tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN December 6, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
man row. ♪ and i need you today >> reporter: jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> i didn't know ducks could be so nasty to each other. thank you for joining us. anderson starts now. we have breaking news on the eve of what is already a big day in the mueller investigation. new reporting tonight on the investigation we didn't know much about, an investigation launched in the days after fbi director james comey was fired, but before robert mueller was named as special counsel. we're getting new details on the frantic few days that led to that and mueller's appointment. pamela brown joins us now. explain what is this other investigation? >> reporter: anderson, we have learned that in the days after president trump fired fbi director james comey, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and top fbi officials viewed trump as a leader that needed to
be reined in. they discussed a range of options, and they took the step of opening an obstruction of justice investigation on donald trump, even before special counsel robert mueller was appointed. this is according to multiple sources, and it was an idea we're told the fbi has previously considered. but the probe wasn't opened officially until after comey was fired and before mueller was appointed. now, the justification would be on trump's firing of comey and the president's conversation with comey in the oval office, asking him to drop the investigation to his former national security adviser michael flynn. sources say the fbi would only take such a dramatic action if officials believed, suspected a crime had been committed. but we are told that rosenstein and other senior fbi officials had deep concerns as well about the president's behavior and thought that he needed to be checked according to the sources. as they considered various
options related to the president in the hours and days following comey's firing, mb cake and rosenstein held meetings and the decision was made for the fbi to open up the case into trump. these new details about the genesis of the obstruction case into trump that became a key element of the mueller probe sheds light on the chaotic week following comey's firing, and the scramble how best to respond. and they helped to explain the origins of the mueller investigation that stretched across 19 months now, that's consumed trump's presidency, and is building toward a dramatic day of courtroom filings tomorrow. a source within the justice department strongly disputed rosenstein. the idea that he sought to curb the president, emphasizing that his conversations with mccabe were about talking through ways to conduct the investigation. the source saying he never said anything like that. and his spokeswoman for mccabe
did not provide a comment for the story. >> so wait. is the spokesperson for rosenstein denying an investigation was opened up? >> reporter: this -- the spokesperson for mccabe is not offering any comment for this story. if you look at the comment from a source in the justice department, this source only said that rosenstein never said that he wanted to rein in the president. he was just discussing ways in which to conduct the investigation. >> why would rosenstein okay opening a probe when it was his own memo that the white ouse was using to justify firing comey in the first place? >> reporter: that's a good question, and it's a bit puzzling. for the deputy attorney general, this obstruction investigation into trump and the appointment of the special counsel certainly turned his entire justice department tenure into the awkward role of supervising the mueller investigation after he wrote the memo justifying comey's firing, that sources say
he crafted voluntarily. critics argued that the comey memo makes rosenstein a potential witness in the obstruction case, so it is interesting to note then in the following days after comey's firing, rosenstein was involved in these discussions with other fbi officials and was at the very least aware that the fbi was opening this probe into trump for the firing of comey. it's not clear why the fbi opened up the case just before the appointment of a specific. however, the investigation of the president could have been seen as an impetuous to investigate. >> pam brown, i appreciate this. rod rosenstein is at the white house at a hanukkah reception. we'll get reaction now from congressman eric swalwell. thanks for being with us. what does it say to you that there was already an obstruction case opened before robert mueller was even appointed?
