tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN December 27, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
and your little dog, too. >> reporter: jeanne moos, cnn -- >> and it is a witch hunt. >> reporter: new york. >> you cursed brat. look what you've done. >> as is often the case, i'm not sure what to do with that one. thanks, everybody. "ac 360" starts right now. he's back. so now what? john berman in for anderson. president trump back from visiting the troops in iraq. he's back to the government shutdown, back to the west wing dysfunction, back on twitter. there are new developments in all those fronts tonight. chief among them is this, a big chunk of the government is likely closed until 2019. no hope to end the shutdown before the new year. the house and xhat senate reces today. the first lady left for florida,
leaving the chief executive to face the same demons that, wherever he goes, never seem to leave him. david gergen had this to say recently about the current one. the white house, he says, is closing down its adult daycare center. the last adults are leaving. leadership of the world is in the hands of an ego maniac who doesn't want weiss counselors around him. buckle up, these two years could be more turbulent than the last two. david joins us shortly. so does maggie haberman, who has done some reporting on the president's state of mind. first, the latest on the president's return and how he sees the landscape he now faces from cnn's abby phillip, who joins us now. so abby, the president has been all over twitter talking about the shutdown, seeming combative. does the mood in the white house match the president's twitter feed? >> reporter: john, the white house here has been rather dark the last few days, and that's kind of an encapsulation of the
broader mood here. this is a white house that is under siege by a number of different problems. the president is really taking them on, on his own, on the social media feed. but you don't see a lot of aides jumping in on that fight. president trump today, the topic was this government shutdown that is still ongoing. he's really on the defensive, trying to paint democrats as the ones being the obstructionist, but he sent out a second tweet that is telling of what's going on in his mind and the building behind me. the president said while democrats have ten votes, this is a president who is focused on his re-election prospects and knows that the next big thing that he has to contend with is the economy. these gyrations in the stock market have been something that's been on his mind constantly. and yesterday, when there was that massive 1,000 point rally in the stock market, he was on the phone, on air force one
traveling back from iraq, talking to aides, according to our hoarsesources. of course, the stock market has been going up and down the last few days. this is something that's close to the president's heart, because he knows that it's a reflection on him personally and also key to his re-election prospects. he knows that 2020 is all about the fate of the economy, and whether he can make the argument that he is the person keeping everything afloat. >> abby, what is the white house aides, what are they doing to end the shutdown? i ask this facetiously, but has jared kushner been on capitol hill negotiating? >> not at all. he's been out of washington. we haven't seen any movement at all here at the white house. there is no sign that aides are bustling around, trying to make this work, trying to come to resolution to this shutdown. and some ways, it seems everybody is waiting until next
week when nancy pelosi takes the gavel in the house of representatives, creating a new political environment. until then, it's just president trump and his twitter feed, making a public relations argument about who is to blame for the shutdown. but frankly we haven't seen anyone talking in real numbers and hard figures about what exactly they would accept in order to end the shutdown and perhaps come to a compromise with the democrats on capitol hill. >> abby phillip for us at the white house, somewhat dark behind you as you say literally and figuratively. joining us now is david gergen, author of that tweet we read at the maggie haberman is co-authr with peter baker of a great piece in "the times," for "for trump, a war waged every day increasingly alone." so maggie, the shutdown theatrics we've seen of the last two weeks, the president saying
he would own it, the president shutting down the government, and now the president more or less not negotiating, is this part of a grand vatstrategy? >> no. people who worked for the president over a long period of time will privately say he is somebody who exists in ten-minute kr increments of tim. that's what you're seeing. he did what he had to do in that oval office meeting. i think he and nancy pelosi got something out of that meeting where he said he would own the shutdown. that did not work. they were then going toward a deal. some members oh of the base got upset over that and other things about his presidency. he then tore up that deal and said he would be adamant about the wall and now he's gotten himself into a box where it is true that he can hold out and it is true generally, and david can speak more to this, shutdowns are not great for anybody. especially when congress'
