tv The History of Comedy CNN July 13, 2018 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
>> reporter: she was not scared on the plane. you are very strong, right? at 3:00 a.m., cindy arrives at houston intercontinental airport for the reunion she's been dreaming of for a month, finally getting to hold hands with her daughter. >> big smiles. >> reporter: the little girl heard the whole over back with her mother, a mother released from a detention center in texas after being approved to proceed with her asylum claim. following a journey. cindy not even knowing where her daughter was after they were separated a little over four weeks ago. alison says, i missed my mommy. i was so happy to see her at the airport. i'm happy i will now see her all the time. cindy says she isn't going to
take her eyes off alison, and is excited they are now in this country together. cindy says everyone knows the united states is a great country. it's safer. there is better education, a better health system. but most importantly, the safety for my daughter. mother and daughter will live with cindy's sister in the houston area while proceeding with her asylum claim, hoping the sadness and separation are behind them. gary tuchman, cnn, houston. >> a nice way to end this program tonight. our live coverage of course continues right now with chris and "cuomo prime time." chris? a happy ending in a sea of nightmares. thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." the russians hacked the election. you know it. i know it. this knew indictment of a dozen russian high-ranking officers makes it clear. so will the president finally own the truth or the eve of being face to face with the man who ordered it all, vladimir putin?
we have a "prime time" exclusive with roger stone, longtime trump friend and adviser, someone who appears to be the unnamed american mentioned in the indictment. will he own that, and what is his advice to trump in this all-important moment? plus democrats, even some republicans are demanding the president call off the one-on-one with putin, but the white house says the summit is on. a senator leading the charge to make it stop is here. what a friday, the 13th. yup, that's what it is. zounds. let's get after it. so in less than 72 hours, president trump will sit down with vladimir putin if everything holds steady at this point. i will be in helsinki, finland, to report for you, but no one will be in the room where it happens except putin and trump and arguably their interpreters.
so will the president put it to putin? there is reason for doubt that he will. why? two points. one, after learning about the latest indictment of 12 of putin's people earlier this week, trump still said the putin meeting was going to be easy. two, as recently as two weeks ago, trump was still taking putin's word over that of the u.s. intelligence community, something that he has done over and over. >> i said, you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made-up story. i believe that president putin really feels, and he feels strongly, that he did not meddle in our election. >> so what will he do now? let's bring that up with the man of the hour. once again, former trump campaign adviser roger stone, welcome to "prime time." >> thank you, chris. thanks for having me. >> all right. it's friday night, so let's go easy to difficult on this interview.
the easy work is that you are the man named -- or not named. you are the man suggested in this indictment. i know you've said you don't think you are, but now what's your answer? >> earlier today, before i had a chance to read this extensive document, i wasn't sure. but i certainly acknowledge that i was in touch with trump campaign officials, and i have testified under oath to the house intelligence committee that i certainly had a 24-word exchange with the persona guccifer 2.0 over twitter direct messages. anyone -- any objective person who will read that exchange, which is included in the indictment, will see that based on content -- context and timing, it's benign. it's innocuous. >> it is you, though? >> i think i am probably the person referred to. >> look, you put out the direct messages that you had with the person you now call a persona, guccifer.
and it is exactly what it is in the indictment. i think we have it if we want to put it up on the screen for people. so clearly the president -- the government, in doing their investigating, is identifying these exact same communications. so there was no reason to ever deny it, roger. it's you. >> i never denied that it was me. i just didn't understand the earlier reference. >> well, you said, i don't think it's me because i didn't speak to high-ranking campaign officials, which when i read that, i found that hard to believe. but why fight it? why not just say, this is me. i put out the direct messages. they also say there's no allegation of a crime. >> chris, i just did. >> now, but you didn't initially. that's what i'm asking you. >> no. much earlier today, before i had a chance to read the indictment, i misunderstood the reference. i think i've just clarified it. >> okay. let me ask you something else. earlier you said that you didn't
think that guccifer had anything to do with russia and that the government had nothing to do with the actions of guccifer. we now know from this indictment there's only one guccifer, and it's a fugazi name for the russian bad guys who are conspiring against the united states in its election. there is no other guccifer. there is only one, and it's a composite of these bad guys named in the indictment. will you own that now as a reality? >> well, an indictment, as you know, chris, is an accusation. it's a charge by the government. >> true. >> it's not a conviction. even russian intelligence agents in the united states have a presumption of innocence until they're proven guilty. i agree with something that congressman nadler said in the previous program with anderson cooper. i would like to see the russians extradite these intelligence agents so we can have a trial, so the dnc server can be examined, and so this charge can be proven or disproven.
