tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN July 20, 2017 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
people didn't know o.j. sitsmps. many of us, including myself think o.j. simpson was guilty -- >> i got to run, mark. thank you, mark, thank you, kierna. join kyra phillips. cnn's special report "after o.j.: the fuhrman tapes revealed." airs tomorrow night at 10:00. sounds riveting. good to see all of you. thank you. that's it for us tonight. thanks for watching. good evening, we begin tonight with blow-backs from republicans about the president's remarkable interview with "the new york times," in it ripped attorney general jeff sessions for recusing himself on russia, took verbal shots at rosenstein and former fbi director james comey. the president had a warning for russia special counsel robert mueller not to poke too far into his business. when asked by the "times" if that would constitute a red line for the president, he said yesterday. whether that mark individually or collective tone, what the president said has been drawing
negative reviews. a group of republican senators spoke with cnn, one who did not want to be named was stunned by the president's remarks about director mueller. "any thought of firing the special counsel is chilling, he said. it's chilling. that's all you can say." another said, "one gets the impression that the president doesn't understand or he willfully disregards the fact that the attorney general and law enforcement in general, they are not his personal lawyers to defend and protect him." senator chuck grassley, republican of iowa, put it even more bluntly. >> the attorney general can't be a weak man for a president. he's got to be very independent and work for -- be a wingman for the people of the country. >> over on the house side, republicans also voicing concerns. here's what idaho gop congressman said to politico, "i don't pay attention wto what's going on with the administration because i don't care. the family's a distraction. the president is distraction." he summed it up this way, "at
first it was well, yeah, this is guy we elected, he'll learn, he'll learn. you don't see that happening." the view, again, not from pundits or the press or democrats, but republicans tonight of a president some see as treating the white house as his personal domain and the presidency not as bigger than himself but strictly solely about himself. no one but himself. it's never worked for any white house, nor any president. more now from jeff zeleny who's on the north lawn. so, how does the white house explain the president's comments that if he does, in fact, have full confidence in the attorney general? >> reporter: anderson, the white house once again today was struggling to explain the comments and once again, in this position of trying to explain something that they weren't really planning for. this week was not designed to be talking about this. the president essentially went off yesterday speaking something that had been talked about privately in this town for a long time that he was frustrated with jeff sessions, but that boiled over.
at the daily white house press briefing today in talking to administration officials throughout the day they said the president is disappointed in the attorney general for recusing himself. he did not -- he was furious at the time back in march. and that was only intensified over these several months as the investigation has intensified. but anderson, talking to employees, administration officials throughout the government here at the white house, they were jarred by this. largely because this was jeff sessions. he is a loyal soldier. he was the first republican to sign on to the trump campaign. in the words of one official it had a chilling effect. thinking if the president can do this to jeff sessions, what will he do to us if we sort of upset him in some way? jeff sessions happened to have a press conference today talking about cyber security. he, of course, was asked about this. >> i have the honor of serving as attorney general. it's something that goes beyond any thought i would have ever had for myself. we love this job.
