tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN December 11, 2018 8:00am-9:00am PST
it's quote/unquote a real possibility that he could be impeached when democrats take over the house. that is a pretty stunning statement, and already pretty stunning times. so is this. a republican veteran of the u.s. senate brushing off concerns that the president may have violated campaign finance laws with those hush money payments to cover up two alleged affairs with two women during the election. here is orrin hatch. >> the democrats will do anything to hurt this president. anything. >> it's not the democrats. it's the southern district of new york, the attorney is making this allegation. >> okay, but i don't care. all i can say is he's doing a good job at president. i don't think he was involved in crimes. even then, you know, you can make anything a crime under the current laws if you want to. you can blow it way out of proportion. you can do a lot of things. >> this as a new cnn poll shows the president's handling of the russia probe matches his all-time low, and robert mueller
is also taking a hit as well. today is also another full docket for the russia investigation. at any time now, trump's former national security adviser michael flynn will formally ask a judge for no jail time despite pleading guilty to lying to the fbi. and this afternoon, a hearing in paul manafort's case where prosecutors will further explain what they say he lied about to them. >> and there's more, everybody. minutes from now, president trump is going to be meeting with the democratic leaders of the house and senate. that is right. chuck and nancy heading back to the white house. the goal, to prevent a government shutdown, but the border wall may be the biggest obstacle to any bipartisan deal. i'll get to that in a second. let's start, though, with all of the developments in the russia investigation. kara scannell is here to break it down for us. what are you expecting to learn in the flynn and manafort cases? >> like you said, this is another busy day in a busy week for the mueller investigation. we're expecting to see the sentencing memorandum from michael flynn in which he's going to ask for no jail time. we expect they'll play up his
years of government service. he, of course, was the head of the defense intelligence agency under the obama administration, after a career serving in the military. we're expecting them to play that up. it was then that flynn was out there on the campaign for trump as a surrogate and that he was then appointed national security adviser, and at that job is when he got fired for his lying to the campaign and the administration about his contacts with russians and he ultimately pleaded guilty to that. mueller's team in a filing on friday or last week, rather, made clear that flynn was very helpful to them. he's helping them on three criminal investigations, and they said his early willingness to cooperate with them was very helpful in providing information, including first-hand information about trump campaign and transition officials' contacts with russian officials. and manafort will be back in court today. we expect his lawyers to say that he didn't lie as the special counsel's office has laid out in a filing on friday. we'll see if they're going to really want to push that and see
if the special counsel will provide more information about these lies or if they'll ask the judge, let's move this along to sentencing and try to just move manafort ahead to that stage early next year, kate. >> and speaking of sentencing, a big day tomorrow for president trump's former personal attorney and fixer michael cohen. also, there's maria butina, the accused russian spy. i have a hard time keeping track of it and it's my job. >> michael cohen will be in court tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. where he'll be sentenced. he's asking the judge for no time in prison. citing his cooperation with the special counsel's office. but the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan has come out very strongly against cohen, saying he was mote evaluated by greed. they said just because he agreed to plead guilty and not wait for a pardon did not make him a hero. so we're expecting to have harsh arguments from the u.s. attorney's office here, and butina will be pleading guilty tomorrow to a conspiracy charge, according to sources. that is also part of a cooperation deal with prosecutors in washington, d.c. as they look to her to learn
more information about how she was used as a russian agent and any connections she may have had in attempts to influence conservative groups here including the nra. >> fascinating. thank you so much. we'll be back with you. >> joining me to discuss all of this, shaun turner is here, cnn national security analyst, former director of communications for u.s. national intelligence. jennifer rodgers, former federal prosecutor, and matt is a reporter for "the washington post." jennifer, let's start with flynn. what are you looking -- what do you think is the most important thing we could learn today coming out of this? >> i actually don't think we're going to learn very much. the government has already said he did a good job. he really should see no jail time at all. his sentencing memo is going to re-enforce that. he has this long, you know, stellar career in the military. they're going to ask for no time. he's going to get no time. the deal he made that was helpful to him was back in the beginning when he pled only to the false statement. had he pled to some of the other charges, he might face real time, but that deal secured it
