tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN June 4, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
good evening. several days of combative tweets and especially sweeping legal claims about the russia probe. one of them contained a newly published letter from two of his lawyers. put it go all together, paints a picture of a president perhaps getting ready to test the power of the law. this morning in a pair of tweets the president called it totally
unconstitutional and declared he has the absolute right to pardon himself despite having done nothing wrong. no one knows why he chose to tweet today. the spark might have come over the weekends with "the new york times," quote that would. they claimed the president cannot ever obstruct justice because that would amount to him obstructing himself. they made a stunning admission that he concocted the misleading statement about the trump tower meeting in june of 2016. they were talking to russians, promising dirt on hillary clinton. the key passage reads you have received all of the notes. indicating that the president dictated a short accurate response to the "new york times" article on behalf of his son, donald trump jr. keeping them honest, that response which went out in july was anything but accurate is that it obfuscated the true intent of the meeting which was to gather damaging information
on hillary clinton. it was misleading as was the story about the story. it aligned that jay sekulow repeatedly put out there. what do statements the times said, the president dictated a short but accurate response. now watch what they said back then. >> that was written by donald trump jr. and i am sure in consolidation with his lawyer. that wasn't written by the president. the president didn't sign off on anything. he was coming back from the g-20. the statement that was released on saturday was released by donald trump jr. and i am sure in consultation with his lawyers. the president wasn't involved in that. the president did not draft the response. the response came from donald trump jr. and i am sure in consultation with his lawyer. let me say this, the president, i do want to be clear, the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement, it came from donald trump jr. >> a couple of weeks later sarah sanders obscured the president's role.
>> he certainly didn't dictate. but like i said, he weighed in and offered suggest like any father would do. >> to reiterate, we think we know because jay sekulow who you saw there, sent to robert mueller's team what would presumably be the real versions of events. quote, the president dictated the mgs leading statement. which goes straight to the question rob mueller is seeking to answer. did the president what would have attempted to a cover story obstruct justice? mr. mueller is not talking about it. neither was sarah sanders in her on role in misleading the public >> are you saying, his lawyers are saying something entirely different. how are we supposed to know what believe? >> once again, i can't comment on a letter from the president's outside counsel. i direct you to them to answer
them. >> literally, you said he did not dictate. the lawyer said he did. what is it? >>ya respond the a letter from the outside counsel. >> so she was busy. she tried to answer regarding two other tweets from her boss. just because he tweeted doesn't make it so. here's the first one. i would be absolute right to pardon myself. why i would do that when i have done nothing wrong? in the meantime, the never ending witch hunt led by democrats and others continues into the mid terms. then about an hour later he tweeted, the appointment of the special counsel is entirely unconstitutional. we play the game because i have done nothing wrong. >> the president has made his views clear. i don't have anything else to add. to a question about hypocrisy.
