Skip to main content

tv   Anderson Cooper 360  CNN  January 15, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST

5:00 pm
>> was it 300, and then suddenly it was 1,000? just count. thanks for joining us. don't forget you can watch out front anytime. ac 360 with anderson begins right now. good evening from washington. two big stories tonight. and even if they're not interconnected, at least not quite yet chances are they soon will be. the russia investigation and the man who will have the final say in it. how the president's pick for attorney general acquitted himself today. first, though we have breaking news in the mueller probe. a new court filing from the special counsel that conceals quite a bit but also speaks volumes at the same time. talk about what's in this filing. >> there's really a lot, anderson. we say they have redacted a lot of information. they have concealed a lot of information. but when you read through these documents it's 80 pages of exhibits and evidence essentially against paul manafort and then 30 pages of an
5:01 pm
affidavit from an fbi agent that really gives you a blow-by-blow list of how paul manafort lied to the special counsel. and one of the things that we learned is he lied about the frequency of contacts that he had with this russian by the name of consen teen kilimik, that the fbi and mueller has accused of him working for russian intelligence and the gru. and you have things about business dealings, paul manafort's business dealings, meetings he had. there's information about another doj investigation that we know-nothing about that paul manafort was asked questions about. and then of course there's information in there about rick gates. this was paul manafort's deputy during the campaign. he's cooperating with the mueller investigation. he gave over a lot of information concerning paul manafort, but one of the essential things in all of this is that this shows us that the grand jury here in washington, d.c. still very active and at
5:02 pm
the center perhaps of all of this in this collusion investigation is this russian consen teen kilmnik. >> and part of the filings today revealed manafort began communicating with him while he was campaign chairman to then candidate donald trump. and that's important because for a long time now a lot of the president's supporters and from the white house we've been hearing well, whatever paul manafo manafort did it was long before he had anything to do with the campaign. >> right, and that clearly tells us that's not the case. and he shared those secret internal campaign polls with during the campaign. other information, he's met with this man several times. it would seem through these documents that consen teen kilinik is still very much at play in all of this and that the grand jury is still very much investigating him and he could potentially face more charges. i think this is very important in terms of what this russian
5:03 pm
investigation is and what robert mueller has been mandating to do which is to investigate russian interference in the 2016 election. >> and we learned also today according to mueller they need more time with rick gates, they need like another 60 days. >> yes, so he was due from a sentencing update, a report from the mueller team. today they asked for an extension, 60 days as you said. he's still cooperating, he's still providing information, and these documents lay out some of what that information is. but also what it could tell us is maybe this is not going to wrap up as quickly as we thought because they're not ready to sentence him and they now need two more months. >> as that was unfolding president trump's choice to run the justice department went before the senate judiciary committee. william barr had certainly been there before. he was attorney general during the first george bush administration. he's known and respected in washington on both sides of the aisle, and perhaps in other circumstances a confirmation hearing would come and go
5:04 pm
without much attention. keeping them honest to say if and when mr. barr is confirmed he'll take the job at the most consequential moment for the rule of law since probably watergate. it's generated equal measures of relief and concern. there were plenty of supporters and skeptics alike today. he would not terminate mueller in his words without good cause and vouch for the investigation. >> would you believe mr. mueller would be involved in a witch hunt against anybody? >> i don't believe mr. mueller would be involved in a witch hunt. >> however, later in the proceedings after much of the live coverage went dark the nominee without prompting returned to that subject. >> are you concerned in having written about morality and consensus in our society, are you concerned about the way donald trump undermines the institutions in our society that help us to maintain a moral
5:05 pm
consensus? >> no, senator. and i tried to make a point about the witch hunt, which is we have to remember that the president is the one that, you know, has denied that there was any collusion and has been steadfast in that. so presumably he knows facts. >> well, on the other side of the ledger he also said he won't be bullied by the president but he needn't pledge to necessarily recuse himself nor did he commit to making any mueller report public or to provide and i'm quoting now, as much transparency as i can consistent with the law. one senator on the skeptical side senator richard bloomenthal. >> what i'm seeing is the possibility that he could invoke unknown rules and regulations that would permit him to say no
