tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN May 17, 2018 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
ening. at least we don't have to worry about homeowners insurance. just call geico. geico helps with homeowners insurance? good to know. been doing it for years. that's really good to know. i should clean this up. i'll get the dustpan. behind the golf clubs. get to know geico. and see how easy homeowners and renters insurance can be. happy mueller-versary or not in the case may be in the matters arriving from his investigation, he's wrapped up quite a record largely in the public eye in that same year the president of the united states surrogates and supporters turned it into something nefarious, fishy and shadowy, in the president's own words this morning disgusting. we will talk about all that tonight starting with kaylin collins. tell us about the president.
he let off a lot of steam all of a sudden this morning. >> reporter: well, john, he seems to be seething. though aced say he isn't distracted by the russian investigation. he seems distracted. this morning alone he sent out three tweets marking that one-year i was in. one saying congratulations, america, we are now into the second year of the greatest witch hunt in history. there is still no collusion and no obstruction. then he adds the only collusion was that done by democrats unable to win an election despite the spending of far more money. so the president there relitigating the election saying democrats are spending more money regarding collusionful all of that does very much seem to be on the president's minds, john. >> what was the president's response? >> the white house is being asked questions as well. they're saying the president isn't storm tracker 2000ed. they're not zrakd. during that briefing sarah
sanders was asked several questions. here is one of those to cnn. >> why does the white house believe it's a witch hunt. why did he cancel the meeting this afternoon? smr the president knows there was no collusion in the campaign and he has been quite clear about this. it's gone on for over a year. they found no evidence of collusion and still strongly believe it's a witch hunt. i'm not sure how we could be any more clear and how the president could be any more clear about his beliefs and his penalties. in terms of a press engagement. the president will have press at his event here shortly, which is why we will have to keep it quick and short today and likely take a few questions at that event. >> is that last reference because of course nato scheduled press conference with the president for this afternoon at the white house with the secretary general from nato. that press conference was not listed on the white house public
schedule within it went out to supporters. sarah said the president was going to have a pressability. they did let reporters come into the oval office. it's much difference at the press conference. when people go in there the president can answer whatever questions he feels like answering. he is not put on the spot to answer one question specifically as he is in a press conference. two different things there. the president was asked about mueller during that oval office break. he did not answer any questions about it. >> i understand he has new reporting from the fallout of the leak the comment the joke which wasn't funny at all made about john mccain. >> we are seeing this fallout continue after that staffer made a remark about senator mccain dying anyway. i am told the communications team is weighing reducing it's number of staff. right now they have about two dozen people. it was where sadler made that remark. >> that remark later leaked to the media.
now they are considering reducing the number of people on that staff. they're not going to outright fire people, shift them eater out of the administration into other departments outside of the west wing. you might ask why are they not firing people directly if the problem is leaking. that's because they don't know who it is that's doing the leaking and several officials conceded to me today, they still have not figured out who it is that leaked the sadler remark specifically. so instead of firing people they believe are the ones leaking they are going to strengthen the teams so there are less people involved. they will ship out junior staffers who they don't think have clearly defined roles. this clearly goes to show what the white house is doing to combat that leak to reduce the number of leaks. dozens of staffers do not think this will work. dozens of senior officials speak to reporters on a daily basis, including, john, president trump, himself. >> you got to remember this is more proof the white house doesn't see a problem if the
comments were said at all. all right. thanks so much. part of the head spinning quality of the news these past few days has been the senate intelligence committee that the russians were trying to get donald trump elected. which of course conflicts with the house intelligence committees not bipartisan report remember in the last hour, i spoke with a democrat and earlier i spoke with congressman chris stewart a republican on the house committee. congressman stewart, i know you do not follow president trump on twitter and you don't like to read his tweets at all. but you know what he says vaguely. today one of the things he did, he called the mueller investigation the greatest witch hunt in american history. do you believe that to be the case? >> well in certain ways for clarity, i don't follow him on tweths, i hear about him. i think in one specific instance or in one category at least, that is the allegations of collusion, which i had said to you and others i think for quite
a while now, there isn't evidence of that. i think it's probably true it's been the accusation were exaggerated. they were out. having said that i've supported the mueller investigation. i think it should go forward. i hope he concludes it as quickly as possible but we've callss indicated we support it. >> i'll cam back to collusion in a minute. do you think the investigation is disgusting? >> the mueller investigation? >> yes. >> no, and if the president called it that, i would probably disagree with him on that. >> the senate intelligence committee. they came out and said that they agree with the assessment of the intelligence agencies that russia interfered with the election and did so with the purpose of helping donald trump. your committee the house intelligence committee said they saw no evidence of that how do you think then that the senate reached a diametric ally opposed conclusion? >> i don't know. i really don't know.