we love this department. and i plan to continue to do so as long as that is appropriate. >> reporter: and anderson, you heard him say, as long as it is appropriate. that is of course the central question here. we don't know, he doesn't know how long that is. he also spoke in the we. that was the entire high command of the justice department standing around him. no one in that group of leaders, fbi, acting fbi director, deputy attorney then, escaped the president's wrath in that "new york times" interview. he singled virtually every one out. no one here expects him to resign. the president has not asked for that resignation but certainly awkward because they have not spoken yet, i'm told, anderson. simply the president talking about him and not to him. >> what did the white house have to say about the red line the president drew for mueller when it comes to looking to his family's finances. >> that was another fascinating
part of the interview because it was clear that's on the president's mind as well. it's important to remember, he knows more about this investigation than anyone else. he's being briefed by lawyers, and he made clear that he -- his finances, his family's finances were off limits. the white house was asked about that and sarah huckabee sanders the deputy press secretary said, look, this investigation should stay focused on the russian meddling in the election. said look, this investigation should stay focused on -- it should stay focused on that, not talking about the finances. but the reality here is bob mueller has this investigation. he is likely going after that. at least it looks like, at this time. but, again, the question the president plan to fire him? the white house said he does not plan to file the special prosecutor but they do say he has the authority to do so if he so chooses. that, of course, is an open question here but the white house insists he does but not
going to at least right now. >> jeff zeleny, appreciate that. bmp moving on, i want to underscore the white house's take on the president's warning to robert mueller. here's what sarah huckabee sanders said at today's no cameras allowed press briefing. >> i think the president, the point he's trying to make is that the clear purpose of the russia investigation is to review russia's meddling in the election and that should be the focus of the investigation, nothing beyond that. >> that should not be viewed as a threat, as a warning to what the special counsel should or should not be looking at as it relates to the president's and his family's finances? >> the president's making clear that the special counsel should not move outside of the scope of the investigation. >> sarah sanders off camera today. to her point, it looks hike the special counsel's team is pushing hard to the area the president is warning is a no go zone. "bloombe "bloomberg" is out with new reporting that cnn has
independently confirmed. the trump white house -- "mueller expands probe to transactions." greg, based on your reporting, what is mueller expand ing his probe to include? >> what we've learned is that he is taking a broad view of the investigation and not a narrow view. the mandate he was given in mid-may is open to interpretation. anything related to russia and that might have resulted in interference in the election. he's clearly going back more than a decade to any real estate transactions involving russian nationals. >> really? >> exactly. well, russians
who took issue with, you know, first of all, said we're not aware of any of this. secondly, he raised the question that he thought that what we reported indicates that the special counsel has gone beyond what his mandate was given two months ago and besides some of the issues beyond the statues of limitations. >> fascinating article. greg ferrell from bloomberg.
jo tim, you probably know more about the president's finances at a certain point in his career than probably anyone outside those who actually worked for him. what does it mean to have a special counsel or special prosecutor looking into his business dealings? i mean -- >> to the financial equivalent of getting a thorough physical from a doctor you may not want to visit. you know, he's going do have to get, i think, his taxes turned over. his bank records. and records of any business transaction. i think what's also happened so far is the net has come to include members of the trump organization, other people who worked with him. i think mueller will subpoena hard drives from the trump organization's computers. and i think the larger issue in light of "the new york times" article is that trump threw down this warning to mueller. i don't think mueller's listening. >> you mean that as a warning? >> absolutely. i think it's a warning. i also have thought sometimes -- we talked about this before, i
don't think trump would hesitate to fire mueller if the heat gets turned up. i think we saw this already with comey. he's someone who tends to lash out when the vice gets tightened around him. he's in the middle of an investigation. >> donald trump resisted his finances being looked into long before. obviously he was even running for president. for him to be pushing back on this, shouldn't come as much of a surprise really. >> it shouldn't come as a surprise. but the magnitude of firing a special prosecutor who is investigating you shouldn't be underestimated. it's only happened once before in history, saturday night massacre in 1973, richard nixon demanded the firing of archibald cox. certainly would be a big deal. >> the white house says he has no intention -- >> he has no intention. if you listen to that interview yesterday with "the new york times," you know, he was, i thought, pretty clear that there were lines that if mueller
crossed he wouldn't hesitate to demand his firing. he said something interesting about the finances in that interview. he said i don't make money in russia. he didn't say i don't borrow money in russia. that's really been the question that a lot of people have. not whether he has investments in russia. i think we all know he doesn't really have major investments in russia. has he received loans? that's something where he could generate indebtedness both in a financial and political sense and that's something that i am certain mueller is looking into. >> ken, mueller's instructions from the department of justice in addition to investigating alleged coordination between russian -- they include, quote, any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. does that give him a tremendous amount of leeway here? >> well, you could interpret it that way but remember one of the criticisms of the independent counsel law when it existed, reason we don't have it anymore, is because of independent
counsels getting outside their initial charge. now we have a special counsel regulation which is what mueller's operating under. and it is exactly that kind of concern expressed in a bipartisan basis for years and years. >> does it seem he's going beyond his portfolio? >> i don't know if that's the case. it does not give him the ability properly to do a fishing expedition on the trump family. with respect to economics of the trump family related to russia in recent years and i don't think a march 2008 sale of a home would fall in that category. it could very well be within the charge he's been given. other things that fall outside it, not like they have to go away. he should hand them over to the department of justice to handle on their own as they see fit. >> pam, as we said, cnn working to confirm the reporting by bloomberg.