5:06 pm
to a subpoena, no to an indictment, no to resources, no to an additional area of investigation that is directly related to russian interference in our elections or obstruction and conspiracy. >> well, senator bloomenthal sits on the judiciary committee and tonight he's sitting next to me. i want to get to what we heard today from barr, but just about shimon procupez was reporting, how serious do you think that is? >> it is very serious because it relates to a key figure in vladimir putin's orbit and a potential russian agent. but equally significant is the clear sign that this investigation is far from done. >> right. if they need 60 more days just for rick gates there's no telling what the time line is. >> exactly. and i've been saying for some time that robert mueller has
5:07 pm
miles to go in this investigation. anybody watching it, seeing all the leads that are uncovered, the additional witnesses that he is using are and he's using rick gates because obviously the agreement with manafort fell apart for his cooperation. but 60 days is in my view just the beginning. and the reason why it's so important is it goes back directly to the lack of a specific commitment, ironclad and strong commitment that he would protect against any attempt to restrict subpoenas or witnesses, open investigation, resources. these questions are all very relevant. >> in your opinion, there were too many kind of loopholes barr gave himself in his testimony today. >> to mean loopholes and gaps, for example, on recusal issue. he's written a memo that basically would put the president above the law against
5:08 pm
any obstruction charges. and he refused to say that he would recuse himself if ethics officials and experts of the department of justice advised him to do so. and most important, here's the key gap in his testimony. we will never see the mueller report. neither congress nor the public will ever see the special counsel report if william barr is confirmed and he carries out the scope and approach that he took today. >> he essentially said he wants to be as trance parent as possible under the law. >> as transparent as possible under the rules and regulations. and clearly now in my view congress needs to mandate more transparency for this report. because what he intends to do is to take the mueller report and then issue the barr report. and he refused in response to my questions to commit that he would tell us even what he is deleting or editing out of that
5:09 pm
report. >> you also asked him if a sitting president could be indicted. i want to play just a short clip of his response. >> you know, for 40 years the position of the executive branch has been you can't indict a sitting president. >> i actually haven't read those opinions in a long time, but i see no reason to change them. >> that is, i mean the widely accepted policy. i think mueller seems to be working under that guideline as well. does that concern you? >> i'm concerned because my own view is the president can be indicted. there's nothing in the constitution to prevent it, and it may be necessary to prevent the statute of limitations from running on like a very serious charge like obstruction of justice. >> there's precedent and this is widely accepted precedent, isn't that important? >> there is no precedent. there's an office of legal
5:10 pm
counsel opinion, there may be two of them. they are as mr. barr said today quite old, they have never been litigated. and in my view, the better view of the law is the president can be indicted. >> i'm curious -- president trump has made very clear his opinion on jeff sessions even though he was executing judges very effectively. if the president thought barr was a patsy or he was just going to go along, that's not the impression a lot of observers got today. why do you think the president picked barr sph. >> well, i think one view is that he gave a signal in that memo that he wrote that the president cannot be charged or perhaps even accountable for crimes like obstruction of justice because of the view that the president has control over
5:11 pm
the entire executive branch. it's this unitary view of the executive branch that in fact would put the president above the law. and he has a great deal of credibility by virtue of his experience and his expertise that would enable him to take that very constrained and constricted view of the law and yet make it salable and credible. >> senator blumenthal, i appreciate your time. joining us now is cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin and our cnn analyst gloria borger. jeff, do you agree is barr leaving wiggle room in his testimony? >> i think there's a lot of wiggle room in the disclosure of the report. i thought it was as close to as iron clad as possible he won't fire mueller. i just don't think that is in the cards. but on the report it was very, frankly, confusing testimony. and there were several places where he did even suggest that he might only release a summary
5:12 pm
of the -- of mueller's report, which i think would be totally unacceptable to the house of representatives. and that would certainly lead to litigation between the house and the executive branch. >> but he has the power to do that? >> he seems to under the regulation. the regulation itself is pretty vaguely and oddly written. so it places a lot of power in the supervisor who is the attorney general. so i was certainly struck by the weasel words in terms of the report. >> is that a legal term? >> yes, that's a legal term. as for firing mueller i think it's really not going to happen. >> gloria, there was a lot of focus on this unsolicited memo that barr sent earlier to the justice department basically saying that the mueller investigation was fatally misconceived. democrats pushed back a lot on