given that candidate trump had a very different response about a year and a half ago. >> if i win, i am going to instrutorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. there has never been so many lies, so much deception and we are going to have a special prosecutor and look into it because you know what, people, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you have done. >> it comes from a piece from the "wall street journal" who argues that mr. mueller could not conduct a broad investigation because he was never confirmed by the senate. sean hannity did a segment on it and others picked it up. we will take it up with jeff toobin and alan dershowitz. as to the other claim that he
got the right to pardon himself, that's a stretch. a watergate memo says no, he can't do it because no one may be a judge in his own case. alexander hamilton in the federalist papers said yes. no pardon is necessary because an operation cannot break the law. >> when the president does it, that means it is not illegal. >> the president in his tweet did not cite hamilton or the doj. who are these legal scholars the president is relying on for his legal claim? >> sarah sanders meantime had a lot to say about the president pardoning himself for doing nothing wrong. nothing whatsoever. >> thankfully the president hasn't done anything wrong and wouldn't have any need for a pardon. >> does he rule out ever issuing a pardon for himself. >> once again, thankfully the president hasn't done anything wrong and wouldn't need one. and once again, the president
hasn't done anything wrong and we feel comfortable in that front. >> it's not that clear. simply put, does president believe he is above the law? >> certainly no one is above the law. >> he said in his tweet that he has the right to pardon himself. does he assume that special counsel will find him guilty of something. >> no, because he hasn't done anything wrong. >> she said it again and again, what she did not do was rule out the president pardoning himself. some republican lawmakers seem to be unimpressed by that idea. some democrahink even worse. >> if i were president of the united states and i had a lawyer that said i could pardon myself, i would hire a new lawyer. >> the framers of the constitution did not want a king. >> joining us is jeffrey toobin and professor allen dershowitz. he has a new book coming out, the case against impeaching
trump. is it problem at pick the president according to his counsel now did in fact dictate that letter about the trump tower meeting? >> it is enormously significant for two reasons. first of all, by putting out a false statement, it is more evidence in an attempt to obstruct justice. to interfere with the investigation by putting out false information. perhaps even more significant is that it relates to the collusion investigation, you know, alan and others have spent a lot of time saying there's nothing illegal about collusion. any sort of relationship between trump campaign and russia was perfectly appropriate. if that's the se, why did theid about his campaign's relationip with russia? if he thought it was all appropriate, he should have just told the truth. because he knew it was wrong, he showed consciousness of guilt by lying about what went on.
>> professor dershowitz? >> absolutely inappropriate. to collude with a foreign power. but there is a difference between inappropriate and criminal for something to be criminal, it has to be in the criminal statute book. i disagr with a great deal of what has gone on today with the white house. i don't think that a president necessarily has the power to pardon himself. i wrote a column today in the hill. i wrote one a year ago. nobody knows the answer to that. it is clearly on a blank slate. nobody should be saying either that the president clearly has a power to pardon himself or the president don't have the power. we don't know the answer to the question and probably never find it out. >> what about the writin letter basically, not true or certainly misleading explanation of what that trump tower junior meeting was about. >> well, you know, i really do
think that the president has to get his narrative straight has to have his lawyers tell a consistent and truthful story. i think lying is evidence of a crime. lying can be evidence of feelings of guilt. but lying itself is not a crime unless it is done to law enforcement official. it is dangerous that we have a statute on the books which i have disproved of over the years to make it lying. civil libertarians have been opposed to 10011. that would be a bridge too far. but it is evidence of consciousness of guilt and if there were a crime and i don't believe that the president can be charged for exercising his constitutional arity, of course the president can obstruct justice if he tells underlto the fbi.
nobody says the president can't be charged with obstruction of . can he be charged for simply firing or pardople. i think the answer to that is no. >> why sarah sanders would come out and say something that is not true. either they wouldn't know it is untrue. or they knew and they lied. >> i think the former is much more likely than the later. i don't believe that jay sekulow just lied repeatedly on television because he felt like it. i think and alan knows this as a defense attorney. and clients lie to their lawyers all the time. it is embarrassing for jay sekulow to have those quotes out
there. it is garbage in, garbage out. he was told lies and he repeated them. other investigators have been interviewed about what went on in air force one in the preparation for that statement. they realize that their client has lied and they have to get their story out. >> it is more than embarrassing to the president's lawyers. if a president's lawyer lies to the fbi in a letter and does that knowingly and intentionally, that can be a crime in and of itself. so i am convinced that jeffrey toobin is rights that the president's lawyers did not know that the president dictated this statement if he dictated the statement. none of us know today what the reality is. we have conflicting stories and
if i was a lawyer for a client, i would not tolerate conflicting stories being out there in this way. it makes the legal team and the client look terrible. >> same thing coming from this president which is people in the white house who are defend what the president is doing and ey don't know the full story either. sarah sanders either she lied or she wasn't informed just like the night comey was fired. >> it all comes from the client, it comes from the president. poor sarah sanders used the word dictate. i don't think sarah sanders went out there so she would be embarrassed months later. i think she was lied to and she is now stuck in an embarrassing position. >> i think the president overstated it today when he said the appointment of special counsel is clearly unconstitutional. i don't see any basis. it may be constitutionally permissible for the president to
fire somebody but he overstates it when he says the appointment itself of the special counsel is unconstitutional. i think he was right the first time during the debate saying he would appoint a special counsel. unconstitutional again is a little bit stretched. >> that is gentle alan. >> steven calabresi thinks that. >> i appreciate it. both staying on the subject of pardons, dinesh d'souza, pardoned, his interview is next. also philadelphia eagles were invited to the white house tomorrow. we'll tell you why the president changed his mind. president trump made news this morning with the claim that he could pardon himself.