why would investigators be looking to finances as part of the russian meddling probe? >> well, one of the main reasons investigators want to look at that is to see if any russians or anyone conducted to the russian government was trying to finance real estate deals as a way to curry favor. that is certainly something that logically investigators want to look at in this investigation as they try to figure out the russian interference and influence campaign that was going on during the election. and perhaps even before the election according to investigators. and you heard -- just discussing this, the attorneys for the president say that this is outside of this scope of the special counsel's scope but the wording is important and it does say that anything that arises from this investigation or may arise can be looked at and so in talking to prosecutors, current and former, they say that finances would be something that you would want to look at as you try to build a picture and have a better understanding of what russia's role was here,
anderson. >> tim, when you try to look into the president's finances now over a decade ago, what was his response? how did he deal with that? >> you know, he said no -- >> but until we got to that point, he -- he never offered substantive documentation of everything. it was always take my word, this and this is worth this much, i won't tell you how much debt i have. it was a cat and mouse game. and i think the big difference here is that robert mueller has subpoena power. i was a reporter. i just had an ability to interview him. very different circumstances now. i think one of the things that's going to arise in all of this, jeff alluded to this with the loans, is that there's an issue about whether any of these people he did business with were cutouts or representatives of other interests in russia financial or political. the kremlin or other powerful interests. i think that's another thing mueller is going to have to unearth. >> i want to thank everybody. ahead tonight a question of family ties after one prior apology for doing it already. jared kushner's name and oval
office connections used to attract foreign investors to the family business he left behind. "360 investigates" gets results. also coming up next, o.j. sits sm simpson's parole hearing. jeff toobin is back to talk about it when we continue. and he does it with support from dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort to keep him feeling more energized. so he even has the energy to take the long way home. keep it up, steve! dr. scholl's. born to move. is america's number-one you kmotorcycle insurer. yeah, she does purr! best bike i ever owned! no, you're never alone, because our claims reps are available 24/7. we even cover accessories and custom parts. we diget an early start! took the kids to soccer practice.
i was playing golf love golf.... i used to love golf. wait, what, what happened? i was having a good round, and then my friend, sheila, right as i was stepping into the tee box mentioned a tip a pro gave her. no. yep. did it help? it completely ruined my game. well, the truth is, that advice was never meant for you. i like you. you want to show me your swing? it's too soon. get advice that's right for you. investment management services from td ameritrade. o.j. simpson will soon be a free man after serving nine years in prison for his role in a las vegas robbery. he went before state pa reel board. the hearing did not lack for drama.
a remark about not having a violent past raised a lot of eyebrows. we'll have more on that. first this. >> nevada's parole commissioners unanimously handed o.j. simpson a get out of prison card. a relieved simpson heard what he wanted. he'll serve a minimum nine year of a possible 33-year sentence for his role in the 2007 armed robbery and kidnapping of memorabilia dealers. simpson pleaded with the commissioners. >> i'm sorry is happened. i'm sorry to nevada. nine years away from your family is just not worth it. i'm sorry. >> reporter: simpson stressed he'd been disciplinary-free. a model inmate. >> i've done my time. i've done it as well and respectfully as i think anybody can. if you talk to the wardens they'll tell you i gave them my word. i believe in the jury system.