5:13 pm
this. barr seemed to say, you know, this was not an audition for a job. >> right. he said that was ludicrous, and of course it wasn't. by the way, he not only sent it to folks at the justice department but he also sent it to the president's lawyers. the raskins and the jay seck lows. and even if he didn't give them the piece of paper he certainly discussed what was in it. and i think the president knew. he recalled today the president actually at one point had tried to hire him as his personal counsel, they had a meeting. and the president raised what do you think of mueller, and at that meeting he said, i said he's a straight shooter and he should be dealt with as such. and the president asked him about mueller's integrity. so we know he didn't hire him because he thought mueller was a good guy and straight shooter. there had to be another reason. well, the reason was this memo which said that one particular case of obstruction was a case
5:14 pm
that mueller should not make, and it wouldn't stand up and he went into great detail on it, which i think would please the president. >> i also want to bring in senior former justice department carrie -- i'm wondering overall what you made? >> so a couple of things. first i thought that he conveyed he's going to bring back regular order to the department of justice, he's going to follow the rules and norms and he believes in the integrity of the department and the institutional independence. i thought that was a really positive sign for people in the justice department and for justice department watchers. and the esecond thing is i did hear him say things that indicated he believes there is some limit, an outer limit on the executive powers in that he conveyed that the president can abuse executive authority in some way. and the way that he described
5:15 pm
that pertain today the pardoning power, where he said the president used the pardoning power in a way that would be trying to tamper with a witness or obstruct the witness, that would be an example of a president abusing his power. and for somebody who subscribes to a strong executive power legal interpretation, i thought that was an important thing for him to say today. >> david, this is in support of the president, do you think barr is the person the president needs? >> well, listen, just to drill down on that ill conceived notion of the mueller investigation and that one line, if you read the reports of this matter -- i've not read barr's memo, but what he's speaking about is if we're going it remove this president it should be for something that's -- you know, a duly elected president of the united states should be something everyone agrees is a crime, and barr said this notion he somehow obstructed because he fired comey that's not clear-cut
5:16 pm
in barr mind to remove a sitting president. so it's a fairly narrow if you look at it and drill down on it, it's fairly narrow. you need a strong hand of the department of justice. whether the president knows what he's getting, gloria said he went in there and said what do you think of mueller, mueller's a straight shooter and should be dealt with that way. barr and the muellers were friends. he knew exactly what he was getting into when he brought this attorney general. >> later in the day he sort of defended the president, used the term saying presumably he has a better understanding of the facts. >> well, he's playing to two audiences. the first i think is the committee. and he did pretty well. i talked to democrats on the hill including some members of the committee who thought he did pretty well. particular when senator feinstein asked directly would
5:17 pm
you fire mueller and no, no, so that was very good. the attorney general has to step aside if it involves directly the president. it's a pretty common standard that's been happening for many times in other administrations. he weaseled on that of course because that's why president trump fired sessions. he couldn't bear sessions didn't keep control. and the second thing is he wouldn't commit to releasing the report. jeffrey talked about that. that's politically unattenable. 75% of republicans want that report released. npr did a report on this. 6%. so that's unattainable politically and i think it would be explosive if the attorney general of the united states says i've got to report but i want to show you what i want. >> it'll get leaked. >> there's national security
5:18 pm
concerns, there's privacy concerns. there are legitimate issues here at play. >> there are legitimate issues here but there are much bigger issues compelling the release. >> not it'll be redacted in portions of. look, chuck grassly hear what he said he thinks it should be released. >> let's hold this. we'll continue the discussion after the break. we'll also play what will iam barr told the president. later one of the most divisive figures here in washington, congressman steve king. what could possibly get almost every single one of his colleagues to agree on? find out ahead. get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. - with tripadvisor finding the right hotel at the lowest price is as easy as dates, deals, done. going on a work trip? dates, deals, done.
