tv New Day With Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota CNN May 1, 2018 2:59am-4:00am PDT
they have been contributing more to their pensions. it's tough when you look at some of these states where the teachers say they have to work at the walmart on the weekends. >> they show no signs of slowing down in arizona. >> thanks for joining us. join me on instagram live right now. @dave briggs today. benjamin netanyahu on "new day." we'll see you tomorrow. it's a broad list of questions. a lot of those questions will be darn difficult for the president to answer. >> there is still very much an active discussion with the president sit down and testify. mueller is finished. not going to have a stitch of evidence he colluded with the russians. that's a disgrace. >> the president does not answer to mueller. he answers to the people. >> i don't think the president all the posturing can avoid this interview. ♪ white house chief of staff john kelly told national security officials he believed the president was becoming, quote, unhinged.
>> it's sad and disappoint and chaos inside. >> they're all gunning for kelly. >> announcer: this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. this is "new day," tuesday may 1st, 6:00 a.m. in new york. starting line, we now know more about the questions the special counsel robert mueller provided to president trump's legal team. he wants the president to answer if the president were to silt down for an interview. mueller's focus is on a few things. the trump campaign's ties to russia, mr. trump's motivations for high profile firings and whether any of this amounts to obstruction of justice. how do we know these questions? well, "the new york times" obtained the list containing nearly four dozen questions that cover several categories the firing of national security adviser michael flynn, the firing of fbi director james comey, questions related to attorney general jeff sessions and his recusal and president trump's knowledge of campaign communications and business
deals with russia. and that will be a very interesting part of this story is who and this person must be very close to the president of the united states would leak out this kind of information? why would the trump team want these questions out there? we do know that the president has a lot on his plate. president trump weighing the fate of the iran nuclear deal. israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu claims he has proof iran is lying about their nuclear program. it comes as iran and israel are drawing closer to war than ever before in syria. we will talk live with benjamin netanyahu in just minutes. and the white house chief of staff john kelly calls total b.s. pushing back on reports that he called the president an idiot and says that the president is becoming unhinged. he denies both of those allegations but raises an obvious question, how are they doing? is this relationship on firm ground? let's begin our coverage. we have cnn's abby phillip live at the white house. a little i'm okay, you're okay
going on down there. >> reporter: as usual, chris. good morning. the president lawyer's a few weeks ago we know sat down with the special counsel team to learn a little bit about the parameters of a potential interview with president trump and robert mueller. but now thanks to "the new york times" we have a list of potential questions transcribed by trump's lawyer. >> reporter: special counsel robert mueller's team is interested in asking president trump at least four dozen questions as part of their russia probe. according to notes transcribed by the president's lawyers and obtained by "the new york times." >> mr. president, would you like to testify to special counsel robert mueller, sir? >> thank you. >> you would? >> i would like to. >> reporter: a large portion of the questions appear to center on obstruction of justice, including the president's high profile firings of national security adviser michael flynn and fbi director james comey.
