tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN August 10, 2017 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
>> thank you. thank you to all of you for joining us. we'll see you back here, same time, same place tomorrow night. "ac 360" with anderson cooper begins right now. good evening. very big night. if the president ever writes one of those what i did on my summer vacation essay, he'll have a lot to write. he continued to smack down the top republican in the senate, the guy who's supposed to be his key ally, weighed in on the russia investigation, about the nuclear arsenal and revis ted his election victory as well. we begin with north korea. mr. trump not backing away from his initial fire and fury threat. the president today, amping it up. >> nonsense, the word that they used, do you have any response? >> i don't think they mean that. and i think it's the first time
they heard it like they heard it. and frankly, the people who were questioning that statement, maybe it wasn't tough enough. they've been doing this to our country for a long time, for many years. and it's about time that somebody stuck up for the people of this country, and for the people of other countries. maybe that statement wasn't tough enough. and we're backed 100% by our military, we're backed by everybody. and we're backed by many other leaders. i notice that many senators and others today came out very much in favor of what i said. but if anything, that statement may not be tough enough. >> what could be tougher than fire and fury? >> you'll see. you'll see. >> [ inaudible ]? >> we don't talk about that. i never do. i'm not like the other administration that would say, we're going into mosul in four months. i don't talk about it. we'll see what happens. but i can tell you that what they've been doing, and what they've been getting away with, is a tragedy.
and it can't be allowed. >> that was before briefing with his national security team. afterwards he said more at a session that nearly amounted to a full-fledged press conference which he hadn't had in months. >> are you going to increase the u.s. military -- >> we're going to look at what's happening in asia. we're looking at it right now. we're constantly looking at it. i don't like to signal what i'm going to be doing. but we're certainly looking at it. and obviously we're spending a lot of time looking at in particular north korea. and we are preparing for many different alternative events on north korea. he's disrespecting our country greatly. he has said things that are horrific. and with me, he's not getting away with it. he got away with it for a long time with he and his family. he's not getting away with it. this is a whole new ball game. he's not going to be saying those things, and he's certainly not going to be doing those
things. i read where in guam, august 15th, let's see what he does with guam. he does something in guam, it will be an event the likes of which nobody's seen before, what will happen in north korea. >> when you say that, what do you mean? >> you'll see. you'll see. and he'll see. he will see. it's not a dare. it's a statement. it has nothing to do with dare. that's a statement. he's not going to go around threatening guam, and he's not going to threaten the united states, and he's not going to threaten japan, and he's not going to threaten south korea. no, that's not a dare, as you say, that is a statement of fact. >> north korea weighed in as well earlier today saying the united states, quote, would suffer a shameful defeat and final doom, their words, if it doesn't change course. one other late note we've learned from several defense department officials, joseph dunford has left on a visit to east asia, including stops in japan, china, as well as south
korea. joining us is retired navy rear admiral john kirby, and cnn chief political analyst, gloria borger, and phil mudd. if anybody thought the president was going to change his tone, he seemed to have doubled down on fire and fury and set up some sort of, whether challenge, or basically kind of drew a line under the north koreans' own date of august 15th in guam. >> it's five days away, anderson. it's interesting, because this is a guy who was elected because he was a great businessman, and a great negotiator. and he's already going to the final option. it would be as if he was in his business and already going to suing before he tried to negotiate. the war of words is not good. it's never good on the diplomatic front. i'm not sure what he's trying to do. i thought he would tamp it down. i thought some of his aides would get him to get it under control, especially general kelly, maybe general mattis and
secretary tillerson, but they didn't. he should be the guy being quiet and let, in my view, and let his secretary of state and his secretary of defense be either the good cop/bad cop and him weigh in at the appropriate time. but that's not what's happening. i think by doing that, he's limiting his option and making things a little bit tenser. >> admiral kirby, again, he seems to be setting up a confrontation that somebody has to blink on august 15th. >> yeah, this is brinkmanship. it's playing chicken on a geopolitical scale. look, i still think there's room for diplomacy. if you listened to secretary mattis today, in his comments to the press, he still wants to stay in that diplomatic trade space. and i think there is still room for this. the problem is, trump ratcheted up the rhetoric, closing down decision space. he's actually taking away some of the oxygen that tillerson and mattis want to have, to let the diplomacy play out. not to mention he's forcing kim