if that doesn't happen, then i'm hopeful in the civil suit that the dnc has filed against me and the trump campaign and a dozen others, that we'll have an opportunity to examine the server to determine whether these -- >> the server is a dark road of suspicion about what they wanted to hide and why -- let's put that to the side. >> in all honesty -- no, wait a minute, chris. i think the servers are absolutely necessary for the government to prove their case. i think it's perfectly reasonable to -- >> if you read this indictment today -- >> i did. >> they've got a ton of evidence linking down to the unit number of the gru personnel who were doing the conspiring. i know you can indict a ham sandwich. i get the whole deal. but this is part of a prosecution strategy called name and shame. they know it's very unlikely that they get these people on u.s. territory so they can
prosecute unless, unless the president demands it from putin and uses it in trade for something maybe that putin wants. would you advise the president to do that? >> well, first of all, what the indictment doesn't have is any link to the trump campaign. >> but let's put that to the side. i'm talking about russian interference because it matters because the president always says, roger, it didn't happen. >> no. well, let's not put it to the side. let's address it, and then i'll answer your question. there's nothing in this indictment that shows collusion or coordination or conspiracy with donald trump or the trump campaign. >> right, but it's not the point of the indictment. it doesn't say anything about me either. that's equally immaterial. >> the president made it clear earlier in the week that he intended to bring up the question of hacking with putin. i think he intends to do so. he should certainly do so. >> should he ask for the extradition of the 12 people named? >> i would not be opposed to that because i would like these charges to be either proven or
disproven. >> do you think he will? >> i'm happy to -- i couldn't have -- i have no idea. he has not asked for my advice in this upcoming meeting. >> but if he did, you'd tell him, ask for the 12. be very strong with putin? >> i wouldn't be opposed to it in any way. i would like these charges to be proven. otherwise, they're a public relations device in which they prop up the investigation and they make allegations that are yet unproven in a court of law. >> well, they are unproven in a court of law, but you can't read this indictment, i don't think, in conjunction with the last indictment that we had of almost a dozen people and the other indictments that have come out and the intelligence community assessment of what happened and the senate intelligence committee assessment of what happened, and not face the reality that the united states was hacked by russia during the election. will you accept that as fact? >> no, i'm sorry. i think it is still unproven. there's an enormous amount of forensic evidence that points to
a conclusion based on the download times that there was no hack and that the material -- the alleged hacked material was downloaded to some kind of a portable drive. >> where are you getting any of that? >> i don't know. that's why i'd like to see a trial. >> where are -- >> the nation magazine in an extensive article based on the findings of bill binney and ray mcgovern. >> these guys have had subpoena power and the complete tools of the united states government. they've been looking at it for months. they detail who did it, how they did it, how they conspired, the different types of malware they developed, the different ways they paid with cryptocurrency fake servers to funnel the information, how they approached wikileaks, who they call organization one -- i'm not exactly sure why -- and they refer to you and how you were approached, how they developed d.c. leaks, how they developed guccifer. they lay it all out.
why fight the conclusion because you're in a very small group now. it's really you and the president. >> well, actually i don't believe that because -- >> i'm saying in the relevant corpus of people. i'm making you relevant here, roger. my twitter feed is awash with people who want to believe every word you're saying. but i'm saying of those who should know better, very few cling to this idea that russia had nothing to do with it. >> chris, i must already be relevant or you wouldn't have invited me to be here tonight. >> 100%. point for you. next. >> to address your question, there's no evidence in this indictment that i or anyone involved with donald trump -- >> true. >> received anything from the russians. >> true. >> or anyone who hacked the material and passed it to wikileaks. >> true. >> i don't know the people at d.c. leaks. i don't think i've ever had any contact with them. >> right. >> in all honesty, for me, this indictment is exoneration because some of your colleagues
in the media believe otherwise, and that is clearly not the case. >> well, i'll tell you what i'll say on this given my understanding of these matters and processes. i don't know why they didn't name you in this indictment and charge you with things if they wanted to, if they thought they could make the case. i don't know why. i do think that you have a reasonable basis -- >> i know why, because -- >> i think you have a reasonable basis at this point to say if they didn't name me here -- and they're obviously talking about me -- maybe it's because they don't have anything on me. i think that's a reasonable position for you at this point absent any further process by the investigators. >> with all due respect, the reason i'm not charged in this indictment is because i received nothing from the defendants. i passed nothing on from the defendants. and my exchange with them, which is included, which any reasonable, objective person can read, is benign. it's innocent. there's no evidence of collusion