we were talking earlier, did senate members go out and spend time actually looking at the raw da that the raw intelligence? did they ask the same questions about the fusion cells, about who is involved? i don't know. all i can say is they reached a different conclusion than we have. we are talking art, not science, no question. these are difficult questions to explore and come to conclusions about. i'll tell you this, we stand by and i stand by the conclusion that we've reached here. i am not waving on that, because the senate came to a different understanding in the work we did and the analysis and the final conclusion. >> do you worry it gives critics a chance to say it's there to provide cover? >> for sure. i am accused of this. every day we say in some way
gets fashioned or contortd, just trying to protect trump. that's not true. i mean, we just want the truth and in fairness, i think we have been critical of trump. i have been fairly critical. some of his tweets. he did that earlier. but at the same time in as we look at this at the end of the day, if we don't see it, we just don't see it. all we can do is report that. >> i've never heard it said of you. to be fair i never heard anyone say you, congressman stewart are out there. i have heard it said of devon nunez who had mittedly has been tied up in things that are questionable when he was involved with running to the white house with information that was actually provided by the white house. so you can see how people question his attendance there. >> two things, one you haven't heard that about me. i appreciate that. come spend a day with me. i promise you will hear it from
someone. the second thing is some of the characterizations said about devon simply aren't true. if he ran to the white house is not a fair characterization of all of what he did there. he did what he felt compelled to do which wasn't to run to the white house. >> was he completely forthcoming, though, about the source of the information from when it came within the white house grounds? >> i think he wassed a forthcoming at the time. now look, devon isn't without blemish. neater am i. no one is perfect at this. the characterization that he is carrying water for the president just simply isn't true. >> you said devon nunez has been tough on the president. is there any example? >>ion publicly. i can tell new my personal interactions, on the committee, he has been down the middle. critical of the president as he has been critical of in some cases other members of the
committee some cases his own party. i think devon has been as i said down the middle under these really pretty trying circumstances. >> down the middle. do you think he is blamed for the discourse that emerged in the committee of the last year? i know both sides were involved in this whole thing falling apart a bit, but he was the chair. >> he can't control what other people say and do and he can't control what the media said about him. in many cases when the media is characterizing him, saying things facttually inaccurate. you know i can't blame him for responding to some of those things. >> we try to be as accurate when describe whack he did when he recuse himself from the investigation. you before have said you have seen him be critical of the president. i never have in anyway. i've never seen him step back
and say these actions that the president took, we need to question them or look into them. can you give me any example that wouldn't reveal classified information or confidence? >> once again, i haven't followed his public statements. i can tell you in public and in committee he is very fair. >> have a great weekend. thank you for being with us. presidential lawyer refugee reason telling the pbs news hour the special counsel's team communicated last night with the president's lawyer. he says they're nor rowing down the questions for him. whether the question agrees to be questioned. he says it looks more hopeful than a day or so ago he told the president to prepare in off hours, perhaps on the golf course. i will bring in our panel. shelby, chris stewart on the house intelligence committee and mark warner, the chair of the
senate intelligence committee. i've spoken to both of them. they sigh die met trekally opposite things. mark warner says he saw evidence in the u.s. election and chris stewart tells me unequivocally he saw no evidence. it's hoard that figure out how both can be true. >> right. this investigation divided a lot of people. certainly democrats and congress is a big group a cross section of the divide. when i talked to different members of the congress. they say it's nuanced. you can look at some of the things russia did online on social media, maybe they were supporting bernie sanders or boosting jill stein. democrats largely say etching collectively was done to help the president. we heard the president say yes we agree russia interfered to help president trump. i have been talking to a lot of legal experts about the investigation in the past year getting their opinions. they've said it has been swift, es hauftive. professional. we haven't seen leaks.