for him. he cooperated, he's going to get nothing. i don't expect to learn a lot from the memo today. >> when it comes to flynn, he was the national security adviser. when we already have the special counsel saying he provided, and the way they put it, first-hand information about interactions between trump transition and russia. it does lead everyone to wonder, what could that mean? >> i think that's right. i mean, if you go back and look at the two buckets of information that flynn might be able to provide, he's going to be able to talk utwhat he himself did in his connections with russian operatives, but he also was in a position because of his high-level position to be able to have some understanding about what others who were part of the administration may have did in those interactions. i think that's where you get to the level of cooperation he may have had with the special counsel. it's also the case, and i think folks are right here. that second bucket, you know, providing information about what others did, is what mueller was really interested in. i think for the reasons that have been stated, flynn is
unlikely to get any time today, but i will say, i do think there's one element here that could impact the judge's decision. flynn was a career intelligence officer. we can't forget the fact flynn began to engage in bad behavior under the previous administration, and in terms of his contact withsergeiislyak, so that's something the judge may take into consideration. no one has ever been convicted under the logan act, but this was the previous administration, certainly an attempt to undermine what the policy officials in the last administration were doing. >> yeah, forcing everyone to remember once again what the logan act is, because everyone had to dig up the legal dictionaries once again. matt, this is one of the things that the president is watching. the president, that is rattling the president. with all that cnn is reporting, that the president is worried about the possibility of being impeached by the house. do you see that this concern, this possibility that he's worried about, do you see that changing the way that he
operates, though, whenever flynn is sentenced or whenever there's a move when it comes to the manafort trial, or whenever mueller puts out his report? >> i don't anticipate president trump really changing. i mean, he's not shown much evidence of doing so. but i think it's important to just look at the walls sort of closing in, and all different directions. you have the flynn, manafort today, ms. butina, michael cohen, and on multiple layers and in multiple directions are sort of closing in on president trump, and at a time when his chief of staff is on the way out. he doesn't have a new chief of staff yet identified. so you know, in every direction right now, i think president trump is under pressure. and i do think that the incoming house with democrats taking control of the house, you'll see a likelihood for impeachment, for more investigations, and
more areas to pull on. so i do think that we're seeing president trump kind of under pressure in all directions. >> and jennifer, these elements, tomorrow i think seems to be a really important day for michael cohen in his sentencing. i wonder what you think and expect there. also, the simple fact that we now have someone, maria butina, who is an alleged russian spy, who is cooperating with the u.s. government. just that simple fact in and of itself, that seems a very big deal. >> it is a big deal. what i don't know, kate, is the parameters of her cooperation. if she were cooperating in the southern district of new york, i would be 100% certain that she would have to cooperate about everything she knows including all she learned as a spy. i'm just not so certain with this deal with the washington, d.c. office where they have limited it to the parameters of what she was doing here, kind of her specific dealings with the nra and with republican operatives here and not kind of a broader look into what she
knows about the spy network more generally. but even that said, i still think it's very interesting. i still think we'll learn a lot. we should want to get to the bottom of what the nra was doing, so i think that's great, and yes, cohen is going to be big tomorrow. i think he'll see serious time. >> we'll see. shawn, i want to get your take, and i know we're running out of time, but i want to play this one more time for our viewers. what orrin hatch told manu raju about his take on the fact the prosecutors say that the president directed michael cohen to commit a crime. and this was orrin hatch's reaction. >> i don't care. all i can say is he's doing a good job as president. i don't think he was involved in crimes. but even then, you know, you can make anything a crime under the current laws. if you want to, you can blow it way out of proportion. you can do a lot of things. >> if that's the defense, shawn, and the view of this is i don't care if he committed a crime. what do you do with that? >> yeah, that's a good question.
orrin hatch is on an island by himself when he says he does not care. look, the reason we're going through this is because while orrin hatch may not care and other members of congress may not care, the american people care. certainly, it's the case that people in the national security space care about whether or not crimes were committed and cooperation with russian operatives. so when i hear orrin hatch say that, it's the epitome of partisanship and kind of just kind of political jockeying. this is important. and orrin hatch of all people should care about what's happening here. >> let's see what happens just in the next hour, and we'll see what changes. great to see you all. thanks so much. coming up for us. how mad is president trump over the search for his new chief of staff? so mad that one source says that the president is, quote, super pissed. so why? stay with us. we'll tell you in a second. chan. that's why this is the view for every other full-size pickup. and this year, it's déjà vu all over again.