or conspiracy or coordination. >> i agree. i just don't know why you won't own that the person that you were -- whatever, the persona as they call it that you were corresponding with were the russians. why won't you own that? >> because i -- because i still don't know that it is true to a certainty. >> even though you never heard of any guccifer before any of this, and there's all this proof from the u.s. government that it was developed for this purpose as stated in this indictment? >> i think we've been round and round about this before. i think our intelligence agencies have been politicized, and i would like to see this proven in a court of law. i would admit that they have issued an extremely compelling and detailed indictment, but it's still an accusation. i said this on info wars earlier today. i would like to see a trial, and i'd like to see the dnc server. if we can't get it to a trial of the russians, perhaps we'll get it in this civil trial, and we can get to the bottom of whether
the dnc was hacked at all and who hacked it. i don't deny the government's made a compelling argument today, but that's still an accusation. it's not a conviction. >> do you think the u.s. president should use the same standard that when his intelligence community and his intelligence officials and his department of justice all tell him we know who did this, it's russia, and the senate intelligence says, we've reviewed it all. we're not info wars, but we're pretty sure they've got it right, that he should accept it instead of saying, nah, i go with vlad. vlad said he didn't do it and he seems to feel that's the truth, so i'm open on it. you really think that's the right disposition for a president? >> i don't think the president has ever said that. certainly not in those words. >> when asked about whether or not he thinks they did it, he said, i spoke to vladimir putin on the phone. he says he didn't do it, and he like left it at that. then he was asked about it again, he said, look, he really believes that they didn't have anything to do with it. like since when is that the basis of whether or not you're going to -- so everything you've been told by your intelligence
committee, the department of justice, the senate intelligence committee, all of it you weigh against the word of a man on the phone who is put at the center of the plot. would you do that? >> i hope the president will raise this question when he meets with putin, and i hope he will press it on him. we have certainly interfered in russian elections. we spent millions of dollars electing boris yeltsin. >> what does that have to do with -- >> in the israeli elections. well, because it is kind of hypocritical to say -- >> but then he could say that. he could say -- fair point. he could have said, russia did it. i believe everybody else who is telling me this, who's in the business of knowing, which i am not. but we've done it too, so i've decided not to prioritize it. he's never said that. he said it's a witch hunt, and we know why. he conflates what you're doing a little bit tonight, roger, with all due respect, which is if it's about him, he wants this all dead so there's no collusion. it's not about me. i did nothing wrong. maybe so. let's see what the probe winds up with.
but there's a whole separate reality, which is, they did this, an inimical state did this. many different ways with lots of money and lots of intentionality, including trying to get into electoral results and trying to manipulate systems. that matters too, even if it has nothing to do with trump, does it not? >> yes, it matters although it remains to be seen whether their efforts in this country were effective or whether they were -- >> they were clearly effective. look at us. we question each other at every turn. we question the election. what we're doing left and right. >> we were doing that -- >> not like this. >> we were doing that before the election. >> not like this. >> we were highly polarized before the election. >> i wish that were true, but it's not. final point. >> again, no evidence pertaining to the -- connecting this to the trump campaign in any way. >> nobody suggested otherwise. >> if they did -- and if this is
proven, even mr. rosenstein said today in his comments there's no evidence that they affected the outcome of the election. >> nobody suggested otherwise. silence. roger, what i'm saying is if they meddled in the election, that's enough. their efforts are enough. you have to stop it. you have to speak truth to power. that's the role of a president. that's why i think this matters. that's why i wanted you on tonight so you could clear up your role in terms of this indictment and say what you think trump should do. and i appreciate you doing that. >> i think i have done both of those things, chris. thank you. >> you fulfilled the mandate. thank you, sir. i'll see you again. all right. so what does this indictment mean about where this investigation is headed? as roger stone was just saying, there are no americans named this round, okay? but we don't know what will come next. does it prove there never will be? no. and did the russians really do what president trump asked them
♪ does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today.
191 charges, 32 individuals charged, three companies as well. the latest round, a dozen of putin's people. so is the russia probe still a witch hunt? let's bring in our great debaters, jennifer granholm, and ken cuccinelli. show of hands. who doesn't believe russia meddled in the election? good. let's move on. >> who doesn't believe? >> yes. do you believe, ken?