i've honored their verdict. >> reporter: commissioners called simpson's conviction a serious crime, said there was no execucuse for it. but added simpson complied with prison rule the and was low-risk to re-offend. >> the question here as with all parole here hearings is whether or not you served a enough time in prison on this case. considering all of these factors, my vote is to grant your parole effective when eligible. >> reporter: and his colleagues agree. the board noted simpson's 1990s legal issues in california had no bearing in nevada. an allusion to his acquittal to the murders of nicole brown simpson and her friend, ron goldman. simpson's life so often filled with sensational moments took another twist during the parole hearing. testified, so many crime victims
who make pleas for parole boards to keep them in prison, furmond asked for him to be set free. >> he's a good man. he made a mistake. if he called me tomorrow and said bruce, i'm getting out, will you pick me up? juice, i'll be here tomorrow. >> reporter: and simpson revealed his plan after release is to move to florida. >> i could easily stay in nevada but i don't think you guys want me here. >> so what is next for o.j. simpson now that he's been granted parole? >> reporter: he stays in this prison behind me until october. after that, he'll go to another facility in southern nevada and make his exit. also those commissioners, anderson, will hash out the very details, terms and conditions of his parole and they sent him a message. said if he breaks records while on parole, he could be back in a facility in nevada. >> appreciate it. cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin
is back, steeped in all things o.j. simpson. having written the definitive account of the murder trial. also with us cnn legal analysts. earlier today you said the parole board probably wasn't wrong to grant him parole. you were critical of some of the statements he made. >> i was. it's been a long time. i thought i was sort of over the whole thing. but just to see him there, justifying his behavior, mouthing the words i'm sorry it happened. but trying to justify what he said -- what he did for which he was arrested, but then even worse, to describe himself as someone who had led a conflict-free life, when he was a convicted domestic abuser, when nicole brown simpson had called repeatedly to 911 for the violence that he imposed on her, putting aside the murders for which he was acquitted. i just thought that was so indicative of someone that doesn't think domestic violence
is a real crime. and i just was totally, totally offended. >> mark, to jeff's point, it was interesting, he kept saying he was sorry for what happened as though it was a thunderstorm that just happened as opposed to for what i did. but you thought it was a slam dunk he'd granted parole. >> yeah, i didn't think there was any doubt given the low risk factor. given his age. given the fact he's already done nine years on a case that the prosecution offered him 2 1/2 years so he got the going to trial penalty, if you will. for exercising his right to a trial. and if you take a look at what they're supposed to consider, as i said, it was a slam dunk. i don't disagree with jeff. i mean, when this started, he was making that statement, i had kind of my own post traumatic stress. more from clients who you talk to, you tell them, just own it, just own it. he wasn't owning it, so to speak. but ultimately at the end of the
day, when you check off the boxes of what the commissioners were supposed to do, he met all of those things and there was really no reason to keep him in there. he's 70 years old. the guys who had the guns a basically got slaps on the wrists and that was the end of that. i didn't think there was much suspense. >> the parole board made it clear their decision was based on this case, had nothing to do with the 1995 acquittal. he was convicted of spousal abuse involving nicole brown simpson and multiple 911 calls made by her saying he was being abusive on multiple incidents yet he said he lived a conflict-free life. >> i think that segment was inaccurate, anderson. absolutely the parole board takes into accounts prior convictions. that's one of the 11 factors the parole board had to take into consideration and looked atting a aggravating and mitigating
measures. the system worked as it should have today. you had someone convicted of a robbery. they were sentenced to 9 to 33 years. he had a discipline-free nine years in this prison, met the criteria set and that's what's supposed to happen. when you meet the criteria, peaceful and under the radar in prison and you have the victim plead for your release, you should be released. i think people are confusing this with a popularity contest. this wasn't and isn't a popularity contest. >> yeah. we're going to have more on this including what jeffrey toobin has been subjected to. we'll play the 911 tapes so you can hear for yourself what his self-described conflict-free life really sounds like. more ahead. that one's broken. what bad back?gels work so fast you'll ask what pulled hammy? advil liqui - gels make pain a distant memory
or a little internet machine? [ phone ringing ] hi mom. it makes you wonder... shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. [ laughing ] so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. call or go to xfinitymobile.com introducing xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money.
during his parole hearing today o.j. simpson made the dubious claim he lived a conflict-free life. the facts don't bear that out. while he was acquitted in the brutal death of his ex-wife nicole brown simpson and friend, ron goldman, simpson later pled to hurting his wife and pled no contest to spousal l battery. here are a few of the 911 calls that brown simpson made. >> what is he doing? is he threatening you? >> [ bleep ], going nuts. >> has he threatened you u in any way or just harassing you? >> you're going to hear him in a minute. he's about to come in again. >> just stay on the line. >> i don't want to stay on the line. he's going to beat the [ bleep ]. he wanted somebody's phone number and i gave him my phonebook. i put my phonebook down to write down the phone number that he wanted and he took my phonebook with all my stuff in it.