'cuz only the ford f-150 gives you best-in-class torque, best-in-class payload . . . and you got it, baby . . . best-in-class towing. this is the big dog! this is the ford f-150. it doesn't just raise the bar, pal. it is the bar. and now, you can get a ford f-150 with zero percent financing for 72 months. only at your ford dealer. ♪five golden... ♪six golden rings... ♪seven golden rings!
moments from now, a chuck and nancy reunion. president trump meeting at the white house with the two top democrats in congress later this hour. the big question is, can they reach a budget deal to avoid a partial government shutdown by next friday's deadline, and maybe more importantly, if they reach a handshake deal, do they trust that everyone will stick with it once they leave the room? cnn congressional correspondent phil mattingly is on capitol hill. it looks like another slow-motion car crash we're watching play out yet again. where do things stand noud? >> at an impas. when you talk to lawmakers and people in the room negotiating, the talks essentially fell apart eight or nine days ago. they haven't come back together. the issue remains the same. you talk about, there are seven appropriations bills that need to be passed by december 21st.
it's only one appropriations bill and one issue holding things up. that's homeland security and the border wall. the president made clear, he wants $5 billion. democrats made clear they won't go near that. there's a bipartisan proposal that will give him $1.6 billion. nancy pelosi said she's willing to sign off on continuing the funding from the current level, $1.3 billion, through the end of september. you need to bridge about a $3.4 billion gap right now, and that's a pretty big gap to bridge. here's why. it's the politics of things. the president has consistently threatened to shut down the government over this issue. republican leaders have pushed him away from that until after the election. well, kalt, we're now after the election. democrats, they are about to take control in the house. that would essentially put to bed the wall effort for the time being. they're trying to get to that point. they're not in the mood to make concessions either. how do you bridge that gap? that's the open question. take a look at the prebuttles of sorts. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer
putting out a statement saying at this point, the president's proposal doesn't have the vote to pass the house or the senate. that's mostly true, and the president taking to twitter, making clear as he says chuck and nancy need to come to the table on a deal. there are off ramps here, short-term solutions, ways to try to bridge the gaps. i will say this. nobody that i'm talking to expects this meeting to be the moment where the gap is bridged, but they all acknowledge it's an important point and an important part in a process that's going to be taking place as they try to bridge the gaps. will that process finish in 11 days? that, kate, remains a very open question. >> one thing that's almost always guaranteed, it's not going to finish short of 11 days. they never beat the deadline if they meet it. they never beat it. and yes, you're right. there's always an off ramp, a way to get it done. these are public posturing statements. let's see what happens when they go behind closed doors. thank you, buddy. >> joining me to get another perspective on the state of play, democratic congressman jamie raskin of maryland.