numbers are not good. nancy pelosi has a lot of leverage, and i'm not sure why it would be in her best interest with a caucus that is very, very critical of trump, to make a deal they clearly don't feel like they have to. they just won the midterm cycle. >> if you gave the president truth serum and asked him, how do you think you'll get out of this shutdown, what would he say? >> i suspect, and i can't climb into his brain, it would be something to the effect of, we'll get there one way or the other. i'm going to win in some sense or another. we'll call whatever compromise they come up with a win. i just don't think it's going to be the win as he characterized it before. >> david gergen, the president does blame the democrats for the shutdown. that's a flip-flop. he said, i will own this shutdown. so how effectively will he be able to, after january 3rd, be able to sell the blame the democrats message? >> i think he's playing a losing hand, john. it all started back with that
meeting with nancy ploelselosi. my interpretation is that nancy ploe outmaneuvered him into that conversation. he backed himself into a corner and said i'll proudly shut down the government and since then, people have been saying, most recently a major poll that came out today 47-33, people blame the republicans in congress. or blame trump for the shutdown. they blame president trump, 47% blame trump, 33% blame the democrats. so i think he's playing from a losing position. and there's something else here, that is the public's reaction to the wall for a long time. robert frost captured this well in a poem that he wrote a long time ago, there was this line in there, something there is that doesn't level a wall, and that's true for the american people, they do not love the idea of a
wall. only 33% of the polls say it's worth shutting down the government to get the wall. i think he's ultimately going to have to surrender. >> a strong move, bringing out the robert frost. >> i knew you would like that. >> i appreciate that, david. maggie, the first lady, melania trump, has left for florida. he's gone back to mar-a-lago to be with her son, who is there. do you think that leans that the president, who has been in washington because of the shutdown, will end up in florida if >> my guess is he would always likely end up in florida. but he's said to a number of people he doesn't feel like he can do that, given the shutdown. we'll see if he sticks to that. they have that big party every year that he likes going to in mar-a-lago. he was looking forward to this trip. i think he's been looking forward to it less in recent weeks, because i think it's going to mean a ton of interfacing and answering questions that he doesn't have the answers to. but he does like having a break,
and he does like going down there. i will say in all the various venues i've seen him in, mar-a-lago is where he's seen the most happiest and contented. my money is that he get there is at some point, but who knows? >> david, is there any reason not to go other than the perception? >> i don't think so. there's nothing going to happen that he can work out there. i think coming out of the visit to iraq, he has some leeway to go there. yeah, it will be carping, but i don't think it will matter much. what his larger problem is what happens after january 3rd? the obvious play for nancy pelosi is to pass a bill in the democratic house, calling for a continuing resolution that goes up to february 8th, which is what the republicans in the senate accepted. once he puts a proposal on the table and he repuz fuses to acc
it, it just deepens the sense that he's holding out of stubbornness and ego. >> on the subject of things weighing on the president's mind, the stock market, the president called from air force one because he was pleased when the market went up 1,000 points, and who wouldn't be? but i think it shows an underlyingeni anxiety over the market swings. >> we reported in his complaints about jerome powell, the fed chair, that he described him as turning him in to hoover, meaning her vert hobert hoover. he is very concerned about it. he knows a bad economy makes it much harder to keep his approval ratings where they are, and they're not in a great place, and they make it harder to run for re-election, and not everyone is convinced he does. it's hard to see him walking away. the stock market has always been his poll, right? this is a person who likes to measure things through stats of some kind.