jong-un to also close down decision space. it just takes us to a point we don't need to be. >> gloria, from a political standpoint, it makes the president, you know, seem like a decisive leader, certainly for those who support the president, it's probably a welcome change of language. >> well, you know, he said, i'm not going to let them do this to us. what he meant was, you know, kim, you're not going to bully the united states of america. the problem is that, it's kind of a tit for tat situation here. and so you have general mattis, who is the leader of the armed forces saying, you know, trying to give north korea some space there. and say, look, stand down. and you have tillerson saying, you know, stand down. there's room for negotiation here. and you have the president not acknowledging that at all. so you're getting kind of mixed signals. and as john kirby says, you know, you're boxing kim in to a
degree, and what do you do? do you look weak if he then ratchets it up and you don't respond? >> phil, how do you see this? >> one word, choices. i remember being in the white house complex on september 11th of 2001, i was evacuated, walking around the streets of washington, and you realize within 24, 48, 72 hours, and then when we realize with confirmation that al qaeda from afghanistan was responsible for that attack, the president, president bush had no options. he had no choice. in this case, the president has a lot of options. he could choose to focus on different issues, russia, china, the opioid crisis, which he talked about today. i agree that north korea is a potential nuclear threat. they are about a fifth world economic problem. they are a flea on the ass of america. if they want to select north korea as one of his priorities, my question would be, why do you want to do this?
why are you raising the profile of the north korean leader to sort of an international celebrity by spending so much time on it? he doesn't have to do this, that is president trump. he's choosing to make the north korean leader a celebrity, and i don't know why. he doesn't have to do this. >> it's interesting, admiral kirby, the u.s. has always avoided one-on-one discussions with north korea, always wanting to have other countries involved as well. almost for that very reason, that phil is talking about, not having the north korea on an equal footing with the united states and having it peer to peer. the president appears to be making it that eye-to-eye confrontation. >> i complete lly agree. he's playing into kim's propaganda, trying to portray this as a u.s. versus dprk problem. the whole international community has galvanized against these guys, but he's playing right into that rhetoric. you've got to remember, that to
kim, the united states represents an existential threat. i know we don't feel we are, and tillerson said as much last week before we got to where we are now, but to them, we represent a power that is designed to wipe them off the face of the map. that's why when you throw this kind of rhetoric out there, you have to understand the ears that are going to be listening to it. >> general, if this does become a confrontation over guam in five days, do you know just the logistics of if north korea was to fire missiles heading -- that they said would head toward guam and fall short, would the u.s. have any idea as the missiles go off, or as we're watching them go, where exactly they are going? and whether they would fall short? would the u.s. wait until, you know, they -- we saw what happened with those missiles? >> no, you're going to pick them up off the launchpad. i'm sure more surveillance reconnaissance assets have been
placed over north korea because of all this action. you'll probably get all kinds of satellites, maybe some planes, maybe a lot of high-level drones watching them 24 hours a day. when a heat signature goes off, you're immediately going to pick it up off the launchpad, off the truck that it's fired from, and there are going to be multiple layers of air defense from korea, through japan, through the pacific, to guam. it isn't going to be like a catcher's mitt at guam waiting for the missile to come in and hit it right before it strikes. you also have land-based and thaad missiles and naval base missiles. you'll pick those things up. i would say there's a pretty good chance that none of those missiles are going to land unintended with some kind of casualty, or strike against them, a kinetic strike against them. but if you only get one through, it's traumatic. but going back to what both john and phil just said, you know, it's all about choices. how do you pull them away from this, and why are we lowering
ourselves to the level of north korea. >> right. >> gloria, you were going to say something? >> i was going to say, just to make that point, is that here you have the united states, which should get a lot of credit, and a vote in the u.n. security council against north korea, and why we're not isolating kim, and saying, the entire international community stands against you, and instead turning it into some mano-a-mano fight that gets ratcheted up between the president of the united states of all people and kim. it seems absurd to me, because the entire international community is with us. and we are not making that point very strongly from the bully pulpit, i don't think. >> we've got to take a quick -- sorry. general, hold that thought. we've got to have a quick break. we'll get right to you when we get back, in the war of words.