thanks for coming in. >> thanks for having me, kate. >> phil layatize out perfectly as always. reports are pelosi and schumer are going to go therein and talk to trump about $1.3 billion, the existing levels right now for a border fence. you previously called, and i want to headache sure i get it right, called the wall a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem. would you be okay with them agreeing to any money for any wall, fence. whatever you want to call it? >> our feeling about it is that the republicans at least for another three weeks control the house, the senate, and the white house. and if they want to go ahead and pass the budget without us, they can do it. but if they need our help, we don't believe in their wall. we're with the majority of american people who think it's a ridiculous waste of money, and the president is being very irresponsible if he's threatening to shut down the u.s. government at a time when the markets are already roiling and there's all this uncertainty out there over the wall which we don't support. so our position is, sure, let's
invest in border security. let's do immigration reform. but let's get to the business of the american people and stop the nonsense about the wall. >> two things. yes, they are in control. but they do need, especially in the senate, it's got to beat the 60-vote threshold. just by the math, they need democrats. but does that mean, then, that if -- would you come to the table and would you be okay with $1.3 billion or $1.6 billion in border wall funding? >> no, we're for zero dollars in border wall funding. now, we obviously support money for security measures at the border, as we always have. and so we're not averse to that, but we don't want to go down the road of putting, you know, $50 million in there and they say, oh, we have started the wall. it's true that the president promised he would build a wall. he also promised that mexico would pay for it. if he wants to keep one promise, he should keep the other, too. let the mexican government pay for it. >> if the government -- if there's a partial government shutdown and you're standing up
for what you think is right and what you think the american people -- what you think the american people support, which is you don't want to support a border wall is what you're saying, do you risk, though, facing some of the backlash if again republicans and democrats can't find a way to come to the table? you guys could get something too, maybe he doesn't get $5 billion, maybe he gets less, and it's under the umbrella of border security. >> well, border security we support and have always supported. we can work with that. we don't support a border wall under any circumstances. and we think it's irresponsible for anybody who controls every branch of government right now to be threatening to shut down the government over that. we have always opposed government shutdowns. the gop has favored government shutdowns. the president has said maybe what we need is a good government shutdown. >> you can't really say the gop supports government shutdowns but the president himself has said a government shutdown could be a good thing. >> the president has said it's a
good time, what we need is a good government shutdown. tremendously irresponsible with all of the instability taking place around the world, with our markets in an uproar right now, so we're urgeing the president and anybody around him to encourage him to come to the table, pass something we can all agree to, and let's move forward and be able to insure some responsible government starting in january. >> let's see what happens in the next 11 days, then we'll talk about january. i want to ask you about something else. 44 former senators from both parties signed an opinion piece in "the washington post" today. calling on current senators to move beyond party, kindf a little bit of what we're talking about. they said this in part. we're at an inflection point in which the foundidational principles of our democracy and national security interests are at stake. do you think that's where we are? are the foundational principles of democracy at stake right now?
>> i agree with their letter because all over the world, authoritarianism is on the march against democracy. you have putin in russia, you have hungary, duterte in the philippines. all these people are donald trump's friends, and we made league with every autocrat and despot around the world. we have to stand strong for freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religious worship, all of the things that are under attack in countries like saudi arabia, where the homicidal crown prince orders the assassination of an american journalist, and the president simply winks at them and says that the arm sales to the saudis are more important than enforcing the rule of law. so yes, i do think that the rule of law and democracy are under attack. and it's very important for everybody, regardless of political party or persuasion to stand up strong for democracy. >> congressman, you're a member of house judiciary. the top democrat on the
committee, jerry nadler, he said this weekend if the president did direct his former attorney, michael cohen, to make hush payments to women, they would be impeachable offenses, is how he put it. whether they're important enough, though, he goes on to say, to justify impeachment is a different question. where do you land on this? >> i think the chairman or the soon-to-be chairman nadler is correct on this. if you take the republican standard, the republicans impeached bill clinton for telling one lie and for committing obstruction of justice about one affair. allegedly, according to the u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york, president trump directed a whole campaign finance cover-up scheme to pay off his former mistresses in order to conceal two affairs that he had. so it's pretty much the same kind of offense, although there were -- >> the president says that -- the reporting is that the president is worried about the house moving to impeach him. should he be worried?
>> well, i think he should be worried about what he did. basically, he direct his private lawyer to circumvent the $2700 campaign finance limit by steering $150,000 there from his private company. it's a corporate contribution. it's over the limit, and it wasn't reported. he seems to be conceding now that these were campaign finance violations. he's trying to make them sound like they're mere technicali technicalities, but it's serious business for people who take the campaign finance laws seriously. of course, there are bigger fish to fry by the special counsel, who has zeroed in on the moscow project, as they're calling it, that is the whole effort to use russian influence in order to undermine our election and to steer the election towards the republicans. i think that's where the bigger problems are going to be for this president. but nonetheless, i think the campaign finance scheme is a very serious one and certainly on the benchmark of republican standards from the past, it would be an impeachable offense.