this one's below market price and has bluetooth. same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm travell ♪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™ with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done!
extinguish my american dream. thank you for fully restoring both. he pleaded filthy in 2014 to campaign finance fraud with an illegal contribution to the senate campaign. he was found to be using straw donors to circumstance up convenient campaign laws. he spent the first eight months of that in a community confinement center. he had to submit to drug testing and community service and submit to counseling by a licensed therapist. he was also fined $30,000. thank you for being with us. i appreciate it. i want to ask you about the tweet that you wrote. what proof do you have that the obama administration tried, in your words to distinguish your american dreams. you said you knew what you were
doing was against the law, correct? >> you have to look at the context of this. just weeks before all of this went down i reed a movie in the theater, 2,000 theaters about obama. i was in kenya at his family homestead, i interviewed his brother in a slum in nairobi. it was an emotionally damaging to the president and the president was upset about it. he was regularly denouncing me on his website. a few weeks later the fbi comes banging on your door. i admit that i broke the law, and i demand that i receive the same penalties as everybody else who did what i did. nobody in american history has been locked up for doing what i did. typically these cases are
prosecuted when there's corruption involved. some quid pro quo or somebody committing a repeat offense. they do it all the time. for these reasons i became suspicious that part of the reason i was targeted was because i did something upsetting to a very narcissistic president. >> you said this wastive prosecut in court you never argued that. your attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case but not arguing selective prosecution. your attorneys were arguing complex legal technicalities. you offered no evidence in a discovery motion. i read you said i never even said i am being selectively prosecuted. i feared i was. i feared i was being. isn't it cute to argue selective prosecution on tv but not in court when you had the opportunity to make that argument? >> it would be if that was the full story. the full story is actually this.
my lawyer went to the judge and asked him if we could have the fbi file that had been compiled on me as well as the government's file. obviously if there had never been collusion, let's say between eric holder and my prosecutor, preet bharara, it the jue who is a clinton appointee judge said absolutely not. how is one going to find selective prosecution if the very documents containing the evidence -- >> the judge said the onus was on you to actually show any evidence at all of any kind of selective prosecution and you did not do that. >> we offer some evidence now because actually we have information now. >> in court is when it mattered. >> on tv is one thing to do it. >> anderson, how would i show evidence of selective prosecution when the evidence is contained in documents that are in the possession of the fbi that i have no access of it. >> that didn't stop you from going on tv and talking about it at the time.