he -- it's hard to balance the trade war that he wants with the stock market that he wants. he's always testing whatever market is in front of him to see what it will absorb. he'll take this trade war as far as he can, and take a comeback like today to push it further. >> he has good reason to be watching the market and to be concerned? >> yes, he has every reason to do this. his major accomplishment has been the quality of the economy, and he's got good selling points for that for a long time, even though he didn't play them well in the midterms. in the last few weeks, he's too broken long time. he's broken two fundamental rules that most presidents follow. that is never tie your fortunes to the stock market. you really don't have control of it. and yes, you'll get some ups, but you'll get a lot of downs and volatility and confusion. tie your fortunes to unemployment, the rate of
inflation and that sort of thing. but for reasons unclear he's tied himself to the stock market. the second rule that some presidents have a hard time observing but is really important, don't challenge the independence of the federal reserve board. never challenge the fed chairman. once you do that, you put his manhood in question and he'll do the opposite of what you want as president just to show he's independent. but both those rules are really important and i don't understand how the president has gotten himself on the wrong side of both. >> i want to end with a great story about the president all alone, or increasingly alone in the white house with his own opinions. in a way, trusting himself more but more i think mistrustful of others. >> it's both. he had a great quote in "the washington post" where he said, i have a gut and my gut is better than most people's brains. that is what he thinks. when he was first on the job, i
think 4ehe was anxious and nervs enough about what he didn't know, that he was willing to listen to the judgment of others, enough that other people could slow him down. it's hard to get him off of something totally, but you could wait him out. then he started grinding down these guard rails. he grinded down jim mattis and john kelly. he believes in his own version of wisdom, and he also thinks that everybody wants something from him or is trying to get something from him, or trying to undermine him or all of the above. his circle has contracted enormously in the second half of this second year, and it will be interesting to see how that translates for the third year. >> happy new year. maggie, david, thanks for being with us. next, more on why the shutdown showdown could stretch into next year, and president trump's latest suggesting he's on the same page as former president obama on immigration. also tonight, the celebration to remember. these days in more ways than one, we'll show you what investigators want to know about
the presidential inauguration, including where all the money raised for it actually went. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the greatest wish of all is one that brings us together. the final days of wish list are here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla,75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression
or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. what would you like the power to do? ♪ listening to people answer that question, is how we find out what matters most to them. for a business, it's the power to grow. for an entrepreneur, it's the power to innovate. and for a family, it's the power to own a home. we stand with the ones who day in and day out put in the hard work to make things happen. for themselves, for their communities, and for the world we all share. we want to fuel their drive. and celebrate their accomplishments. that is what we're here for.
nobody knows young readers like we do... barnes & noble breaking news tonight. democrats and republicans, house and senate, all agreed on one thing today, they want to be elsewhere. each chamber bugged out, leaving the government with it willing chance of reopening any time soon. congressman mark meadows said, we could be in for a long-term shutdown. the president, as we mentioned before the break, has been tweeting up a storm about money for his border wall and tried to use his predecessor to justify his position. i agree, he wrote, retweeting a 2011 tweet from president obama, which reads, i strongly believe that we should take on once and for all the issue of illegal immigration. keeping them honest, that's a passage from obama's 2011 state of the union address and then president obama certainly wasn't talking about a wall.
the rest of his statement reads, and address the millions of up documented workers living in the shadows. i know that debate will be difficult. i know it will take time, but tonight, let's agree to make that effort and stop expelling talented, responsible young people. so more now on the current bargaining over those current young people, the wall, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers struggling to pay the bills. phil, it's looking pretty empty behind you. they left you in charge of everything and left town. what are lawmakers staying about the status of negotiations? >> reporter: basically at this point, look, the prevailing response i'm getting from staff and lawmakers who are working on this, or were working on this, is what you see is what you get. what you see is nobody is here. congress is out, lawmakers are at home. most didn't come back today. and the reality is, there's not
a lot going on behind the scenes, either. usually in moments like there, there are negotiations behind the scenes. there are lawmakers shuffling back and forth, and i'm told that is not happening right now. the reality has set in, republicans, democrats, house and senate, nothing is going to happen before the start of 2019, and nothing is likely to happen before house democrats take the majority january 3rd. the reason why is because there's no incentive for either side. democrats on one side and the president on the other, to come to an agreement. democrats are firm with their offers and stance. they're firm that their political base and rank and file are behind him, and the president has made clear this is a fight he wants to have, and this is a fight that his base, and talkradio, and conservative pundits, are behind him on. until that dynamic shifts, basically until one side is punished enough politically that they give in or cry uncle, this is not going to change, and
right now, there's no sense for really anybody involved here on capitol hill that the change, when it does come, is coming any time soon. >> so there were duelling statements about who has done what. what has been put on the table? >> reporter: details are important and are going to dictate how this comes to an end. here's what's been put on the table. the president made no secret, his top number for the wall was $5 billion. we know from sources that last week, vice president mike pence and mick mulvaney put a different offer on the table, $2.5 billion for border security. democrats, on the other hand, have been clear. they are sticking at their number, which is $1.3 billion for border security, which includes fencing, and they are not budging off of that. so the administration has come down, but nowhere near where democrats are. when you talk to democrats right
now, they're less concerned what the administration will offer, but more concerned what nancy pelosi will do. democrats are planning lobbing over a series of bills to reopen the government. a short-term stop gap bill to fund all of the appropriations bills that are outstanding save for the wall money. they're going to try to jam senate republicans and try to force the president's hand here. the big thing you need to keep in mind, senate republicans have been burned on a short-term measure before. there was one passed in the senate, they made very clear, they're not moving on anything until the president says what he's for, and that is why people think this is going to take longer than a few days. >> phil mattingly, thank you very much for being with us. perspective now, joining us mark short, simone sanders, welcome to you both.