>> yes, your words can come back to haunt you. great to see you. thank you so much for coming in, congressman. >> thanks for having me. >> thank you. coming up next for us, super pissed, that's how one source describes the president after his top pick for chief of staff turns down the job. what's the plan b? that may be why he's so mad. uni. like here. where you can explore the world knowing you can always find your way home. ♪
♪ they seem to be the very foundation of your typical bank. capital one is anything but typical. that's why we designed capital one cafes. you can get savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. and one of america's best savings rates. to top it off, you can open one from anywhere in 5 minutes. this isn't a typical bank. this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet?
president trump is reportedly super pissed. i can't laugh without saying that. that's a quote about the process to find a new chief of staff. sources say the president wants a new chief of staff to focus the west wing on politics instead of policy. but nick ayers, the man who was his pick to take the job, turned it down. another source says the president feels humiliated because he doesn't have a plan b. cnn's white house reporter sarah we westwood is tracking this version of the revolving door. >> after believing with certainty that nick ayers would be his next chief of staff, president trump is scrambling to find a replacement for john kelly and pick from a list of candidates, some of whom might not even want the job, and trump this morning on twitter was venting about the perception that no one wants to be his chief of staff, claiming at least ten people are vying for the position. president trump has told confidantes in the new year, he wants his west wing to be more politically adept heading into a tricky period where the
administration could face house democratic probes and where the prospect of impeachment could become real, something trump has privately acknowledged. kellyanne conway told reporters that the next chief of staff needs to be someone who can manage a sprawling staff in the west wing and who has the president's trust. take a listen. >> i think the next chief of staff obviously would be somebody who focuses on the chief part, and the staff part, as general kelly has, and it's somebody who will have the trust and confidence of the president and understands the principle, also can interface with the cabinet and who can manage a very large and ever changing staff here. >> it's a personal decision for the president, and we know that whoever it is, i will support him. >> now, the president is eyeing at least a half dozen candidates who may fit kellyanne's description. let's talk about a few of them. congressman mark meadows is a top ally of the president's on capitol hill. he's someone who has congressional oversight experience, someone the president speaks frequently to.
matt whitaker is the acting attorney general. he's seen as ambitious. signaled he might be interested in the job. david bossie, the former deputy campaign manager, has experienced an impeachment and the president has expressed interest in that. there are other members of the cabinet, mulvaney, lighthizer, who said they would not be interested in the job, so the president is back to the drawing board with just a few weeks to make the decision. >> so true. great to see you. thank you so much. >> joining me now, scott jennings, cnn political commentator, former special assistant to george w. bush. josh is here, former communications outreach director, and chris cillizza, politics reporter and editor at large. jess, do you think the president is right to want someone for his next chief of staff to be more politics than policy right now? >> i think that's probably what he's going to have to deal with coming in january given the news of the last week where we learned he directed the commission of multiple felonies during the campaign. it seems unlikely that the white
house isn't going to be taking up with those kinds of questions going forward. that's probably also why nick ayers was seemingly the guy for the job, and then very suddenly was not the guy for the job. this is the very last position that i could see somebody who wanted a political future walking into. it's going to be really, really difficult to manage, as if donald trump wasn't difficult enough to manage before this. >> and that raises a question, hold your thought, because i want to get scott. you worked for george w. bush. you understand the role of a chief of staff. does donald trump need a chief of staff? i know we have asked this about communications director. just go with it. >> you need a chief of staff. the white house staff is large. there's a lot of different things that have to be managed. you need a leader. the buck has to stop somewhere at the staff level. and the president is far too busy doing everything the president does to manage all the intricacies of the white house. so yes, you need a chief of staff, somebody who can oversee