keeping the president honest on the credit he's taking for renovating the nuclear arsenal barely eight months in office. and expelling the american embassy employees in moscow are being received. was he joking? was he praising vladimir putin or something else? that, and more, when we continue. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis.
taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz. now's your chance at completely clear skin. no, please, please, oh! ♪ (shrieks in terror) (heavy breathing and snorting) no, no. the running of the bulldogs? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money aleia saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. at ally, we offer low rates on home loans.
but if that's not enough, we offer our price match guarantee too. and if that's not enough... we should move. our home team will help you every step of the way. still not enough? it's smaller than i'd like. we'll help you finance your dream home. it's perfect. oh, was this built on an ancient burial ground? okay... then we'll have her cleanse you house of evil spirits. we'll do anything, (spiritual chatter) seriously anything to help you get your dream home. ally. do it right. ♪ dj: hey siri, take a selfie. dj: hope i don't cause an eclipse. ♪ [siri ding]
♪ [brother] any last words? [boy] karma, danny... ...karma! [vo] progress is seizing the moment. your summer moment awaits you, now that the summer of audi sales event is here. audi will cover your first month's lease payment on select models during the summer of audi sales event. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.
you can file any notion that president trump will dial back his rhetoric on north korea, alongside the notion that north korea would tone their rhetoric down as well. pyongyang has more to say tonight. as before, it's fierier. what's the response been exactly from north korea today? >> well, this is north korea actually responding to trump's previous bell i coast statements, really coming straight out of north korean, typical north korean ineffective. you have them saying the u.s. would suffer a shameful defeat and final doom. they go on to say the vow to mercilessly wipe out the provocateurs, making desperate efforts to stifle the socialist country. this is typical north korean invective straight out of the north korean thesaurus. what is different now, of course, you have the american president matching north korea to some degree, blow to blow in this rhetorical back-and-forth
there. it remains a rhetorical escalation, a military escalation, but certainly incendiary language coming from both sides. >> secretary of defense mattis, what did he say? >> this is the second time in two days that you've had a cabinet secretary moderate, you could say, the president's language on north korea. this time it's secretary of defense james mattis, saying very clearly, that diplomacy is the u.s. priority right now with north korea. have a listen. >> my portfolio, my mission, my responsibility is to have military options, should they be needed. however, right now, secretary tillerson, ambassador haley, you can see the american effort is diplomatically led. it has diplomatic traction. it is gaining diplomatic results. and i want to stay right there right now. the tragedy of war is well enough known. it doesn't need another
characterization beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic. >> mattis, of course, has commanded u.s. forces in war. he knows the consequences of military action. president trump as well earlier today also mentioned the possibility of a diplomatic off-ramp for north korea. but that comment, of course, lost in the more incendiary rhetoric we're hearing from the president as well. >> very different message. jim sciutto, thanks. i want to focus briefly on what the president said today. it's not the first time the facts of the matter contradict him. here he is today suggesting he had revamped, or in his words renovated the u.s. nuclear arsenal since taking office. >> the first order i gave to the generals, my first order is, i want this, our nuclear arsenal to be the biggest and the finest in the world. we've spend a lot of time and a
lot of money and effort and it's in tip top shape. it's getting better, getting stronger. until such time as this scourge disappears, we'll be so much better and so much stronger than anybody else. and nobody, including north korea, is going to be threatening us with anything. >> sir, what specifically have you changed in the nuclear arsenal? a lot of experts yesterday in response to your tweet said that modernizing the arsenal takes many years, it can't be done in six months. it's a long process that's just been done. >> we've done a lot of modernization, but we've done a lot of renovation, and we have it now in very, very good shape. it will be in much better shape in the next six months to a year. >> here's what the president has actually done about the nuclear stockpile. 27th of january he signed a memo directing the secretary of defense to conduct a nuclear posture review to ensure the
deterrent is flexible, ready and tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure our allies. in reality, that is required by the congress. it's expected to issue a report by year's end. separately, there's already a forced modernization program under way, began during the last administration. the arsenal has been undergoing modernization for the last eight or so months, but the program was actually launched under the prior administration. general, when you heard the president boasting specifically about u.s. nuclear capability under a big rin ovation since he's been in office, does that make any sense? >> it didn't, anderson, because i was on the joint staff back in i think 2002. the npr was conducted. it occurs every five years. it's not something new. in fact, this started when there was some problems with the nuclear programs over the last two years with deficiencies.