mark short, the president initially said he would own a shutdown. now he's squarely blaming the democrats. that seems to defy the law of physics and politics. how can you own and blame? >> well, john, i don't think that he was going to own the shutdown, i agree with you on that point, but the reality that the democrats face to phil's reporting is they come back, they pass their own bills, bhu they'll continue to put out these talking points that they point border security, but the evidence suggests otherwise. they voted against removal of ms-13, every measure they voted against. so they risk as well painting themselves in a corner of looking weak on border security. >> but they did vote for the $1.3 billion in board e security and would support that continuing resolution. simone sanders, the president left the door open, it seemed yesterday, to $2 billion.
he won't answer questions. he was asked, would you sign a bill that allowed for $2 billion in spending for board security. so if that's the difference, did they risk looking like they're prolonging this just out of spite? >> no, because the president forced this shutdown, and he is the sole reason the government is shut down. republicans today on the house floor, although democrats and republicans were at work today, and brett mcgovern, the ranking member on the rules committee, had a motion, and he wanted a motion to start debate to reopen the government and the republicans wouldn't hear it. so the ball is in the president's court. and every day that this shutdown drags on, it's hurting millions of americans. it doesn't matter if they're democrats or republicans, independents, they work at the justice department, the department of homeland security. so this is really about border security, i think the president should be willing to come to the
table, compromise, because he's the only person here not moving. and get this government reopened. >> mark, simone brought up an interesting point, because the president wrote this on twitter today. he said most of the people out of work because of this shutdown, they ea're democrats. i have no idea how the president knows that, but is that effective messaging saying that? >> no. i think the reality is, it doesn't matter if they're republicans or democrats, they're people serving our government and we should be helping to help get them back to work as fast as possible. when we talk about the bills offered today, it was offered with zero funding for border security. that's where democrats paint themselves in that corner. >> i think it's important, john, that -- there are two things on the table. there are three separate options the democrats have put on the table for republicans and the president. the fact is, the president is dead set in his ways about wanting this wall, this wall
that well over 57% of americans say they don't want, a wall over 52% of americans in a pbs npr poll said they didn't want the government to be shut down over. a wall he said mexico would pay for. so democrats are fine with funding border security. we want the border to be secure. funding the department of homeland security is something that has been done in the past, that folks will continue to do. but what democrats are not going to budge on, is this unnecessary wall that the president told us mexico would pay for. so it's time that donald trump stops with this temper tantrum. >> but she says democrats support border security without saying what they support. there are been lots of votes to change immigration laws, but none with democratic support. so they continue to say they support border security but no evidence that they would. >> what is the $1.3 billion that the senate passed? that's a continuing resolution
that would go to border security, yes? >> it is part of the overall bill, but any single measure we put forward to say here are additional rules, they backtrack. we'll continue to see democrats support the $1.3 when they take back the house. >> simone, i don't think that this was the plan. nancy pelosi would have pr preferred this be taken care of before she takes the gavel. does this gum up the works for the way democrats want to portray their new time in power in the house? >> you know what, john? this is really unfortunate, because the american people sent a message loud and clear in the midterm elections. and the closing argument for the republicans, including for donald trump, was this scary immigration policy, build the wall, we need the wall, these migrants are invading our
country, and the american people rejected that. they sent democrats to control the house of representatives to get something done and get to work. so i just really think that, again, the government could be reopened at any time if the president would get on board with the rest of america. >> the government will not be reopened before january 3rd. that seems iv den s evident. the president is hunkering down for a long shutdown. how long do you think we're looking at now? >> i think this likely can go on for many weeks. there's little incentive for either side to compromise. i think i said a few weeks ago, if we reached a point of a shutdown, it's likely to go on for some time. >> thanks so much for being with us. president trump's tv lawyer, rudy giuliani, seems to be moving the goal posts when it comes to whether anyone in the trump administration received advanced warning from wikileaks. just ahead, we have the latest. i've always been amazed by what's next.