the response to the investigations, someone who can drive functionality inside the white house and across the federal government. someone who can make sure the president is staffed appropriately inside the various offices and agencies of the executive office of the president. someone who does understand the pressures on a white house when the chief executive is running for re-election, and finally. someone who can serve as somewhat of a crisis manager. it's true they have investigations, politics, a divided congress. there's a lot of crisis management here. so having someone with a little bit of experience in those areas, that's what i would be looking for. you definitely need one. >> so chris, i need you to drive functionality across the segment. >> i'm an exon that. it's on my business card. >> functionality driver. the russia investigation, this is one job the chief of staff needs to be blocking and tackling. democrats are saying to the cohen news, just turns you're right, this could be an impeachable offense by the president. republicans, i don't know if i
can say by and large, but very notable republicans so far seem to be just shrugging their shoulders. i played what orrin hatch said to manu raju earlier. chuck grassley also telling reporters as long as michael cohen is a liar, i shouldn't give much credibility to what he said. john kennedy saying in only the way john kennedy can, jesus loves him, but everyone else thinks he's an idiot. if i were a prosecutor, i wouldn't base a prosecution on evidence given to me by mr. cohen. what are republicans trying to do? just run away from it and not touch it or is this the actual defense they think they want to give? >> they're creating a strawman which is ridiculous. this is not only about michael cohen. like, what we had prior to last friday was michael cohen pleading guilty to a series of crimes that include these campaign financial violations which she says donald trump directed me to make these payments. but what we have on friday is the southern district of new york, who are federal
prosecutors, saying we believe donald -- individual one, donald trump, directed and coordinated these payments to stormy daniels and karen mcdougal. so it's not michael cohen's word versus donald trump's word. if you think federal prosecutors -- you think they're unaware of the fact michael cohen has a casual relationship with the truth in the past? they're not going to base the entire prosecution, not put themselves out there because michael cohen said this to reduce his sentence. chuck grassley knows better, orrin hatch knows better, this is not about michael cohen. the southern district of new york sees all of the electronic records of michael cohen. text messages, what's on his phone, on his computer. they quite clearly have evidence that goes beyond michael cohen saying oh, yeah, donald trump told me this. let's not pretend that this is just about michael cohen. it's about a lot more than that. >> forget about what michael cohen said. let's think about what orrin
hatch said himself in the past. back in '99 in the clinton impeachment, he said, there it is, this great nation can tolerate a president who makes mistakes. but he cannot tolerate one who makes a mistake and then breaks the law to cover it up. what do you do with that now? >> there is no way they are going to impeach donald trump over $280,000. i mean, look, the prosecutor's theory here in this indictment, this is flam flam. they're basically saying if only the american people had known donald trump had had sex with two women who weren't his wife, the outcome of the election could have been different. this is flimflam. the obama campaign in '08 made paperwork mistakes on the order of $87 million. we're talking about $280,000. this is not impeachment worthy. this is ridiculous. >> on the most basic level, a paperwork mistake is different
than go and use shell companies and other accounts in order to pay people off to keep them quiet. those two things are different, right? >> he has a long history of paying women to be quiet to have sex with him. it's unseemly. i don't like it. it makes meez uncomfortable, but i don't like weaponizing campaign finance stupidity to say the president should be impeached and adam schiff saying he should be put in jail. >> this isn't campaign finance stupidity, and i like scott, but this isn't. this is not we didn't disclose the names of these donors, which is what the obama campaign was fined $375,000, one of the largest fines in federal history. this is, according to federal prosecutors, the candidate for president purposely paying off two women to keep them quiet for fear that they would damage his election. i'm with scott. we are never going to know whether that would have or not. not that people thought donald trump was a beacon of moral strength prior to the election. but this is -- it's not -- it is
a crime to do that. that is a fact. >> but it will, on the most basic form, no matter what is said in federal court, will be up to, in the end, the opinions of orrin hatch, maybe not because he'll be gone, but other republicans, other senators and what they would do if it comes before them. regardless, we'll talk about it later. we'll be right back. introducing add on advantage, a new way to save on travel. now when you book a flight you unlock discounts on select hotels that you can add on to your trip up until the day you leave. add on advantage. only when you book with expedia. your insurance rates skyrocket you could fix it with a pen.