>> they had good reason to be concerned. it looks like they were trying to prevent a five-alarm fire from turning into a six-alarm fire. the president at this point would have just fired the fbi director. we later learned that there were multiple versions of stories given as to why he fired him and then his own admission to lester holt was because of the russia investigation. so thank god they were preparing to act, because we will later see the president continue to obstruct, tamper with witnesses, and just outright lie about the investigation. so i think their cause was one that was rooted in real credible concern. >> i mean, the irony is, and it's not the first time we have realized this, that had the president not fired comey, he might have spared himself the special counsel portion of this whole saga, if not this initial fbi investigation we're learning about. >> that's right. again, the president's worst instincts continue, i think, to haunt him and will ultimately
be, you know, what exposes him criminally when bob mueller finishes. >> how many times do you think the president can -- of rod rosenstein wearing a wire before rosen stein's job is in jeopardy again? >> at this point, if matt whitaker is the acting attorney general, and we've had conflicts reports who is overseeing the russia investigation, he's overseeing the russia investigation, so to president trump, he's eliminated the threat, so to speak. that concerns me from a rule of law perspective. a lot of reporting suggested that the president and whitaker have plotted for whitaker to take over this investigation, and whitaker, as we know, has already prejudged it. and we're still waiting to see where is this ethics opinion that whitaker apparently asked for. because i don't think there's any ethics lawyer at the justice department who can say that whitaker is not conflicted based
on his prior -- in the investigation. >> there was some reporting that isikoff was having based -- they were trying to wrap things up. given what we saw in the filing earlier this week, dpigiven tha we're expecting tomorrow on manafort and cohen, do you believe that this investigation is wrapping up, or do you think there's a long way to go still? >> if you're looking at this as a traditional bottom up investigation, it looks like it's reaching its end, because it started with michael flynn and george papadopoulos as the earliest people to be indicted. and then paul manmanafort, and michael cohen, and you have to think if there are other members of the president's inner family circle who are exposed, that that would be what is coming next. but anderson, i don't think a
single person drives the direction of this investigation more than president trump. he took over six months to turn in the questions that were already given to him. he's refused to sit down with the special counsel. if he wants to cooperate, i think he can see this investigation concluded much sooner than anyone else can drive its direction. >> you're not in the senate, but i want to ask you about the reported front runner for attorney general, bill barr, an establishment republican, he's respected, though he's also expressed sentiments about the mueller probe and hillary clinton consistent with the president's own views. he's hardly a member of the president's inner circle, which was of key concern about whether or not whoever the president wanted could get through confirmation. >> i have an open mind to mr. barr. he served in the h.w. bush administration. i think we saw this week that was a president who led with dignity and honor and optimism. so i think that gives mr. barr a credential to be considered
here. i am concerned about some of his sentiments about the mueller investigation, and i think that would be something that would come up in a confirmation hearing. i want to know, will he tell us if any promises were made to donald trump about the investigation, will he allow bob mueller to follow the evidence, and will he allow congress to see any mueller report that is submitted. >> congressman, appreciate your time. thank you. >> my pleasure. i want to talk to our legal analyst, john dean. also our chief political analyst gloria berger and jeffrey toobin, who just put on his glasses. and michael zeldin joins us, as well. she a former assistant to robert mueller. so jeff, how significant is this that rod rosenstein and andrew mccabe were so concerned that president trump's behavior was veering towards obstruction that they opened a case before the special counsel was appointed. >> it shows how concerned they
were about these confidences between the president and comey, the ones comey described so vividly in his testimony and book where the president asked for loyalty and for comey to go easy on mike flynn. all of that was leading to this concern about obstruction of justice, even before comey was fired. those conversations were so bizarre. remember how comey testified that he typed them up in his car, because he was so concerned about memorializing them. he wasn't the only one is what the message is of this development. >> you know, gloria, the obvious pushback on this is that someone hearing the folks in the fbi and doj were talking about reining in the president, it's not the job of the fbi or the doj to rein if the president. they seven at his pleasure, not the other way around. the president's an animus
towards mccabe was already well known. >> well they do work for the country and the american public, even though they are appointed by the president and serve at the measure of the president, obviously. i think this raises interesting questions about what happens next with rosenstein. because you have rosenstein writing that memo saying that comey should be fired. and he is a potential witness in this case, and he's still overseeing it. we have matt whitaker, but i'm not convinced that rosenstein has withdrawn completely from this. and he hasn't. and so there's a potential conflict here for rose rosenste. and from pam and jeremy's great reporting here, i think we get a sense of how frantic people were. frantic enough to be joking about wearing a wire. but also frantic enough to say this is out of control, and we
need to investigate the president on obstruction. i mean, it must have been quite a scene inside the justice department. and now, very difficult i would think for rosenstein to yet again have to explain what was occurring. >> michael zeldin, how -- the you put this in perspective how unusual it would be to have this conversation in the department of justice, the fbi about opening an investigation into a sitting president? >> well, i guess i see it a little bit differently. you have comey fired on the 9th of may. then you have this seven-day period during which the fbi and justice department are trying to make a determination about whether or not what comey wrote in those memos warrants an independent counsel or some type of inquiry. so they open up a preliminary investigation, but then rosenstein, upon reflection, within this one-week period determines that, you know what? the public interest demands that