and still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding.
don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden sign of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. voice-command navigation with waze wifi wireless charging 104 cubic feet of cargo room and seating for 8. now that's a sleigh. ford expedition. built for the holidays. (hurry!) it's the final days to get zero percent financing plus twelve hundred and fifty dollars ford credit bonus cash on ford expedition
the trump campaign received advanced warning from wikileaks of e-mails damaging to the democrats in 2016. in a telephone interview, rudy giuliani says president trump had no contact with wikileaks, but he claims even if someone inside or associated with the campaign got material directly or indirectly, as long as they weren't involved in hacking, giuliani says there's no problem. >> i don't know if other people contacted with wikileaks, but it's hard to understand what the crime would be if they did. >> here to help me sort this out, jeffrey toobin. so jeffrey, giuliani left open the possibility that other people besides the president may have been in contact with wikileaks but says he's not sure what the crime would be, even if they were. >> i think we're many the end game of preparing for the mueller report. and i think what rudy giuliani is doing is he's preparing to make arguments based on the facts that mueller finds.
one of them, it appears, may be that contrary to what they said earlier, there were contacts between people affiliated with the trump campaign, perhaps roger stone and wikileaks, and the question will be, is there anything improper or illegal about that? giuliani is asserting no. it may be somewhat more complicated than that. >> right. there's an interesting legal question here, which has to do with what is wikileaks, correct in >> absolutely. if -- you know, if someone tells the trump campaign that cnn is going to report x, y, and z, and then they get that add vanvance knowledge, there's certainly nothing improper about receiving that information. wikileaks is or is not a journalistic organization. when pompeo was director of the cia, he made very clear his view that it was not a journalist
organization. it was an arm essentially of the russian government, which creates a different set of legal questions. in any case, it's also true that the relationship between the trump campaign and wikileaks may have gone beyond simply receiving information from wikileaks. there may have been coordination, there may have been collusion to use the famous word. and those facts are actually more important than any sort of advanced spin on the legalities. >> and there might be a legal issue but there will be political ramification it is that contact took place. >> especially since the president himself and the trump campaign and all of its surrogates have been saying for literally years now there were no contacts between wikileaks and the trump campaign. >> which again, to go back to your first answer is why it's so interesting that giuliani is opening the door to the possibility that there were
those contacts. i want to get your take on two contradicting statements he gave about whether or not the president would answer more questions from the spec. he said this in an interview with the hill. listen. >> not answering any more questions from these people. we did enough. >> so that's what he said out loud. he spoke to the daily beast and said, and i'll give you the reading, negotiations haven't ended yet, they haven't ended because it's not just my opinion matters, there are other lawyers involved and the president of the united states, of course. my opinion is, i don't trust them. so we hear him out loud saying, there's no way he's going to answer more questions. then we read that statement saying we're still talking about it. >> i believe the former more than the latter. i don't believe the president is going to make any more statements. i think he wants to give the impression that donald trump feels he has nothing to hide. he wants to answer all the
questions. but the lawyeris are saying thi needs to come to an end. the short version is he ain't talking to them. in print, writing, orally not at all. >> we're also seeing rudy giuliani acting more as a flak than a lawyer. he's just filling air time with the hill, giving interviews. and if he contradicts himself, who cares? >> that's been the job since day one. he has been a public relations advocate for the president. sometimes more effectively than others. mostly it seems for providing talking points to fox news so that they can continue offering the defense of the day. but, you know, on the legalities, the former mayor has had some problems along the way. >> stick around, if you will. we want to get your insight on another controversy for the white house. this goes back to the start of the administration, the
the white house was quickly proven wrong about the supposedly record breaking record at president trump's inauguration, but the event did make history in one area, the cost. the bill came in at more than double to salute his two predecessors, and nearly two years later, the money trail is another area of the president's universe reportedly under investigation. randi kaye continues her special series to show us how the swearing in may be creating more legal headaches as the administration heads into year three. >> starting right here and right now -- >> reporter: $107 million. that's how much donald trump's inaugural committee raised in donations for the event. now federal prosecutors want to know if any of that money was misspent. and perhaps more importantly, did top donors pay big money in ex-change for access and
