printers.
we're back now. we've been talking about the breaking news on the investigation into the trump administration and russia. now to the other big breaking news story. the u.s. military dropping what is called a mother of all bombs in afghanistan. the first time a weapon of this type has been used in battle by the pentagon. back with me now, fareed zakaria and robin wright. how surprised are you that 12 weeks into this presidency that we dropped one of the largest bombs that we have on afghanistan, other than a nuclear bomb? >> well t doesn't surprise me in the sense that i don't think it represents some kind of dramatic change in the political or military strategy. it does seem from what one can tell the military was right that this was a particularly appropriate bomb given what they were facing, which was a lot of tunnels, and it was difficult to
get at this stuff. but i think it does raise a bigger issue that i bet you many americans and people around the world who watch this program, you know, were reminded of. 16 years after 9/11, we are still fighting a war in afghanistan. the longest war in american history. 8,000 or 9,000 american troops. >> is that why general hertling was so offended by president trump saying we've done more in eight weeks than in eight years? >> i this i so. you can drop a lot of these bombs. what is the political strategy, what is the political objective? >> syria, afghanistan. >> exactly. the only way we're going to achieve a measure of success if we have some kind of political settlement on the ground. that there's somebody there who has legitimacy and power and take it over. otherwise, 16 years from now, we will still be talking on this program about dropping these bombs. >> so that's strategy. does it send a message, robin
wright, and the president was asked about this earlier, about north korea as well. here's the president. >> i don't know if this sends a message. it doesn't make any difference if it does or not. north korea is a problem. the problem will be taken care of. >> okay. so no strategy mentioned there except the problem will be taken care of. to fareed's point, how will north korea, iran, and other countries view this action? >> well, i think that this bomb was actually dropped because of the conditions on the ground. what opportunities they were provided by whatever -- wherever the isis fighters were, whether it has repercussions militarily or psychologically in north korea, iran, syria, iraq, maybe. but, you know, i don't necessarily think that that's going to be decisive. i think a lot of these places will have their own strategies, and continue. what north korea does in the next couple of days launching a
sixth nuclear test. i just came back from iraq, and i think the thing that haunts all of us in covering these wars and have been for decades, is that there is not a strategy beyond dropping bombs, to find a way out of these wars, to end the military environment. all of the military experts you've had on the show will certainly agree that, yes, you can go after and use whatever weaponry, sophisticated weaponry you have to kill or intimidate the enemy. but at the end of the day you have to have a strategy, a complementary, parallel strategy that comes up with a means to whether it's find peace in afghanistan, after six years, in dealing with the taliban. when i was in mosul in iraq, you know, there is a sense of how you provide military security for mosul, but there's no plan for the political governance in a way that will make all the parties on the ground feel that they are invested in the process. and they don't want to sign up
for the next iteration of al qaeda or isis or whatever is next. that there are these big questions that nobody's answering. the trump administration most of all. you know, the obama administration, the bush administrations both grappled with these issues. never got in eight years with each of them to that incredible nexus of political, or diplomatic and military operations. and there's a deep concern that for all the bombs that have been dropped in the past week, the trump administration is as far away if not further away from that as well. >> i want to ask you, fareed, lindsay graham said he hopes america's adversaries are watching and know there's a new sheriff in town. >> we've been doing this for a while. in fact, president obama dropped more -- did more drone strikes, i think, in his, you know, first
two years than george bush had done in all eight years of his presidency. president obama was comfortable using drones, bombs, special forces. i think the real challenge is not the military. the united states has never lost or gone astray in these engagements because it has lacked military power, firepower. you know, we've won every battle. >> that's political rhetoric. >> no, the problem is, what do you then do? how do you then stabilize the situation? because if you don't stabilize it, you leave and the bad guys come back. and it's that dynamic -- think about iraq. we went in, smashed a lot of stuff, but we weren't able to create some kind of political dynamic that was stable and successful. same in afghanistan. it's been better than iraq, but that's the difficulty. you know, i wonder whether donald trump will come to realize this. because his national security adviser, mcmaster, is actually one of the world's experts.