at the time you were criticized by the judge in doing tv interviews before your sentencing hearing in which you were talkingbout selective prosecution. >> at that time i suspected it. now i actually know it. a congressional oversight committee has my file and some of it is redacted. it highlights me as a conservative and a prominent critic of the obama administration. if this was a routine case, preet bharara was on cnn saying, this was a garden variety case handled just like any other case. why are my politics highlighted in my fbi file? the reason i suspect -- >> that is your evidence? >> no, the fbi is signaling to the justice department. look, we got one for you. here's a prominent critic of obama. you need to know this is your political enemy. you may want to go after this guy. >> wouldn't any complete fbi file, you are a prominent
conservative. wouldn't any complete fbi file describe you as being a conservative or a critic of the obama administration or whatever? >> anderson, if someone is compiling a file on somebody and particularly a file of political sensitivity and you want to be careful not to target people politically, why put this information -- >> that is the only evidence you have. that you were mentioned as a critic. >> no, there is actually more. there is actually more. the fbi decides early on at the very beginning to allocate $100,000 to investigate my $20,000 case. recently, as you know rosie o'donnell has been in the public and admitting. to five times exceeding the campaign finance laws. but no hint of a prosecution. d. in fact, she said if i gave too much, give me the money back. and that is how these cases are typically treated. >> you are an incredibly smart guy, she did not set up straw
men to funnel money through to a candidate. she gave five times, i think i was a total of $1,000 here or there over the limit, absolutely a violation but far different than, what did you was you consciously, correct me the i'm wrong, you consciously and intentionally went to friends of yours and got them on donate $10,000 each to this candidate and then you immediately paid them back. when they raised questions, you said don't worry about it. that's a lot more, a straw man is more than what rosie o'donnell is paying. >> she used four different spellings of her names and five different addresses why would she do that if she didn't want computers unable to collate these names and see that the same person made the contributions. >> i don't know. that i'm unaware of. >> if she was a master mind, she
gave $3,700 or something like that. it doesn't seem like -- she's not setting up straw men. >> let's be fair. both these cases are similar. in a better america in the past, neither rosie nor i would be prosecuted. i'm not saying that by itself she should be prosecuted she obviously had no corrupt intent and neither did i. i didn't even tell the candidate, wendy long, that did i this. so i was not expecting any kind of a quid pro quo. in an earlier america jimmy carter would not have gone after me for this and george h.w. bush would not go after michael moore and lock them up. i am saying that we are seeing a new enomenon. the use of the weapons of the state against political adversaries. >> i'm not saying that's not possible. i'm just saying you haven't offered any other evidence other than in your fbi file you were mentioned a critic of the
obama administration. you said this crime that you were convinced is never prosecuted. in the court case there were 20. a guy named jeffrey thompson, a democrat donor connected to hillary clinton. and there was a headline at gop at the height of the campaign that said clinton's illegal donor got sentenced. thompson got three months in prison for his crimes.you could 15 months in prison and you got no prison time at all. if this was a conspiracy, the judge was also confirmed by republicans. why didn't you get any jail time? it sms if this was, you were really an enemy of the state they would have gone after you, the ea deal. >> well, they did, they wanted me to go to prison and the judge said no, and gave me a different sentence. >> you said the judge was part
e was not part of the . nefarious plot but he was in the same ideological camp as the plotte. >> this is left wing state and left wing environment. here i am as a conservative. ne would think extra precaution is taken to make sure no kind of political hit is going on. >> isnetting sweet plea deal where you got probation. and one day a week of community service educating the less fortunate. >> one day -- first of all, i was ordered. the court ordered mandatory psychiatric treatment. am i jeffrey dahmer? did i put bodies in the refrigerator? i was helping a long time college friend. the judge was acting as if i needed reeducation. i am sure if i started worshipping obama, and regularly appeared on msnbc, maybe i would have been cured.