a permanent special counsel be appointed. so in some sense to me, anderson, it's not so frantic and unexpected that after comey is fired, and these memos are revealed, that it would make a determination of what they should do. they open up a preliminary investigation and make a determination within the week that we need a special counsel, because there's too much here that implicates the president and politics and the otherwise, so mueller gets his job. >> john dean, do you agree with michael that sort of less frantic perhaps than thought? >> well, i adopt almost everything michael said, and i had the thought about the story when i heard about it, the timing is interesting, because we have comey testifying tomorrow. and these are questions that are just perfect to be asked under oath before the house judiciary committee. so i -- the timing of this is interesting, but it's not surprising to me given the
information comey took back after his meetings, that the fbi would say, we've got to open an investigation. >> anderson, can i make the case for hysteria? >> yeah, please. i will, too. >> it's like they were just deciding whether to appoint a special counsel. this was crazy what was going on in the -- it was insane. the president of the united states is asking the fbi director for loyalty. he's chewing people out of the room, so he can ask the fbi director to go easy on his national security adviser? this stuff doesn't happen in ordinary administrations. i mean, even richard nixon didn't do stuff this crazy. and we have john dean here to prove it. >> i'm going to agree with my counsel, jeffrey toobin, okay? because this is not normal times. these people are saying, wait a
minute, we have to open an obstruction of justice investigation into the sitting president of the united states? i mean, you don't think that causes a little bit of consternation behind closed doors? of course it does. >> michael zeldin, does it? >> well, i'm not suggesting that the issues to be investigated were not unusual and were at the highest level of, you know, anxiety within the justice department. all i'm saying is that in the ordinary course, this is the way the justice department and the fbi proceeds. >> there is no ordinary course. this is not ordinary. >> you're conflating the unusualness of the issue to be investigated with the ordinariness of the process. i think the process was more normal than you do, but we both agree that the circumstances of the investigation were unusual. >> how can you separate one from the other? what are they talking about?
>> john dean? >> yeah, i would just like to expound on what michael said and about the fact that they were investigating a president. this was not the first time, it was the second time. you had an independent counsel both -- actually, several independent counsels. so this was not as unusual a move for the fbi as is normal procedure. having a president a target is not unusual today as it once was. >> we're going to talk more after the break about everything ahead. tomorrow, we'll let jeffrey toobin's head explode and come back together. we'll talk about what we should learn about paul manafort and michael cohen. and growing signs of pushback from within the president's own party. we're keeping them honest ahead. ♪
♪ the greatest wish of all... is one that brings us together. the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with $0 down, $0 due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer. and a complimentary first month's payment. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections
including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. [ horn honking ] audiences are giving green book an a+. woo! oh, that was a good time. it's one of the best films of the decade. what'd you say? it's one of the best films of the decade. it's amazing you said that. short and sweet.
i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe.
talk to your doctor about xarelto®. new insight into the earliest days of the russia investigation. the sense of crisis the top fbi officials seemed to have, and the timing of it is particularly interesting coming as it does before james comey's testimony and two big court filings. we've had the flynn sentencing memo this week. back with our group. if the flynn court filing gave us a better albeit heavily redacted sense of what kind of cooperation the special counsel has been getting from people in the president's inner circle, what do you expect we could learn tomorrow from the cohen and manafort filings? >> we could learn an enormous amount, particularly from the manafort filings. because that's a factually dense issue. you know, what did manafort say to the prosecutors? and what evidence do they have that shows that they believe he's lying?
that's factually dense, that's very important stuff. my concern is as a journalist, i'm worried about the liberal application of toner, which was the -- which is what happened with the flynn thing, where, you know, they blacked out all the most substantive stuff. i'm fearful that might happen again, and we would be tantalized, but not really illuminated very much about the evidence that mueller actually has. >> gloria, it will be interesting to find out what manafort lied to mueller about, and whether or not it has to do with any possible, you know, collusion between the campaign and russia. >> sure, whether it has to do with his business dealings, et cetera. but i agree with jeffrey. i think, you know, we may come out of this particularly if it involves an ongoing investigation, knowing less than we want to know. we might learn a little bit about the substantial assistance, if there was any on
the part of michael cohen, and we might learn the scope, general scope of how much he's cooperating with mueller and with the southern district of new york. it may give us a hint of how valuable they think his information is. >> john, to gloria's point, when it comes to cohen, we still don't know how much he's told mueller, and about how many different matters he may have told them about. >> that is exactly right. we do know he's talked to him a number of hours, something like 70 hours. and the other thing that might change the redacredactions, we' front of a different court than cohen. so we might see more tomorrow just because of the fact that it's in a different court. >> michael, cohen's legal team is asking for no prison time. do you expect that would be granted given what we saw with
flynn? >> i couldn't think so. not because of the lies to mueller's investigation, you know, the stuff before congress, but rather because the charges that he pled guilty to in new york carry, you know, a pretty long sentencing guidelines, four to five years under the guidelines. it would be very surprising to me if cohen was able to provide that much information as to, you know, resulting in a zero jail time sentence. so i would expect he'll do time on the new york charges. but we'll see how it turns out. >> anderson, one of the things that i find very strange about this michael cohen situation is that the prosecutor -- mueller and the other prosecutors are allowing him to be sentenced so quickly. prosecutors always want to delay cooperator sentences, so they have something to hold over them. the mueller office could delay this sentencing.