actually, this started under the last administration. the other thing that i kind of winced at is when the president said we're bigger and stronger than ever before. the start treaty has just been in effect over the last -- well, the treaty has been in effect for a long time, but we have just reduced the number of nuclear weapons to 400. it's the lowest rate it's ever been since the buildup of the 1950s. it's not bigger and stronger. it may be looking at modernization, but there's less weapons than we've ever had before. all of the things he said were a misstatement or some might call it a flat-out lie. >> general hurtling, when you're challenging somebody or making a threat to somebody, i assume it's better to be factual in your capabilities than to puff your capabilities up and not be able to -- and then be corrected. >> yeah. that's the way i think most people like to do it. you want to appear more -- you
want to appear stronger than you talk about. in other words, you don't want to be threatening, and not have the ability to back it up. you actually want people to think, what's he got behind his back? what is he or she going to do next? you don't lay all your cards on the table and say what you're going to do. he said from the beginning he's not going to portray what he's going to do next, he's doing that right now. in fact, he's taken it to the next level with north korea, and he shouldn't be there. >> admiral kirby, looking at this from a different perspective, is it possible that the rhetoric from the president may push china or russia to try to push north korea, try to ratchet down the threats, but to actually make some progress? >> i think it's possible that that's what he thinks it will do, but i don't think it will. president xi is not going to be bullied. they are the key to try to solve the problem in pyongyang. that road runs through beijing.
but not through trade war, you know, threats, and not through this kind of rhetoric. it's not going to impact president xi. he's a cool, calculating figure. he's betting that a nuclear armed north is still better for him than a violently reunified north. we haven't convinced him yet that it's in his best interests to really take aggressive action to help us stop this threat. >> gloria, there's irony in the fact that the secretary of defense, whose nickname is mad dog, is ratcheting this down and being sober in his -- he's actually seen combat, he actually knows what war looks like. you know, which the president has not served. and to actually have mattis be the one saying, look, we don't need to describe this in any other way other than cataclysmic. >> you couldn't help in that
clip that jim sciutto showed, you couldn't help but look at general mattis and see him as a sober diplomat almost. and he becomes the diplomat in this situation. because he knows what happens in war. and compare it to the president's kind of apocalyptic language, versus the kind of sober demeanor of mattis, the quiet demeanor of somebody who's been to warp and understands it. it was sort of -- it was just striking to me. when you look at trump, i was thinking about this today, it's very much like a real estate guy saying, okay, my building is the biggest, it's the best, and i'm going to -- you know, this is what i can tell you, because you're going to have to go and check me out and there's no way you can figure out that it isn't. i think he's using the same kind of tactics he's used his entire
life in real estate in new york, only it doesn't work in international diplomacy. and it certainly won't work with north korea. >> i think i said he used the word cataclysmic, but i think it was catastrophic. are you confident that if north korea was serious in carrying through with their threat, the u.s. would actually know about it ahead of time from aerial surveillance? >> heck, no. i would give that about a zero. there are two aspects of any intelligence problem. that is capability and intent. over the past week you've seen u.s. intelligence assessments in particular from the defense intelligence agency about capability. can north korea put together a missile that has a miniaturized nuclear warhead delivered against a target like guam? i suspect that is not true. i don't think they can. the second aspect of this is even more difficult. if you have that capability, and you're a north korean leader,
how confident are you that you know what the north korean leadership wants to do? are they bluffing? do they really intend to do something in august? do they know where they're going to be in 2020, or 2025? if you put together that issue of capability and intent, and the fact that north korea is inaccessible, let me give you a judgment, bottom line, vegas bet. the united states intelligence community does not have a good understanding of what the north korean leadership wants to do, and we should not pretend otherwise. >> we've got to take another break. we'll have more with the panel ahead. the president finally addressed the move by vladimir putin by removing embassy personnel in moscow. we'll show you what the president said that has so many people either shaking or scratching their heads. and only one network can be the best... verizon. just named number one in the nation by rootmetrics, the largest independent study. in call, data, speed,
anyone who calls it a hobby doesn't understand. we know that a person's passion is what drives them. [ clapping ] and that's why every memorial we create is a true reflection of the individual. only a dignity memorial professional can celebrate a life like no other. find out how at sanfranciscodignity.com.