how do you actually stabilize a place politically after you've bombed it. the bombing -- the u.s. does it very well. does it better than anyone in the world. did it well under obama, well under bush, it will do it well under trump. what do you do after the bombs. >> nation building? >> it is nation building. trump has been opposed to that. mcmaster and petraeus and people like that believe that's the only way to stabilize. you say, trump won't do it. except this week, he reversed himself on six different things, maybe that will be the seventh thing had ereverses himself on. one of the investigations trump associates ties with russian officials. what one of trump's former policy advisers is now saying about his own communications with russians. (gasp) just head & shoulders? i thought it was just for, like, dandruff new head & shoulders. cleans, protects and moisturizes to... ...get up to 100% flake-free and unbelievably beautiful hair
it's not head & shoulders, it's the new head & shoulders the whole country booking on choice hotels.com. four words, badda book. badda boom... let it sink in. shouldn't we say we have the lowest price? nope, badda book. badda boom. have you ever stayed with choice hotels? like at a comfort inn? yep. free waffles, can't go wrong. i like it. promote that guy. get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed. when you book direct at choicehotels.com. book now. so we know how to cover almost alanything.ything, even a coupe soup. [woman] so beautiful. [man] beautiful just like you. [woman] oh, why thank you. [burke] and we covered it, november sixth, two-thousand-nine. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two.
♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ but shouldn't it be about firsts?d in zeros. and seconds... how about adding a third? we think there's a bajillion ways to measure success. and whether you have hundreds or millions... we think you deserve the financial freedom to sleep like this at night. this is the new success story. and at t-i-a-a, we're with you. start today at t-i-a-a dot org. ♪ we are not here to observe, to sit idly by, or watch from the stands. we are here...for one reason. to leave...a mark. lexus high performance. with 5.0-liter v8s and sport direct-shift transmissions. experience a shift in the natural order.
♪ seriously, what is this place? it's heaven. yeah, muscle heaven. you want to take one for a test drive? (tires squealing, engine revs) the challenger and charger have the most affordable v8 engines in their classes. check them out now during the fast and furious sales event. the fate of the furious. in theaters april 14th. in dealerships now. now get 20% off msrp cash allowance on select 2017 dodge charger models in dealer stock. more on our breaking news tonight. it wasn't just u.s. intelligence officials who picked up on contacts by trump campaign associates with russia. dan rather, the host of access tv, the big interview, and david axelrod. good evening, gentleman.
your reaction to jim sciutto's reporting about british passing on this information? >> we can't know until we know what the facts are. that brings us to the imperative need for an independent bipartisan commission to look into this. with the republicans in control of the congress, it's unrealistic to think that any one of the investigations of congress will go beyond a certain point. but this is part of what somebody earlier called a drip, drip of the story. this story is not going away for donald trump. the significance of what we learned tonight, how little we lend, is that it continues. it's going to haunt the trump presidency until and unless the story gets out and the story is, well, trump has no culpability anywhere. that runs hard up against the wall of, if there's nothing there, why is the trump
administration seeking so hard to change the subject, change the narrative? they keep trying to bury this story, which fuels the idea there must be something there, because otherwise they wouldn't work so hard to bury it. >> that's a good question, think, david, is what does it mean for the white house that there is apparently information out there about these contacts. that information presumably known to leaders across europe. >> yeah. you know, i wonder who in the white house knows where all these tentacles go. and is there someone who's -- fareed said earlier, i think, that there ought to be someone in charge of this story. >> he did. >> but even internally, i wonder if the president, i wonder if the people around the president know where all these tentacles have gone. let me just say one thing about this, though. the reason why this is so insidious, and so dangerous,
other than the implications of the hints of collusion between his team and the russians to subvert the elections, which is deeply disturbing, but even if none of that were true, the fact is now when the president speaks on matters that involve russia, you saw it this week, he took a huge turn in terms of how he discussed russia. and rather than looking at the merits of what he was saying, people naturally were asking, well, is this a way to try and establish independence from russia? then you had his son out there saying as much. saying, well, now people can see he really isn't in the thrall of russia. sean spicer made similar comments. you politicize a very fraught global relationship. it's really in the interest of the country to get to the bottom of this. even wherever the bottom leads.