5:19 pm
destination wedding? dates, deals, done. because with tripadvisor all you have to do is enter the dates of your stay and we'll take care of the rest: searching over 200 booking sites to find you the best deal it's as easy dates, deals, you know the rest. (owl hoots) read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do, tripadvisor.
5:20 pm
the best simple salad ever?d great tasting, heart-healthy california walnuts. so simple, so good. get the recipes at itin 30,000 precision parts. or it isn't. it's inspected by mercedes-benz factory-trained technicians. or it isn't. it's backed by an unlimited mileage warranty, or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned, or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through february 28th.
5:21 pm
only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. touch shows how we really feel. but does psoriasis ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz, the first and only treatment of its kind offering people with moderate to severe psoriasis a chance at 100% clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of people quickly saw a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur.
5:22 pm
ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz. hey, darryl. would you choose the network rated #1 in the nation by the experts, or the one awarded by the people? uh... correct! you don't have to choose, 'cause, uh... oh! (vo) switch to the network awarded by rootmetrics and j.d. power. buy the latest galaxy phones, get galaxy s9 free. one of the questions hanging over william barr's nomination for attorney general is what the president thinks he's getting out of it. then on the other side of the ledger there's this. >> it was a very brief meeting where essentially the president wanted to know -- he said, oh,
5:23 pm
bob mueller, how well do you know bob mueller? and i told him how well i know bob mueller and how the barres and muellers are good friends and would be good friends when this is all over and so forth. and he was interested in that and wanted to know what i thought of mueller's integrity and so forth and so on. and i said i thought mueller was a straight shooter and should be dealt with as such. >> why don't i just fire mueller? well, i think it's a disgrace what's going on. i think we've wasted enough time on this witch hunt. it's a disgraceful situation. it's a total witch hunt. i've been saying it for a long time. this is the most conflicted group of people i've ever seen. >> plenty to talk about. it is interesting he was asked during the hearing if he's concerned with the way the
5:24 pm
president has undermined institutions and he said no. >> he said no, and i thought barr had a great argument that undernev i had never heard before. confirm because i'm so old. i'm 68 years old. i'm not going to mess with this stuff. i'm not angling for another job. and he said if i were 45 or 50 maybe i would. which is interesting why there are people 45 and 50 working for the government. but he really seemed like a guy who was trying to be a straight shooter and do the right thing. >> david, why do you think the report should not be made public? >> no, i think the report should be made public. i think there are portions of of the report for national security reasons, i don't want to call it the exact legal term, but people that were involved that were innocent that shouldn't be dragged in the mud. >> do you agree with paul if it is not in fact released or
5:25 pm
redacted from, whatever, politically that's not attentable? >> listen, the reason i think this president is so upset with this investigation is he thinks it undermines his election. he was elected by the american people and he believes somehow this undermines -- that the russians elected him and it didn't really happen. if bob mueller comes out and says, look, the russians did this, but at the end of the day donald trump was elected americans deserve to hear that. >> i think a lot of republicans agree with you. you heard chuck grassly say today the american public has spent $25 million on this. >> i think it's more $25 million from manafort. >> here's the thing about the report, the regulations don't actually specify what the report is going to look like. i think it's very unlikely
5:26 pm
knowing how bob mueller works and how he would adhere to the role of a prosecutor, i think it's unlikely we're going to see anything hat looks like a report that came out of the starr inquiry. it's not going to necessarily be an entire narrative written with a bow wrapped around this that says here's the entire thing with the press conference -- it may not be that. >> the statute said that's not how it's going to be. >> i think that's part of why the nominee today was reluctant to commit to what he would then provide. because he doesn't know if that's going to look like a prosecuted memo that recommends here's the charges we brought, here's the charges we couldn't bring and so he's not going to do what jim come ey was accused of doing which was providing derogatory information against someone who was not worthy of being prosecuted. >> and barr raised that today because it was an outrage for