you know, if cohen wants it over, i find it very strange that this sentencing is actually going forward. and i'll believe it when i see it. >> so southern district and mueller both agreed to have the sentencing before the judge in new york, as john dean said, and on december 12th. and i think that the view, by each of those offices, is they have gotten everything they need to get from cohen and just as with flynn, that's no need as a matter of protecting their investigation, to delay sentencing. so cohen and flynn sort of line up in the same way that they have given a lot of testimony. prosecutors feel they have locked in to whatever they need to get from these guys, so there's no reason to believe the sentencing. >> i get that's their position. but flynn pled guilty months and months ago. you can see why he was ready to be sentenced. cohen only pled guilty to the second charge, the one in front of mueller.
just barely more than a week ago. it's a very different situation. >> cohen is requesting this. cohen is drive thing train or wants to drive the train. he wants to be sentenced and get it over with, and get on with the rest of his life and serve, if he is to serve, whatever he has to do. so i think he's driving this. a lot of lawyers, like jeffrey, think it's not the right thing. but that's what he wants. >> let's see what we learn tomorrow. more breaking news tonight to tell you about. new reporting that president trump is expected to name someone with little foreign policy experience the next ambassador to the united nations. details on who it is, just ahead.
a single dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia. prevnar 13® is approved for adults to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. don't get prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash. prevention begins with prevnar 13®. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13®.
more breaking news tonight. sources say heather nauert is expected to be nominated as the next american ambassador to the united nations. she's a former fox news anchor and serving as the state department spokesperson. joining me now is my panel. david, i am wondering what your reaction is to this reporting, given her background is she was at abc as a correspondent for a while, but mostly at fox news. >> well, she looks like she has a fine resume as a journalist. she distinguished herself at abc, and then a co-anchor for "fox and friends." so she has big credentials at fox. in terms of what we look for at the united nations, her resume is very thin.
she is a spokesperson for the trump white house, but tradition ally, we have had people with a lot of experience in international affairs or academics. you think offed ed adalay steves an ambassador under john kennedy, or daniel moynihan there under nixon, or madeiline albrig albright. jeane kirkpatrick there under reagan. you know, normally from a white house standpoint, from a state department standpoint, you're not looking at the u.n. job as a communications job, it's a place where we conduct active diplomacy with nations around the world, and that supplements what happens at the state temperature itsel department itself. i don't see that happening here.