how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
six years. that's how long it's been since 26 innocent lives were lost. 20 precious first graders and 6 educators killed in newtown, connecticut. the tragedy of the day is no less shocking. as we remember their lives we're learning more about their killer. after six years of lawsuits, after years of lawsuits, the hartford current newspaper obtained more than 1,000 pages of documents from the connecticut state police. documents painting a dark and disturbing picture of adam lanza's life leading up to the massacre. that includes hundreds of pages of lanza's own writing. joining me is josh, one of the reporters behind the story. thanks for coming in. >> any time, kate. >> one of the first things you're struck with by reading your piece is this is not someone who had fallen off the radar. people knew something was wrong. they tried to do something. is that what you saw after looking through all of these documents and writings? >> yes, it was a perfect storm.
mental illness probably. isolation, throw in the gun range, throw in mom's hesitancy to take meds. you had a lot converging. and there were two years of just abject isolation. kid is hardly coming out of his house. >> i'm also struck by how much of his own communication in writing or online that you were able to go through that was released. he wrote this to a fellow video game player at one point. i incessantly have nothing other than scorn for humanity. i have been desperate to feel something positive for someone for my entire life. in a strange way, you have probably spent more time with adam lensa than anyone else, did you get a sense of what was the trigger that pushed him over the edge? >> not exactly. you know, the abcd of it, but
you can certainly see some as and bs. the kid was so hard edged, everything he said was so inaccessible. he would put it out there and there was nothing you could do with it. you could try to imagine having a conversation with him. what do you say to that? you know, it was like a monologue even when he was talking to somebody. but you were absolutely right in your intro to talk about the parents and the kids as well. and we're mindful of the core people who love those kids. this is real hard for them, but you know with the reach of cnn and once you get beyond the emotional core, you are trying to put some stuff out there that maybe talks about signs and symptoms. maybe gives somebody a road map for the next kid. and also my colleague dave didn't go away for five years, waiting for this foi, this freedom of information.
and the state police thought he was going to go away. the a.g.'s office, the attorney general, thought he was going to go away. he didn't go away. we got the stuff. it turned out to be december, getting toward the anniversary, but that was more a coincidence. >> i wanted to read the editor's note. this is an important part of the piece. you write, the editor's note at the end of the piece in part says this. understanding what a mass killer was thinking not only paints a clearing picture of the individual. it helps us identify and understand red flags that could be part of a prevention formula for future mass shootings. what was the debate in the newsroom deciding whether or not to publish. you clearly understand the pain it can bring. >> we said no way on the exact anniversary. there will be a lot of solace to the parents and so on. so we weren't going to do it -- this isn't going to be our anniversary story. and we have tried to be
consistent about when there were information releases before, it was like, what does it tell you? you know, beyond the blacked out room, beyond the editing wick pede wikipedia accounts of mass murders. beyond the spreadsheets of mass killings, was there something you could work with with this kid? was he giving you a way in at any time? the kid was 112 pounds at 6 feet tall. it's like everything he did was pushing and pushing away. >> josh, thank you for reporting. thank you for coming in, and thank you for your consideration of the families throughout all of this. i appreciate it. >> sure, kate. >> thank you so much. remember, and honor those families and everyone, those beautiful faces and those beautiful lives we will remember today. we'll be right back. 4-w-p is more than a store.
do your rig right. shop online or find your store at 4-w-p.com. happening now, google ceo in the hot seat. big questions including from republicans who accuse the online giant of political bias. joining me now, what is going on here? >> we are seeing a lot of tech illat ras illiteracy. this is the first time google is in the hot seat. they have been handling it quite well. the questions are about conservative or liberal bias and search results. there is not a lot of evidence that exists. google is challenging the claims from lawmakers.
that's where we do see smart questions and important conversations happening about how our phones track us every day, all the time and how they use that data. the company said they are safe, but they need to be challenged. we also need to question google about you tube and conspiracy theories and hateful videos that spread on you tube. >> appreciate it. any moment now president trump is meeting with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer at the white house. can they strike a deal to keep the government from shutting down? that's next. ♪ there's no place like home ♪
welcome to inside politics. john king is off today. as we speak the president is meeting with congressional democratic leaders for the first time since the blue wave. will they cut a deal to avoid the partial government shut down? one potential candidate said john kelly's replacement needs to handle the subpoena cannon. some of the republican women left in the house and there are not many of them are trying to shake male colleagues to make them realize diversity is critical for the