>> you're a good lawyer, chris. you're phrasing it in the negative. i think it's rather clear. >> roger stone still has questions. >> it was clear before today. >> i agree with you on that. let's talk about what this means in context. jennifer granholm, the context is this. the president is on the eve practically of being in helsinki where we're all go to go and watch what happens when he is with putin. we heard he was told earlier this week by rosenstein about this indictment, and yet when asked about the putin meeting, he said it's going to be the easiest one yet. what does that tell you? >> well, it tells me, first of all, that he has no idea what he's going into. it also tells me he should not be meeting with putin. but if he's going to be meeting with putin, he certainly shouldn't be doing it without any witnesses. we're all here saying that he's -- you know, many people are saying he's putin's puppet. he's going to go there for his annual performance review, whatever.
if you don't want people to have that story coming out, then you should make sure this is an open meeting. you should take that indictment. you should hold it in front of putin's face and say, i want those people extradited to the united states. i want to make sure that none of this is happening in the 2018 election. i would confront him directly and get that on camera because otherwise, given this president's propensity for lying, when he comes out of this meeting, who the heck is going to believe whatever he says? >> ken cuccinelli. >> well, first of all, if i were trump, i wouldn't meet with him by myself. no one would ever, and i assume jennifer is being, you know, dramatic. you would never wave an indictment in front of the face of putin. jimmy carter wouldn't do that. ronald reagan wouldn't do that. donald trump shouldn't do that. but he should demand the 12 extradited. of course they're intelligence agents. they won't be. one of the odd things about this
indictment that hasn't been discussed is this really isn't how this should ever be put forward. there are three types of investigations of the department of justice. criminal investigation, civil investigations, and the much less known counterintelligence investigations. and this is counterintelligence material. i mean this makes sense in a report about russian participation in the 2016 election, but these people are never going to be extradited. >> right. >> this indictment is never going to be moved upon. >> normally they would be under seal if you were trying to get them and hoping -- normally they're under seal because you're hoping they will travel. you'll have the legal operations ready so you can nab them. >> right. >> when they do. preet bharara pointed out something today. >> they can use interpol and they can stop them from traveling outside russia. >> preet bharara reminded me of something we have seen in the past. you may have done it in your role as a.g. name and shame.
we saw it in pittsburgh not too long ago with the chinese hacking case where we know we're not going to get them, but we want it to be known. we want to shame the actor. isn't that what's being done here? >> that was my point about the interpol piece is that you can actually go through the trial in absentia and then these people are quarantined to russia by and large for the rest of their lives. >> maybe that's what happen. >> maybe it is what will happen. >> go ahead, jennifer. >> i think this is an effective tool for for having trump confront putin on what is happening right now. >> right. >> today. the dni director, dan coats, said that the red warning lights are flashing right now because russia is right now hacking our election that's coming up in 2018. that is serious. that is the opportunity for trump -- >> and his hands are a little tied, jennifer. he's put himself in a bad position. we all know why. the president has been unwilling, let's say, to
separate the russian hacking and how real it is with what that means about what anyone around him or including him may have done. ken, fair point? that he always says it's all a witch hunt because he's really just talking about him. >> there -- yeah. and collusion, right. >> he put himself in a position where if he were to go with putin and say new sheriff in town. i'm not mr. nice guy. strong. you did it. you do it again, i'm going to sanction you like nobody has ever sanctioned you before, putin is going to look at him and say, you don't believe that. you're listening to these deep state people around you. >> i don't know, but -- >> you don't know what? you don't think he's put himself in a hole by saying putin doesn't think -- i think it's a witch hunt a million times. >> your suggestion is he can't do go do that. he could go do that. i think it's worth mentioning that putin is a kgb agent. he's not just a president. that's this guy's background. and the president's hyperbole
going into this meeting and coming out of it is quite a different style and it's really not a match. i mean the president is setting himself up for putin. putin could come out of there, say x, y, or z happened or didn't happen, and most of the american media would believe putin, not trump. >> jennifer granholm, you agree with that? >> no, i do. i think it's a real -- >> you'd believe vladimir putin over your own president? >> no. i think that a lot of people would say because of the volume of lies that this president utters every single hour, that people will come out going, we don't know which one to believe, and what a shame that is, that in america we would question who do we believe? our own president or vladimir putin because our president is such a ridiculous liar. so that's why he needs a witness. that's my point about going -- if you're going to go in, i don't think he should go in at all because going in legitimizes this attacker of our elections. he has declared cyber war on the united states democracy.
>> hold on a second. i don't want to get too far away from the point. what don't you agree with, ken? >> i don't agree with jennifer that he shouldn't go forward with the meeting. >> oh, okay. >> i do believe that an indictment like this demands it be part of the agenda. >> yeah. >> but it doesn't mean you have to cancel the meeting. >> jennifer, don't you guys -- i want to talk about this with senator blumenthal also. i don't understand why you're saying this so help me understand it. it seems like you get what you want either way. if he goes there and speaks truth to power and owns the russian meddling in a way we've never seen him do before, you get what you say you want. if he doesn't do that or somehow vladimir putin is willing to show that he never did that and has a very different understanding, you still get what you want because then trump is exposed as someone who backed down from putin. so why wouldn't you want the meeting to go forward? >> are you talking to me? >> yeah. ken would love that question. go ahead. >> yeah. >> sure i would.