we barely see mueller. i would add a word, i'm not a legal expert. it is very confusing. there are so many people involved. so many different crimes allegedly committed. i think that that's maybe why we don't see this resonate so much with voters. >> the first word you used swift is a word i have never heard from the white house or the president's allies describing the investigation. i want to get one more comments refugee reasonable is suggesting he's gone back and forth, getting closer. it looks more hopeful maybe the president will speak. what do you make of that? >> we've heard this a lot from rouge rouge. you know, this spin about he really wants to cooperate. he wants to talk and maybe it will happen you know at this point i think we should just sort of believe it when we see it. it certainly looks like etching i've seen that the president is not going to talk to the mueller
office. he will either file legal okays with subpoena. he will take the fifth. fe end of the day, he will not speak to the mueller office. rudy's interview of the day, what he says about the interviews, i take with a grain of salt. >> we will talk more about that. i want to talk with shelby right there. the house intelligence committee when they said they heard no evidence of helping donald trump. that was just the republicans, when the senate intelligence committee said they did see evidence of it. that was a bipartisan statement. we will talk much more after the break. later with the wedding of presence harry and meghan markle this weekend, anderson will be there. not in the wedding party. we will look at the question of loyalty and race.
>> one year is the paper i was in robert mueller generated plenty of paper in the form of indictments, plea agreements and statements. his critics have done their best to torch it all. >> that effort is well coordinated and relentless. the question, is it working? rich lowrie, is it working? is the white house now and rudy guiliani effectively driving the discussion in framing the debate? >> certainly working among republicans. i think the effort is to soften mueller up, either to contest
his whatever conclusions he draws or perhaps to fire him if it comes to that. i think this entire investigation is misbegotten. the purpose should have been to get the facts out. i think a ro bust independent commission would have been better suited to that. it shouldn't be pinning idiots to the wul for lying to the february fib, it should be to get the facts out. i think that's an investigation for a congressional committee or impeachment committee if democrats take the house to take up. it's not a criminal matter that a special prosecutor kould should be investigating. >> how so? lying to the fbi, lying to the investigator? any investigators isn't illegal, how do you have a criminal justice system? >> look. people that lie to the fbi. that's a crime. if if president fires a director
or lawful exercise of his powers, that's not a crime. in the worst case, it's an abuse of power. you don't indict a president for abusing his power. you impeach him. that's ultimately a political question. not a legal question. i think mueller looking at it from a legal perspective is a category error. >> i think that's more the case to look at. mueller is going to look at all of this through his legal lens, how are we going to get to the answer what he is supposed to resolve is russian interference in our election process. i think we've sort of gone away from that he's looking at the legal implications of what came up and what may have arrived. i think the president and guiliani have done a masterful job of framing the debate in the court of public penalties. >> that will not change what robert mueller is doing in anyway, shape or form the president will continue to put out tweets about this being a witch hunt. no collusion. no interference, that's his way
of communicating with his base. >> that is his way of trying to distract of what he feels like this is taking away from the legitimacy of his victory. all of that i think is good. that's what the president wants, guiliani wants. >> that will not slay mueller. >> i will say the special count sell has indicted 12 russians, three russian companies here and the government ultimately sanctioned them as well. so there has been something directly involved. >> rich and i are old enough to remember the clinton impeachment. it's a little head spinning for me to hear. that's what when star focused on after his wide ranging investigation i think it's true in an ideal world, some kind of heavy subpoena newer. what we seen with the republicans in congress. they were never going to go for that. this has become a political
process in which the key determining factor is virtually nothing robert mueller find is going to sway the republican donald trump base away from him. they have managed to so discredit this investigation. despite the fact mueller is the most bipartisan prudential guy. trump won politically. you can't impeach him without a significant number of republican votes in the senate and he has held that base and so on a sheer political term, i would say it's been okay for now. >> respond to that. perjury is a crime. lying under oath is a crime. this is one reason i think it would be a mistake for the president to go under oath and talk to robert mueller. >> give it a chance. >> for the lawful exercise via power is not a crime. itco you would be an abuse of power. if you are bribeing witness, perjury, those are not exercises
of your lawful powers. right. those are crimes. but what we're having robert mueller trying to figure out what was the president of the united states' state of mind when he fired james comey, he has a perfect right to do. >> look, at the end of the day, it's so funny because it is incredibly politicized. but the thing, republicans are running this investigation. robert mueller is a republican. deputy ag a republican. a political appointee of donald trump. we can go down the line. it's amaze, it's being called a witch punt even when you have the gop-led senate intel committee finally coming out seeing, hey, you know what, there is truth to what the intelligence committee said, russia did med him. even though donald trump is dissecting that crazy tweets he always puts out is it is not a witch hunt. it's his own political appointee republicans that are leading this and investigating this.