>> the idea that you were being sentenced to therapy for reeducation, if they thought your ideas were so dangerous, why would they have you doing community service of educating a classroom full of people? isn't that what you were doing? they were putting you in front of people because of how intelligent you are. >> well the judge was afraid if i spoke to immigrants about america and issues, i would have a positive effect on them and might convert them to my way of thinking. so he said i will not approve any community service program where you are sharing your ideas. rely wanted you to teach the english language. so my sentence was contrived in a way to prevent me from having that kind of influence. >> all right. i appreciate you being on. thank you very much. big breaking news about the russia probe. what one of the key defendants could be up to. also, a battle brewing about the
hed in we an nd one eagle just accusation, next. fety of non-drclaritin and rem symptoms caused by over 200 allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. a hilton getaway means you get more because... you get another day in paradise. get a sunset on a sunday. get more stories to share. get more from your summer getaway with exclusive hilton offers. book yours, only at hilton.com
breaking news at the white house. president trump cancelling the visit by the eagles. the reason, jim acosta joins us from the white house. what did the president say about the canceling? >> what he said is that the philadelphia eagles who are supposed to come over here tomorrow for their white house supewl win celebration have essentially been disinvited, anderson. we talked to a white house official in the last several minutes who confirms that this statement the white house put out this evening, essentially disinvites the champions from a celebration with the president because of the ongoing issue about standing up for the national anthem. before football games. we can show you what the white house is saying. and here it is, it is saying the philadelphia eagles are unable
to come to the white house with their full team to be celebrated tomorrow. they disagree with their president because he insists that they proudly stand for the national anthem hand on heart, in honor of the great men. they both have a patriotism test. in the view of the president and the view of the white house, and the philadelphia eagles. they are not coming. instead the white house is having some celebration on the lawn with the eagles fan. >> in the past athletes have not decided to go to the white house but those events have not been canceled. >> reporter: the golden state warriors were supposed to come, but in solidarity, the president referred to football players who
don't kneel for the national anthems as sons of bitches. it appears at this point this is not being sorted out. as you just said, there is a long standing tradition of these sports teams cominto the white house and the president appears to be abruptly cutting that off and saying if sports teams don't pass this patriotism test, they are not coming to the white house. >> breaking news. he concluded with this, the presidt continues to spread the false narrative.
have you heard, is there any case like this? >> this is again, unprecedented. and it is sad for the country, because these ceremonies have ams that didn't come. the president had the event and it was good. the people came and celebrated and we went on about our business. this suggests, anderson, i must say, it has a whiff of more politics and trying to divert us from other serious matters. he has known for days a bunch were not coming. last minute? the night before? >> a convenient thing for the president, when thens get slow, or he needs a boost or trying to divert attention, goes to this well. >> that's right.
it was no surprise. no breaking news on the eagles side of thing. the white house decided to make a different decision right now because it allows to take our attention from all of the other things that we could be talking about. it is strategic. but also, anderson, really disappointing. this shows that when you cave to bullies, it doesn't change anything. much of the policy change was to appease people like donald trump. >> it comes on the heels of
essentially appeasing the president. >> so much of this, there are a lot of conservatives, especially on the libertarian side, protesting has been part of the american fabric. and suddenly to make these kinds of divisions and it has this racial tone to it which is very unfortunate. the people who are protesting are essentially african americans, criminal justice towards african americans and they are taking a knee and they have taken something that is not just that big a deal and blown it up. you have to believe it is for political purposes for his own good. >> mark, it is difficult to gloss over any racial undertones this this. >> absolutely. it is interesting that the patriots, when som don't want to participate in the white house festivities they still do it. when the eagles don't do it, it is a very different story. it is disturbing.
but it also reinforces this idea that he can be the arbitrator. he is saying your first amendment rights aren't as important as what i think. so he is prioritizing his values over players. >> i want to get david's take on the breaking news of paul manafort. why the russia special counsel wants him in jail as soon as possible. new information ahead.
how do you win at business? stay at laquinta. where we're changing with contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. ♪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 transitions™ light under control™ visit your local visionworks to ask about transitions™ brand lenses visit come hok., babe.nworks nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. ♪ oh, what a relief it is!
with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripr. visit tripadvisor.com
ie race for governor it. has turned into a scam. gavin newsom's trying to elect a republican who was endorsed by trump. and villaraigosa's being bankrolled by a handful of billionaires. it's everything that's wrong with politics. and none of it is helping struggling families. here's my pledge to you. i'll keep our budget balanced. invest in affordable housing. fight for universal healthcare. and stand up to donald trump. as governor, you can trust me to do what's right- because i always have. and i am a senior public safety my namspecialist for pg&e. my job is to help educate our first responders on how to deal with natural gas and electric emergencies. everyday when we go to work we wanne to work me home safely.