>> i think that meeting with putin without a witness confers legitimacy on a ruler who has attacked the united states. and do you really want to confer that legitimacy when right as we speak right now, there has not been a clearly defined purpose for this meeting. he's been very all over the map. oh, it might be about syria. oh, yeah, okay. maybe i'll ask him about the hacking of the election. but he's not going to say that he did it. i mean what is the purpose of this meeting, especially in private if it's not to -- i don't know. it's hard for -- >> ken cuccinelli. >> yeah, so, look, that's the democrat line because he's going forward with the meeting. if he was canceling the meeting, they would be criticizing trump and saying, you should confront him at this meeting. you shouldn't be canceling this. on that front, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. he's going, so he should confront putin. >> here's the reality. one, there will be translators, and the last time, at least in north korea, it was a fairly high ranking official.
you would have a set of eyes and ears there that maybe people would trust. two, it's all on trump. this is the moment he wanted. this is the moment he says. he says it will be easy. we know the facts. sure it's an indictment, but boy did they go deep. let's see what he does. >> absolutely. >> ken cuccinelli, jennifer granholm, thank you to both of you. it's friday night. go have a drink. enjoy yourself. all right. so what happens when trump and putin meet in helsinki on monday? is it wrong for so many to doubt that trump will talk turkey to the russian leader? michael caputo is a longtime friend and former aide of the president. his take and his advice to his boss, next. 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.
at the marine mammal center, the environment is everything. we want to do our very best for each and every animal, and we want to operate a sustainable facility. and pg&e has been a partner helping us to achieve that. we've helped the marine mammal center go solar, install electric vehicle charging stations, and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a customer that's doing such good and important work for the environment. together, we're building a better california.
so will the putin meeting be as easy as the president promised now that we know about the indictment of 12 of putin's guys for election meddling? let's get after it with a former senior adviser on the trump campaign, michael caputo. welcome back to "prime time." >> hey, chris. how are you doing? thanks for having me. >> so what do you make of that? rosenstein says i told the president about this indictment earlier in the week.
after that, the way the simple calendar would work, president trump said the putin ones, that's going to be the easiest of all of them. knowing that he has this indictment he's going to have to deal with with putin, he thinks it's going to be easy. why? >> i think the indictments kind of make it pretty cut and dried, don't they? i mean even those indictments against a military action is kind of a feckless move, i mean this is a military attack on america's election system. we should -- let's hack them back with our military. we should be much tougher on them than simply indicting them for crimes they'll never pay for. if this is true -- and like roger, i'd love to see the dnc server. i've always believed this was russia. i think the president should get right in vladimir putin's face and say, hey -- >> go ahead. finish your point, please. >> i think he should say, hey, you run a police state. you're in charge here. this is our elections. cut it out. >> well, cut it out. don't say that. that's what obama told him. he's going to have to do better than that, right?
>> but i think they should -- this is a military attack. i think they should -- >> i don't disagree, but the problem is what you're saying right now. >> drain their bank accounts, chris. >> i hear you. it's not for me to judge what's right or wrong in a situation like this. but i hear your argument. it is a strong one. i've just never heard it from the president. he says there was no meddling. russia says they didn't do it. putin being from the kgb doesn't make him a bad guy. he says a lot of things to mitigate. hasn't he put himself in a hole now if he's going to go there and speak truth to power about something that putin's going to know that president trump has, you know, spit all over himself? >> well, i'll tell you, the president wants to have a better relationship with russia just like george w. did, just like bill clinton did, just like presidents before him, just like barack obama did. and each time they came in with wide eyes and high hopes and they were disappointed. certainly since putin's been in
power, each one has been. the fact of the matter is the president has the same optimism that those presidents did, and i think we see from these indictments whether they turn out to be true or not, it's a pretty strong case, certainly a strong case for diplomatic action. >> by the way, this isn't new information. this is the latest information. >> if you read the hpsci report, if you read the senate report, none of this was real news today. i think we saw some names attached to some important positions within the gru. but by the way, i don't see chairman korobov mentioned here at all. i say go after the chairman's millions of dollars in his foreign bank account. >> you think president trump should say, i want these 12 guys. if you want these sanctions relieved, give me these guys? >> i don't think that's realistic. he'll never be able to get extradited any of these 12 people. i think interpol should be on alert. each of these people travel in europe with their families. their kids go to school
overseas. these are people who have money hidden in bank accounts across europe. >> what does he need to see because we've seen him be real tough with the nato allies. we've seen him be real tough with theresa may, who is also a nato ally obviously but she just laid out the red carpet. he does an interview with the son and trashes her. how tough does he need to be with vladimir putin? >> i think this being the first real bilateral meeting, i think russia's economy is the size of new york state. i think the president needs to look at vladimir putin and tell him, listen, you know, we disassembled the ussr. we can do the same thing with the russian federation. i mean i know the russian federation wants to play on par with the g7. i don't think they should have been in the -- they shouldn't have made it the g8 to begin with until they joined the family of man. the fact of the matter is i think these indictments are weak.