5:27 pm
comey. barr said he cannot be indicted and the office of legal counsel has for many years said he cannot be indicted. they have to speak through this report and he better put everything in it, and we better see it. >> again, the format necessarily isn't as relevant as the fact that then if they adopt the department of justice long-standing decision that the president cannot be indicted what they would do is they would lay out the facts. here's what a case would look like because of this legal interpretation we're not going to actually take it to a grand jury, and then they refer that to congress. >> but there who have been saying that mueller's court filings have been giving more information than normally a prosecutor might, and supposition is that he's essentially trying to get that information out into the public if it may be hidden in the report. >> right. i don't know inobservers i know feel that he's speaking through all of these different
5:28 pm
indictments. i'm inclined to think that he's bringing the cases he's bringing because he believes that those are, that's the venue in which to do it, and so he's putting the things in the indictment -- >> the two points you're making are not contradictory. i mean, the fact he's trying to tell the story but he's also trying to bring these cases. anderson, the point you made about he's trying to tell the story through his legal filing i think is absolutely true. look at the case against -- the social media case against the russians, the hacking case against the russians. those are stories he's telling through the indictment that he probably will never get to tell in the report and i think that's intentional. >> and i think he can do that in his final report. this isn't his first rodeo. he knows what's going to be redacted and what's not. so what it he writes a report with an an exat the back that includes the national security
5:29 pm
stuff but the report itself is written as a story for the american public to read and there's nothing in it to redact. >> the one difference with the case jeffrey mentioned which i agree on the russian cases those are never going to go to trial. so the only venue that there is for those in a court pleading to be demonstrated is through those charging documents. a referral to congress for the president would be something different. senate lawmakers including republicans challenging the president against sanctions on russians, taking a harder line than the president wants. so there was a vote and it was a rebuke to the trump administration. talk about what it was voted on and what's the latest. >> reporter: that's right. a very rare rebuke, i should note, anderson,al coming from capitol hill. 11 republican senators tonight, they broke ranks and voted with democrats today to push a democratic resolution for the democratic resolution attempts to stop and essentially reject
5:30 pm
the trump administration plan to ease sanctions on three companies with ties to oleg deripaska there. he is a russian oligarch and has links to the kremlin. notice this is procedural vote, but the note the numbers. they got double that amount, 11 republicans voted and democratic senators say that is significant. and certainly we heard concerns from them going into that vote tonight they didn't necessarily want the trump administration to move to ease these sanctions and especially notable at the white house behind the scenes was really lobbying republican senators to tow the line, to stay in line here and not break ranks. that really did not happen tonight. >> and when do we see a final vote in the senate? >> there is another vote
5:31 pm
tomorrow. that means democrats have to pick up even more republican senators than they need today to advance that forward. the house has introduced a parallel measure. but the important thing to note is that thursday is the deadline for them to all figure this out if they want to indeed use that authority to reject the moves by the administration. >> all right, appreciate it. more breaking news coming up. by nearly unanimous vote the house of representatives today voted to disapprove of iowa republican steve king in the wake of his racist remarks. pressure for king to resign. we'll have the latest on that ahead. ♪ turn up your swagger game with one a day gummies. one serving... ...once a day...
5:32 pm
...with nutrients that support 6 vital functions... ...and one healthy you. that's the power of one a day. moving? that's harder now because of psoriatic arthritis. but you're still moved by moments like this. don't let psoriatic arthritis take them away. taltz reduces joint pain and stiffness and helps stop the progression of joint damage. for people with moderate to severe psoriasis, 90% saw significant improvement. taltz even gives you a chance at completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz,
5:33 pm
including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. for all the things that move you. ask your doctor about taltz.