>> jen, you talk about jeane kirkpatrick, she was an intellectual power house with extensive writings. is nauert qualified for the role as u.n. ambassador? >> yeah, i think a lot of what david said i agree with. there's no question heather h represents the views of the president effectively, but that's not what this job is. the most important part of this job really happens behind the scenes. because historically, and in recent times, as well, you know, this role has been a person who has really been meeting with other u.n. ambassadors, who often are the highest level right before -- they're negotiating deals behind the scenes and on the front lines of diplomacy for the united states. and they've also historically been the leaders unofficially of kind of the diplomatic core. so this is a risky move for trump, because this is a role
now that probably will not be taken at that level of seriousness by other u.n. ambassadors, and it diminishes the effectiveness of our role as the u.n. ambassador in new york. >> another way to look at this is through the lens of this is another example of the extraordinary relationship between fox news and this administration. >> yes. and that merger that we have seen between fox and trump, it may be good for trump personally. it might make him feel more comfortable with the staff around him, but i don't think it's good for america. look at the way he's recruited not just heather nauert but others in his administration, recruiting via television. bill shine a great example. but it may not be the best way to recruit leaders for the country. shine worked with nauert for many years at fox. i think it may be better to call
her a professional pundit. she was wanting to be a talking head in the '90s. he was a consultant and a lobbyist. but she really just wanted to be on television. she was on a number of conservative talk shows, and fox and friends was the main job she had before going over to the state department. so it's a very unusual resume indeed for this job. >> david, nauert's predecessor nikki haley differed from the president on a number of matters, particularly when it came to russia. it will be interesting to see how nauert navigates what are very tricky waters. >> absolutely. and i do think going back to any comparison you want to make, that nikki haley was, you know, she didn't have a lot of experience in diplomacy, but what she brought to that job, is she had a very close relationship with the president. and when people talked to her, they knew she was talking for the white house. and she's one of the few people
that came out of the administration with her credentials in hand. two people i left off the less, think of dick holbrooke or samantha power, who just came out of the obama administration. didn't have a lot of experience in diplomacy, but won a pulitzer prize on the serious issues of genocide and regarded as a human rights champion across the world. so when you point to your u.n. person, that is someone you think might become secretary of state. can you imagine that in this case? i don't think so. >> the president made it clear that he doesn't think highly of the u.n. there was that awkward moment during the general assembly. i want to play part of that. >> my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country. america's -- so true. [ laughter ]
i didn't expect that reaction, but that's okay. [ applause ] >> do we have any idea at this point how nauert feels about the u.n. as an institution? >> you know, i don't think we know that. though i will say there's been certainly a change in the dynamics at the national security team since the appointment of make nikki hale. now you have ambassador bolton in there, who is a hard charging, somebody with three decades of experience. if he supported the nauert nomination, he might be thinking he can control her. this is a role that reports to the secretary of state, so pompeo may also be thinking that. so we don't know at this point that you can kind of guess given the personalities of these players is that there's been a push to have somebody in this role that maybe the other national security players could
control or could kind of move in their direction, given how much things have changed. >> all right. thank you very much. coming up, a republican senator says if you want to do business with the united states, "don't chop somebody up in a consulate. that's not too much to ask." the question is, could a showtosho showdown and a senate be coming between the president over the murder of jamal khashoggi? we're keeping them honest, next. talking about driver-assist technology talking about cars that talk and listen. talking about the highest customer loyalty in the country. but that's enough talking. seriously. that was a lot of talking. back to building
the senate is getting ready to confront the white house over its support for saudi arabia in the aftermath of the murder of jamal khashoggi. senators are wobob corker said question is simple, what should happen when a journalist who lives in the united states and writes for "the washington post" is brutally murdered, and there is, according to senators briefed by the cia, zero question about who was behind it. it's the story the white house wishes would go away. and remember, the president won't even acknowledge any evidence that saudi crown prince muhammad bin salman was involved. now in a rare parting with the president, corker, another republican lawmaker, is saying they have no doubt. the crown prince's brother is back in washington, resuming his duties as saudi ambassador to
the united states. whatever business as usual scenario, the president and the white house may be operating under, that scenario is over for a bipartisan group of senators who introduced a resolution blaming the crown prince for "the abhorrent and killing of journalist jamal khashoggi." this is what senator graham said. >> there's not a smoking gun, there's a smoking saw. you have to be willfully blind not to come to the conclusion that this was orchestrated and organized by people under the command of mbs, and that he was intricately involved in the demise of mr. khashoggi. open source reports show that he had been focusing on mr. khashoggi for a very long time. it is zero chance, zero, that this happened in such an organized fashion without the crown prince. >> a smoking saw, of course, is a reference to the bone saw that was said to be used to dismember