the president's first on-camera response on the russian personnel, came in response to new sanctions against russia, passed by a margin that could have withstood a presidential veto. the president was asked about the diplomats today. >> i want to thank him, because we're trying to cut down on payroll. and as far as i'm concerned, i'm very thankful that he let go of a large number of people. because now we have a smaller payroll. there's no real reason for them to go back. so i greatly appreciate the fact that they've been able to cut our payroll for the united states. we'll save a lot of money. >> back now with the panel. admiral kirby, how do you interpret that? >> oh, man, anderson, i try to stay as neutral as i can, but i've got to tell you, this is the most ridiculous thing i've heard the president say i think
in six months. first of all, this was putin's retaliation for us expelling 35 diplomats and shutting down some of his facilities here, that they were using for espionage. it was not a proportional response. 755 u.s. employees as opposed to 35 that we kicked out. number two, we're not trying to -- you know, the state department budget is 1% of the federal outlay of this country every year. so he's not saving that much money. we should never look at diplomacy as a cost-saving initiative. the fact that those people are there means they're serving a national interest of our country in russia. one of the most consequential bilateral relationship we have. number three, of the -- all the employees we have working there, the three consulates in moscow, 800 are local russian nationals. it has been a burr in putin's saddle for years that they're there. because they try to influence them, intimidate them. they don't like they're working for the united states government.
that number 755, believe me, that was designed by putin to make sure that of the large portion of the people that get kicked out, that aren't able to work in our embassies and consulates are russians. it was hurting russian citizens. it wasn't saving money or helping us be more efficient from a diplomatic perspective. this is just ridiculous. >> phil, a lot of people are waiting to hear what the president might say about this. because he hasn't said anything for days about it. does it surprise you that yet again, he finds a way to not do anything that criticizes vladimir putin? >> i guess not. we've seen this now since the campaign trail. and now into this obviously comment today. there is one aspect to this, anderson, i have to go personal for just a moment here. forget about the national security implications. there are americans who are coming home from the state department, from other agencies in the u.s. government, in the course of the past couple of days, they have had to tell their children, their spouse, we have to find a new house. we have to find a new job.
they're not going to be fired. the president's wrong about budgetary issues. they'll stay on the u.s. government payroll. the most significant issue i can tell you, it is august of 2017. they have to tell a child that that child can't go to their school this fall because they've been expelled, and that child will find a new school. the president can't even say, i'm sorry to those american employees, and i'm sorry that you have to relocate your child, and instead praises vladimir putin? i understand the national security issues are bigger. but how about a common courtesy to the people who served the government? how about it, anderson? >> general, how do you see this? >> i'll go back to the last block if i can. you asked phil how confident he was of what was going on in north korea. and it's because we don't have intelligence there. you've just done the same thing now to russia. and as a former commander of u.s. army in europe, i used to go to the embassies before i visited my counterparts in the armies, and i used to talk to
the country people. i would talk to the folks from the cia, the dia, the dea, all of the three-lettered agencies and they would give me an update on what was going on in that country. i went to moscow several times. they've got a great country team. we've got intelligence from them. not only do you have the personnel factor that phil just talked about, you have the intelligence factors, and commanders on the scene, and commander in chief in washington, are not going to get the same kind of intelligence. and it was just amazing to me that the president just kind of said, well, no big deal, we're going to save some money. it's just not true. >> and anderson, this was also an opportunity for the president to say, you know, this is clearly in response to the sanctions passed by congress. overwhelmingly, almost unanimously. and congress did the right thing. i mean, we know that there was a signing letter with it, and that the president objected to certain parts of it, because he thinks it took away some of his authority.