the questions specifically site a number of the president's own statements, including these remarks -- >> regardless of recommendation, i was going to fire comey knowing there was no good time to do it. and in fact, when i decided to just do it, i said to myself, i said, you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made up story. >> reporter: the special counsel also seeking insights into the president's response to attorney general jeff session's recusal from the russia investigation. >> the attorney general made a terrible mistake when he did this and when he recused himself or he should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself and we would have used -- put a different attorney general in. >> reporter: "the new york times" reports that another category of questions deals directly with mueller's inquiry into potential coordination between the trump campaign and russia. including the now infamous june 2016 trump tower meeting with russians promising dirt on
hillary clinton. >> must have been very important. must have been very inimportant meeting because i never heard about it. >> reporter: mueller's team is seeking information about the president's involvement in crafting the misleading initial statement about the purpose of the meeting. >> the president weighed in as any father would based on the limited information that he had. >> reporter: the times reports that investigators are also interested in learning about what the president knew about russian hacking and communication between long-time adviser roger stone and wikileaks founder julian assange. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. >> reporter: one question raising intrigue, what knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by paul manafort, to russia about potential assistance to the campaign? no such outreach by the president's former campaign chairman has been reported. manafort's former deputy rick gates is cooperating with mueller's probe. the special counsel is also per
suing information about president trump's knowledge of his son-in-law jared kushner's attempt to set up a back channel to russia during the transition. >> he was a conduit to leaders and that's until we had a state department functioning place for people to go. >> reporter: the president's businesses also under scrutiny. with mueller seeking information about mr. trump's 2013 trip to moscow and discussions he had with his personal attorney michael cohen. cohen is now the subject of a separate criminal investigation. the fbi seized records from his home, office and hotel room last month. >> now, in spite of all of this, it is still unclear whether president trump will eventually sit down with mueller's team. he's gone back and forth on this saying at times he is willing to do it. but after the cohen raid, we know, according to our sources that the president cooled off on that idea. he's now added a new attorney, rudy giuliani who met with mueller in the last several weeks about a potential trump
interview, but that issue definitely remains still up in the air. >> thank you, abby, very much. let's talk about this and bring in cnn chief legal analyst michael zelden and jeffrey toobin. michael, let me start with you. before we get into the direct questions and we will because there are 40 of them, just give us your sthauthoughts, give us context on what you think the motivation would be for putting this out in the public sphere. who wins by us knowing these questions? >> that's a very good questions that we don't really know the answer to. it would seem to me potentially that the white house counsel's office let this float out into the media in an effort to influence the president's thinking about whether or not to do an interview. and i think they'll gauge reaction of people to these questions and help influence the president to decide whether he should sit down or not sit down. i think that there's a great debate going on within the white
house counsel's office about this. and i think this may be one way to try to shape the president's thinking about it in addition to the advice he's getting from his lawyers. >> jeffrey, when we look at these questions, there's nothing unusual assuming these are accurate representations. okay? there's nothing unusual in the rhythm to them. some are open ended, some are point specific. but it does give you a sense that the landscape is that there is a lot of jeopardy here in terms of requiring candid and honest and truthful disclosure. there are a lot of traps within these questions if somebody is trying ing ting to spin a stor >> my reaction to this list was sort of it's good news and it's bad news for the president. the good news for the president is there are really no surprising categories here. there's nothing -- some bomb shell subject that we hadn't heard about, like some sort of money laundering investigation. there's none of that. that's certainly good for the president. the bad news is this is obviously a very extensive
obstruction of justice investigation. i mean, they are obviously very concerned about many stages of the president's behavior, not just the firing of james comey, and there are lots of specific questions about what he knew when. now, all of us have heard donald trump answer questions. it's very hard for me to believe that he will actually answer all these quesons. >> that's the point, though. so of these qstions are worded in a way that investigators like them, that we wouldn't ask. what was your purpose in doing this? that sounds like an easy enough question, but let's say i say i didn't have any real purpose. then you have found out that i told somebody that i was going to try to craft this statement in a certain way because i wanted to influence it. so now depending on how they decide to reconcile that -- >> a lie. >> it could be something that was something material and untruthful. that's the trick between talking to us and talking to investigators. >> let's dive into some of the questions and then you can expound on it.