i think it's litigation instead of tit for tat. i think our military hackers should be working overtime right now to do the exact thing back. >> part of the reason they're not is because the president doesn't want that. part of the reason -- >> or the president -- >> part of the reason we need this probe is because the president wasn't a believer about russian meddling in the u.s. election and did certain acts to try to stop the investigation, not that they were illegal, not that they were nefarious, but he didn't like it, and that's part of the reason we are where we are right now. and the only -- >> well one of the reasons we are where we are right now, and i said this in july of 2016. the hacks or whatever they are, server or no server, these attacks on our nation were provocations from the kremlin. >> they were provocations from trump too. trump gave a rally on july 27th -- >> but something needed to be done about this in 2015, chris, 2016. >> no question the obama
administration has stink on it. we get what their mentality was about feeling they were in a catch-22. whatever. they should have done more. they didn't. shame on them. fair point. however, we know a hell of a lot more now than we did then, and president trump -- >> no doubt. >> -- at a rally on july 27th, 2016, said in full-throated fashion, russia, find the hillary e-mails and now we know in this indictment, after hours that same damn night, they did exactly that. they started spearfishing. so this is a situation he has to own, and it raises the question, mike, why doesn't he? why is it when it comes to putin, he has kid gloves on his hands? the guy pointed missiles at his house. do you remember that video? i had them pull it. he pointed missiles -- this is from putin, showing the range of their missiles and how far they could go. and you know where they wind up coming down? forget about the mountains. >> yeah. >> florida. right in the region of where mar-a-lago is. you know what trump said?
crickets. >> kind of shrugged it off. >> not a damn thing. there are the missiles coming down to florida. >> chris, i lived there for a long time. i was there for seven years. i understand russia fairly well. i think each one of our presidents, like i said, have come in with kind of pollyanna looks on their faces and they learned, each one of them, that they can't trust vladimir putin. i think we're at a point now, and the chapter and verse in these indictments, i think they're weak. i think it's feckless. i think we should be attacking back with our military capacity on the internet. i think we should be draining chairman korobov of the gru's bank accounts right now, today. but having said that, these indictments are a pretty clear description of facts and truths that need to inform the president's meeting with vladimir putin. >> hopefully. >> it's turned a light on. i think it's turned a light on, and i hope the president takes a good look at it. >> well, look, he's had every reason to know the truth for a long time. nobody has access to better information on this than he
does. but this is the moment he wanted, michael. i'll be there in helsinki. he's going to meet face to fate with putin. this is his chance to prove that anybody who says that he's soft on putin is wrong. we'll see what he does. i'll talk to you after it. thank you very much. >> thanks, chris. >> all right. so as i said earlier, the president knew these indictments were coming. how do we know? because rosenstein said it today, that he had informed the white house earlier in the week. so he still went out after knowing about this and told the world that he hopes to make friends with putin. why would he say that? my next guest says because of that, he wants to cancel monday's meeting. senator richard blumenthal is on "prime time" next. good to see you, sir. mor all was with lift and clean technology. extra large wipes that lift and remove dust, dirt and grime. no hose, no bucket, no problem. just wipe, to spot clean bird and bug splatters in seconds or to wash and wax the entire car in minutes. also try new armor all ultra shine wax wipes.
for a brilliant shine with that same wipe and walk away convenience. clean, shine and protect, anytime anywhere with armor all ultra shine exterior wash and wax wipes. [ horn honking ] [ engine revving ] what's that, girl? [ engine revving ] flo needs help?! [ engine revving ] take me to her! ♪ coming, flo! why aren't we taking roads?! flo. [ horn honking ] -oh. you made it. do you have change for a dollar? -this was the emergency? [ engine revving ] yes, i was busy! -2hour roadside assistance. from america's number-one motorcycle insurer. -you know, i think you're my best friend. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. that's okay. and it's time to get outside. pack in even more adventure with audible. with the largest selection of audiobooks. audible lets you follow plot twists off the beaten track. or discover magic when you hit the open road. with the free audible app,
your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road... on the trail... or to the beach. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. no matter where you go this summer make it better with audible. text summer5 to 500500 to start listening today.
and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. welcome back. a group of democrats led by chuck schumer and nancy pelosi are calling for president trump to cancel his upcoming meeting with russian president vladimir putin after today's indictments of 12 russians for election meddling. now, one of those democrats is senator richard blumenthal. the senator joins us now. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> make the case. why cancel the meeting?