i live right here in auburn, i absolutely love this community. once i moved here i didn't want to live anywhere else. i love that people in this community are willing to come together, we're building ance for obetter california. this could be very big. a motion filed by robert mueller regarding paul manafort. mueller's office is accusing manafort with tampering with witnesses and asking to revoke his bound. she is going through it now, and sara what is the headline. >> the special counsel's office not happy with paul manafort. a special counsel prosecutors.
now remember paul manafort has been on house arrest as part of this, the special counsel's office is basically seeking to pull back his house arrest and send him to jail. in this filing they are calling for the court to have a hearing on this issue as soon as possible. we are looking through this failing to glean any details about what paul manafort did. the witnesses in question are not named in this filing. we are going to dig through this more and obviously this is a huge allegation from the special counsel's office when it comes to his case. he has insisted over and over again that he is not guilty. he has resisted any kind of effort to strike a plea deal like his partner rick gates did. >> we have the filing here and i think it is 90 pages so you have
a lot to go through. we will continue to check in with you throughout the night and let you get back to reading the documents and also is david gergen and carrie cordero. david gergen, this is pretty significant. we just got this filing. if mueller is asking for manafort to revoke his bail, that's significant. revoking his bail, the him allegations and we have only had a chance to scan pages of this 90 page report briefing. after being charged with federal crimes he has committed new crimes that is the allegation byitness tampering, and that's a serious charge. you go to jail for a long time and if it is witness tampering, it suggests there is a huge cover up. we don't know if this touches on the president. way too early to tell. but this briefing suggests there were at least three or four people involved in the witness tampering. >> gates, who is manafort's
right-hand person has already made a deal. his former son-in-w has also made a deal. certainly a lot of folks lined up against manafort who are cooperating with mueller. >> there are. and he has been under pressure to cooperate as well. and i haven't had a chance to look at this document as well, but we have to look at it in the context of everything we are seeing play out in the public domain. in other words, if behind the tried to obstruct, there is a significant possibility that the president's legal team has gotten word of this has well.
and some of the activity about pardons, the statements coming out of the president, his twitter feed. i think we have to tate all in context together that there is a lot going on behind the scenes that insiders know about that are feeding into some of the public activity that we have been seeing. >> so you are saying it is possible that the president's legal team was aware in adva of these allegations by mueller? >> i am just saying, i don't know what they would have none in advance. but what i am trying to say is that it is possible if this ongoing investigation was going on, that they could get wind of different activities that are going on. for example, if manafort is reaching out to different people in the trump campaign, we don't know who, i don't know who he has alleged to have been tampering with, but possible that different pieces of the
investigation can press on other parts, and that some of this may end up being connected. >> we don't know who he may have been tampering with, trying to tamper with according to the government. it may not have been anybody in the administration. it might have been people in his business past. hard to imagine he had as much access to anybody now in the administration or formally in the campaign. >> that's right. and remember, that the charges against manafort do not relate to his involvement in the 2016 campaign. he is, he is charged in relation to his lobbying effort on behalf of ukrainian interest who are aligned with russia but not directly related to the campaign. >> jeff, i am just getting word that there is more information out of this.