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. . president trump says the united states is continuing to prepare with a summit with kim jong-un despite threats of pulling out. he talked about it at the white house. he said kim would remain in power if he renounces nuclear weapons. he warned the country could be decimated his word if kim refuses to strike a deal.
then there was this mass destruction he seemed to conflate that with libya's leader eight years later. >> the libyan 340d el we don't have at all. in libya, we decimated that country. there was no deal to keep gadhafi. the libyan model that was mentioned was a much different deal. this would be with kim john united states he'd be there in his country, running his country. we never said to gadhafi, oh, we're going to give you protection queer going to give you military strength. we went in and decimated him. >> all right the libyan leader was overthrown a somebody member of national security and staff. jamie it doesn't seem as if he understood are what his national
security adviser was talking about when gadhafi gave up num cheer capabilities for basically nothing. >> he didn't have much. he gave it away and trade it for some kind of economic reform. we have a president entirely ahistoric am as if the united states is starting from scratch. without that historical basis, we say why not? and we're stumbling into this very dangerous vision. they never said they're going to do it. because president trump isn't grounded in any kind of historic am realities, he's able to einvent new realities as he goes along this made occupy history the realities of the worlds that functions will very soon be crashing into etch a other. >> as part of that misunderstanding or maybe evenic new orleans of what the libyan model was, he suggested that kim
jong-un could get protection. >> protection. right. that was interesting. >> that was a heck of a word when you are dealing with a dictator. >> i'm not sure that's what he meant. it would be great to get him out in front of the press. there were two big hurdles that existed. number one is defining de-nuclearization. the white house seems unilateral de-nuclearization. president trump said that at a press conference. the other one is sequencing. who goes first? we are already seeing problems on the korean peninsula, because who is -- are we stopping military exercises first before kim dismantles the test site? it's always this back and forth between who blinks? at this point it's hard to see kim jong-un willing to do that? at this point he's threatening to pull out of the summit. >> on the other hand, the president said north korea would be decimated like libya and gadhafi if in some way kim jong-un went back on the deal.