number one, what was the purpose of your february 14, 2017, meeting with mr. comey and what was said? that was the meeting where as comey tells it president trump said i sure hope you can let this michael flynn thing go. so, is that one of those open ended things? >> well, absolutely. and you know, that sets up a conflict between comey and trump about what happened because the president has already said that he did not tell comey that, please let michael flynn go. let this go. you know, the question for some of these is there a person to person conflict which the president, you know, you can't resolve dispositively, but are there questions that there are specific answers to that either by e-mails or tapes or something where they have the president's
position locked in and they want to see whether the president contradicts that. >> that's where it can get a little tricky. also, i know there are a lot of questions here and often that makes it seem like it must be exhaustive. there's no reason to believe that, michael. the problem with your answer is that it can introduce a new question. yes, they've given him a long list of things but we don't have any reason to believe these to use jeffrey words, these are dispositive. this is a complete list. the answers wind up dictating where the questions can go. >> these questions that mueller propounded, i don't believe that that's actually what these are. i think these are notes taken by the recipients of a conversation with mueller's office where he outlined broad topics and these guys wrote down questions that they thought these topics may raise. >> why do you think that? why don't you think that this is a realist, that this is more like notes. >> because of the way questions are written. lawyers will write questions this way in my estimation, some
of the grammar is not even proper. so i don't see this as a list of written questions that mueller's office gave to the president. i think these are more notes that the white house has taken and then they have expanded upon the conversation to write out these as questions. and that's where we are. so, i think jeffrey is right that these are introductory questions that then introduce a lot of sub questions in a longer interview. and the thing that you can see from this is this interview is not going to end any time quickly because these are a lot of questions and this will take potentially more than one day to answer, which is why i thought originally this may be an effort to influence the president's thinking about whether or not he's going to try to resist an effort to interview him or not. if i can just add to that, the question of a time limit on the interview is extremely important, especially now having seen these questions or subject
areas, whatever you want to call them. if the president is really asked about all these areas, that will take many hours. the question will be in advance will mueller accept a tight time limit recognizing that he wouldn't get to so many of these questions. that's going to be a -- that is certainly a big subject of the negotiations now going on between mueller and giuliani. how long any interview would take. >> let's chew on that for a second jeffrey and michael. let's play it out. if they say we'll give you five hours. okay? at the end of the five hours, four hours, two hours, whatever it is, if they don't feel that they have the information they need to complete the investigation, this isn't like a deposition or an interview. who says that that means, well, that's it. we had our one bite at the apple. we can never have another one. we have to close the investigation unsatisfied. why do you think that's how it would go? >> actually my time with mueller in the justice department informs me that that's not
something he will accept that this will go on as long as mueller needs for it to go on. if we remember correctly from the star investigation of clinton, there were more than -- there was more than one interview with clinton. and that could well be the case here. jeffrey is right that they will try to negotiate as tight parameters as they can, but mueller, i think, still holds all of the legal cards in terms of being able to force an interview because i think the law supports him generally speaking that if he served grand jury for this testimony he would prevail in the court of law. >> jeffrey, let's get into some of the questions. before you answer, so the viewers can know what some of these questions are and you can build on that. here is a question about the interview with lester holt. okay from may, 2017. what did you mean in your interview with lester holt about mr. comey and russia. let's play that interview that has gotten their attention.
>> regardless of recommendation, i was going to fire comey. knowing there was no good time to do it. and in fact, when i decided to just do it, i said to myself, i said, you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made up story. it's an excuse by the democrats for having lost an election that they should have won. >> not surprisingly that has come to the attention of mueller's investigators. here is another one, what was the purpose of your may 12, 2017, tweet. they want toe know, here is that tweet. james comey better hope there's no tapes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press. that would be a good question, jeffrey. what was the purpose of that tweet? >> it's a great question. and i certainly like to know the answer. i mean, going back to the lester holt question and answer. what makes that answer so significant is if you remember when comey was fired the white house put out the explanation that the reason he was fired was because of the way he conducted
the hillary clinton investigation before the election. and the way he announced it. then the president comes around and says, first to lester holt and then to the russian diplomatic visitors, no, no no. it had nothing to do with hillary clinton. it was all about stopping the russia investigation, which is a much more suspicious explanation. trying to get the president to explain what the justification was for firing james comey is an absolutely critical part of the mueller investigation. >> all right, so let's take a quick break here, guys. we know that questions are out there. "the new york times" has them, but the question really becomes what are now the specific areas that the president would have to look out for the most. that's where we have to turn our attention. >> we have 37 more questions for jeffrey and for michael. we'll be right back. a wealth of information. a wealth of perspective.