jamal khashoggi. and here's what graham said today when asked whether he thinks the resolution will change the administration's approach. >> i don't know. i think it's going to define the relationship that i think is true. and, you know, we tolerate bad behavior, that's part of politics at times. but this is an ally. if you want to buy our weapons and integrate your economy to ours, there's a certain price to be paid, don't chop somebody up in a consulate. >> one would assume the president has access to the same intelligence. so the question remains, why is this the president's stance? >> they did not make that assessment. the cia has looked at it, studied it a lot. they have nothing definitive. and the fact is, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. i hate the coverup, and i will tell you this, the crown prince
hates it more than i do. and they have vehemently devied it. maybe he did, maybe he didn't. >> joining me now senator chris murphy. when you hear the president said, i hate the coverup, but the crown prince hates it more than i do, does that make sense to you? i don't understand -- it just sounds ludicrous. >> it makes just as much sense as everything else out of the president's mouth on foreign policy. of course it makes no sense why, because the saudi royal family, the government of saudi arabia was lying to us, and to the world for two straight weeks. you can't paper over the fact that they said he left the consulate. and that is what they told our government, the american public and the world for 14 days until finally they knew they couldn't get away with that lie any longer. so the coverup was run by the saudi government and muhammad
bin salman the ground prince is effectively in chargeof national security inside saudi arabia. so the coverup was led by the saudi royal family and everybody knows that. >> it's not like muhammad bin salman is just on the sidelines and powerless in the face of this massive coveri iucoverup b forces in saudi arabia. do you think it can ultimately pass and would be enough of a direct punishment on the crown prince? >> the most important foreign policy endeavor of saudi arabia is the war inside yemen. the war is going terribly for saudi arabia and the people of yemen, who have seen 100,000 die of either bombs or starvation or disease. so our resolution pulls the united states out of that military coalition with saudi arabia. and given what a high priority that coalition is to the saudis, it's probably the most important, the most impactful
signal that you can send to them. additionally, i think it speaks to what we're learning about the saudis. for one, we've been in this coalition with them for a while, because we believed them when they told us that they aren't intentionally hitting civilians inside yemen with these bombs that we help support. the fact is, all the evidence told us to the contrary it was true, that they were intentionally hitting civilians, and now having been lied to about khashoggi, a lot of senators are coming to the conclusion that they were lying to us about what was happening inside yemen. >> is there enough bipartisan support, though, to stop a presidential veto if the resolutions do pass? >> so we have 63 votes for this, which is close to enough to overturn a veto. remember, there are other avenues that we can pursue. we also can use the appropriations process to cut off funding for the war in yemen and the person in charge of that
budget in the united states senate is lindsey graham who right now says very clearly he does not want to support funding for the yemen war, as long as muhammad bin salman is in charge of national security policies. so this resolution has close to enough support to overcome a veto, and then we'll look for other avenues to correct this bizarre u.s. policy towards saudi arabia. >> just your reaction that heather nauert is expected to be named the next u.n. ambassador? >> yeah. so i obviously would like to see that announcement come from the white house before i react too seriously to it. but, you know, listen, our foreign policy is a mess, and the president was laughed at in his last speech before the u.n. i'm not sure anybody would advise him to correct all his mistakes is to put a "fox and friends" anchor as the top ambassador to the united nations. heather nauert has been at the state department, is it's not as
if she has no experience. but she has no experience as a diplomat. no meaningful experience in the government. she's clearly not qualified for this job, but these days, it seems that the most important qualification is that you show up on donald trump's tv screen and if you're successful in that endeavor, then you seem to be a top candidate to get a whole bunch of top positions in the u.s. government. >> senator, appreciate your time. we'll continue to follow the situation. let's check in with chris and see what he's working on. new information about what the deputy a.g. rod rosenstein, what the truth was of his level of concern with the president, his and others at the fbi. maybe they were joking about wearing a wire, but they weren't joking about starting an obstruction of justice investigation even before bob mueller. we have the details on that. and the announcement about heather nauert, the news personality, being put up to
replace nikki haley. makes us wonder when the president says, only the best. >> we'll check in with you 11 minutes from now. coming up, the president's tweet, confusion over his trade war with china and wall street's roller coaster continues. and the mysterious arrest of the cfo of a chinese tech giant is. is this what the president meant when he talked about art of the over 100 years ago,
we were talking about the model t. now here we are talking about winning the most jd power iqs and appeal awards. talking about driver-assist technology talking about cars that talk and listen. talking about the highest customer loyalty in the country. but that's enough talking. seriously. that was a lot of talking. back to building
there's no excuse for that what they did to you. it's a hate crime. it's a miracle he survived. [ gasps ] i got your back. based on an inspirational true story. they knocked me down, but i've created a world where i can heal. hey, hey. lookin' good. welcome to marwen. ♪ i got dreams in my head and they won't go ♪ welcome to healing... you need to face those jerks who beat you up. welcome to hope. i have my friends, and they can't take that away from me. hell yeah. woo!