>> well, you answered that question, i think, in one of your very first sentences on this show, when you say vladimir putin ordered this attack on our democracy. your word, "ordered". the fact of the matter is that it was an act of war. now for donald trump to meet with this enemy of the united states -- he's no friend. he's an adversary and an enemy, and he means us nothing good. it elevates him and legitimizes that attack. what trump has to do now is hit back and hit back hard and make the russians pay a price. and there is a tremendous danger of miscalculation. what donald trump ought to be doing instead of meeting with vladimir putin is ordering heightened sanctions, exposing the corruption within the russian regime for the russian people to see, and freezing assets and disclosing them here in the united states belonging to those oligarchs and top russian officials.
there are steps we can take. >> look, the indictment does just that, right? i mean this is what you guys in the law used to call on the prosecution side name and shame, right? the practicality of getting these guys is not the highest degree, but you put the names out there. you show what happened. we saw it in pittsburgh when they named those chinese hackers. why isn't the meeting a win/win from your perspective that if the president goes and he speaks truth to power the way he says he will, then you get that message sent to putin in a way that maybe we've never heard it before in and if he doesn't, if he falls short, if he uses those kid gloves that he keeps using where putin is involved, you win anyway because he becomes exposed once and for all for not standing up to this man. >> there is so much more at stake here, chris, than just the politics of the moment. we are under attack not only in the past, but it is continuing.
that's the collective wisdom. it's unanimous among the intelligence community. they've said it publicly, so i'm not giving away any classified information as a member of the armed services committee. the attack is continuing, and now is the time to make the russians pay a price. no more business as usual. no more bromance. the dangers of both courses, his failing to stand up to them and his continuing this kind of infatuated bromance are really perilous. and to allow him to go into that meeting alone is national security negligence on the part of his advisers and his top staff. >> let me ask you something. how significant is it to you that no americans were named in this indictment today? i know it doesn't mean that there will be no more indictments. i get that. but they kind of went to great lengths here to not name anybody else while suggesting that there are people known and unknown, organization one, which we all know is wikileaks, company one,
which we know is crowdstrike. you know, they went to lengths. a person who was talking to trump's senior staff, who everybody was going to find out was roger stone. he played around with it early on, but he even owned it tonight on the show. why don't you think any americans are named if they were involved? >> that's really a great question, chris, and quite honestly nobody but robert mueller and his staff knows the real answer to it. but i'll give you my hunch about it. number one, in order to name people in this indictment, just like every single sentence and allegation in this complaint, there has to be proof beyond a reasonable. doubt the standard is this is not an interesting fact. >> you're a much better lawyer than i ever was, but just to put it in the indictment, that's not the standard. they could have indicted somebody. >> no, chris, it is the standard.
because for a prosecutor -- and i was one, a united states attorney, indictment means you need to be able to go to a jury and prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. >> right. to convict. >> you cannot put yourself in because for a prosecutor -- and i was one, a united states attorney, indictment means you need to be able to go to a jury and prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. >> right. to convict. >> you cannot put yourself in the position of making allegations that can't be proved. but here is another point. this investigation is continuing. and those americans who were not named, but clearly were involved, there is more than roger stone, there are illusions to other americans, are put on notice and the russians and everybody involved in this investigation is put on notice that there is more to come. and i think that is a very powerful message. he may not have the evidence now to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but, remember, when george papadopoulos was finally not only indicted but actually convicted, it was months after he actually entered his plea of
guilty. so robert mueller is playing by his own strategy and playbook. >> right. but are you a little worried about hanging your hat on the potential that americans are going to be named for colluding with russia. and i know colluding isn't a legal term. part of a conspiracy with russia to meddle in the election. because it is set up as a standard for a lost people. it never has been for me. i've been fighting this con flation fight and today the white house said here is our takeaway. no allegations that any american did anything or any staffer or no allegations that the president did anything. this is conflation. this indictment is part of the main line mandate for the special counsel which is to find out who did what for russia. and that is why they named these dozen people. but there is this conflation and in fairness democrats are part of this, saying there is going to be collusion. what if there isn't? >> the point here is really to better protect our nation.