♪ a wealth of opportunities. that's the clarity you get from fidelity wealth management. straightforward advice, tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™ >> tech: so you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip
when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.
if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming! definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. ♪ all right. so the president's always talking about leaks and how pernicious and wrong they are. well, he has trouble in his own house because somebody very close to him leaked out these potential questions from the
mueller investigation. >> unless you think the mueller investigators leaked, which they have not done, so that would be highly unusual. >> and "the new york times" says that this list of questions that you see in front of your face right now came from someone connected to the white house, not from the mueller probe team. we do know that the probe team gave some suggestion of possible questions to -- >> wait a minute, but i thought it said that document was provided to the times by a person outside mr. trump's legal team. >> so it could be from mueller. it could be from anybody. >> it could be from anyone. it could be from a cleaning person who found them in the garbage. >> times said mueller went to trump's legal team and they got it but not from the legal team. >> right. but people have left the legal team. >> people have left the legal team. politically, there's a team around the legal team that you have to believe would be told about this information. so, you have somebody who knows something leak these questions, right? it's not like some underling should have had their access to this. then there's the big question of why would you leak? okay. what would you be trying to do.
let's bring back jeffrey toobin and michael zeldin. i think that's a big question not because of political intrigue and not because of potential contradiction of the president's own suggestion about who does leak, but because when you look at tse questions, you have to assume that the investigators know things. it's not like alisyn and i are doing the interview -- >> it's not like clueless people. we only know what the president is going to tell us, right? that's not true with these investigators. when you read through these areas, what was your purpose this specific date, why, motivational questions, what did you know about coordination. every time you give an answer, it could be something that runs at odds with what somebody else told them that you know. that's big-time jeopardy with somebody who has the power of perjury. >> it is, but i have to say when i saw this list i thought, well, there's nothing here that is a complete shock. i mean, there are two broad
areas that they are asking about. one is obstruction of justice the firing of comey and efforts to stop the russia investigation. the other area broadly defined is collusion. relationships between the trump campaign and russia. those are the two broad areas that mueller is asking about. those are not surprises. and implicit in the questions, there are not suggestions of bomb shell facts that we are unaware of. so in that respect, i think the leaking of the questions actually works to trump's advantage in the sense that it gives the impression that mueller has nothing spectacular that we haven't seen before. >> okay. let's look at some of the questions. this is about michael flynn. so michael, if you could pay attention to these. here is the first question. decision to fire michael flynn. how was the decision made to fire michael flynn on february 13, 2017? here is what sean spicer said at the time was the motivation.
>> the president was very concerned that general flynn had misled the vice president and others. >> okay. so that was the party line. was that all there was? then this question -- after the resignations, what efforts were made to reach out to mr. flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon? because we know that here was a tweet that the president sent out on that very topic. mike flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt, excuse for big election loss by media and dems of historic proportion. so, what do you see in those questions? >> a couple of things. first, of course, they are interested in what gave rise to flynn's firing. we had to remember the party line at the outset which was that this was because he lied to the vice president about his calls with russians. then former attorney, now former attorney, john dowd said, well, this may have been about lies to the fbi which the president knew about which implicates sally
yates and her conversation with the white house counsel's office. then you have this pardon question. and that is, you know, toward jeffrey's point a broad topic here is obstruction and was the discussion of a pardon a possible obstructive act by the white house. so these things all merge together. then they coalesce, too, with the question you asked jeffrey earlier which was the meeting with comey in the white house on valentine's day where he asked, according to comey, that comey let flynn investigation go. so there's clearly interest in all events that surround the firing of comey, the aftermath -- the firing of flynn the aftermath of that firing and then the issue of whether he was going to be pardoned in an obstructive way. >> jeffrey, why should we assume that investigators should give bomb shell facts or insight-driven questions in this list to lawyers? >> well, we can't be sure, but i