but it was a moment when he could have said, i stand by the american congress' decision to impose sanctions in retaliation for the russian involvement in trying to influence our election. and he didn't. and, you know, there are, i'm sure, lots of people in congress scratching their heads about why the president wouldn't take that opportunity. >> i'll tell you the other opportunity he had was to retaliate again for this nonpro pofgs al response by putin. 755 people, compared to 35. we should have gone the other way. i mean, we should have kicked out more russian employees instead of thanking them for this. it's just utterly ridiculous. >> thanks very much. breaking news in the russia investigation. a close associate of paul manafort getting a closer look from the justice department and what the president has to say about the raid at manafort's home, next.
business dealings with pro-russia parties in ukraine. president trump publicly addressed the fbi raid on manafort's home. take a look at what he said. >> mr. president, was it appropriate for the fbi to raid the home of paul manafort predawn? >> i thought it was a very, very strong signal, or whatever. i haven't spoken to him in a long time, but i know he was with the campaign, as you know, for a very short period of time. but i've always known him to be a good man. i thought it was a very, you know -- they do that very seldom. so i was surprised to see it. i was very, very surprised to see it. >> with me, jeffrey toobin, gloria borger. jeff, what do you think? >> the usual practice for presidents, when there's a criminal investigation, is to say almost nothing. you know, and he said he thinks
he's a good guy. i don't think it was terribly inappropriate. but it is certainly a departure of how presidents usually handle these sorts of things. but what's really significant is what robert mueller thinks. and robert mueller thinks there was evidence of a crime in manafort's crime. that's a big step in this investigation. >> professor, how significant is it to you that paul manafort is now getting, you know, other people on his legal team to focus on tax investigations? and the son-in-law now has reportedly talked to investigators? >> well, i think that it's very clear that he's the principal target at this stage. you know, prosecutors will often look for the weakest link. and that is generally the person who has available criminal potential charges. and manafort has a number of areas from banking to tax to registration as a foreign agent, that could generate charges. i think the president was right about one thing. i was very surprised that this
raid occurred. there's no indication that they asked for these documents in advance. i've been a critic of no-knock warrants for years. i don't see why they would need that with a 68-year-old lawyer. did they think he was going to meet them at the door with a tech 9? it seems to me it was a bit excessive and gratuitous. and it sounds like they were trying to send a message. >> jeff? >> well, i don't think there's any doubt they were trying to send a message. what we don't know are the circumstances leading up to the decision to get a warrant. i mean, what's clear is the -- manafort's lawyers have been saying all along, we're cooperating, we're providing documents. mueller doesn't believe it. mueller doesn't believe they were being forthcoming so they went in and took the documents themselves. that is certainly an aggressive step. only when we can read the affidavit in support of the search warrant and see all the evidence in the case can we, i
think, make a fair judgment about whether it's too aggressive or not. it was certainly aggressive. >> as someone who worked with the fbi, when you hear the president saying the manafort raid was tough stuff, the fact that they went in so early, they went to his home, is it particularly unusual? i mean, isn't that how the fbi raids -- i mean, wouldn't they go in early? is that a particularly unusual case? >> this is not excessive. i'll disagree with some of the comments earlier. number one, as i mentioned last night, director mueller doesn't send messages. he has to go to a magistrate and say, we're going to do something, there's a term that we use in the investigative business, intrusiveness. extremely intrusive. if i look at your facebook page, not very intrusive. if i read your e-mail, or go into your home at 6:00 a.m., extremely intrusive. the judge will say, you have pretty good evidence at 6:00 a.m. whatever the judge saw was significant. the other issue, i'm not going
to guarantee this, but i'm going to guess it, director mueller is going to go by the book. he's going to say, if we have that order, what would we typically do in this circumstance regardless of whether the subject, in this case paul manafort, is high profile. i don't want any arguments that what we did was unusual. i'm looking at this saying, this is what the judge said was appropriate. and this is how the fbi typically operates, anderson. >> i'm sorry, i'm going to have to disagree with that. the criminal defense attorney. these type of no-knock raids in a white collar case are not the norm. more importantly, the controversy over no-knock warrants has been going on for years. this is an area of great abuse. judges are not fulfilling their responsibility. he should have struck out that aspect of the warrant. >> disagree. >> you disagree? gloria, the president was asked about attorney general jeff sessions, whom he's obviously criticized in recent weeks. i just want to play for our viewers what he said. >> it's fine.