influence in the trump white house? "the wall street journal" first broke the story. >> part of this is certainly looking at what these donors gave and what they expected or received. but it's also partly about what happened with the inaugural committee's expenditures. >> reporter: this all apparently stems from the raid on former president trump attorney michael cohen's office. according to "the wall street journal," investigators seized a conversation of a conversation between cohen and a woman, a former adviser to melania trump, and one of the key planners for donald trump's 2017 inauguration. she reportedly expressed concern during that conversation about how the inaugural committee was spending money. >> this is a wow. >> reporter: top baric, who ran the inaugural committee, denied there was a new investigation, adding he had been questioned about it in 2017. the white house is distancing itself from the probe. >> that doesn't have anything to
do with the president or the first lady. the biggest thing the president did in his engagement in inauguration was to come here and raise his hand and take the oath of office. >> reporter: meanwhile, an investigation found that the inauguration paid the trump organization for rooms, meals, and event space at trump's washington hotel. and ivanka trump, the president's daughter and a senior executive at the trump organization, was involved in negotiating the prices at above market value for venue rentals by the inaugural committee. a spokesman for ivanka's lawyer said ivanka said discussions should be at a fair market rate. and it isn't just about the money. "the washington post" reports that certain attendees at the inauguration also reportedly caught the attention of counterintelligence officials at the fbi. though it's unclear which attendees. the paper reported that victor vexleberg, a tycoon aligned with
putin's government, attended inaugural events, along with the russian lawyer whose meeting with donald trump, jr., at trump tower in june 2016, is now under scrutiny. >> congratulations, mr. president. >> reporter: it's part of why federal prosecutor are zeroing in on the day donald trump officially became the 45th president of the united states. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> and so the second half of president trump's term, one which he vowed to drain the swamp, will begin about questions of the priciest inauguration in u.s. history. joining me tonight is greg jenkins, and jeffrey toobin. so greg, randi mentioned this in her piece, $107 million, which is about double what then president george bush raised for his second inauguration. you had a smaller staff. you had more events.
what do you make about the trump amount? >> i can't figure it out. they actually raised more than twice the amount that we raised. i think adjusted for current dollars, the amount we raised comes out to be about $54 million, which is quite a bit less. the two biggest costs are the events and staff. we had three times as many staff and four times as many events. so where that money went, i couldn't tell you. >> it has to go somewhere though, doesn't it? >> it ought to. if i were a donor -- since they put on so many -- they put on fewer events than we did, the two ways you raise money in an inaugural are by ticket sales and by donors. since they did four times fewer events than we did, that's proportionally a lot less money that they're raising from ticket sales and donors. so most of the money came from
donors. if i were a donor, i would like to know where that money went. i can't explain it. >> so jeffy toobin, what is the biggest legal issue here, as far as you see, the accounting of the money or perhaps there was some pay to play? >> i think the first question is, did someone steal the money? if the money didn't go to salaries or events, did someone put it in their pocket? that's a straightforward factual issue that an audit should be able to determine. then you get into the other subsidiary questions, which are, was there some sort of improper motive, improper connection between donors and what they got. it is worth remembering that our whole political system at some level is based on pay to play. people give money to the inaugural -- for mixed motives at best. so i think that is very much a subsidiary question, unlikely to be proven improper.
but if somebody stole the money, they stole the money and that's obviously a crime. >> and greg, randi kaye, we heard from sarah sanders in the piece and she says that president trump, now president trump's only role in the inauguration was to take the oath of office. does that seem plausible to you, that he had no idea what was going on underneath him? >> that seems really implausible to me. what was for then president-elect trump, a three or four-day globally televised reality television show, starring one person, it seems unlikely he wouldn't pay attention at all. >> especially a guy who we know is deeply involved in his businesses, jeff. >> yes, and the role of the trump international hotel is particularly interesting and important here. several of the events were held at the hotel run by the trump organization. ivanka trump apparently was involved in setting the prices, which may have been unduly high.
certainly the question of how much money went to the trump family is one of the questions the investigators will want to know the answer to. >> is that illegal necessarily? >> it depends. if it's simply high prices paid for a fancy hotel, there's nothing illegal about that. if there was outright graft or theft of money, that certainly is illegal. but i certainly want to suggest that on the part of the trumps. but certainly the administrators of this $100 plus million have to answer questions about where did the money go? that's a basic question that presumably should have a fairly straightforward answer. >> greg, you ran the show for the second inauguration of george w. bush. you had the advantage of having seen one inauguration before and the whole bush crew had the advantages of seeing the inauguration of george h.w.