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
there's more breaking news tonight. the house of representatives has voted almost unanimously to disapprove of the iowa republican steve king. the resolution also says the white supremacy and white nationalism and i'm quoting in contrary to the ideals of the united states of america, which is stunning in itself it even needs to be included in a resolution. the day moinz register, and i'm quoting white nationalism, white supremacist, western civilization how did that language become offensive. the actual vote was 424-1. the lone dissenter was bobby rush who said he preferred a
5:36 pm
cent censure vote. why disapproval and not censure? >> well, i think when you want the congress to act with overwhelming support you're trying to get the language you feel that people would be comfortable with. so what we were trying to do is to get the house to express disapproval of mr. king. at the same time condemn white supremacy and white nationalism and that was in the wording. now, to go furlgtther than that this particular juncture i thought would not yield the number of votes i wanted to see. >> he has said there's no chance he'll resign. >> well, he may not but i think whether or not he remains in the congress should be up to his constituents. i noticed now two republicans have already announced running against him in the primary and a
5:37 pm
third is contemplating the same. and if you recall it was some time before it was announced he won the general election, and still because he did so poorly against the democrats when people thought we had no chance. so i think people are beginning to grow a bit weary. >> because this is certainly not the first time he's said -- >> not the first time and i think "the new york times" just published earlier today just a chronology of things like this that's been said by him since he was in the state legislator. >> do you think he actually regrets what he said? he was on a right wing radio show earlier today and he said that kevin mccarthy, who's the gop leader in the house decided to believe "the new york times" over steve king. doesn't actually sound like a guy taking responsibility for his words. >> oh, i don't think he regrets saying it at all, even in his speech today he kept talking about who he is and his people understanding him. he did talk about his background
5:38 pm
on the union side of the issue. look, i know the history of iowa very well. i used to teach that stuff. and so it is a great progressive state traditionally. it's not been voting that way recently. >> do you believe when president trump says he hasn't been following this and therefore hasn't commented on it, for a guy who watches news as much as president trump seems to watch the news and tweet about just about everything, does it surprise you that -- i mean, do you believe he hasn't been following this or is unaware of these comments? >> well, i'm glad you amended the question. no, i don't. i think he's fully aware. >> but why wouldn't he weigh in? this is -- then why wouldn't he weigh in on it? >> well, as we said down south, they're traveling partners when it comes to this philosophy. so i think even mr. king today when he spoke on the house
5:39 pm
floor, he made reference to "the new york times" and this condemnation of some of the things that mr. trump had said. so he puts himself in company with this president and i suspect the president feels very comfortable with him. >> so if that is the case and a lot of republicans have now said they disapprove of what steve king said, you don't hear that kind of talk from republicans about the president. >> no, you don't. >> in the past on some of things he's said. >> well, i understand the difference in their positions within the party. and so that doesn't surprise me at all. >> one of the things that king said about liz cheney who's the highest ranking woman in the republican caucus, he said again i think it was on this radio show she can never be put into
5:40 pm
the category of being conservative again, and he asked what would give her the moral authority or intellectual judgment to do something like that? >> and one of the things that i think we need to really start doing is differentiating between conservatism and this reactionary stuff that we see today. my father was as conservative as anybody i've ever met. and he is not racist, he was not reactionary, he was a great patriot. and for people to say things that are against the value system that we're trying to further in this great country of ours and say if you're opposed to them talking about white supremacists then you are not conservative, that's not true at all. i respect and have a great deal of admiration for people who i consider to be conservative.
5:41 pm
but the conservatism is something totally different from the stuff that he's saying. i wouldn't call those people in charlottesville conservative. there's something else, and some of them should start paying a price for being something else. >> congressman, appreciate your time. >> thank you so much for having mech. coming up why republicans are moving so quickly to condemn one of their own for racist comments but as we said stay silent on the president who has made similar statements, we'll talk about that ahead. you're made of trillions of cells.
5:42 pm
they work together doing important stuff. the hitch? like you, your cells get hungry. feed them... with centrum® micronutrients. restoring your awesome... daily. feed your cells with centrum® micronutrients today.
5:43 pm
ed gets copays as lowlily go to as zero dollars on feed your cells with medicare part d prescriptions. ed gets labels clear as day. and, lily.... lily gets anything she wants.