mean, it does appear that this is a good-faith list from mueller's office explaining the context -- explaining the nature of the questions he wanted to ask. now, whether these are the verbatim questions or interpretations of what mueller said, i mean, it does seem that this is a fairly extensive list of what mueller is interested in. and there is nothing in that list that suggests some sort of bomb shell information that has not become public yet. i could be wrong about that. it could be that mueller is hiding some stuff still, but at least in terms of what's visible here, there is no new bomb shell. >> but why do you provide a list to a witness? we don't provide lists of our questions to our interview subjects before we get them on camera. why do you ruin the element of surprise by providing a list? >> because he's the president of the united states. and he has a position -- that,
yes, it's true under supreme court precedent that he probably has to answer some questions, but he also has some negotiating leverage himself in the sense that he can't just be subpoenaed and spend days in the grand jury. he has a unique place in our constitutional system. so mueller, i think, has to give something to get something. and one of the things he has to give is general subject areas of what he's going to ask. >> michael zeldin, with all due respect to the mueller team and the investigators, jeffrey, we've been dealing with the fbi far very long time and how they do business. i am not sold on the idea that they're giving an exhaustive set of questions, here is everything we have. you should feel comfortable to come and sit down. i have never had that experience with any kind of investigation that's been carried out by anybody connected to the department of justice. >> well, so to that point, though, and i agree with what jeffrey said, it also undermines those who claim that what mueller is trying to do is set
up a perjury trap, sort of essentially give the witness broad areas you want to talk about and the outline of the possible question topics you want to talk about is pretty hard to claim thereafter that this was a perjury trap designed to trap the president into creating a lie so he could be charged with lying. i think that is a good faith effort as jeffrey says and the president has to just answer these questions truthfully and then we can move forward. >> guys, michael zeldin, jeffrey toobin, thank you both very much for all of the expertise and context. really helpful. so the white house is deciding at the last minute to delay tariffs against key u.s. allies. what's mind that move? we have that next. ness when i travel... even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges.
what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™ transitions™ why is dark magic so spell-bindingly good? it's a bold blend of coffee with rich flavors of uganda, sumatra, colombia and other parts of south america. like these mountains, each amazing on their own. but together? magical. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters.
my ci can worry about it,ine. or do something about it. garlique® helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally. and it's odor free. and pharmacist recommended. garlique.® time for cnn money now. the white house delaying its decision on steel and aluminum tariffs. the trump administration giving u.s. allies an additional 30 days to negotiate. the u.s. reached a trade deal with south korea and has preliminary agreements with austral australia, argentina and brazil. what does this mean? >> expiration at midnight pretty
dramatic and the president delaying those tariffs on key u.s. al lice, at least for right now. the white house introduce metal tariffs. with hours to spare, the white house extending them. now the u.s. and its allies have more time to negotiate. the white house says it is focussed on quotas to both curb imports and protect american national security. the eu says it will retaliate if the tariffs go into effect targeting $8 billion in u.s. exports including strategic items from the home states of speaker paul ryan and majority leader mitch mcconnell. this extension lets the white house focus on the other trade battle china. president trump is sending its top economic officials to beijing for trade talks including wilbur ross, stephen mnuchin and larry kidlow. china and u.s. are threatening each other with billions of dollars of tariffs.
it starts on thursday. chris, it's a very big deal. we had $150 billion in tariffs that the united states promised to slap on china. >> right. of course you always have a little bit of back story about what tariffs actually get paid, but christine's point is well taken. this is brinkmanship to create uncertainty in the markets that hate that. that's one big theme going on. you have these questions from mueller. you have what they're going to do about the wall with the caravan there now and what steps. you have what bb netanyahu just said. there's a lot on the president's plate. >> we'll talk about the political consequences of all of these things on the president's plate when we come right back. when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage.
when you switch to liberty mutual, you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call for a free quote today. you could save $782 when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. >> tech: so you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.