>> basically you guys have just been arguing? >> [ bleep ]. [ bleep ]. >> is he inside right now? >> yes. >> okay. just a moment. >> back to the panel. jeff, you listen to that call, it's just chilling. >> there's one i always remember, one of the 911 calls where she identifies herself, who's your husband? and she says, it's o.j. simpson, i think you know his record. which suggests how many times she called 911 and, you know, we saw the photographs of her with black eyes that he gave her and, you know, this story, as elaborate and complicated as it got, is something that i always thought was something very unfortunately very familiar. a domestic violence homicide. an ex-husband killed an ex-wife. it happens every day in america. >> and in some places people don't take it as seriously in
some lenses as other crimes. >> domestic violence has always been treated at least before the modern era as a family matter or personal matter. not something -- and maybe something that the victim has a right to complain about, but what, wroyou know, i hope peopl are starting to see that domestic violence is not just a crime against the victim. it's a crime against society just like bank robberies, just like murder. >> it was interesting during the hearing we did hear o.j. simpson's side of the robbery, for the first time, what happened in vegas. he didn't take the stand during the trial nine years ago. i mean, it was so convoluted, at a certain point it was almost impossible to follow. but, again, he just seemed to be kind of saying, yeah, it was all these other people, they're the ones who had guns and i was just there and i could have sorted it out but it got out of hand because f theof these other peo >> that harkins back to what i was saying about not owning it.
the one thing you have to do in parole hearings, i counsel people to do, own it. you're not relitigating the case. this clearly as you articulately recounted was him relitigating the case and so i understand that. i understand he wants to tell the story. basically what he was trying to say, i think the point he was trying to make, look, i didn't go there for the memorabilia, i went there for the intimate family photos. that in his mind dovetailed he wanted to just get out and be with his family so i understand it. i've been there. i understand when you counsel a client, sometimes there's just -- you know, it's one of the reasons you never want to fit a client on the stand is because you never know what's going to happen after you let loose with them. i think that's exactly what happened today. >> you made the important point this isn't a popularity contest, the parole board had a job to look at a specific number of factors. what were the factors that they were looking at and how much was his behavior while incarcerated
taken into account? >> his behavior, anderson, was a big part of what they took into consideration. there are 11 factors the parole board in nevada looks at. age, employment at the time that the sneincident occurred. substance abuse including use of alcohol. severity of the crime that was committed. family support. a stable plan. once you're released. all of those factors. of course, your conduct during your imprisonment. and i also made the point earlier today that you can't really talk about o.j. simpson without talking about the issues of race, class and justice. everyone talks about him relitigating the facts. in many ways we're relitigating the 1994 trial that occurred in los angeles. i don't condone the conduct, listening to those domestic violence tapes were chilling to me. but the reality is, that was over 4 24 years ago and to say that the prison -- the parole board should have considered that case, that audiotape of
nicole brown, reporting that domestic violence, making this determination, to me is the height of hypocrisy. >> right. i don't know that anybody is saying shsay ing shay should consider that. it contradicts what he, himself, said about living a conflict-free life which everybody would agree with. i want to thank everybody. up next the latest on the russia probe on capitol hill. why the judiciary chairman is threatening to subpoena donald trump jr. and former trump campaign chairman paul manafort. just like the people
who own them, every business is different. but every one of those businesses will need legal help as they age and grow. whether it be help starting your business, vendor contracts or employment agreements. legalzoom's network of attorneys can help you every step of the way so you can focus on what you do. we'll handle the legal stuff that comes up along the way. legalzoom. legal help is here. helping small businesses.ut, jamie -- damage your vehicle? we got you covered. [ glass shatters ] property damage? that's what general liability's for. what?! -injured employee? -ow. workers' comp helps you pay for a replacement. what's happening? this is carla. how's it going?