5:44 pm
ed knows he could just have us deliver his prescriptions. but what's the fun in that? switch to cvs pharmacy. as we mentioned just before the break, last week's racist comments by iowa steve king led to his swift condemnation by his colleagues at the house of representatives. at the same time, the president was reacting to an ins tudpram video.
5:45 pm
he wrote on twitter and i quote, if elizabeth warren often referred to me as pocahontas did this commercial from big horn or wounded knee dressed in full indian garb it would have been a smash. two republican senators from south dakota objected. we also welcome cnn political commentat commentator tar setmayor. is there a difference between what the president has said in the past and steve king and the reaction to it in. >> no to the former and yes to latter. the president's history is sayi saying racially insensitive and flat out racist things. paul ryan even said that during the campaign because he couldn't fairly rule on the trump universe case because he was a
5:46 pm
mexican. actually he's from indiana. the reaction has been very different because he has taken over the republican party and republicans have been craven and they have been cowards in standing up to this. and it's gotten worse and worse and worse. and you could have tried to -- even i was reluctant to call him a racist until i said racially insensitive, a bigot, i tried everything but racist until charlottesville. once charlottesville happened and there's good people on both sides comment, that was the end of it for me. so the fact the republican party is now piling on steve king, rightfully so because he's gotten away with this for a long time, it's very disappointing. i worked with steve king when i was on capitol hill. to see this for him to say these things over and over again, it's worse. it's very disappointing.
5:47 pm
so it's about time the republican party stood up and said enough is enough. but they cannot do that and let trump get away with what he can. >> the president has been claiming he hasn't been following it, hasn't seen it on television. which does seem hard to believe given how much he follows the news cycle. is that just a play to what he believes his base is? is it the same thing why he said that stuff about charlottesville, there are good people on both sides? >> i'm not going to defend the president on making insensitive remarks. and tara you said you worked with steve king. there's been a long list of "the new york times" chronicles of him making those comments back to the new york state legislator. for you to say you thought he was a good guy and all of a sudden today say, wow, steve king's a bad guy -- >> no, it's not just today. since donald trump came along he's -- >> but "the new york times" reports that steve king has been
5:48 pm
saying this stuff his entire career. >> well, i wasn't aware of that back then. when i was in congress he wasn't saying things like that as bad as it is now. he wasn't glorifying white supremacy. >> it should be denounced at every level. so there's no way to say what the president said was right. it was wrong. you should have come out and said, look the president is wrong, these are bad guys. and people demanding jewish blood, we have jewish grandchildren, my kids, my grandkids. they should come out and forcefully denounce it. it's not hard. >> if he -- i mean either he -- >> but in this instance, the steve king instance, look, i think the president honestly is not paying a whole lot of attention to what happens to steve king. he's got the wall. he's got the mueller investigation. he's got lots of stuff going on
5:49 pm
so i'm not sure -- >> but he's paying attention to what happened with jeff bazos, and he takes glee in that. >> but jeff bazos is a different enemy. >> it may well be political today because he is facing the fight of his life and he has to rally his base. that's been his choice. rather than broadening his support, he's trying to deepen it with 35% of americans who love him. the problem with that theory which is political, he's still a racist is that august 12, 2017 when heather heyer was murdered and he uttered those six words, the most disgraceful words, very fine people on both sides. all these crazy things trump says, the racist things trump says, that's the worst. an innocent american was
5:50 pm
murdered by neo-nazis -- >> but he should denounce steve king. he should denounce steve king. i remember i believe it was after charlottesville when david duke applauded him. was it maybe i'm con flflating two >> jake tapper. >> that's right. two separate times it was asked do you know david duke? and he said i don't know who david duke is. >> he did know david duke. and then after charlottesville, he was applauded by white supremacists. you would think that a president would want to shake that out and say no, no, that's not what i believe. steve king, you know, expel him. >> mitch mcconnell said there's no room in the party for this. there's no room at the top. it should be said from the bully pulpit. >> remembering why donald trump
5:51 pm
is in public life in the first place. it's not because of the apprentice. it's because for two years he spent spreading a racist lie. this is a feature. not a bug. this is why he's popular. not inspite of his racism but because of it. >> i don't think donald trump is out courting the racist vote. >> i will use this again, andrew gillam used the line, the racists think you're racist. donald trump has done nothing to try to combat that.