we have more political topics to discuss with john avlon and brian karen. we'll start with an impossible question to answer. does that make this more or less likely that the president will sit down with robert mueller? >> well, as you kindly pointed out, it's impossible to actually answer that question. but look, i think it does show the thinking of the mueller team. it connects the dots in a lot of ways we haven't quite seen before including highlighting a lot of the contradictions in the president's past comments. i also don't think there's any reason to think this is a comprehensive list. that's important. but it really does lay out a series of arguments that shows that there are a lot of contradictions to the
president's testimony. that's a practical, legal, political problem. >> i did this as a journalist when i first read through it. then i read them again and thought if i were legal counsel to the president of the united states. and i have to tell you, jeffrey toobin feels differently about this, feels there's a plus and minus, they would scare me because i don't trust if i'm the lawyer, i don't trust the investigators. they're in the business of finding proof of a crime. i have no reason to believe this is everything they know. in fact, i would be surprised they want to talk to me at all if this is all they have. and the unknown is what is most scary, should it not be? >> yeah, absolutely. i think as it was pointed out earlier, these are merely topics. and i have to tell you when i first read them i went through them and go, oh, there's a jim acosta question. oh, there's a jon karl question. a lot of these questions have been asked in the press room. the open-ended questions are just a mere starting point. and it's where they go from
there that will take them in probably areas the president doesn't want to go because as i said since we've asked some of those questions in the press room, those answers have always been we're going to refer you to counsel or we're nng totoi answer those questions. it's not anything they really want to answer to begin with. and if you've got mueller sitting across from you, it's really nothing you want to sit down. but i think it's an opening al voe to try to find out -- to force him into a decision to see if he'll sit down and gives people an idea of how much mueller knows or how much mueller wants to look at or what he wants to look at. >> let's move on to other political issue. there's a lot on the president's plate. >> it's a busy day, hasn't it? >> as is everyday. but listen, there are still so many lingering questions about what happened with dr. ronny jackson. okay? who was the long-time white house president's physician. and so, what happened? you know, why was it torpedoed without ever hearing. so now we have a little bit more information.
this comes from our man ewe ra ju and cnn obtained documents that i think are pretty telling. let me read to you what our cnn reporting is. according to internal documents obtained by cnn pence's doctor, the vice president's doctor accused dr. ronny jackson of overstepping his authority and inappropriately intervening in a medical situation involving the second lady. okay? so mrs. pence. as well as potentially violating federal privacy rights by briefing white house staff and disclosing details about mrs. pence to other medical providers but not appropriately consulting with the vice president's physician. so, that was in september. >> yeah. >> hold on. >> the whole point about that is i think what happened was if you take a look at it, the president likes to move when the president likes to move and how the president likes to move. and if he gets an impulse to do something, he's an impulse, you want to take him to wherever the
sales are at kmart. he'll walk in and buy what's on his mind, blue light special. i think that's what happened. dr. jackson came out and supported the president, said he could live to be 200 and the president decided, hey, i liked this guy. >> that kind of positive re-enforcement goes a long way. >> yes, it does. he ignored everything else and plrp plenty of warnings. this points out that there were and that he ignored them. that type of impulsivity is not conducive to good leadership. >> this is actually concrete documentation that was presumably floated to at least the vice president that there was a problem with dr. ronny jackson. >> he ignored it. >> yeah. it was utterly ignored. it's not just questions of violating privacy. manu's reporting is phenomenal. but that also the vice president's doctor felt intimidated by dr. jackson and almost refused to meet with him anymore. >> there was an angry altercation of some kind. >> jackson apparently owned. >> he wasn't dr. feel-good for
him. >> that's the point. there may be a kiss up. >> let's try to put it into the category of what does it mean. i'm of two minds on this. this documentation comes out no reason to believe it's not legit. good. good data point. the white house pushes back and says this was a dispute between doctors. they don't like each other. that's all it is. it doesn't show anything different. okay. fine. then they say, by the way, all the other allegations that came out are false. it's not just the white house that's putting this out. friends of their's, respected guy, ari fliesher who did the job done there with the bush administration, it was in a tweet, right, inherently incomplete and ari would have to speak for himself. he says all the allegations are false. we don't know that. we know there was proof that rejects some of those contradicts some of those but not all and raises the big question. if they had it, and said, ah, we got you media. you went after this guy wrongly with false allegations, why did they throw him under the bus? why didn't they push back, john avlon? >> that's the point.
let's let the process go forward and he'll be fine and he has egg on his face. >> you have five seconds. >> he doesn't want it. at the end of the day, that's what it boils down to. he's afraid of the facts coming out. so squelch it. >> there's a lot of fear. >> okay. time out. john avlon, brian karem thank you very much. so big, big international development. israel's prime minister says iran is lying. the ing is important there about its nuclear program. he claims he has proof. he put on a display the likes of which we have never seen from a leader of that country, certainly from bb. why did he do it this way? what is new? what does it mean? the man himself bb netanyahu answers for you. remain instinctual.eeds that's why there's purina one true instinct. real meat #1. a different breed of natural nutrition. purina one true instinct. now, try new purina one true instinct treats.
♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help.
deal in 2015, iran intensified its efforts to hide its secret nuclear files. in 2017, iran moved its nuclear weapons files to a highly secret location in teheran. from the outside, this was an innocent-looking compound. it looks like a delap dated warehouse. inside it contained secret archives locked in massive files. >> now the reporting reveals that the united states was informed about this potential raid. we've heard from secretary of state pompeo and others that they believe the information that was called by this israeli search of iranian buildings and structures and that big library that was compiled, but there is push back from allies and from the iaea the international -- whatever. the atomic energy agency, the
watchdog that's supposed to be doing the monitoring under the 2015 deal. so the watchdog says there is no evidence that iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons after 2009. okay? that's going to be a big distinguishing point. so we're waiting for the prime minister. is the prime minister in position? good. israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu joins us now. thank you very much for taking the opportunity, sir. we appreciate it. >> thank you. it's very good to talk to you. >> so, first let's talk about how this came about and then we'll talk about why you think it matters. this is described as unusually theatrical display for you and you gave this speech in english. why give this speech in english and do it in such a big way? >> well, because i wanted the world to hear it, all of it. there are only a few million
hebrew speakers and few billion english speakers. so i think that's why i did it. look, i would have done it in other places as well, you know, that i spoke before the american congress when i thought there was an important message. president macron of france spoke to the american congress the other day. this is a very important subject which relates to quest for peace and security in the middle east of the world and i think it was important that the broadest audience possible would hear the dramatic findings that we found about iran's secret nuclear weapon's program. >> the suggestion is that you wanted to make sure that president trump heard it and heard it directly from you. the question is, what did you change with this information as you pointed out you spoke to different allies. putin says the deal stands as it is. the uk says they're not naive on what is going on in iran. germany says there is landmark and robust monitoring.
on the u.s. side, secretary mattis said this deal was done in 2015 anticipating that iran would be trying to cheat still. michael hayden, whom you know the former head of the cia and nsa said he didn't learn anything new and the u.s. statement from the white house changed from has to had. that israel has an active nuclear program to had. and it seems to be that the message is we knew this already. >> well, i think no one had better intelligence on iran than israel. when we got this trove of 100,000 documents, we learned so many things we didn't know. we're still learning them. you know, we needed to translate it from farsi. all these documents, all these simulations, all this data. all this testing, everything, all these sites we learned an enormous amount about iran's secret nuclear program. now, the deal that everybody is talking about was premised on
the fact that iran had no such material. but iran bothered, took enormous pains after the nuclear deal and before but especially after to hide this information. it's like an arsenal of knowledge. it's not just in the minds of people whom they have. it's the actual kal gagss they've done, the blueprints, the measurements they kept it hidden because they don't want the world to know what i showed yesterday. that they actually have this capability of pretty advanced capability to manufacture nuclear weapons because i think if this was known in 2015, the nuclear deal as was done would not be done. and in fact, the key condition for its implementation was that iran come clean and gave them a clean bill of health that they have no secret nuclear weapons. that's not true. >> so mr. prime minister, how do you reconcile -- >> they kept it and ready to use it. >> mr. prime minister, how do
you reconcile that notion with what just came out from the iaee, the monitoring agency in place to secure the different precepts of the 2015 deal, they said they have no proof that iran has done anything new. they dated as 2009, that yes, you're right. this is what iran was up to. this may be what it wants to be up to but that there is no new proof. >> well, first of all, there's an enormous amount of new information that we didn't know that shows how advanced they were in their bomb making work. so that's the first. second, if people knew this, then how could they close the file and say they never did anything like this? this was the condition for entering the deal. third, i think it's crucial to understand that the nuclear deal right now that we're discussing is premised on the assumption that iran will somehow become a peaceful country. it's not.