>> yeah, so look the libyan model where you are inthe stuff up. put it on a plane and ship it to the united states, that should be our goal the problem is everyone has in their mind gadhafi did ends up very dead and surely kim jong-un is very focused on that fact so should a president about to sit down if negotiations with a leader about this, should he know what the libyan model is? >> he should be much clear on this, this is a problem potentially with a one-on-one sit down like this. the north koreans are easily underestimated. it is a hussein use evil regime. they're very good at this while the negotiations have been key to the survival for 30 or for the years, the president better be at the top of his game and fully briefed. >> i'm glad we have ambassador bolton there to educate the president on what the libyan modem is and how it was successful in 2003 when they
de-nuclearized, we liftd sanctions, it worked well. >> that is important. i'm glad we have secretary pompeo in there stressing the fact we don't just need tim i kim jong-un's word, they will de-nuclearize, we need complete and definable de-nuclearization, i hope by the time we have this summit, bolton and pomp whyio sit down with the president and sell him etching he needs to know. >> but here's the thing. that's the problem. he doesn't want to be educated. he is completely ill prepared. he has no desire to learn about the country the region, how it is that how does kim jong-un work? there is a "time" magazine report that talks about how he doesn't want to be briefed. just think about it's being leaked. why is it being leaked? by his own people because they're concerned. >> there was one other thing the president said, jamie, i like your insider tip on this to me it seemed leak a careful
measured planned response. in we responsibility suggesting the meeting won't happen the president basically said, look, we're going to see what happens. he left it open intended intentionally. he didn't go too hot. he didn't go too cold. isn't that a calculated approach? >> in a way it's calculated for what? the president is in a bine. if the united states pushes too hard at de-nuclearization, the north koreans will walk away. >> that i have no intention of giving up their nukes. if he 16% e accepts this slow gradual process of confidence building measure. that's the same deals the past presidents made with north korea. so he'll be criticized for doing what he said he won't do. he's in a bind. the north koreans are betting trump needs the dopamine hit of the summit certain to fail so much. >> the united states goal should not be de-nuclearization.
kim jong-un as horrible of a man he is has extremely good reason to want a nuclear weapon. they would want nuclear weaponsful they've seen what america does to adversaries. what donald trump, maybe his ignorance will be a blessing in fact. the best thing can you get out of this would be verification of their nuclear weapons that will stay there in a different kinds of relationship which will allow the south to open up that regime from commerce and trade. we need to stop. it's a fish hunt. >> all right coming up. moderate republicans want them to push for daca, growing questions whether any immigration measure should pass. part of the backdrop is this video that's gone viral, patrons at a restaurant are speaking
spanish, not english. what's with him? he's happy. your family's finally eating vegetables thanks to our birds eye voila skillet meals. and they only take 15 minutes to make. augh! (family giggling) oh my. birds eye voila! so veggie good. and we got to know the friends of our friends.r the friends. and we found others just like us. and just like that we felt a little less alone. but then something happened. we had to deal with spam, fake news, and data misuse.
yelling because staff and patrons in a restaurant are speaking spansh. here is part of it . >> back now, i want to be clear in the responsibility era, the person responsible for those comments is the guy making them right there. but there is a question about the overall environment that we're in right now is there an atmosphere where people like that could feel like it's somehow more allowable? >> i think because of donald trump and the way he started off his campaign attacking mexicans saying they were rapist and drug dealers and continuing that through his presidential tenure
thus far, yeah, he's emboldened folks like that to speak out loud. because they know they're protected. let's not forget charlottesville, donald trump was sad, protected the other side the neo-nazis, said they were good people and because he did that, people felt even more emboldened with that. he refused. he doubled down and refused to apologize, yeah, we're in a place today where you have bigots and racists, who may have been quiet but have been thinking these things before feel like they can be more vocal because of who is in the white house. >> alex, does the president know any of that? >> we cannot blame the president for that outburst. we blame the president increased the disrespectful language. he can't be to blame for someone else's personal actions. >> that being said, i do think his demeanor in the white house has been disturbing. i think the way he attacks people repeatedly on twitter is unfortunate. i encourage him to take his 25's