5:52 pm
never apologized for the central park five that were exonerated and still would not acknowledge that he was wrong taking out full page ads. when george h.w. bush was confronted with the david duke problem he condemned it immediately. when bill buckley saw there was a rise of this racism with the southern strategy and things, he called that out and said there was no place for that. so for conservatives to take a pass on this is hypocritical. >> there's a political calculus that he's clearly made whether he's courting them or not, by not vocally calling them out, that's essentially quoting them. >> it's a bad political strategy. >> here's a little flash. you lose more people than you gain in that strategy.
5:53 pm
he doesn't? >> no. a shutdown feast fit for a king. it's ridiculous. we'll be right back.
5:54 pm
fresh-baked, and hand-crafted, with 100% clean ingredients. just a few good reasons to give into your cravings. now delivering. panera. food as it should be. - did you know, the exact same hotel room can have many different prices? it all depends on where you look. - wait, you paid how much? - oh, dear! - well, this is awkward. that's why tripadvisor checks over 200 booking sites (cash register ringing) to find you a great price, and the hotel you want, so you don't end up overpaying for your room. no offense. find the right hotel room for the right price. ♪ hoo! read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do. tripadvisor.
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
>> who's hungry? we have no choice but to talk about the clemson tigers trip to the white house. it was shut up but because of one problem the white house staff is not at full force. so the question loomed, who would cook for this champion football team? >> so we went off and we ordered american fast food, paid for by me. lots of hamburgers, lots of pizza. i think they'd like it better than anything we could give. >> if you're waiting for me to launch into something about the president's choice in cuisine or to question why he didn't even get it catered by his steakhouse at the hotel down the street? sorry, it's not going to happen. to me, that looks like culinary heaven. my record of loving mcdonald's speaks for itself, but big mac, fries, coke, they call it the number one meal. it's my number one meal. if i was on death row and given one last meal, that's what i
5:58 pm
would chose, plus the chocolate chip cookies. it's so good just thinking about it. it looked like the team enjoyed the food. there were positive responses from the players after the event and who says fast food can't be fancy anyway? there were french fries and cups bearing the presidential seal. it's fun. it's delicious and a feel good story about the winning team going to the white house. and that's where the president should have left well enough alone, but did he? of course not. he, being he, had to wipe off his fingers and tweet about it bragging about paying for the food and also for some reason, lying about how many hamburgers there were and also misspelling the word hamburgers. quote great being with the national championship clemson tigers at the white house. because of the shutdown i served them massive amounts of fast food. i paid over 1,000 hamburgers, within an hour it was gone. the real life burger king responded and i quote due to a large order placed yesterday
5:59 pm
we're all out of hamburgers, just serving hamburgers today. so the president said he bought over 1,000 hamburgers, et cetera. i'm not sure what the et cetera refers to but just last night he said this -- >> we have pizzas, we have 300 hamburgers, many, many french fries. >> so somehow, 300 hamburgers became more than the thousand. either the president is lying about something that does not matter or his story is evolving by tomorrow it will be 10,000 hamburgers and millions upon millions of the most beautiful juicy big macs. the likes of which haven't been seen before just stacked on top of each other. say what you will, if nothing else, it fulfills a long foretold prophesy. >> i put together some really impressive deals, but this thing you have pulled off, it's amazing. a big and tasty for just $1? together we could own this town.
6:00 pm
>> there's a tweet and a commercial for everything. where is grimace these days? you don't see him featured anymore. life comes at you fast. fast food comes at you faster but you can always have your way at the ridiculist. special orders don't upset us. that's it for us. we'll he'd over to chris for cuomo primetime. >> thank you anderson. nice outfit. i am chris cuomo, welcome to primetime. robert mueller just dropped a new filing. evidence of paul manafort's lies after agreeing to cooperate. cuomo's court on what it confirms, what it conceals, and what we can read between the redr redactions. will bill bar protect