our national security is at stake because the russians are continuing to attack us. robert mueller is performing a profoundly important public service by following the facts and the law where they lead. and it should be above politics, the spectacle yesterday of the haranguing and harassing a witness before a congressional committee is the opposite of the approach that robert mueller is taking. no public statements, just the facts and the law. so we may speculate about conflation and collusion and conspiracy, but what will be revealed at the end is -- a factual record of the russian attack on this country, deliberate, direct, destructive ordered by vladimir putin and a act of war. >> thank you for being on the show on a friday night. appreciate it, sir. >> thank you. >> don lemon has no choice on a friday night to be on cnn. his show is coming up in a few minutes. >> i'm paying a mortgage.
>> i know you are. the idea of what this means, what we saw today in this indictment is a really interesting one. because it does come on the eve -- it is very interesting, i haven't had anybody from the right tonight bring up the timing was wrongful. i thought for sure that would be a main line argument. that this shows mueller is dirty because he brought it out right before we meet with putin and there is some suggestion that the president wanted this to come out, and even though he knew about it, he said, yeah, this meeting will be easy with putin. >> i briefed him before he left. >> he got some definition of easy. you got this indictment and all of this heavy weight on you with real facts about what these guys did and now gow to the man who may have ordered it all. >> and here is the thing -- here is what we're doing. everyone is talking about how the president is responding to this. you talked about how republicans and the timing and you question all of that.
we know what the kremlin said, using the same words as the white house. this is a witch hunt. this is fake news. and on and on. but i have some russian experts who will tell me how will vladimir putin and how is he reacting to have 12 military intelligence officers indicted when the president is coming over and that is what we'll break down and what this means for the meeting of the titans. you'll be there. >> i will bring back some pickled herring. see you like. >> i like pickle herring. >> he doesn't. something else quite remarkable happened today. it is a truth check that may end all speculation about who is real, and who is fake. closing argument, next. 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. you like to be in control. especially when it comes to important stuff. like, say... your car. well, good news. the esurance app lets you keep an eye on your repairs when your car is in the shop. it's kinda like being there, without being there. which is probably better for everyone. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.
so president trump responded to the first class treatment by prime minister theresa may by saying, not the best things about her leadership. so when asked about this at a presser with the prime minister today, instead of owning his words he went to his signature move. >> fortunately we tend to record
stories now so we have it for your enjoyment if you like it but we record when we deal with reporters. it's call fake news. >> remember that. he's talking about "the sun" run by his friend rupert murdoch. and no one is safe when they are unflattering to trump. and he also said a poll just came out that i'm the most popular person in the history of the republican party. 92%. beating lincoln. i beat our honest abe. they didn't have polling when lincoln was president and most gop were equal or better to trump in the presidency and exaggerating his polling with gop-ers by four points so that is all truth abuse. false. fake. but there is a bigger challenge here. either trump was taken out of context as he suggests, or --
and there are nice things said that were hidden, or not. and here is the good part. here is the challenge. we can know the answer. the sun has tapes. they put out eight minutes of a roughly 30 minute interview. we can't find the rest but they have it. they must be like the sun and shine the light on everything said and if they can't, trump said, you just heard him, that he has tapes, too. he told the reporters you could get it from sarah. sarah sanders. he has suggested this before. that they have tapes and not produced them. we have been told the traveling pool did ask for that audio more than eight hours ago and no sign the white house will give them up. so it is either a big deal or it isn't. and i know people will say everyone lies in politics. no. the truth matters. especially now. and someone lying a lot doesn't make their lying less of a lie. we should not apply a different standard to our president than we do to our kids. could you imagine letting your 8-year-old get -- getting away
with lying about doing homework. >> have one at home. but it is okay when the president calls out the media and attacks anybody who calls him out on a world stage. no it isn't. produce the tape. if not, sarah, get after it. make the truth known. this is a put up or shut up moment. all right. that is all i have. we'll be live from helsinki on monday night for the president trump big meeting with vladimir putin. "cnn tonight" with don lemon. >> what a week. remember what we started with on monday? supreme court. and then the kids were to be reunited. what a week. and then him on this trip -- overseas and meeting with vladimir putin and theresa may and now the indictment. so a lot to cover. >> happy friday night. >> see you soon. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. on the brink of the meeting with vladimir putin, a huge development in the mueller investigation. the justice department announcing indictments against a dozen russians and not just some shadowy hackers, all of them intelligence officers in