advice and be best when it comes to twitter, where he's speaking in pub livenlth i think he should do that. with regard to tieing this back to the immigration debate. i am encourage thad that man's actions and his talk and his demeanor isn't reflective of americans. we have nearly 70% of americans that do want daco protections that make sure we provide protections for the people of ill lool hinois lega illegal im. the people are working in my view to pass some type of protection for dreamers. i think we will see that. >> yesterday, the president suggested that gang members like ms-13 members are coming over the border, his administration worked to get them out. these people were animals. there was a dig i big debate over that over the last few days. where does that fit into the discussion? >> there is a legal debate one can have about how many
immigrants we have and how we enforce the border what we do with people working without documentation. what itself so dangerous and frightening about what trump is doing. you saw it in those ads, is the constant conflation of people who were undocumented with rapists and murderers and criminals. right. this has really taken hold now. you see it. and that's deep because you are basically dehumanizing people. of course the vast majority of whom have not committed those crimes at a lower rate. you are making them targets of violence. >> let's just be really clear. the president was not referring to all immigrants. he was talk object about ms-13 saying they are animals is putting it mildly the great people cut their hearts off. animals -- >> the problem is he has a pattern. that's the problem. it's not, yesterday was not an excuse. it wasn't an accident. oh, he didn't mean this. he didn't mean that. he's done it over and over
again. >> they're animals and they prey on immigrants. >> wait. it's always like a particular group of people. loose, let me say something, as a black woman, a as gay woman who is living under this trump administration, i'm constantly attacked by the trump administration, so i know exactly what it feels like to be dehumanized by this trump administration, by his policies, by things that he says so this is incredibly personal to me. you know it is amazing that it's coming from this white house. >> i'm sorry if anyone is insulting you -- >> ms-13, they're barbaric. they perpetrate the worst sort of crimes. they're not doing it to white people in illinois to fellow immigrants two are vulnerable many of whom are illegal immigrants, so we're doing no faces by not speaking the truth of what they do. >> thanks guys for this interesting turn here. coming up, royalty and race.
we will talk about the coverage of the upcoming wedding of prince harry and megan mark him a himle -- mark him and -- meghan markle and the conversations that has started. over... hey, want to try it? ok here you go... over... under... hey whoa, pop, pop... your shoe's untied. ♪ ensure he's well taken care of, even as you build your own plans for retirement.
see how lincoln can help protect your savings from the impact of long-term care expenses at lincolnfinancial.com. it's red lobster's create your own shrimp trios. pick 3 of 9 new and classic creations for just $15.99. try new creations like savory crab-topped shrimp, and parmesan truffle shrimp scampi. but hurry, shrimp trios ends may 27th.
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. . the royal wedding two days away, anderson will be a part of cnn coverage starting at 4:00 in the morning saturday. set your alarm and dvr. prince harry and meghan markle as well as the conversation about race and loyalty. >> reporter: brixton, a district of south london, black asian and white cultures you find all in one neighborhood. it's a place meghan markle and prince harry have visited before. markle is celebrated here like in much of great britain and because she is biracial, her marriage to prince harry has
also inspired discussion about race relations. raise your hand, does everyone know who meghan markle is? >> yes. these elementary school girls are well aware this is a first for royals. >> it surprised me people refer to black like people with the royal family. >> reporter: did any of you think you could grow up and marry into a royal family? was that something anyf you even thought of? >> no. >> reporter: why not? >> not many black people can join the royal family. >> reporter: do you think it's a goodening? >> yeah. >> reporter: why is that? >> because it just shows you that anyone could marry into the royal family. >> reporter: a recent study found a little more than half of those polled in the uk say race shouldn't matter in the royal marriage. 75% say they would feel comfortable if their children married someone of a different
race, but a government study also found a 27% increase in hate crimes in the past two years steadman scott has lived in brixton for some 50 years. >> the only problem in this country. >> that is a color problem. that is a rob we have to address. >> reporter: there have been a number of take this one in the "daily mail," it reads "harry's girl is almost straight out of compton." then there was the comment made by the sister of the uk's foreign secretary. it reads, "miss markle's mother is a dread locked african-american lady from the wrong side of the tracks." at one point, prince harry stepped in to defend markle and her family. in a statement, his communications secretary cited the racial undertones of comment pieces and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.