i want to go back to her. what have you learned? >> we are looking through these filings and it says manafort has contacted two people. they worked in pr efforts when it came to his work with ukrainian politicians, as jeffrey toobin was just laying out. manafort sought to secure false testimony concerning the activity of this of the influential group of european ukrainian lobbying, this seems to be what they are alleging. saying he is continually in contact with these folks. again, this seems to have to do with his work with ukrainian lobbying, more so with anything directly involved with the campaign. >> thanks very much. more news to get to. first, the premier of chris cuomo, what do you have
>> thank you very much, i'm getting my pocket square ready. we'll take apart this breaking news that sara murray is bringing you. adam schiff, the democrat from california, ranking member of the house judiciary committee, so intimately involved in the russia probe. what does this mean about manafort? what are the potentials for accide exposure. and the headliner tonight, rudy giuliani is here. he has a lot to answer for. we'll put him to the test on the big headlines. >> no doubt about that. chris, thanks very much. "cuomo prime time" premiers in just a few minutes at the top of the hour. up next, an exclusive interview with apple's tim cook. how apple is trying to stop phone addiction. mine's way better.
this one's below market price and has bluetooth. same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value. ♪ most people come to la with big dreams. ♪ we came with big appetites. with expedia, you could book a flight, hotel, car, and activity all in one place. ♪
with that valuation, the company says, comes responsibilities, privacy responsibilities, social responsibilities. spenng too mucmoney on their products cnn's laurie segall just finished an interview with apple's ceo tim cook. >> you guys announced a tech addiction tool that will help us limit our screen time. >> you know, we've never been focused on usage as a key parameter. and we're rolling out great tools to both make people aware of how much time they're spending and the apps they're spending them in, but also how many times they pick up their phone, how many notifications they get. empowering people with the facts will allow them to decide themselves how they want to come back.
>> tell us how you use it. >> i thought i was fairly disciplined about this, and i was wrong. when i began to get the data, i found i was spending a lot more time than i should. >> like where? >> i don't want to give you all the apps, but just too much. and ask themselves if they're picking up their phone ten times an hour or 20 times an hour, maybe they could do it less. >> there's this idea, who is in control, man or machine. you believe that we as human beings can control? >> i absolutely do. i don't subscribe to the machines taking over the world. and i don't worry about that. i worry much more about people thinking like machines. >> do you think that tech companies are in a position right now where they can self-regulate some of these more sticky issues? >> well, that's a big topic. generally for me, i'm not a big fan of regulation.
i think self-regulation is the best. but when it's not working, and in some cases it's not working, you have to ask yourself, so what form of regulation might be good. and i think it's a fair question that many people are asking at this point. >> what kind do you think isn't working? >> i think the privacy thing has gotten totally out of control. most people are not aware of who is tracking them, how much they're being tracked, and sort of the large amounts of detailed data that are out there about them. >> do we as users just have to reenvision the idea of privacy? >> no. to me, we think privacy is a fundamental human right. that is the angle we look at it. privacy from an american point of of view is one of the key civil liberties that define what it is to be american. >> it's a fundamental human right. do you think the last year has shown that fundamental human
right could be under attack? >> i think it has been under attack, and we've been saying that quite some time. >> this morning the supreme court ruled in favor of a corado baker who refused to bako same sex couple. apple has continuously stood for lgbtq rights. what's your reaction? >> i haven't read the opinion and i reserve the right to deeply read that before i comment on it. in terms of the general topic, we believe everybody should treat everybody else with dignity and respect. that's how we run our company. that's what we expect of each other. that pertains to all communities including the lgbtq community. >> you said today there are people from over 70 different countries here. are you concerned at all with a lot of the stricter immigration policies? >> my view on daca is the congress needs to fix daca. and fix daca to me means allow
everyone to stay in the country he as kids shoule culous scsi t allowed to stay here. >> i know there is this fear of the impact on consumers and will iphone prices go up if there is an escalated trade war. i know you said you were optimistic before. are you still optimistic? >> i am very optimistic, because no one will win from that. it will be a lose/lose. and i think that when the facts are so clear like that, i think that both partieee that and be able to work things out. >> do you think that if that were to occur, that iphone prices could go up? >> i don't think that iphone will get a tariff on it, is my belief. >> apple announced the ability to limit apps for social media tracking. how will that work? >> a bit of a swipe at facebook, they're making it harder for facebook to track user