the russia probe is moving forward on capitol hill with a slew of testimonies. coming up next week. among the invited guests donald trump jr. and campaign chairman paul manafort. senator chuck grassley is threatening subpoenas if both don't agree to appear. jared kushner agreed to speak with other senator the in a closed session. manu raju has details. what are they saying about these requests for trump jr. and paul manafort? >> reporter: they're saying they need to respond by tomorrow and tell the committee tomorrow whether, in fact, they do plan to appear in this hearing next wednesday. so far we have not heard whether or not they will, but senator chuck grassley and senator dianne feinstein, leaders of the committee, telling me earlier today they're taking this very seriously. grassley raising the specter of
sending over federal marshals to deliver the subpoenas if they don't comply. >> are you concerned donald trump jr. and manafort have not yet accept at the invitation to appear before the committee next week? >> am i concerned? no. i'm not concerned. because if they don't, they'll be subpoenaed. >> we're having a hearing next wednesday so obviously we want to hear right away so we can get the subpoena. i hope they accept the subpoena voluntarily. if they don't, then you have to have a marshal give it and that takes a little more time. >> reporter: now tonight, anderson, paul manafort's representatives are telling us that they're weighing the request. not saying whether or not they will appear or not. did you donald trump jr.'s attorney has not responded for multiple requests for comment about whether or not he will actually appear at this public hearing next week, and of course donald trump jr. went on sean hannity's program, anderson, and said he'd be willing to testify before congress. he's not said yet whether or not he would accept this invitation
now that it's in writing, anderson. >> jared kushner is going it speak with the senate intelligence committee on monday, right? >> reporter: that's correct. this is going to be a staff-level interview. staff of the senate intelligence committee talking to them in a classified session. i'm told he will not be sworn in. take the oath while being interviewed by staff, but he, of course, has to tell the full truth to the staff of the committee because of any misleading statements, any lying to congress, that could be considered a crime. now i've been told in the past that he's also agreed to talk to senators. unclear whether or not that will actually happen. when that will happen or if that will happen. >> manu are raju, thanks. earlier today i spoke with a member of the senate judiciary committee, senator chris coons. i'm wondering if the judiciary committee received responses from donald trump jr. or paul manafort to the request they come wednesday? >> i don't know specifically, anderson, whether or not the committee staff have yet heard a
confirmation from donald trump jr. and paul manafort whether they will come willingly next wednesday but the chairman, senator grassley, ranking member, senator feinstein, have said publicly they're willing to subpoena them if they don't come willingly. it's my expectation we'll be seeing them next friday. excuse me, next wednesday. >> do you agree with that approach, the idea of subpoenaing them if they don't come willingly? >> well, i think it's a way that the congress has of ensuring that folks who we view as very important, very high level witnesses come and testify. obviously it's better if they keep public commitments and come willingly. the congress does have subpoena power. it's proecht appropriate to use necessary. >> has the committee requested any documents from donald trump jr. or paul manafort? >> my understanding is that yes, there's been a fairly wide ranging document request but i don't know the details of what documents have been requested. >> if they in any way refuse, is that something also you would
support subpoenaing? >> yes, it's my expectation the committee would use subpoena power if necessary to get documents relevant to the meetings and relationships that we're investigating. i think this is an important next step for us and the senate judiciary committee and important part to use congress' subpoena power. >> for donald trump jr. is the focus just that meeting we all know about last june? or is it beyond that? >> well speaking for myself, one of my main concerns is the meeting that donald trump jr. had that was initially mischaracterized as a small and brief meeting about adoption but over the next couple day ts turned out it was a much larger group, about eight people talking about potentially receiving derogatory information about secretary clinton from someone who represented herself as being a russian official, someone on behalf of the russian government. the e-mail that's now been disclosed by donald trump jr. is quite challenging, quite intriguing and raises more questions than it answers. with paul manafort, the issue
here is that he was representing interests in ukraine that were closely tied with the kremlin and whether or not those were complicating relationships that played a role in decisions he made as the manager of the trump for president campaign. >> as you know, "the new york times" is reporting paul manafort was in debt $17 million to pro-russia interest groups. i assume that will be of interest to people on the committee. >> any sort of complicating relationships that trump's campaign manager may have had with russians, with russian creditors or with russian leaders would be of interest to the committee. >> do you know if the committee is going to be bringing anyone else from that meeting in trump tower into the committee to testify? >> i don't know that but my expectation is following wednesday's testimony by paul manafort and donald trump jr. we may well expand the request to have before us sworn testimony several other participants in that meeting and several other folks that could shed more light on the complicated relationship
between donald trump's campaign manager and russian interests. >> senator coons, appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. up next, this past spring, kushner companies, family business run by jared kushner, apologized for using his names and white house connections when attempting to lure investors for a real estate project. so is his name still being used? tell you what a "360" investigation uncovered in a moment. you'll only see it here. a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home... ...with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection.