it's become an empire that is devouring one country after the other. and that they're doing before they had nuclear weapons. this deal will give them unlimited enrichment of euraniu, unlimited enrichment of uranium. and second, it doesn't address their ballistic missiles to which they can carry the bombs. third, as i've just shown, they have the wherewithal, the stored up preserve knowledge to make a bomb very quickly if they wanted to do it. we could -- if you put all these three things together, enrich uranium, bomb, missiles together, that's a prescription for catastrophe. i think it's important for me to put that forward. >> it works both ways, mr. prime minister -- >> if you have a bad deal zsh. >> the secretary of defense right now mattis said we put this deal together assuming they would try to cheat. so it wasn't done assuming that they would change as a state actor, iran. nobody went into it with their
eyes closed to that reality. but, it's better than nothing, right? if there were no deal in place right now -- >> i disagree with that. >> how would that make israel safe if by all accounts iran has slowed or stopped what it was doing prior to the deal, how would you be safer without a deal? >> there are many premises that are incorrect in your statement. >> please. >> the first is we would be better off -- we're better off because we have this deal. no, you're not. because this deal -- the fact that you have a dangerous deal, the fact that iran is keeping or not violating a dangerous deal doesn't make it less dangerous. it's completely dpl lly flawed. it's based on laws. it's based on the fact that the nuclears weapon program and knowledge they stored up, didn't come clean with it. and it's also based on the fact that iran will somehow be a docile neighbor. that's not what's happening. the opposite has happened. i said from the start, look, if you want peace f you want security, you should have posed that deal as structured. i said that. i said that iran is not going to
be more pacific, more moderate once you sign the deal. and it's exactly what has happened. iran has done the very opposite. it's taken in the money, the billions and using it to conquer yemen, to fire rockets on saudi arabia, conquer syria militarily. arm hezbollah with the most dangerous missiles on earth. to spread its totalitarian wins. and the whole premise this deal guarantees a safer more moderate iran is wrong. this deal paves iran's path to a nuclear arsenal. if you got rid of it the first thing that would happen is you would crash iran's money machine in which its pursuing its dreams of a conquest and empire. they're funding it with tense of billions of dollars their aggression throughout the region. and this deal facilitates it. if you take away the deal, they'll be in a huge economic problem. second thing, i think you have
to insist that you actually dismantle the components that allow iran to produce an arsenal of nuclear weapons. if you don't and you do nothing, then i predict that what you do is head right into a wall. you head into a terrible conflict and perhaps a terrible war in which iran will be armed with nuclear weapons. that's bad. if you want peace, oppose this deal. >> sounds like you're suggesting that's the only course right now. the way you outline the threat and intentions of iran, it seems as though you are indicating that you are on the precipes of war with this nation because that's the only way that you would be able to guarantee that you smash all of their capabilities and stop all of their evil outreach in the surrounding region, as you describe. is that what you mean? are you prepared to go to war against iran? >> nobody is seeking that kind of development. iran is the one that's changing the rules in the region. iran is the one that is
practicing aggression against every country in the middle east. iran is firing rockets into the capitals of neighboring countries. and iran is preparing 150,000 rockets to be fired at israel with the explicit goal of annihilating us. iran is also moving its army. that's it's declared purpose. iran is on the campaign of aggression. i learned something from history and i think you have, too. when you have an aggressive tyrannical regime with a murderous ideology, stop it at the beginning. don't let that tie ranny grow and expand. don't let that aggression conquer more and more territories. we take a stand. that's the way to prevent war. history taught us anything it's that opposing such tyrannies and their aggression early on prevents catastrophe. if you don't, you invite
catastrophe. >> obviously how you do that will be an open ended question. it has lethal implications. we will have to see how it develops. the idea of disclosure, iran won't tell the truth. we had to go in there and steal this information so we can know the truth is israel's perspective. disclosure should work every way. the united states should say what it has. a yes no question for you. you know where i'm going with this. does israel have nuclear capabilities and nuclear weapons, yes or no? >> we've always said that we won't be the first to introduce it, so we haven't introduced it. >> that's not an answer to the question. do you have them or do you not? >> it's good an answer as you're going to get. i'll tell you one thing i think is important, iran signed npt and all kinds of commitments and iran said they don'tave this nuclear