it is what it is, it's fine. he's working hard on the border. i'm very proud of what we've done on the border. very proud of general kelly what he's done on the border. one of the reasons he's my chief of staff right now is because he did such an outstanding job at the border. >> for a guy, jeff sessions, executing the president's agenda, i mean, whether you agree with what he's doing or not, remarkably, officially, and quickly at the department of justice, for the president to immediately pivot off, sort of slim pickings in terms of praise. >> and say it's fine? >> yeah. >> it is what it is. it's not exactly a vote of confidence. but as we reported, you know, one of the first acts that general kelly did was call jeff sessions, and say to him, your job is safe. and so at least sessions knows that he's not going to get fired tomorrow. and it's not a great kind of job security because you know the president is unhappy with you, and it's difficult. but today the president had
somebody else he wants to pick on, who's mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell is on the grill and jeff sessions is off of it for a while. >> can we just make note of the fact that the two people, you know, this extremely luke-warm praise for the attorney general. he's trashing the majority leader of the senate, of his own party. and who's the person he praises today? vladimir putin. what is going on? >> we've got to take a break and ponder that during the break. >> i asked a question, what is going on? >> we'll poppeder that for a few minutes. more of president trump's remarks. more excuses on federal disclosure. this will tell you what a lot of people in washington do, next. before it ends. choose from the is turbo, es 350 or nx turbo for $299 a month for 36 months if you lease now. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.
listen up, heart disease.) you too, unnecessary er visits. and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable. we're talking to you, cost inefficiencies and data without insights. and fragmented care- stop getting in the way of patient recovery and pay attention. every single one of you is on our list. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done. will people know it means they'll get the lowest price guaranteed on our rooms by booking direct on choicehotels.com? hey! badda book. badda boom!
mr. badda book. badda boom! book now at choicehotels.com dj: hey siri, remind me to csiri: okay, i'll remind you. [door crashing] [reminder ding] dj: already on it. ♪ [siri ding] get your ancestrydna kit.here. spit. mail it in. learn about you and the people and places that led to you. go explore your roots. take a walk through the past. meet new relatives and see how a place and its people are all a part of you. ancestrydna. save 30% through august 15th at ancestrydna.com. find fast relief behind the counter with claritin-d. strut past that aisle for the steroid free
allergy relief that starts working in as little as 30 minutes. and contains the best oral decongestant. live claritin clear with claritin-d. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. we've been talking about president trump's response to the early-morning fbi raid of the home of paul manafort. a raid he said surprised him to hear about as he was answering questions. he again said the russia investigation is an investigation of something that never took place, and went on off a general musing of paperwork. >> as far as somebody else, where did they file the right papers, or did they forget to file a paper, you know, i guarantee, if you went around and looked at everybody that made a speech or whatever these people did, that's up to them. did they do something wrong because they didn't file the
right document or whatever? perhaps you'll have to look at them. but i guarantee you this, probably a lot of people in washington did the same thing. >> worth mentioning here already his son-in-law jared kushner and michael flynn are both under lying on federal disclosure forms. we want to bring back our panel. here's the president commenting on the investigation, giving the benefit of the doubt to his son-in-law and i assume flynn and others. >> a lot of white collar crime is filing wrong or false paperwork. the idea if submitting a paper is, by definition not a problem, is simply wrong. i don't think director mueller is going to pay the slightest bit of teams to that rif about filing paperwork, but i do think
that any criticism of meaningless, political motivated and not based on anything important. >> when the president says a lot of people have problems with their government forms in washington, is that accurate? >> well, omissions are common on things like sf-86s, failure to register foreign agents, those tend not to be criminally charged, but it doesn't mean they cannot be. if you have a special counsel that may be trying to get leverage over a witness, they will often put pressure on those spots and make it clear that you're all alone, and as "game of thrones" would say -- winter is coming. so i think that was certainly conveyed in that raid, but obviously the statements are not helpful. i don't think it was helpful for his attorney to criticize the raid on manafort. what they are losing is that crush space between the president and key targets. usually white houses try to
increase that space, and they're doing everything they can to eliminate it. >> if he's truly in a jack, if they think they have something on him, the question will become, will he tell them everything he knows if there's any links, or would he keep quiet? how do authorities navy gait a that? >> i suspect he's not. why would you conduct a raid if you anticipated he would it el you everything. there's a couple elements you can build. number one, talking to him. number two, talking to people around him. number three, getting the digital trail, every e-mail, every phone, every time he texted somebody. when we talk about picking up documents out of this raid, anderson that's a 19th, 20th century concept. i suspect they're looking for laptops, for information to suggest what his pattern of conduct was with russians, what financial transfers he has.