he conducted that recent study on race in the uk. what did you make of some of the horrific things that the british press were writing about meghan markle? >> racism's still there in british society but receded quite a lot especially across the generations. >> reporter: though these girls never expected to see a mixed-race bride in the royal family, they see their marriage as a sign of hope. >> i think it will make a difference slightly because, like, some people, like, really racist, other people because of their color. and because meghan markle is joining the royal family, i think it might make them change their mind. >> jason, i understand that meghan markle's mother is set to meet the queen tomorrow. what can you tell us about that? >> reporter: that is true. meghan markle and her mother will be meeting with the queen tomorrow, and think about what even happened today, markle's mother and markle meeting with prince charles and camilla, but you think of the optics of
what's happening here. you've got this african-american woman whose daughter is marrying into the royal family, and just to sort of bounce off of that study that was referred to in the piece, that study also found that while most white britons said that too much was being made of markle and her race, people of color felt as though that was something that should be noted and so there was a -- there was a difference there, and when i asked about that, i said, isn't it possible that both sides should be right, that, you know, those white britons said people shouldn't be making too much of her race, we should be beyond that, and also those people of color could also be correct in that it's important to recognize her race. so what we're really seeing here is while there's going to be a huge celebration here on saturday, this marriage really has opened up this dialogue between people of color and white britons about race and how it affects people here. >> interesting discussion to be having.
jason carroll, thanks so much for being with us. and anderson will be live from windsor tomorrow night for "a.c. 360" at 8:00 and part of the coverage from cnn at the royal wedding starting at 4:00 in the morning on saturday. and next, anthony bourdain and anderson talk about the upcoming episode of "parts unknown: armenia." we test all of our paints and stains for months. or even years. because you deserve paint that's done right. that's proudly particular. benjamin moore. the standard for paint professionals. only at local paint and hardware stores. sometimes a day at the ballpark is more than just a day at the ballpark. [park announcer] all military members stand and be recognized. sometimes fans cheer for those who wear a different uniform. no matter where or when you served, t-mobile stands ready to serve you. that's why we're providing half off family lines to all military.
sunday on an all new episode of "parts unknown" anthony bourdain heads to armenia, tackled the most emotional issue, mass killings of hundreds of thousands of mass killings by the otomon empire and went on for a decade. 1.5 million of the countrymen were killed and demand it be recognized as genocide. turkey says 300,000 armenians died and the killings took place during a war where both sides suffered losses. the ma 20 other countries including the vatican do. anderson andrecently talked about "part unknown: armenia" in new york. >> in this episode, you go to armenia. have you ever been there to before? >> i've never been to armenia before. it's a place that i really wanted to do a show. i was really trying to figure
out how i was going to go it, meaning what would the perspective be, what's my way in? who do i know that's armenia? out of the blue, a gentleman named serge tonkian called, he's the lead singer, songwriter for a band called system of the down. he's been back a number of times and i went back. i also -- as a student of history, i had an impish desire to use the "g" word finally on tv because most official united states policy, much of the world policy, is to refer to the armenian genocide as, i don't know -- >> mass killing. >> as a series of unfortunate events. i don't know what turkey's preferred language is, but it sure looked like a genocide to me. i'm not reluctant to use that word. this is a country that is -- that has endured a lot. really good food.
i believe one of the first countries if not the first to make wine. >> really? >> a lot -- but surrounded by hostile powers. iran on the other side and the russians above. it's a dicey contentious place to be. as i found out when i tried to visit, took an official flight on a helicopter -- an armenian military helicopter into this ethnic enclave in what is technically, i guess, azerbaijan to visit the majority armenian population there. immediately found myself png'd. >> right. i read about that. >> i'm professionally persona n non grata in azerbaijan. >> so you can't go back to azerbaijan? >> yeah. i guess i can go to the armenian area.
>> was it what you expected? i'm not sure if you had -- what kind of expectations you had. >> a lot of it is about armenian identity, i guess. i think the armenians -- the genocide lives more strongly, perhaps, in the armenians who have been deprived of the experience of living in armenia or growing up in armenia. >> tune in for "parts unknown: armenia" sunday night at 9:00 on cnn. thanks for watching "360." time for don lemon and "cnn tonight." this is cnn breaking news. >> this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. breaking news, we're learning tonight that president trump may be those ecloser to sitting down interview with robert mueller's team. rudy giuliani is telling pbs the president's lawyers and mueller's investigators have been working to narrow the scope of questions. but giuliani wouldn't go to far as to say it is a done