neulasta helps reduce infection risk by boosting your white blood cell count, which strengthens your immune system. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ it's happening, it's happening! in the modern world, you can control just about anything with an app. your son is turning on all the lights again! you can do the same with your car insurance with the esurance mobile app. esurance. click or call. i enjoy the fresher things in life. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. go on, try something fresh.
real estate operation. but you may remember two months ago the company was caught using his name in white house connections in an effort to lure foreign investors. then came the apology. so you might have thought his name would stop be used to promote the company. that's not entirely true. take a look at what senior correspondent drew griffin discovered. >> reporter: the ethical organizations surrounding this kushner family project in new jersey city, new jerseyer about to grow. that's despite a prior apology cnn has discovered groups had continued to use jared kushner as a promotional tool to attract chinese investors seeking u.s. immigration visas, labeling him mr. perfect and trump's son-in-law. the promotions are for a kushner building development covered under a u.s. government program called ev-5. it gives foreigners and their families the chance for a
greencard as long as they invest at least $500,000 in an american project. and this project is the same one jared kushner's sister was pitching to wealthy chinese investors in beijing in may. nicole kushner meyer used her brother as a selling point, sparking outrage. a statement from jared's lawyer saying jared knew nothing of the promotion, was no longer financially tied to 1 journalist square and would recuse himself from particular matters involving ev-5. from kushner companies came this. kushner companies apologizes if that mention of her brother was in any way interpreted as an attempt to lure investors. that was not ms myers' intention. cnn discovered that companies continued to promote the kushner's square property, alluding to or connecting it with jared kushner. >> on the "forbes" magazine in
2016. >> right here? >> reporter: ads in chinese writing that describe the kushners as real estate big shot, jared kushner as the celebrity of the family. and 30-something, mr. perfect, jared kushner who once served as ceo of kushner companies. another refers to the president himself saying even some members of trump's family have participated in the growth of the eb-5 program, and attributed so that "forbes" magazine reference refers to this edition, with jared on the cover. this guy got trump elected. the posts come from two companies who work with the kushners who work to attract investors to their project. qwos, which organized the event in may where kushner's sister spoke. and the u.s. immigration fund, a private company seeking eb-5 investors for the kushner's new jersey development. cnn contacted both businesses as well as kushner companies.