just to satisfy people about what actually happened. >> if there's no there, it's easier to show there's no there there and move on rather than having it hang over your head. this news, mr. rather, comes as carter page, who was monitored by the fbi, providing conflicting story about his contacts with russian officials. this is what he said to abc news. >> in any of these conversations with russians, either in russia or back here in the united states, did you ever suggest to any of them that president trump, candidate trump would be open to easing sanctions on russia? >> absolutely not. >> never? not once? >> i never offered that, no. nothing along those lines. absolutely not. i mean, it may -- i don't remember -- we'll see what comes out in this fisa transcript. >> you know what you did. >> i don't recall every single word that i ever said. but i would never make any
offer, or intimate anything that -- >> it sounds like from what you're saying it's possible you may have discussed the easing of sanctions? >> i have no recollection, and there's nothing specifically that i would have done that would have given people that impression, george. >> but you can't say without equivocation that you didn't discuss the easing of sanctions? >> someone may have brought it up. i have no recollection. if it was, it was not something i was offering or that someone was asking for. >> what do you think? >> i want to know the facts. i will say, as a general proposition, when someone says under repeated question very often, i don't remember, that sometimes is a sign they don't remember, because they don't want to remember. i'm not accusing him of anything at all. again, don, we need to know what happened here. it's not a partisan political matter beyond a certain point. we know the russians were
involved in some ways in trying to affect the political -- the presidential election. >> the intelligence agency said that. >> we need the facts. the facts need to be put in front of the american people. it's not a matter of preaching about it. that's why i come back to the absolute necessity of having a bipartisan special commission to look into it. and that's going to take a lot of time. >> david, getting specifically back to carter page. you saw that interview. let me get your response. what did you think of his answer? >> well, look, carter page is not looking for my advice, but if i were to give him advice, i'd say, stay the heck off of television, man, if you can't answer questions. the fact is that he looked equivocal. he looked guilty in that interview. he knows whether or not he had a discussion with any russian representative. >> let's see what comes up in the transcripts? i'm paraphrasing there. >> yeah, really, translated, that sounded like, i don't want
to answer this too specifically, because i need to know what they have. but for the life of me, i don't understand why he's out there. he's not helping himself. >> he's been asked multiple times who brought him on to the trump campaign. he won't give a name. who do you think is responsible? do you have any idea? >> listen, this won't shock you, don, but i was not privy to the intimate details of the operations of the trump campaign. you remember, i mean, there was a human cry about the fact that trump had no foreign policy advisers. and in desperation, once he threw out a few names, in which carter page was one of them, it's not clear exactly what the relationship was. i don't know who assembled his foreign policy advisers. i don't know what his relationship, for example, with paul manafort was. i don't know any of that.
i suspect those conducting investigations right now know more about this than any of us. >> we'll continue on with this conversation and talk about this mother of all bombs dropped on afghanistan today. why the previous administration didn't use it. and some talk about steve bannon as well, and his possible waning influence in this white house. what if technology gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and sequence their dna to fight disease. there are over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample. with the microsoft cloud, we can analyze the data faster than ever before. if we can detect new viruses before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin.
introducing essential portfolios the automated investing solution. i picjust becauseream car. i configured it online doesn't mean it really exists at a dealership, but with truecar, i get real pricing on actual cars in my area, so i know i can go to a truecar-certified dealer and it'll be there waiting for me. this is truecar.
. i'm back with my panel now. i want to, dan, can you weigh on this other breaking news we have tonight, the united states dropping this nonnuclear bomb on isis' tunnel complex in afghanistan. candidate trump promised he would bomb the you know what out of isis s this a president delivering, do you think? >> i do. first of all, the commander in afghanistan, a great commander, he should have the leeway to use whatever weapons at his disposal. >> so you think it was him who made the decision, right? >> i do. i think that kind of decision had to go somewhere up a ladder. the president not acknowledging that he either signed off on it or he didn't sign off on it. but saving american lives, even one american life and doing
something to beat the enemy at that place, no problem with that whatsoever. the difficulty with afghanistan is what is the strategy? when do we know we got out? we've been there 15, 16 years. dropping bombs is not a strategy. this can be used as part of a strategy. but what is the goal in afghanistan? keep in mind, by the way, he's been asking for more ground troops. he's not granted the ground troops. bombs are not a strategy. with the guerrilla warfare in afghanistan, we know that on a broad general way they're not very effective in winning the war. i believe it happened in afghanistan with this so-called mother of all bombs. let's put an asterisk at the bottom of the page. that name is the mother of all conventional bombs. that's the mother of all bombs.