bush. so in theory you all knew how it was supposed to go. if the trump team uses the excuse hey, we came from the business world, we didn't know what >> no, it really isn't. things don't change that much from one inauguration to another. it's roughly the same vendors in d.c. it's roughly the same venues. it's the same buildings. it's fairly the same, pretty much the same. if you're looking at this from a business perspective, to spend -- to raise $107 million without a budget, or if they had a budget, to ignore the budget, is one of the worst business moves i can think of. >> and also, just to emphasize the point that greg made, you're talking about events in hotels. you have to pay the hotel, you have to pay for entertainment, you have to pay for security. it's not the world's most complicated transaction, it's not like building a car from scratch. so the idea that it is somehow
wildly different in 2017 as opposed to 2013 or 2009 or 2005 is ridiculous. >> and the point greg made, it was far fewer events in this inauguration than before, which makes it all the more confounding. >> i would make another point, that they weren't coming into this blind. after senator obama was elected to the presidency, i spoke with him incoming executive director of his inaugural to give him a download of my learnings. i did the same thing with president-elect trump's executive director. >> hmm. >> so they did know what to expect. >> you warned him. greg jenkins, jeffrey toobin, thank you very much. >> my pleasure. ahead, a new look at a "saturday night live" legend who brought laughs and change. gilda radner. anderson talks to one of her good friends as comedic giants come together for "love gilda,"
she was the first cast member hired for "saturday night live." gilda radner left behind unforgettable characters, including roseanne rosanna danna. >> dear roseanne rosanna danna. >> she showed courage and wisdom while battling ovarian cancer that took her from us at age 42. we her her castmates' memories in the premier of "love gilda." anderson spoke to legendary producer and writer alan zweibel. >> you created some of the most iconic characters, roseanne rosanna danna.
>> we did that one, and emily lutena, she refined it and made it what it was. >> i remember as a kid, roseanne rosanna dana did something on my mom. >> every time we did roseanne rosanna dana, we would pick a celebrity that roseanne rosanna dana would see in some compromising position or some embarrassing situation, and i think your mom had toilet paper on her shoe. >> that i remember. >> there was an incident that happened with the censor. what happened with, i had written a line where gilda would name your mom and identify, you know that scmancy-fancy lady who took her family's good name and put it on every ass in america.
well, this is 1977. and the censor comes out and he says, you can't do "ass," it sounds a little crazy now. he says, can you do tush? no. it's got to be ass. he was a good guy, his name was bill cloutworthy, and he said, okay, why don't you say put it on every ass but instead of saying in america, say every ass who would buy them. so the word "ass" now changed from being your butt to you being stupid enough to buy them. that he led on. the audience laughed when they heard the word "ass." and they never even heard what came after. so it was fine. >> this was introducing her to people who don't know her beyond "saturday night live." it was just incredible. >> boy, did i get lucky.
there was belushi, aykroyd, gilda, lorraine newman. >> i remember as a kid i had a book which was like scripts from the original "saturday night live," i don't know why they published it, but there was something, i can't remember what it was, it was some takeoff on hamburger helper. >> placenta helper. al franken. it's unbelievable, i'll watch an old show and i can footnote it, who wrote what, who came and threw in that joke. placenta helper is something that the first day when i met al, and he had a partner, tom davis, it was franken and davis, they wouldn't shot up about placenta helper. >> thank you for talking to us. >> cnn films premiers "love gilda" on tuesday, new year's night, 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on cnn. a reminder, don't miss "full
circle," our daily interactive newscast on facebook when you get to vote on stories we cover. watch on facebook.com/andersoncooperfull circle. right now, cnn special report, "the battle in the briefing room: the president versus the press," hosted by randi kaye. >> announcer: the following is a cnn special report. welcome to the white house briefing room. >> i know it's hard for you to understand. >> what are you? this is silly. >> when briefings happen, it can feel like a war room. >> my colleagues refer to it as "beat the press." >> you said something from the podium. was it accurate or not? >> i'm not going to engage on matters that are in the jurisdiction of the counsel. >> if you