they're anticipating he and the people around him are not telling the truth. they're using the digital trail that you and i have to say what happened in june, july? august? if you say you never talked to russians, what does your text messaging say? your financial statements? what do your e-mails say? what do your phone calls say? >> he also went out of hi ways to paul manafort a decent man, though he also did say he only worked for him for a short period of time. >> he was clear to point that out. it reminded me in a way of what he said to former fbi director comey about general flynn. you know, he said he's a good guy, right? can you see your way to clearing this, but if comey is to be believed. the president is es he didn't say that, about you in the case of manafort and general flynn, the president has gone out of his way to kind of support them.
this was a president for whom loyalty is often a one-way street. ask a lot of people who have been fired by him. ask jeff sessions about loyalty. he's the president's largest cheerleader and now lives in the woodshed. so i this i it's sort of interesting to me that he would publicly sort of say nice things about manafort. i believe manafort is quite loyal to donald trump and always will be, and i believe the same about general flynn. thank, everybody. when we come back, dueling threats between north korea and the u.s., and the latest threat that the president is doubling down on. be $50 bucks.bysitting. that'll you said $30. yeah, well it was $30 before my fees, like the pizza-ordering fee and the dog-sitting fee... and the rummage through your closet fee. are those my heels? yeah! yeah, we're the same size... in shoes. with t-mobile taxes and fees are already included,
♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. her long day as anne. hair stylist starts with shoulder pain when... hey joanne, want to trade the all day relief of 2 aleve with 6 tylenol? give up my 2 aleve for 6 tylenol? no thanks. for me... it's aleve. looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over...
just of war, but perhaps preemptive war, also a collection of remarkable statements, and blunt language some directed to a key ally. the bottom line, plenty to talk about after two memorable appearances by the president today. here's a sample. >> the people of questioning that statement, was it too tough? maybe it wasn't tough enough. they've been doing this to our country for a long time, many years. it's about time somebody stuck up for. >> reporter: what would be tougher than fire and fury? >> well, you'll see. >> reporter: do you have any response to the russian president expelling 755 workers from our embassies. >> no, i want to thank him. we're trying to cut down on payroll. we're thankful. now we have a smaller payroll. >> how would -- have you spoken
about some of the differences in the past? >> it's fine. it is what it is. everybody else there's no collusion, you look at the councils, we have a senate hearing, we have judiciary, intelligence, a house hearing, and even the enemies say, there's no collusion, there's no collusion, so they're investigating something that never happened. >> reporter: president, have you thought about, considered leading to the 134i68 of the special counsel? ing in that bob mueller could do that would send you in that direction? >> i haven't been given it any thought. i've been reading about it from you people. no, i'm not dismissing any person. mitch, get to work and get it done. they should have had this last one done. they lost by one vote, for a thing like that to happen is a disgrace. frankly, it shouldn't have happened. that i can tell you. >> reporter: consider stepping down as majority leader? >> if he doesn't get repeal and replace done, and if he d