>> and very good point. before you weigh in, want to play what the president said about the bombing and then get your response. >> we have the greatest military in the world and they've done their job as usual. we have given them total authorization. and that's what they're doing. and, frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately. if you look at what happened over the last eight weeks and compare that to what's happened over the last eight years, you'll see there is a tremendous difference, tremendous difference. >> david, as a former president's senior adviser, what is your reaction to those comments? >> well, i mean, i'm not going to respond to that element of it. everything was terrible for the last eight years and everything's been great for the last ten weeks according to donald trump. so there is no point in reacting to that. and i agree with dan on the use of the weapon. i assume that was done for good military purposes. i don't ascribe any particular political motives to the use of
this weapon. but it is interesting that president in that scrum with the reporters seemed not to have -- he didn't want to answer that question. as you point out. did he order it? what was his involvement in this? and he said well, you know, i trust -- essentially said i trust my generals. and what's interesting about that is we all remember it wasn't that many months ago when he was telling everyone that he knew better than the generals. and it's one more instance in which he has changed his posture on his relationship with them, on what his role would be as president versus them in terms of setting strategy. my guess is that this was a decision that was taken by the military for good military reasons. >> let's talk about the strategy and people around him really. "the wall street journal" asked president trump if there will be any changes to his inner circle in the coming months. the president responded saying i
don't intend to. he added he may change his mind from day-to-day, i don't know. that's a quote from him. he's been distancing himself from his chief strategist steve bannon. do you think his influence is driving the change that's we're seeing now? >> i'm sorry. i thought you were asking david. i beg your pardon. this is very strange. the answer is i don't know. who can know? but there's no precedent for what's happened here. never in the modern presidency, i don't think going all the way back to george washington, has there ever been a president who talked to a tabloid newspaper and dished, which is what he said, said things about one of if not his main adviser. there is no precedent for. that. >> i like steve, but he said. that was the beginning of it. >> in most white houses, if that had been done, you would see --
you would say to yourself, bannon politically is what the mafia calls a walking corpse. he's dead in terms of influence. but with trump, who can say? what's been lost with all of the talk of the tomahawk missiles and mother of all bombs dropping, the narrative taking hold before then is a lot of back stabbing, back biting scrambling for position. the picture was sort of painted at least from the outside that inside the white house they would turn on each other like the women in the television program desperate housewives. they're turning on one another all over. who knows where that leads. it can't be good news for bannon that trump said what he said. >> i want to get your response. i like steve ban on but -- i like steve, but -- he's just a guy that works for me. >> he doesn't get named chief strategist and placed on the national security council, given co-equal status with the chief
of staff. he obviously was more than that to donald trump. but the first 82 days haven't gone particularly well. bannon was associated with two of the biggest failures which was the travel ban and the -- which were the travel ban and the affordable care act repeal failing. i think that there were always forces there whether it was general mattis, general mcmaster and some of the more globalist forces on national security who were interested in circumscribing his power, flynn's power and then on the economic front, you have, you know, you have jared kushner and gary koenen, head of economic national economic council, they were going to try and prevail over the nationalist impulses of steve bannon. you have a president that had no particular philosophy. >> i got to go.
>> okay. see you. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. axelrod and mr. rather. i appreciate it. is to always keep track of your employees.r micromanage them. make sure they're producing. woo! employee of the month! you really shouldn't leave their side. vita coco coconut water, hydration comes naturally. could save money on car insurance.nce you know, the kind of driver who always buckles up... comes to a complete stop... and looks both ways, no matter what. because esurance believes that's the kind of driver who deserves to save money on car insurance. in fact, safe drivers who switch from geico to esurance could save hundreds. so if you switch to esurance, saving is a pretty safe bet. auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. guests can earn a how cafree night when theypring book direct on choicehotels.com and stay with us just two times? spring time. badda book. badda boom. or... badda bloom.
♪ seriously, what is this place? it's heaven. yeah, muscle heaven. you want to take one for a test drive? (tires squealing, engine revs) the challenger and charger have the most affordable v8 engines in their classes. check them out now during the fast and furious sales event. the fate of the furious. in theaters april 14th. in dealerships now. now get 20% off msrp cash allowance
on select 2017 dodge charger models in dealer stock. the mother of all bomb strikes, isis strikes in afrg. the weapon is massive. weighing in at nearly 22,000 pounds and was only used in testing until today. it is the largest nonnuclear bomb the u.s. military has ever used in battle. plus, the russia investigation latest. sources telling cnn that british intelligence and other european agencies intercepted communications between trump associates and russian officials during the campaign and passed them on to u.s. officials. and moments before a man was dragged off the united airlines flight, he and an officer got into an argument. and tonight we're going to hear what was said ak