we have not heard, but within hours the u.s. immigration fund sites had removed any references to jared kushner. in a statement the company blamed the post on a third party, saying the post was several months old and hasn't had any interaction by followers. kushner company sent this response saying kushner company was not aware of these sites and has nothing to do with them. the company will be sending a cease and desist letter regarding the references to jared kushner. in a letter sent june 1, three democratic lawmakers asked kushner companies to explain the nature of its relationship with these companies, but so far they have not received a response. the visa program is perfectly legal, but ethics lawyer richard painter says using the president's son-in-law to lure investors to the program is unacceptable. i that's something we told people the bush white house. don't let other people use your
name to raise money for investments. >> reporter: he believes the jared kushner references are deliberate. he is an expert on helping foreign nationals invest in the eb-5 investment program and says chinese investors especially look for projects they feel the u.s. government supports. >> having the president's son-in-law's name on a project, if i'm sitting in china i would perceive that as some level of security. >> what they want to make sure is that they get the green card, so if they see a public official associated with the project, that gives them the impression the project is safe enough to invest in terms of getting the greencard. >> reporter: originally intended to spark development in urban and blighted areas, the eb-5 program has morphed into a funding program for vs.ers who can raise millions of dollars from foreigners as long as the investments create jobs. about 10,000 eb-5 visas are available to foreign investors and their families each year. the developers get the cash. and as forbe most investor,
their website states the whole family gets their green cards. it comes at a minimum price of a half a million dollars. and what better way to invest that money than with a company whose former ceo, mr. perfect is the son-in-law of the president. >> drew griffin joins us, this dowse seem like an explicit conflict of interest. >> that is why many are asking for explanation, why they're crying foul on this. jared kushner's explanation is simple, he is not involved in this. but up until yesterday were using to raise money only highlights to families how valuable it's going to be for the kushner companies these four years, maybe eight that they can sell, promote or benefit, anderson, from people knowing they have a relative in the white house. >> drew griffin, i appreciate the update. up next, o.j. simpson's claim at the parole hearing that he has basically led a
conflict-free life. 0. alright, and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire? oh yeah sure... ok, like what? but i thought we were supposed to be talking about investing for retirement? we're absolutely doing that. but there's no law you can't make the most of today. what do you want to do? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. yea. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change. investment management services from td ameritrade.
i'm leaving you, wesley. but why? you haven't noticed me in two years. i was in a coma. well, i still deserve appreciation. who was there for you when you had amnesia? you know i can't remember that. stop this madness. if it's appreciation you want you should both get snapshot from progressive. it rewards good drivers with big discounts on car insurance. it's a miracle. i can walk again. go back to your room, susan lucci.
we're at the top of the hour, the end of a day that stirs all kinds of memories and emotions for all kinds of reasons. o.j. simpson has been in his 70-year life a sports hero, pitchman, role model, admitted wife beater, one time alleged murderer and more. for the last eight years he's been a nevada prison inmate. today he learned he'll be going free. just as it has been for the past two decades, today's parole hearing gave people something to talk about, including this unfounded claim. >> i always thought i've been pretty good with people. and i basically spent a conflict-free life, you know. i'm not a guy that ever got into fights on the street and with the public and everybody. >> well, that's simply not true. simpson has admitted to beating his wife and once plead no con toast to spousal battery. a civil jury found him liable in the killings of his ex-wife and
ron goldman. pour on that shortly. let's go to sara sidner who was at the parole hearing. did o.j. simpson seem remorseful during the hearing? >> he did say he was sorry a couple of times. but really, he spent most of his time talking about himself and how wonderful he was doing in prison and how wonderful of a guy that he was in his life. and he blamed others for some of what happened. eventually he did take responsibility for it, but he said that he didn't realize the guns were going to be there. he'd never touched a gun. in court, he didn't touch a gun that was true. but he certainly planned it because there are audiotapes of the planning of the kidnapping and robbery that ended up happening. and he did say are you packing heat? so he clearly knew during the trial in 2008 that there were going to be guns involved in this. ultimately, though, the parole board decided after listening to his testimony, the testimony of his daughter and friend and looking at all the other factors that go into this, which is how he did in prison, did he cause
any trouble, which he did not. he was a model prisoner, according to himself and others at the prison. but ultimately, they decided, look, he is going to be paroled. that will happen in october. >> also, the fact that he had somebody who was the victim of the robbery speak on his behalf. that doesn't happen every day. >> that's absolutely true. it was actually extraordinary. i think the most emotional testimony in this whole thing was his friend and the memorabilia dealer who had a gun to his head that o.j. simpson was telling i want my stuff back. he was the guy that came forward and said look, o.j. simpson made a mistake but i want him out. let's listen in. >> it's time for him to go home to his family, his friends. this is a good man. he made a mistake. and if he called me tomorrow and said bruce, i'm getting out,