the president, the self-proclaimed tariff man, there's uncertainty about the u.s./china trade war, and where that stands. and as one financial expert put it today, volatility is the new normal. if you were watching the stock market today, you got whiplash. the dow was down 785 points earlier in the day. this didn't help either, word today of the arrest in canada. the details of why are sketchy, the wall street journal reported back in april that the justice department was investigating whether she violated u.s. sanctions on iran, spokesperson for canada will only say the united states wants to extradite her and a bail hearing is set for tomorrow. the president took credit for when the stock market was climbing higher, hasn't taken any blame so far for the current volatility. joining me now, author of the shadow president, and the art of the deal for citizen donald
trump? the economy is doing well, and the president deserves credit for that, as we're seeing now, his impulsiveness comes with a price. >> yeah, it's a leadership issue, which is that he is so narrowly focused on his own self-interest that first in the face of something like the china situation at the g-20, he's going to overhype it, the moment it seems like he might get blamed if it doesn't happen, he's going to turn on it, and what he's incapable of recognizing is that the consequences to totally blow up the financial markets. and so the cost of that kind of narrowness is really extraordinary. >> it is interesting, he said recently that he follows his gut, and his gut can tell him more than anybody's brain can tell them. >> isn't that quite a statement. what tony was saying is the crux of the matter, the president doesn't seem able to acquire
sophisticated knowledge of the economy and then consider the american experience. you know, he's got soybean farmers who have lost 40% of their sales overseas, he's got factory worker s who still haven't seen their jobs come back. you wonder who's interest does he really have at heart or is he even aware of what the american interest is? i'm not sure he is aware. >> a lot of his ideas on trade, on china. these are ideas he's held for a long period of time. >> in the most primitive way, at a maximum of 3 to 4 essential tenses, so those are actually a function of his gut. >> that america's being taken advantage of. >> that's a psychological response. an identification with the idea -- with other victims, not an intellectually thought out and reflected upon policy position. >> it's interesting what you say, it's a psychological -- the notion that keeps coming back to
you that we're being taken advantage of, we're being laughed at, it is sort of a -- i can't get into his head or psycho analyze him. >> i'm happy to psycho analyze him. >> it is something somebody says who is worried about being laughed at. >> he has always sort of equated his experience with the national experience so when he talks about what's right for the country he imagines it's right for him. this is a primitive thing that goes back to the early 1970s in the arab oil embargo, then he was mad at the japanese for their competition with detroit. then when detroit was doing a little bit better, he was mad at mexico and china. one of the telling things with this, his trade disputes are with nonwhite countries. if people look different from what he imagines america looks
like there's a bit of xeno phobia that he throws in there. he's comfortable in attacking these supposed enemies, really in a way it's ridiculous. it's like us having a trade imbalance at the grocery store or cnn has a trade imbalance with you. it's not really a measure of economic health, but the president doesn't look at it that way. >> has he always been susceptible to flattery? because it does seem like that's an achilles heel of him. if you say a few nice things, he feels you're coming from a good place, and kind of -- >> well, of course, after the last two or three years of talking about him, you know the answer to that question. of course he was always susceptible to flattery, but it's interesting, only temporarily, he is a professional victim. and he is extremely paranoid, so
even the immediate flattery doesn't last, nothing lasts for trump, it rungs through him, and it's gone as quickly as it arrived, including any sense of self-worth. the real issue is for us, for americans, is that what we need in leaders right now are people who are grounded, who are rooted in core values, who in the face of all the tremendous pressures that they are under, leaders of all kinds, not only political leaders, but organizational leaders, corporate leaders, what -- with all those forces coming at them, it's only those who actually know deeply what they believe, who are not responding to the wind blowing in every moment or what they think expediently they can accomplish, they can get done, because it will serve them. these are the only leaders who have the potential to get us back on course. >> thank you very much, appreciate it. >> quick reminder, don't miss
full circle, our daily interactive newscast on facebook. you can get all the details, watch it week nights 6:25 p.m. eastern on facebook.com/anderson cooper full circle. news continues, we want to hand it over to chris for cuomo prime time. >> thank you, anderson. we had really big developments that came late today. rosenstein may have been kidding about wearing a wire to secretly tape trump. the acting head of the fbi was dead serious enough to do something potentially far more damaging to the president, and we'll tell what you it was and why. and the president's reported choice do replace nikki haley is raising eyebrows and making me wonder what the president means when he says only the best. let's get after it. >> deputy